Larry Silverstein explaining what he meant by 'pull it'

[twinstead]

Still, even if "pull it" IS exactly an industry term for controlled demolition using explosives, it still makes absolutely no sense when Silverstein's words are used in context! That's what is so deliciously idiotic about this argument.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

No need to speculate... factually "pulling" doesn't decribe any demolition using explosives, and twisting context and sentence syntax will never change it.

 

[beachnut]

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..

The fire department owns the scene. The only thing to pull would be the fire fighting support. Larry can talk about pulling, but he is not in charge, the FDNY is.

The NWO wants the do nothing truthers to know what they did. 911 truth beam weapons and nukes have labeled the movement. We have Rumsfeld the day before 911 telling how much it cost for Lucky Larry to do 911; 2.3 trillion dollars. Then Larry laughs at 911 truth, he knows they can't do more than talk and cry, so he confesses the NWO pulled old WTC 7 down. 911 truth can't do anything about it, Judy Woods ensured the movement is a bunch of crazy claims made up by insane people.

How much do silent explosives, and silent conspirators cost? 2.3 trillion dollars, for everything else there is master card.

Stop teasing the truthers, they live in a fantasy world. They are happy to do nothing.


NWO doing 911 - Cost: 2.3 trillion dollars

19 terrorists doing 911 - Cost 19 airline tickets, small knives, room and board, food, expenses, rental cars, flying lessons, simulator time in large jets, deciding to kill themselves (free), finding 19 people as dumb as 911 truthers, priceless. - 228,328 dollars.

To save money the NWO decides to outsource 911 to 19 terrorists who do 911 for room and board and the promise of many virgins in the afterlife, aka masochistic Hell.
NWO saves;
$2,299,999,771,672.00
Instead of spending;
$2,300,000,000,000.00

Outsource! Larry's let "pull it" slip out to cover up the outsourcing. Mission Complete. NWO - 1, 911Truth - 0

 

[LSSBB]

The fire department owns the scene. The only thing to pull would be the fire fighting support. Larry can talk about pulling, but he is not in charge, the FDNY is.

The NWO wants the do nothing truthers to know what they did. 911 truth beam weapons and nukes have labeled the movement. We have Rumsfeld the day before 911 telling how much it cost for Lucky Larry to do 911; 2.3 trillion dollars. Then Larry laughs at 911 truth, he knows they can't do more than talk and cry, so he confesses the NWO pulled old WTC 7 down. 911 truth can't do anything about it, Judy Woods ensured the movement is a bunch of crazy claims made up by insane people.

How much do silent explosives, and silent conspirators cost? 2.3 trillion dollars, for everything else there is master card.

Stop teasing the truthers, they live in a fantasy world. They are happy to do nothing.


NWO doing 911 - Cost: 2.3 trillion dollars

19 terrorists doing 911 - Cost 19 airline tickets, small knives, room and board, food, expenses, rental cars, flying lessons, simulator time in large jets, deciding to kill themselves (free), finding 19 people as dumb as 911 truthers, priceless. - 228,328 dollars.

To save money the NWO decides to outsource 911 to 19 terrorists who do 911 for room and board and the promise of many virgins in the afterlife, aka Hell.
NWO saves;
$2,299,999,771,672.00
Instead of spending;
$2,300,000,000,000.00

Outsource!

LOL! Now that's some SERIOUS process improvement.

 

[grandmastershek]

Still, even if "pull it" IS exactly an industry term for controlled demolition using explosives, it still makes absolutely no sense when Silverstein's words are used in context! That's what is so deliciously idiotic about this argument.

Exactly....

Silverstein allegedly called his insurers to demo, but still received the pay out.

Silverstein was worried about a loss of life so he demo'd a building.

They had files to destroy so they demo'd a building.

They wanted to hide WTC7's destruction so they waited 5+ hours later, then demo'd the building.

Makes total sense if you don't think about it.

 

[Quad4_72]

There are now 1225 posts in a thread about what "pull it" means. This is one of the stupidest claims the twoof movement makes and I really don't see how they think it helps them. No proof, evidence, etc. Just nonsense.

 

[pgimeno]

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

False choice fallacy. There was not firefighting effort.

Interesting. Are you implying that neither choice is adequate? Or were you just dodging the question?

Either way, keep in mind that what matters is not whether there were ongoing extinguishing efforts, no. What actually matters is whether Silverstein believed there were such efforts. His sentence suggests he did, and that gives a reasonable explanation. And his spokesperson Dara McQuillan also made clear that he did believe so:

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.
​

(as cited here: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm)

Therefore, this discussion is the eternal dichotomy:

- One single reasonable explanation that fits perfectly with the rest of events as they are documented.

Or

- One explanation based on an interpretation of a word according to a nonexistent jargon, that creates an entirely new conspiracy (the conspiracy of Silverstein and the firefighters to bring the building down secretly, but then bragging about it in front of the cameras), bringing the total number of people who have kept the secret even higher.

Who are we going ask which of these is right? I suggest we ask Mr. Ockham.

Because, face it, there is NO way that if the second explanation is the right one, you're going to find out. Yes, face it, Silverstein has a strong case. No new investigation would reveal that. It all lies on what you decide to believe. And you decide to believe in the inflationary conspiracy model.

But also admit that the case for the explanation you decide to believe is extremely weak.

 

[Edx]

Interesting. Are you implying that neither choice is adequate? Or were you just dodging the question?

Either way, keep in mind that what matters is not whether there were ongoing extinguishing efforts, no. What actually matters is whether Silverstein believed there were such efforts.

No, actually giving Red too much credit.
It doesnt matter if there was literally no firefighting on 911 at all.

FireFIGHTERS were still doing lots things around WTC7. When they believed it was unstable and likely to collapse they pulled their rescue and evacuation operations and everyone else away from it. Thats how simple this is. But Red claims there was no reason to pull anyone away from Building 7 because there was no one inside it, as if being inside it is the only place you'd be in danger if it collapsed.

 

[Brass]

Yup. It really, really did.

[qimg]http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac91/jaswinder_bucket/WTC_7_aerial_photo2.jpg[/qimg]

And yet, there is still debris in the surrounding streets. I don't even need to make a point; ergo made it for me! This would make WTC7 the most uncontrolled controlled demolition ever.

 

[pgimeno]

FireFIGHTERS were still doing lots things around WTC7. When they believed it was unstable and likely to collapse they pulled their rescue and evacuation operations and everyone else away from it. Thats how simple this is. But Red claims there was no reason to pull anyone away from Building 7 because there was no one inside it, as if being inside it is the only place you'd be in danger if it collapsed.

Of course, you're quite right with that. For example, Richard Banaciski of ladder 22 tells how he was in the Verizon building adjacent to WTC7 when they were pulled:

They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on.

Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there.
​

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Banaciski_Richard.txt

But hey, why am I quoting a firefighter if they were also in on it?

 

[Edx]

But hey, why am I quoting a firefighter if they were also in on it?

Truthers almost always deny they are saying the firefigters are in on it, but refuse to talk about how they could be competent sane individuals if the theories they propose were true.

 

[beachnut]

There are now 1225 posts in a thread about what "pull it" means. This is one of the stupidest claims the twoof movement makes and I really don't see how they think it helps them. No proof, evidence, etc. Just nonsense.

over a thousand posts and years of "pull it" nonsense

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112468&page=8

I would do a search of how many years and posts are in the "pull it" legacy of 911 truth nonsense; I have to go get the dentist for some NWO torture. "is it safe?"

 

[pgimeno]

Truthers almost always deny they are saying the firefigters are in on it, but refuse to talk about how they could be competent sane individuals if the theories they propose were true.

But then how do they explain that declarations such as that of Banaciski confirm this interpretation?

Oh wait, I think I know the answer...

 

[Edx]

But then how do they explain that declarations such as that of Banaciski confirm this interpretation?

What they always say is someone higher up told them. Which forces them to ignore all the clear quotes where dozens and dozens all saw these things with their own eyes, that it is their opinions and those of their colleagues, when you point this out to truthers they will just stop replying. But worse than that really, truthers are therefore requiring the firefighters all be braindead morons that will believe impossible things just because someone told them to for over 10 years.

 

[000063]

Well, just consider the facts so far presented, DGM:

Oh boy, the 'summary'.

• 
  WTC 7 is the only building in its block to be completely destroyed. The others suffered superficial damage only.

Like Fiterman.

• At 5:23 pm WTC 7 sinks into its footprint in the exact manner of an imploded building.

That is, without any sort of blasts or barotrauma consistent with such, and with the east penthouse falling several seconds ahead of the bulk of the building.

• Silverstein is on record telling a national audience that he told firefighters to "pull it"

Okay, now you're just in denial.

• We hear nine years later that indeed he was on the phone to his insurers asking if he can pull it.

If his insurers had said "sure, Larry, go ahead and pull it", how would they have done this, DGM? How would they have pulled the building on that day?

Your theory, you prove it.

And yet not one of those examples mentions "pull it".

The examples you supply can be used in a number of contexts, not just firefighting. Eg: "we pulled the ad", "she pulled her support", "we pulled out at dawn". But to "pull it" in a context where "it" can only mean either the building OR the firefighting effort (which was not even in the building) more likely, using Occam's Razor, means the building. They pulled the building and then they watched it come down.

It's not difficult. It's the questions that it raises that are difficult. Let's move on to those for once.

Unsupported assertion. We know they decided to stop firefighting. Rigging the building for demo in the time available would be physically impossible, for starters.

 

[Justin39640]

And yet, there is still debris in the surrounding streets. I don't even need to make a point; ergo made it for me! This would make WTC7 the most uncontrolled controlled demolition ever.

Cause it was meant to look that way! Duh!
[/truther]

 

[Justin39640]

• Silverstein is on record telling a national audience that he told firefighters to "pull it"

Okay, now you're just in denial.

I love that claim even though Larry is being told they're gonna pull it.

 

[twinstead]

Where the hell does ergo get that Silverstein "asked for the building to be pulled"? I don't think we are reading the same quote as he is, obviously.

 

[NoahFence]

Where the hell does ergo get that Silverstein "asked for the building to be pulled"? I don't think we are reading the same quote as he is, obviously.

Ergo also thinks that he called the insurance company, along with them, determined that the building was in danger of collapse due to damage from the twin towers.

He also thinks that Silverstein then contacted and contracted a demolition company to load world trade center 7 with more explosives than any other building in history has been loaded with. Then, the explosive detonated with no sound.

 

[twinstead]

Ergo also thinks that he called the insurance company, along with them, determined that the building was in danger of collapse due to damage from the twin towers.

He also thinks that Silverstein then contacted and contracted a demolition company to load world trade center 7 with more explosives than any other building in history has been loaded with. Then, the explosive detonated with no sound.

Well, now THAT finally makes sense. Ergo has broken the case!