Merged "Pull It" (Stop yawning people!)

[ktesibios]

Umm, Rudy's bunker-in-the-sky/love nest was conceived after the 1993 WTC bombing and opened in 1998. See here for a timeline.

Both the decision to build it and the actual construction took place at a time when the old USSR no longer existed; the only people in the USA who were still worried about a Communist takeover were Birchers and suchlike old-line right-wing loonies.

I'm afraid that this pesky fact renders your fantasies about the OEM Center being pre-rigged for destruction to save it from the Commies utterly inoperative.

Personal suspicion is not evidence, especially when it's founded on a comically uninformed view of American society. For that matter, neither is the "if I ran the Zoo" fallacy, in which you have been indulging throughout this thread.

 

[DC]

Umm, Rudy's bunker-in-the-sky/love nest was conceived after the 1993 WTC bombing and opened in 1998. See here for a timeline.

Both the decision to build it and the actual construction took place at a time when the old USSR no longer existed; the only people in the USA who were still worried about a Communist takeover were Birchers and suchlike old-line right-wing loonies.

I'm afraid that this pesky fact renders your fantasies about the OEM Center being pre-rigged for destruction to save it from the Commies utterly inoperative.

Personal suspicion is not evidence, especially when it's founded on a comically uninformed view of American society. For that matter, neither is the "if I ran the Zoo" fallacy, in which you have been indulging throughout this thread.

well thats a good argument against the commy reason
i thaught the OEM was updated, but it seems that he was build then, and not when the building was build, 83-87.

but considering that Guilliani "created" it, im not so sure if he would need the commy threat to consider self destruction scenarios

 

[Hamradioguy]

The only place you're likely to see any kind of self destruct device in a military installation or "command bunker" is in the movies. I've been in the Pentagon, the Alternate National Military Command Center at Site R, the FEMA "bunker" in Olney, FEMA's "Special Facility" at Mt. Weather, Minuteman Missile Launch Facilites, Minuteman Missile Launch Control Facilities, the Rocky Falts plutonium pit reprocessing plant and a bunch of other classified sites I've long since forgotten about. Not a one of them had any kind of destructive devices to prevent them from falling into the hands of the bad guys. In fact the only place I can recall any destructive devices being used was occasionally on some airborne crypto equipment. (Which makes sense- planes sometimes go down over enemy territory.)

Because I had access to highly classified crypto data and equipment, I had to regularly be briefed on how to destroy same if it was at risk of falling into enemy hands. Here's some news- It did NOT involve setting off any kind of embedded charge. Nope, much more basic: Smash with axe or hammer, pour gasoline and light a match, shoot with a firearm, throw in a lake or river or if you could find a grenade, use that.

Anyone convinced that the government rigs up command and control centers with pre-rigged explosive charges need only to read about what happened on the USS Pueblo when it was captured by the North Koreans.

 

[DC]

The only place you're likely to see any kind of self destruct device in a military installation or "command bunker" is in the movies. I've been in the Pentagon, the Alternate National Military Command Center at Site R, the FEMA "bunker" in Olney, FEMA's "Special Facility" at Mt. Weather, Minuteman Missile Launch Facilites, Minuteman Missile Launch Control Facilities, the Rocky Falts plutonium pit reprocessing plant and a bunch of other classified sites I've long since forgotten about. Not a one of them had any kind of destructive devices to prevent them from falling into the hands of the bad guys. In fact the only place I can recall any destructive devices being used was occasionally on some airborne crypto equipment. (Which makes sense- planes sometimes go down over enemy territory.)

Because I had access to highly classified crypto data and equipment, I had to regularly be briefed on how to destroy same if it was at risk of falling into enemy hands. Here's some news- It did NOT involve setting off any kind of embedded charge. Nope, much more basic: Smash with axe or hammer, pour gasoline and light a match, shoot with a firearm, throw in a lake or river or if you could find a grenade, use that.

Anyone convinced that the government rigs up command and control centers with pre-rigged explosive charges need only to read about what happened on the USS Pueblo when it was captured by the North Koreans.

would you know about it, would you be alowed to talk about it?

 

[WildCat]

for me thats contradicting itself. would be a nice place to coordinate the atacks on the surounding region for the commys. considered its infrastructure.

DC, this was not a military installation! The police and firemen of NYC do not fight in wars against communist invaders. What you're suggesting is just silly.

 

[Hamradioguy]

would you know about it, would you be alowed to talk about it?

Simple answer: Yes and Yes. (There are some things relating to codes and communications procedures I would be reluctant to discuss even now, although I am quite sure no one would come after me.) But pre-planted explosives in any kind of command bunker or facility? If I knew of anything like this in any facility I'd not hesitate to publicize it. That's just the kind of thing that should NOT be kept a secret from the public.

Maybe some of the other ex-military folks here can elaborate.

 

[ktesibios]

A little something from the Evil Overlord List:

9. I will not include a self-destruct mechanism unless absolutely necessary. If it is necessary, it will not be a large red button labelled "Danger: Do Not Push". The big red button marked "Do Not Push" will instead trigger a spray of bullets on anyone stupid enough to disregard it. Similarly, the ON/OFF switch will not clearly be labelled as such.

12. One of my advisors will be an average five-year-old child. Any flaws in my plan that he is able to spot will be corrected before implementation.

Seems like good advice to me.

 

[pomeroo]

Pomeroo:

All you offer is this gem:

"If I say that I decided not to go to the zoo and it rained, I'm not implying that my decision affected the weather."

Not a good analogy!

I don't get your point. If you contend that the conjunction "and" sometimes implies causation, as in your example of the car-door handle, obviously you're correct. Even in this instance, pulling the handle can mean a normal act or a violent wrenching of the handle. The exact nature of the connection between the act and the result, although undeniable, is a bit hazy.

If I say "I pulled on my car door and the handle fell off", would this not imply a connection between my act of pulling and the observation that the handle fell off? And Pomeroo, since when are people able to affect the weather? (Are you into chemtrails?)

"I arose from the dinner-table and the woman seated across from me fainted dead away." You will agree that this is a simple example of the fallacy "post hoc, ergo propter hoc"? It is for the precise reason that there is no connection between the two events that positing a connection is fallacious reasoning.

People can't affect the weather? I paid good money to a rainmaker for nothing?

Pomeroo and 16.5 it is interesting that you feel the need to insert the word "operation" or "back" after the word "pull" as in "pull the operation" or "pull back". LS does NOT say "pull the operation" or "pull back". He says "pull it". You are inserting YOUR imagined meaning... that is unless you've talked to Larry about this.... Have you?

By the way, I am happy to drop this topic, it really is going nowhere....

Yes, Pardalis, maybe we should all just pull it on this one! (I will leave you to decide what the "it" refers to of course!)

But I still believe it is very strange for LS to imply that he was not surprised when his building 7 collapsed. But then again perhaps Larry is a little autistic. Anyway, I certainly was surprised and found it heart-wrenching to watch those buildings come down........

Yes, LS said "pull it." If he was not referring to the operation, or the contingent of firefighters, then what was he referring to? This is the straightforward question that makes the loons scurry for cover.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

would you know about it, would you be alowed to talk about it?

Ah yes, using conjecture as evidence of conjecture as evidence of conjecture....

 

[eeyore1954]

Funny, lot's of comments based on opinions about one part of my post, but very little on the nub of my argument which is this:

We have the LOGICAL sequence:

1. That the fire could not be contained.
2. That LS thought it was time to "pull it".
3. A decision was made to "pull it".
4. The building collapsed.

Now what I see here is that the "pulling" RESULTED in the collapse. The word "and" in the phrase "they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse" logically connects the decision to pull with the observed result - WTC 7 collapsed.

Cause (pull it) -> Effect (collapse)

LS did NOT say: "We made the decision to pull, THEN the building collapsed.

In fact LS expresses no surprise that the building collapsed after the decision to pull (it). He did NOT say: "We made the decision to pull and to our surprise the building collapsed." Nor does he say: "We made the decision to pull, to let the fire burn itself out, but the building suddenly collapsed." No! LS makes it clear that the building collapsed because of the decision to "pull it".

Why would he be surprised he already watched two buildings collapse in a dramatic way and he is recounting his experience for an interview long after the event.

1. That the fire could not be contained.
2. That LS thought it was time to "pull it".
3. A decision was made to "pull it".
4. The building collapsed.

If you are going to analyze an unrehearsed statement like that it would probably indicate that in Mr Silverstein's mind pulling the fire fighting operation
was a factor in the collapse of the building. Is that an unreasonble assumption for him to make?

 

[GT/CS]

Also self debunking.

A bridge or a tunnel wired with explosives as some kind of defensive measure and then "ooooops, that's dangerous if there's a fire, we'd better stop doing it".

So, what are the chances of the US government/military making the same stupid mistake with a 47 storey building in Manhattan?

BTW - Did the Swiss announce it on 1st April?

And don't most explosives become unstable as they get older?

 

[sleepy_lioness]

"I arose from the dinner-table and the woman seated across from me fainted dead away." You will agree that this is a simple example of the fallacy "post hoc, ergo propter hoc"? It is for the precise reason that there is no connection between the two events that positing a connection is fallacious reasoning.

Oh, I don't know. Did you check your flies?

 

[Mince]

'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.'

If Silverstein intended to demolish the building and was actually giving the order by saying "pull-it," how exactly would that prevent further loss of life, the consideration he gave immediately before his "pull-it" statement? How would demolishing the building prevent further deaths?

"We've had such terrible loss of life, let's topple a 47-story building to prevent more loss of life."

Whisky Tango Foxtrot?

Look, people aren't always eloquent speakers and even the masterful speakers say awkward things occasionally. Unless someone has unique insight into Silverstein's mind and thinking, we have to believe him when he says he meant, by "pull it," to "pull the firefighters from the building." Anything else is pure speculation and it is rather amusing that most in the lie-movement have consistantly relied on Silverstein's words as "proof" of American complicity. I wonder why the deniers always omit Silverstein's words about the consideration for the lives of others, made immediately before his "pull-it" statement, when proffering the "pull-it" statement as accidental admission of guilt.

 

[fkwebinash]

Going behind all of these "Controlled demolition" theories, I have a question for the twoofers out there.

Do you think that someone like Larry Silverstein could have such a level of stupidity to say "It was all a controlled demolition and a plan for me to get money/a plan of the NWO to take over the world/*Insert purpose of Conspiracy here*"?

That's not a trick question. I'm serious, do you think that someone could be so dumb to reveal their secret plans to the media?

 

[twinstead]

Any argument that Silverstein's 'pull it' comment somehow supports an inside job smacks of desperation. It's what truthers do when they can't come up with any compelling evidence of inside job.

It's as if we would still be debating as if Roosevelt's 'all we have to fear is fear itself' means he was admitting to creating the fear 'to fear'.

It's silly.

 

[twinstead]

That's not a trick question. I'm serious, do you think that someone could be so dumb to reveal their secret plans to the media?

There is no doubt; those who think 'pull it' describes the controlled demolition of WTC7 think Silverstein either accidentally reveled the plans to the media or was so arrogant as to believe that he could admit to it in plain sight and still not be found out.

You know it's ludicrous. I know it's ludicrous. Welcome to the truther mind.

 

[1337m4n]

When has "pull it" been used as an explosive demolition command prior to 9/11?

I have been trying to search for instances prior to 9/11/01 where the term "pull it" was used as a command to demolish a building with explosives. I have found none so far; only a lot of Truther sites.

I have proposed that such usage of the term was entirely an invention of the "Truth" Movement. Thus far I have not been contradicted.

Perhaps one of our resident Truthers can help me out?

 

[Thunder]

"it" was the life-saving and recovery operation going on just south of wtc 7 in the rubble. we know this..and truthers know this.

they are just bored..looking for something to get silly about.

 

[Tweeter]

Good question. Dont know, but it got me thinking why would you say "pull it" if you wanted people to evacuate?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Good question. Dont know, but it got me thinking why would you say "pull it" if you wanted people to evacuate?

we dont even know for sure thats what he said, remember this isnt a transcript of 9/11, its silverstein recalling the even after the fact