Larry Silverstein explaining what he meant by 'pull it'

RedIbis said:
Fill in the blank time...
Click to expand...

Red, red red.....

You're not aware that there's a difference between a literal meaning and an industry term?

So if I'm working on a computer and someone says "be careful of shorting that" you think it's reasonable that I comment on Danny DeVito?
 
RedIbis said:
Fill in the blank time...

with ____




with _____



with ____


with ____
Click to expand...

What are you trying to say?
:confused:

The use of the word "pull" IS a literal description of what they are talking about. Each and every one of them. Like this one "It provided the energy we needed to pull the columns inward,", NIST used the word "pull" as well to refer to inward bowing of columns being pulled in, but does that mean "pull" is an industry term there as well? Can we say that the towers were "pulled" ala NISTs theory? Of course not.

The one example that SOUNDS like a demolition term is the one in America Rebuilds. "We're getting ready to pull building 6". Except as we both understand, this is a literal description of what they are doing as well, they are pulling it down with cables.

If this shows that pull is a demolition term, then clearly you have to admit for the same reason that "pull" is also a firefighting term to refer to movements of firefighters .

IT as you have been told before refers to the operation itself, even ergo admitted it could refer to that. The only hurdle you seem to be unwilling to address is that there was a reason to pull the rescue operations away from 7, even if there was no one directly in the building, because you're not suddenly safe in a building collapse as soon as you step onto the street outside.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
Fill in the blank time...

with ____




with _____



with ____


with ____
Click to expand...

here's one for you, red, I'll even make it multiple choice.

solve for "Pull it":

We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is _____. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

A. Demolish the building
B. End the firefighting effort
 
twinstead said:
here's one for you, red, I'll even make it multiple choice.

solve for "Pull it":

We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is _____. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

A. Demolish the building
B. End the firefighting effort
Click to expand...

False choice fallacy. There was not firefighting effort.
 
RedIbis said:
False choice fallacy. There was not firefighting effort.
Click to expand...
So why don't we cut to the chase.

Do you agree members of the FDNY were in on this conspiracy?

By "conspiracy" I mean to defraud the insurance companies (or are they "in on it" too.)

What else could this mean?
 
RedIbis said:
False choice fallacy. There was not firefighting effort.
Click to expand...

How do you define firefighting effort? Is it only spraying water on fires, or do they do other stuff too? What about evacuations? What about rescue? What about keeping an eye on buildings?

Add as many other things to the choice that you want...the "demolish the building" choice is idiotic..
 
Last edited:
I must say, I've learned a lot about the extents people will go to in being intentionally obtuse from the Truthers posting in this thread. "It", "Firefighting" vs "rescue operations". I thought I'd seen it all with surly teenagers, and this thread continues to surprise me, unpleasantly.
 
NoahFence said:
So if I'm working on a computer and someone says "be careful of shorting that" you think it's reasonable that I comment on Danny DeVito?
Click to expand...


They could be talking about stocks, though. What's that? Context? Hmm...

Edx said:
Rescue.. and... evacuation... operations... in the area
Click to expand...


He knows that. He's just scoring some cheap points off of twinstead's somewhat loose usage of the phrase. He's uncomfortably aware that those are the only points he can score.
 
Last edited:
LSSBB said:
I must say, I've learned a lot about the extents people will go to in being intentionally obtuse from the Truthers posting in this thread. "It", "Firefighting" vs "rescue operations". I thought I'd seen it all with surly teenagers, and this thread continues to surprise me, unpleasantly.
Click to expand...

Its a great example really of the reason why these kinds of truthers cannot be reasoned with. This is SOOO simple and yet look at the kinds of mental gymnastics they use to avoid accepting they are wrong. It doesnt even have any bearing on their claims of "inside job", so I dont see why its so difficult for them other than their own boneheaded stubbornness to admit they are wrong. Yet we have threads talking about complex chemistry and physics, yet this is really what it comes down to. This, right here, in this thread, is the reason why truthers have no case at all. This is their pattern of thinking.
 
Last edited:
LSSBB said:
I must say, I've learned a lot about the extents people will go to in being intentionally obtuse from the Truthers posting in this thread. "It", "Firefighting" vs "rescue operations". I thought I'd seen it all with surly teenagers, and this thread continues to surprise me, unpleasantly.
Click to expand...

Amen.

The Truther Code is that if one dark, obscure corner can be defended - however irrationally - then the whole 9/11 CT theory is defensible.

Chris7 with his rusty microspheres, Red with "pull" and insurance, ergo with "into footprint", tmd with "evaporated" steel. Piffling detail that could be argued forever without making the slightest scrap of difference to the big picture.

It has come down to their individual defence of Truther ego, nothing more. "Surly teenagers" indeed.
 
RedIbis said:
Fill in the blank time...

with ____




with _____



with ____


with ____
Click to expand...

Yet not referenced as such. Again no one has ever referred to "pulling' a building as synonymous with using explosives. Maybe they have used it to describe the physical effects, but not the act itself. Equivocation fallacy.
 
RedIbis said:
Uh, yes. When Swing Dangler, among the best researchers I've seen here on jref, used to post here, he posted this list which clearly shows that "pull" is used to mean bring down with explosives.
Click to expand...

assertion.jpg


Source
 
grandmastershek said:
Yet not referenced as such. Again no one has ever referred to "pulling' a building as synonymous with using explosives. Maybe they have used it to describe the physical effects, but not the act itself. Equivocation fallacy.
Click to expand...

The silly thing is, as I pointed out, that if Reds quotes mean that pull is a demolition term, then he also has to agree that pull is a firefighting term to refer to movements of firefighters for the exact same reason.

But even if it was a demolition term as well, why would Silverstein casually admit to blowing up his own building and no one notices? It is unfathomable to me that truthers cant see how absurd that idea is, I guess thats why they always ignore the problem.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom