Merged "Pull It" (Stop yawning people!)

[Pardalis]

Do we really need another discussion about those two stupid words?

 

[tsig]

Hooooo-boy....

Apollo, please bear in mind that I fully respect your credentials as a scientist and a researcher and find you to be extremely well-versed in studying how the buildings fell... but quite frankly, this is the nuttiest thing I have EVER heard you say.

The ONLY things I know of that we might put self-destructs into are various types of explosive ordnance, and I'm not even sure of that, to be perfectly honest; I know it's been touted in Hollywood films as being done with missiles and the like, but that's Hollywood. WHY on EARTH would you imagine we automatically build things with self-destructs built into them without offering up some kind of proof beyond your own speculation? No offense intended, but any military person reading this would quite literally crack up laughing at the implication. So I'd like to ask; do you have any proof to back up this assumption? If not, I would like to ask that you please retract the statement. Thank you.

Yeah, I'd like to work in a bunker knowing that any static electric charge or a pissed-off munitions tech could blow me up.lol

 

[Pardalis]

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

I think we should now focus on "maybe".

There's something there that smells conspiracy.

Maybe in two hundred years a new religion will be created out of the "pull it" quote, but I'm willing to bet that "maybe" is really the key!

 

[GStan]

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".

From reading others comments about this post, you seem to be a scientist of some respect within this community. As a scientist, why on earth are you reducing yourself to the level of arguing speculative, meaningless semantic evidence? Even if you succeeded in convincing every single member of this forum that LS means what you say he means, or at the very least that his comments are suspicious, that will not change the fact that there is no evidence supporting any theory in which said suspicious comments make any sense. If there is some evidence for such a theory, I'm all ears.

We have the LOGICAL sequence:

1. The firefighters determined that the fire could not be contained.
2. The firefighters called LS to inform him they were going to pull the firefighting operation away from his $1Billion property.
3. LS reports to the firefighters, (who could probably give a rat's patoot what he thought,) that maybe the smartest thing to do was "pull it".
4. THEY, THE FIREFIGHTERS, made the decision to "pull it".
5. The building collapsed.

Additionally, there is not necessarily any implied or overt cause and effect relationship between 4 and 5, only that 4 occurs before 5. I know there must be one for the argument to make sense (loosely), but why do you assume cause and effect when LS did not state it; he was simply giving a sequential recollection of the events? Point 1 (the fires could not be contained), not point 4, is the cause of result 5.

 

[njslim]

QUOTE]I don't think so. After the collapse of WTC 1 and 2, there were hundreds of firefighters missing and dead, dozens of fire apparatus destroyed, water mains destroyed, and quite possibly (though I haven't looked into it) damage to WTC 7's own fire suppression system. I don't believe FDNY had the capability to mount an effective fire attack on WTC 7 at that point. It would have required an immense effort, diverting effort from rescue operations and fire suppression efforts on buildings which were actually salvageable.[/QUOTE]

A FDNY captain checked the standpipe system in the building and discovered it was
inoperable do to the damage sustained by the debris impacts. I believe GRAVY in
his GOOGLE pages has an account of this. Trying to rig an alternate water source to
replace the inhouse standpipe system is a brutual operation even under "normal"
conditions. Means hauling lengths of hose and appliances (gate valves, wyes for
controlling water flow) up the stairwells and coupling together. Pumpers have to be
placed on water source and pump pressures cranked way up to overcome gravity and
friction losses (normally buildings have fire pumps located in mechanical rooms to
pump water in the sprinkler/standpipe risers during a fire). Takes tremendouse amount
of time/manpower - consider the casualties that morning - 343 dead/missing, hundreds
more injured, 100 pieces of equipment smashed, water mains destroyed by collapse
forcing FDNY to rig alternate from fire boats in Hudson River. FDNY chiefs considering
overall situation realized didn't have resources to tackle spreading fires in WTC7 and
run search/rescue for survivors (of which there were 20 trapped in stairways or under
the debris). Had to make choice to abandon WTC 7.

 

[tsig]

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".

You are creating faces in the clouds. You are analyzing beyond the depth of the data available.

Sorry LS did not do everything just to your satisfaction that day but he was a bit pre-occupied what with arranging for the miracle CD crew, standing down the Air Force and disarming the Pentagon.

 

[tsig]

I think we should now focus on "maybe".

There's something there that smells conspiracy.

Maybe in two hundred years a new religion will be created out of the "pull it" quote, but I'm willing to bet that "maybe" is really the key!

Logically the "maybe" means they didn't "pull it".

Maybe he meant pullet. He was expressing his desire for KFC for lunch.

 

[Pardalis]

This reminds me of the different religious groups who debate over semantics in the Bible (like Jehovah's Witnesses for example) when in fact the whole book is just BS.

That quote from Silverstein is such a non-issue, it's utterly inconsequential. Out of the millions of words that have been said about that day, why on earth are those two ones being debated over and over again?

 

[Sabrina]

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".

You owe me 50 bucks, UC.

 

[Pardalis]

Logically the "maybe" means they didn't "pull it".

Maybe he meant pullet. He was expressing his desire for KFC for lunch.

"Maybe" as in "may it be", like "may it be destroyed", "may it be destroyed with controlled demolition charges"...

You see where I'm going? Conspiracy I tells ya!

 

[Apollo20]

Well, I guess the message from all you official-government-story supporters is that LS, who by the way just happens to be one of the richest men in NYC, has a very bad memory so he doesn't really know what he's talking about, in fact he makes stuff up and uses words he doesn't even understand, and is therefore full of woo .... so who cares what Larry said anyway, ...... have I got it right?

By the way, UK Dave, how come you are now using the expression "pulling any attempt to fight the fires". How do you pull an attempt?

And 16.5, you left out points 2 and 3:

It goes like this:

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.

But that's right.. I forgot, ..... Larry was confused, just like GB was when he said "What a lousy pilot!"

 

[Nim Chimpsky]

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:

let's not discuss your "nub" here please

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.

I think you can probably expand the logical sequence inferring from what happened and exactly what he said:

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander,

So prior to this, he has seen both collapses and obviously knows that many of the surrounding buildings are either also destroyed or damaged or burning or whatever.

If in fact he did speak to someone with the FD, they were calling to tell him:

telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire,

So now he knows that WTC 7 is on fire and that they won't be able to save it. Perhaps, there was a time when he may have cared a bit about the property itself, but at this point, it's obvious that any attempts to stop the fires and limit damage were either fruitless or too risky to continue.

The ultimate decision to keep firemen fighting the fire never rested with LS. So I think your logical step of

2. That LS thought it was time to "pull it".

Is totally moot. He is opining on a decision made by others:

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

All he is doing here is psychologically agreeing with the decision that the FD made. He is more than likely just repeating and paraphrasing what was said to him over the phone.

And of course, referring to "loss of life" obviously means fire fighters and rescue personnel. The logical conclusion is that the beginning of the sentence directly refers to loss of life and he completes the thought by saying to pull "people" to prevent loss if life.

The Logic as I see it:

WTC 7 is burning
the building is probably beyond saving
people fight fires
people are in danger fighting the fire at WTC 7
there has already been significant loss of life
in order to prevent further loss of life
remove people from danger
having no means of saving the structure

building falls

How does "pulling it" (meaning the building) save lives?

And they made that decision to pull

and we watched the building collapse."

There is no sense of time in this concluding quote. Yes he used the word "and" but does that mean they "pulled" the firefighters and within ______ amount of time, the building fell? Seconds, minutes, hours?????

The only logical conclusion that can be inferred is that the only hope of saving the structure was that "people" would have to be put in danger.....and to prevent harming more people, they were not permitted to try to save the building. As a result of there being no efforts from people trying to fight fires and maybe shore up portions of the building or whatever efforts were required, the building fell.

Now what I see here is that the "pulling" RESULTED in the collapse.

Almost correct: pulling the only possible means of saving the structure (people fighting the fires) from their efforts in trying to save it. Pulling resulted in the collapse. Pulling didn't CAUSE the collapse per se.

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.

See above. Regardless of what transitional word being used, you are still semi-correct.

Cause (pull it) -> Effect (collapse)

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

That is logically saying the same thing as "and". Maybe not the BEST word to be used but still makes sense in a colloquial fashion.

I ran down the stairs too fast, tripped AND broke my leg.

I ran down the stairs too fast, tripped THEN broke my leg.

What's the difference?

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".

There are numerous quotes of firefighters and onlookers who have commented that WTC 7 appeared ready to fall. If a building burns for more than 7 hours, has a large sky scraper fall into it, is constructed in a semi-non-traditional fashion.....is it not too unlikely that you might infer that removing efforts to save the structure would result in collapse after having been hit and burn for hours?


This seems like such a stupid and trivial thing, that I am still amazed that it is being discussed.

I 100% agree with you and others that LS left much ambiguity in his phraseology. Had he clearly articulated what he later explained, this would not be an issue at all.

 

[DC]

I'm sure that WTC7's long tradition of being invaded by Italy and Burgundians ensured that it would be packed with explosives.

Italy?Roman Empire?
since 1813 we are "independent". no invasion not in WW1 and not in WW2
as far i know, its because of the Commys we did that, also germany did it.
the US MIC hecks out alot of things. and to rig an important building with explosives is not that unlikely it hink, i guess commy paranoia was alot more spreaded in the US than it was in Switzerland. and afterall it was a emergency "bunker" of one of the world's biggest and most important city for the US. sea based.

i think its not so tinfoilhatlike to think they could have placed explosives for an emergency. not to leave behind such an important "command center" in commy hands in a worst case scenario.

 

[pomeroo]

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.

Frank, the sequence is incorrect. Here's how it should look:

1. The FDNY determines that resources for controlling the fires are not available.

2. A local commander places a courtesy call to Larry Silverstein, the owner of the building.

3. Silverstein agrees with the FDNY's assessment, saying that pulling the operation is probably the smartest idea.

4. The building collapsed.

Let us bear in mind that the fire department was not asking for permission from the owner of the building. They were informing him of their decision to suspend firefighting operations.

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".

I think you're having fun with us. 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.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

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".

im amused how you (and truthers) analyze each and every single word

maybe im the only person in the world this has happened to (ha) but there have been plenty of times when something i said was misunderstood or misinterpreted because i worded it poorly, is there a possibility this has happened here? if so your whole cause-effect theory just slit its wrists with ockhams razor IMO

also why does he have to be surprised the building collapsed?

 

[Pardalis]

"maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it"

Or maybe it wasn't the smartest thing to do? What did he mean by "smartest"? What was the dumbest thing they could have done?

What was that second option that he didn't want people to do? By labelling the destruction of the tower as the only sane option, he wanted the other option to be discarded... So what was that other option?

 

[uk_dave]

By the way, UK Dave, how come you are now using the expression "pulling any attempt to fight the fires". How do you pull an attempt?

I also said "Proposed" but you must have missed that part in your rush to carry on spinning this nonsense.

Let's say the FDNY is formulating a plan to tackle the fires in wtc7. They can see it's going to be an extremely dangerous proposition and they really don't want to risk more lives in the attempt, just to save a building.

So they contact LS out of courtesy and inform him that the fires are out of control and that they are going to have a hell of a job fighting them.

They then advise LS that they don't think the risk is worth it.

They agree to pull the proposed operation.

Hours later the building collapses.

Is it really that hard for you to understand this?

 

[uk_dave]

i think its not so tinfoilhatlike to think they could have placed explosives for an emergency. not to leave behind such an important "command center" in commy hands in a worst case scenario.

If the commies had taken over Manhattan I think the wtc7 command centre would be the least of the US problems.

 

[Pardalis]

i think its not so tinfoilhatlike to think they could have placed explosives for an emergency. not to leave behind such an important "command center" in commy hands in a worst case scenario.

In Star Trek, I always wondered why the self-destruct sequence was never accidentally activated each time they engaged an ennemy?

Every time a photon torpedo would hit their bow, wouldn't that trigger the whole thing?

Worf: Captain, direct hit to our starboard bow.

Computer voice: Self-destruct sequence activated. Please abandon ship. D minus ten minutes. 10...

Captain Picard: Oh ****, not again! We don't have time for this!

 

[Firestone]

I think we should now focus on "maybe".

There's something there that smells conspiracy.

Maybe in two hundred years a new religion will be created out of the "pull it" quote, but I'm willing to bet that "maybe" is really the key!

And the resurrection of the hijackers will be a key component of that religion.