Larry Silverstein explaining what he meant by 'pull it'

I didn't know Wednesday was <SNIP>

Edited, breach of rule 0, rule 12.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ergo said:
"I lit the match and we watched the warehouse burn...."
Click to expand...

False comparison ergo. The above suggests it happens straight after because if you light a match you only have so long to set something on fire before it goes out.

Lets try a different one.

"I lit the match and we watched the warehouse collapse"

How much time can we assume has passed between lighting the match and the warehouse collapsing? You would have to claim it happened immediately afterwards, to be consistent.
 
They pulled the fire support from WTC7, 911 truth has not clue what it means.
 
Last edited:
My challenge to the conspiracy proponents to to point out where the term "pull it" is used as professional jargon for "lets blow up a building with explosives and incendiaries". Or is this argument over Silversteins' words going to continue to make language incomprehension into an Olympic sport? I'm banking on the latter.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
Yes, "pull it" is a demolition term.

Ten bucks says that the slingers of bunk, in any case,

1) won't be able to find a single reference where the phrase "pull it" refers to an operation involving pulling personnel.

2) will ever explain why an operation that, in the end, had no personnel in it would need to be "pulled".

But of course, as their last resort, they can always just claim another 9/11 "first".
Click to expand...

BasqueArch said:
You’re wrong on both counts.

From Firehouse Magazine (April 2002) Deputy Chief Peter Hayden Division1 - 33 years FDNY interview,
Silverstein pull it comment (September 2002)
http://www.firehouse.com/article/10567885/deputy-chief-peter-hayden?page=2

"... but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse.
Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13,
and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to
collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about
three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2
o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long
because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of
fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just
one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the
collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional
collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the
Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of
surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to
pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
...
Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody
away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had
to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out.
There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with,
because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable
any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the
afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came
down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At
that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any
normal circumstances, that’s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing.
It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean
that’s a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But
having gone through the other two, it didn’t seem so bad. But that’s what we
were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys.
We didn’t want to lose any more people that day.

Silverstein vindicated.

Your options:
1) Admit you were wrong and pay the ten bucks to Chris Mohr for his testing. Contact him for payment.
2) Weasel out of it.
Click to expand...

Ergo, did you ever pay BasqueArch or Chris Mohr the $10 you wagered?
 
Newson, you're insisting I repeat things for you because you're too lazy to look through the thread to see where I answered it.

Not a single instance of "pull it" was found in all those references. Yet we do see the term used in demolition. This has been explained to you repeatedly. You guys lose. Again.
 
ergo said:
Newson, you're insisting I repeat things for you because you're too lazy to look through the thread to see where I answered it.

Not a single instance of "pull it" was found in all those references. Yet we do see the term used in demolition. This has been explained to you repeatedly. You guys lose. Again.
Click to expand...

Sorry - in all my years in the military and out I never heard the tern "pull it" used other than in reference to a finger.
 
ergo said:
Newson, you're insisting I repeat things for you because you're too lazy to look through the thread to see where I answered it.

Not a single instance of "pull it" was found in all those references. Yet we do see the term used in demolition. This has been explained to you repeatedly. You guys lose. Again.
Click to expand...

Did you miss the part where he bolded all the instances?

I guess reading isn't your strong point.

Anyway, seeing as you have so far admitted to lying to us, and that indeed there is no evidence that nanothermite can be used as a high explosive, that you are officially debunked, and there is no longer a need for this thread.
 
ergo said:
Yet we do see the term used in demolition. This has been explained to you repeatedly. You guys lose. Again.
Click to expand...

No you simply do not,

Red posted a lot of quotes on the recent pull it thread and all of them were talking about what was literally going to happen, not slang term for putting explosives in buildings. If that qualifies it as a demolition term then you have to also accept it qualifies as a firefighter term by default for the exact same reason.
 
Last edited:
Wait, here's another, rather simple, question for ergo.

Since the 9/11 Commission Report was not an engineering report, then why should WTC7 have been included?
 
ergo said:
Yet we do see the term used in demolition. This has been explained to you repeatedly. You guys lose. Again.
Click to expand...

to "pull" a building means to hook up cables and drag it down or the collapse pre-weakenedwalls to iniotiate progressive collapse. We have seen video of its being done to one of the smaller, badly damaged buildings at WTC and in the Balzac-Vitry building.

To bring a building down with explosive devices is to "blast," "blow" or shoot it."
 
leftysergeant said:
to "pull" a building means to hook up cables and drag it down or the collapse pre-weakenedwalls to iniotiate progressive collapse. We have seen video of its being done to one of the smaller, badly damaged buildings at WTC and in the Balzac-Vitry building.

To bring a building down with explosive devices is to "blast," "blow" or shoot it."
Click to expand...

INdeed...this has been explained to ergo time and time again, yet he chooses to use quotes where they talk about the process of elements of the building pulling on each other during collapse, and then attempts to equivocate that with the term "pull it" as term generically used in reference to explosive demolition. Ergo has no time for facts; just semantics & mental gymnastics.
 
leftysergeant said:
to "pull" a building means to hook up cables and drag it down or the collapse pre-weakenedwalls to iniotiate progressive collapse. We have seen video of its being done to one of the smaller, badly damaged buildings at WTC and in the Balzac-Vitry building.

To bring a building down with explosive devices is to "blast," "blow" or shoot it."
Click to expand...

To "dial" a phone originally meant to turn a dial on a rotary telephone to register a number. We still use it, as well as the term "dial tone", even though we no longer use dials on our phones.

Terms from older technologies frequently, and even usually, carry over into the new technology. "Pull it" is used in the demolition industry to describe a certain method of bringing down buildings. It is likely used casually as well, as shorthand for explosive demolition.

Moreover, to "pull" something as a generic term is used in many different contexts as well. It is hardly unique to firefighting.

Moreover still, "pull it" is not a firefighting term and never has been, and you have found zero instances of where this phrase has been used in this context. Zero.

You lose. Again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom