Larry Silverstein explaining what he meant by 'pull it'

[000063]

Hang on a second, isn't it the mainstream truther belief that flight 93 was supposed to hit WTC7? And because it was compromised by passengers, was shot down? If this was the case, why would they need to put all the effort and time into engineering the North tower to hit wtc7 if it was supposed to be hit by an airliner?

Which theory is more correct Clayton?

Not to mention that a collapse from debris and fire would look much different from a collapse from plane impact and fire, and Flight 93 hit shortly after 7 was hit by debris. Unless these super awesome kewl explosives could be remotely reconfigured to aim debris at 7 somehow when the bad guys realized they were about to lose Flight 93, which is even more impossible.

Truthers' second least favorite question is "when" the 7 charges were planted, because that leads straight back to "why", as well as "how".

 

[000063]

Apparently very rapidly and precisely. The main structural elements (with the exception of a few chosen pieces, one sent to Kennedy airport, a couple made it to Staten Island including one huge bent beam. But in general the structural elements were loaded on GPS monitored trucks and dumped into barges and shipped for recycling, yes overseas to China and I think maybe India too..(sold at bargain rates). The process is reviewed in this doc: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw-jzCfa4eQ

what we should question is why FEMA volunteers were tasked with the initial investigation. An investigation initially allotted a measly 600k with the investigators not even allowed access to ground zero for 30 days! at which time they were given what one called a 'guided tour.' There was no real investigation. We know this because despite such extreme levels of structural damage and the obviously highly explosive events the destruction of the towers entailed, no investigator ever tested for explosive residues.

The fema bpat was issued in may of 2002 coincided with completion of the cleanup at ground zero. The smaller debris was trucked to freshkills landfill and put into three separate piles. The only investigation conducted there besides samples taken for www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
were to look for human remains. This went on for 2 years in tents on conveyor belts..and thousands of small fragments of human remains were identified. (200 dna tests came back matching a single person), even after all this well over 1000 people remain unaccounted for to this day. (That's explosive! )

Ergo has asserted that the pieces were not sorted before being shipped to Fresh Kills. And since there's no evidence any of the people at Fresh Kills (which included detectives and forensic examiners looking for remains) noticing anything strange, and the government was literally giving out pieces of the steel, they would've been taking actions that actively increased the chances of people noticing something wrong with the steel.

When I pointed out that on the front end, the ironworkers had experience with steel, and many would know what explosively detonated and/or cut ends would look like, Ergo tried to "creatively misunderstand" me when I pointed it out. When I evaded his straw man, he stopped paying attention to that point entirely.

Ergo also asserted that "everyone" said the debris was removed with unseemly haste, and has studiously avoided backing up the claim. That's what Noah was asking about, as was clearly indicated by the context of the post.

 

[000063]

I think it's funny that debunkers overlook this part of the quote, as if in English, people string together clauses sequentially when they actually mean hours between the events.

Or maybe we're supposed to think that the decision to pull the firefighters led to the collapse, which makes about as much sense.

We've already made the assertion he was not speaking about events happening in sequence. In the opening pages of this thread, which you commented in. Ergo is the one who argued Larry was speaking about direct sequence.

...
It is also well established that there were no firefighters in Building 7 after that morning. If there were personnel monitoring the building from the outside, they would be the ones to know when to pull away from the building, not Larry Silverstein. If WTC 7 collapsed from structural weakening, as you claim, then Silverstein does not have some kind of omnipotent power of prediction to know when to "pull" personnel away from it. Yet he said "...and they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

It's a pretty clear statement. Pulling personnel from monitoring duties on the outside is not going to suddenly cause the building to collapse.
You really should drop this point, guys. It's stupid that you keep bringing it up.

Seriously?

Silverstein may not know when to pull the personnel away from it, but "they" made that decision, not him. Also, do you really think that "and they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse" really means that the building collapsed immediately after the firefighting effort was pulled?...

...Not sure how you extrapolate any kind of prediction to Larry's words. The FDNY called Silverstein as a courtesy call to let him know that they won't be able to do anything about the fire and they are pulling everyone back and letting it burn because they think its likely going to collapse. The FDNY made the decision the building was unsafe and probably going to collapse HOURS earlier, the FDNY created the collapse zone and then the building collapsed.

In no way does what Larry said suggest that it all happened immediately one step after the other. We already know that it collapsed hours after they made the decision to create the collapse zone.

It's rather remarkable you call us out on allegedly taking things literally, Mr. "Larry made out like a bandit".

Who are you talking to, anyway?

 

[DGM]

I do have one nagging question for the resident believers in the "pull-it theory"

If Larry Silverstien gave this famous order "...and they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." That would mean there was an option to not "pull it".

Then what? Wouldn't that blow the whole plan? Why would they have had to make such a decision?

The logic does not follow.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

We've already made the assertion he was not speaking about events happening in sequence. In the opening pages of this thread, which you commented in. Ergo is the one who argued Larry was speaking about direct sequence.

I think RedIbis is basically repeating ergo's argument. He, too, is reading that sentence as "we made a decision to do something, then we watched that something happen," not "we made a decision to do something to prevent additional casualties as a result of this possible event, then we watched that event happen."

 

[Clayton Moore]

I think RedIbis is basically repeating ergo's argument. He, too, is reading that sentence as "we made a decision to do something, then we watched that something happen," not "we made a decision to do something to prevent additional casualties as a result of this possible event, then we watched that event happen."

And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.

What part of THEY IS NOT WE do you not understand.

 

[Pardalis]

So much insanity for such an innocuous comment.

 

[000063]

What part of THEY IS NOT WE do you not understand.

None of it. You may want to have a word with Red and Ergo, though.

 

[NoahFence]

So much insanity for such an innocuous comment.

You expect anything else from these mental midgets?


(Oh yea - Go Go Gomez!)

 

[Pardalis]

About damn time!

 

[Edx]

I do have one nagging question for the resident believers in the "pull-it theory"

If Larry Silverstien gave this famous order "...and they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." That would mean there was an option to not "pull it".

Then what? Wouldn't that blow the whole plan? Why would they have had to make such a decision?

The logic does not follow.

Thats the thing. Silverstein wasnt just casually admitting to blowing up his own building, truthers must also believe that he lied about the reason for it, who helped him do it, who's decision it was (their's).

 

[Edx]

What part of THEY IS NOT WE do you not understand.

What are you saying?

Lots of people watched WTC7 collapse, including the firefighters who had been waiting around for it to happen for hours.

Also, "they" made the decision, not "we" or "I".

 

[Edx]

I think it's funny that debunkers overlook this part of the quote, as if in English, people string together clauses sequentially when they actually mean hours between the events.

Or maybe we're supposed to think that the decision to pull the firefighters led to the collapse, which makes about as much sense.

In no way does what he said suggest it happened immediatly, nor does it make any sense in any way whatsoever. We've been over this before.

Still would love to know why you think there was no reason to have a pull back order just because there might be no one in the building suspected of being on the verge of collapse.

 

[Edx]

The firefighters were not in the building at the time. They had been pulled at 11am because of a water main problem we are told. One would not call people 'it' you would say 'pull them out' But that wouldnt have been his call anyway..so it makes no sense that he eve said that was what he meant..
It also makes no sense that he would be saying 'let's demolish it.' I dont think it has much relevance.
.

Finally a truther recognises that simple fact.

So since you claim he is lying about what "pull it" means, exactly what do you think he meant if not pull the firefighting/rescue effort and why would he lie about it now since he clearly had no problem saying it on pre-recorded TV?

Btw, as it has been explained, he didnt say people were "it". The "it" was the firefighting/rescue operations, that indeed can be called an it and he was probably just repeating the phrasing that the FDNY rep said to him.

 

[DGM]

Thats the thing. Silverstein wasnt just casually admitting to blowing up his own building, truthers must also believe that he lied about the reason for it, who helped him do it, who's decision it was (their's).

On top of that is the choice not to do it while it was already set-up. Explain that one to your insurance company.

 

[twinstead]

Thats the thing. Silverstein wasnt just casually admitting to blowing up his own building, truthers must also believe that he lied about the reason for it, who helped him do it, who's decision it was (their's).

And that means that the people he claimed made the decision actually didn't. So, either they were in on it as well (the plot thickens), or they don't care that Larry lied and said they made the decision.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

What part of THEY IS NOT WE do you not understand.

You're right. Silverstein actually had nothing to do with the decision to destroy WTC7; that's all on the FDNY. My bad. Thank you for the correction.

 

[Justin39640]

I think it's funny that debunkers overlook this part of the quote, as if in English, people string together clauses sequentially when they actually mean hours between the events.

Or maybe we're supposed to think that the decision to pull the firefighters led to the collapse, which makes about as much sense.

He's a Jewish man from Brooklyn. Normal grammar rules do not apply. Having a similar accent to Larry, and speaking fluent Brooklynese, I heard nothing wrong.

Stop doing that **** to NY firefighters too.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Why? Are you under the impression or illusion that he/she would answer honestly or legitimately?

Nope. But sometimes it is fun to poke the trolls by pointing out that all they are doing is trolling.

 

[ergo]

I think it's funny that debunkers overlook this part of the quote, as if in English, people string together clauses sequentially when they actually mean hours between the events.

I know, eh?

It would be like finding nothing suspicious in the phrase "I lit the match and then we watched the warehouse burn."

As twoofers we make this weird assumption that saying things in a certain sequence means that things happen in that sequence. We don't know, for example, that the match was to light a cigarette and the warehouse didn't burn until three hours later. This information is only relevant in a court of law. Not in casual conversation to a national audience.

Or, "I cheated on her and then she left me."

Well, maybe the cheating was at a game of checkers. And her leaving wasn't until three years later. And it had nothing to do with the checkers! But as twoofers we jump to this logical conclusion, based on the words provided, of all things. Kind of like how lawyers or criminal investigators do. We're kind of silly that way.