Another look at "Pull It"

Luckily I didn't lose anyone myself and I live in England anyway, though as most people I was moved by the awful events of that day and knew the moment it happened the world would be changed forever.
People seem to assume that I don't think there is any foul play, or that everything is exactly as described in official reports but this is simply not tha case. I do however feel that a lot of the mainstream alternative theories seem to be false leads and do not make a lot of sense.
This is one of those to me, when you look at the actual statement, who it was said to and the circumstances it seems to be nothing more than clumsy wording. In fact if no-one had pointed out the demolition idea then I like most people would think nothing of it because what he means is pretty obvious. If there was not any suspicion no-one would think twice about it.

The belief that his statement meant what he said it did does not affect whether or not WTC7 was delibrately demolished at the end of the day. But sticking by such a claim simply because it points in the right direction is a rather negative approach and does not hold the truth movement in good light.

Trying to find the cleverest answer for things and over-analysing things such as this which are so open to interpretation is actually the dumbest thing that can be done. Sometimes if you want to be clever, you have to think on a far more realistic and simpler level.

Look at it this way, even if it was demolished, the statement makes no sense anyway. It was said to an inappropiate person initially at an inappropiate time, it was then repeated on a TV program (which to be frank is just too damn easy.. sorry) and the context of it makes no sense when talking about the building at the time it occured. The man has said himself what he meant, when looking on firefighter forums the people I've seen posing the question to them have been scorned and ridiculed when it's 'obvious' what is meant, etc, etc - so they seem to think it's appropiate lingo.
If there was just one or maybe two discrepancies then maybe, but with so many it's ridiculous.

Trying to be clever analysing the exact meanings of the words using dictionaries and talking about 'proper english' means jack, words and phrases are often misused by people all the time, only normally it's not in conjunction with a major event with dozens of people breathing over their shoulder with hawk eyes and bat ears waiting for a misinterpretation opportunity so they can use it as 'evidence'.
Nor is it clever to play bits of tape with people saying 'pull the building' when it's demolition workers saying it and saying it's proof.
It's as dumb as the analogy I made about a grandmother saying "I feel Gay" and a homosexual saying it - and still trying to say they both mean the same thing.

You probably think I am biased and I just don't want to see the conspiracy side, and your right. And so should you, anyone that wets their pants with excitement over any 'proof' needs their head examined. What a sorry state of affairs when people look forward to the collapse of human civilisation. If the current Government was to be replaced by people who thrive on the prospect of civil unrest, I'd rather stick with the them...
Undoubtedly there are many discrepancies, but bending over backwards to see what we want, or ignoring common sense in favour of creating elaborate theories to explain the mundane is not an objective attitude.

I find statements like this interesting

Originally posted by theBLESSINGofVISION
He obviously decided to have the biulding demolished when he said pull it...

There is now enough info for the clear minded to see this amidst the haze of confusion.

If you dont see this you are suffering from "mental stress" or are furthering an agenda.

As if we're supposed to just drone 'Oh of course, I see now..'.
The exact tactics quickly condemned when used by the opposing side are embraced in this individuals actions. If I do it I'm pointed in the direction of the rather lame "Rules of dis-information" or whatever they are, usually accompanied with an equally lame Gubmint paycheque remark.
If it's someone on the side of conspiracy, their a frikkin hero and everyone loves them.
Strikes me the only thing that will ever change if anything is who the Shepard is... Hardly a better world or greater freedoms...

I think there is a fairly clear line between those who wish to enhance their knowledge and look for the truth, and those who wish to capitalise on those people and maybe even seek to becoming powerful figures. They probably fantasise regularly about becoming the next Fuhrer, sorry I mean leader.. Lapsed into German there for some reason..
Oh just to clarify, the leader remark was not aimed at you BLESSINGofVISION, or anyone I can think of in this thread right now, for that matter.

[edit on 18-1-2006 by AgentSmith]

Would these three guys be considered co-conspirators then?


From www.firehouse.com...

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

Hayden: �By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, 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.

Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: . . .I see him grab a guy from the 21 Battalion and this was the first assignment he was giving out, so I rushed right into the small circle of guys and I ended up getting in on the assignment. And what it was was four engines, three trucks to World Trade Center 7.
Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?
Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn�t know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.
Firehouse: How many companies?
Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we�re heading east on Vesey, we couldn�t see much past Broadway. We couldn�t see Church Street. We couldn�t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty.
Before we took off, he said, look, if you see any apparatus, strip the apparatus for hose, nozzles, masks, anything you can get. As we headed east, we reached Church and then we were midway from there and then all of a sudden, we could see 5 come into view. It was fully involved. There was apparatus burning all over the place. Guys were scrambling around there. There were a lot of firemen, and there was a lot of commotion, but you couldn�t see much that was going on. I didn�t see any lines in operation yet. But we found a battalion rig there. We got a couple of harnesses out of there. We had some bottles from another rig, so we put together a couple of masks.
We went one block north over to Greenwich and then headed south. There was an engine company there, right at the corner. It was right underneath building 7 and it was still burning at the time. They had a hose in operation, but you could tell there was no pressure. It was barely making it across the street. Building 6 was fully involved and it was hitting the sidewalk across the street. I told the guys to wait up.
A little north of Vesey I said, we�ll go down, let�s see what�s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what�s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn�t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn�t look good.
But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we�re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn�t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn�t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I�m standing next to said, that building doesn�t look straight. So I�m standing there. I�m looking at the building. It didn�t look right, but, well, we�ll go in, we�ll see.
So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody�s going into 7, there�s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we�ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

Deputy Chief Nick Visconti
Division 14 - 34 years

Visconti: . . . there�s a collapsed area in 6. I�m standing not too far from Frank Fellini. He says, Nick, I�m really worried about this building. We were all worried because there was a lot of fire in it and we were concerned about the building collapsing. We weren�t sure that it was stable enough that it wasn�t going to collapse.
Firehouse: Which building was that?
Visconti: Building 6. So I had put a battalion chief with each of the groups that went into 6. I kept trying to talk to him, walking over there, walking down a little bit into the ramp they went down, the door they went down into and how are you doing? You know we�re trying, we can�t find it.
I don�t know how long this was going on, but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side. I looked up at the building and I saw smoke in it, but I really didn�t see any fire at that time.


. . .

Now, World Trade Center 7 was burning and I was thinking to myself, how come they�re not trying to put this fire out? I didn�t realize how much they had because my view was obstructed. All I could see was the upper floor. At some point, Frank Fellini said, now we�ve got hundreds of guys out there, hundreds and hundreds, and that�s on the West Street side alone. He said to me, Nick, you�ve got to get those people out of there. I thought to myself, out of where? Frank, what do you want, Chief? He answered, 7 World Trade Center, imminent collapse, we�ve got to get those people out of there.

[edit on 18-1-2006 by HowardRoark]

Firefighter Marcel Claes
Engine 24 - 12 years

We were kept away from building 7 because of the potential of collapse. I felt sick. I had my eyes flushed out. I saw firefighters who told me Engine 24 made it out, but Ladder 5 was missing. I walked back to the firehouse of Engine 24/Ladder 5.

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

It (WTC7) 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.

It would be good to know when Marcel Claes was told to keep away from WTC7.

[edit on 19-1-2006 by uknumpty]

Option -> demolish the building

You know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is to demolish the building.' Uh, and they made that decision to demolish the building and then we watched the building collapse.

If he meant to demo the building it doesn't make sense to me that he was saying something about terrible loss of life..

Option -> pull the firefighters

You know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull the firefighters out.' Uh, and they made that decision to pull the firefighters out and then we watched the building collapse.

Here I understand why is he talking about terrible lose of life, what is weird for me is that "pull the firefighters out and then we watched the building collapse." Use of word then in that context seems suspicious to me.

Conspiracy boat - Do you think that Silverstein is such an ass to really tell the truth? even by mistake?

He may have said " and then we watched the building collapse' because in his head as a capitalist he may have pictured it that way, a sort of niggle in his mind that he had to say to the people to get out and then watched his precious building collapse.
The guy may be a selfish capitalist, maybe we should look at his words in that context. He is tryingto look human and compassionate when his main concern may have been the loss of the buildings and everything that went with them in a financial sense. This sort of attitude in life, which would reflect in his wealth, would account for his refferal to the firefighter unit as an 'it' and this would also account for his immediate referral to the collapse of building after the comment relating to the removal of the fire fighters was made. He may have been referring to the building being pulled as in the context of the firefighters being pulled from 'it'.
To help us fully understand the structure of what he said, perhaps we should make a conscious effort to look at it from the point of view of a very rich and powerful person who only sees money and assets.

Originally posted by AgentSmith
To help us fully understand the structure of what he said, perhaps we should make a conscious effort to look at it from the point of view of a very rich and powerful person who only sees money and assets.

Definitely a good idea. Going to think about that..

Trying to be clever analysing the exact meanings of the words using dictionaries and talking about 'proper english' means jack, words and phrases are often misused by people all the time, only normally it's not in conjunction with a major event with dozens of people breathing over their shoulder with hawk eyes and bat ears waiting for a misinterpretation opportunity so they can use it as 'evidence'.

I just came back to this forum after awhile, so I was curious about 'pull it'...and the dissection of bascially two words..."pull it"...and what 'it' means. As some people have mentioned, 'it' wouldn't refer to, in this case, firefighters. 'It' in this case is the operation in question...as in 'end it'. I'm a civilian with a police department, and software that we have lets us read calls for service as they are going on. When an incident is called off say, and just a normal one...nothing of the magnitude of September 11th in which brevity is a must..."pull it" means end it and get out.

As another example, I did some forest firefighting in northern Ontario back in 1979 and at one point our group was surrounded by the fire. Luckily it wasn't a huge fire, and the fire bombers did their job and we got out. But if we heard someone come over the radio and say "pull it"...we would know that it meant to get the heck out of there.

Just my thoughts on it, take it as you will, and sorry if the issue has already been dealt with.

Court

Originally posted by skyler I just came back to this forum after awhile, so I was curious about 'pull it'...and the dissection of bascially two words..."pull it"...and what 'it' means. As some people have mentioned, 'it' wouldn't refer to, in this case, firefighters. 'It' in this case is the operation in question...as in 'end it'. I'm a civilian with a police department, and software that we have lets us read calls for service as they are going on. When an incident is called off say, and just a normal one...nothing of the magnitude of September 11th in which brevity is a must..."pull it" means end it and get out.

A couple of problems:

1) Since when does a Fire Commander need permission from a landlord to "pull out" his firefighters?

2) There was NEVER any attempt to fight the fires in the WTC 7 so there was nothing to END!!!

.

Originally posted by zer69

Well if you take things out of context that much, of course it could mean anything. Keep it more in context:

1) it = WTC 7

2) it = the firefighters


Now the documentary was about "rebuilding," the narrator was leading up to the WTC 7 collapse, and the SAME doc mentioned the pulling of the WTC 6!!!

Come on people, it's not rocket science!

Originally posted by Killtown
A couple of problems:

1) Since when does a Fire Commander need permission from a landlord to "pull out" his firefighters?

2) There was NEVER any attempt to fight the fires in the WTC 7 so there was nothing to END!!!

You appear to have missed the responses to these statements when you previously made them, go back and read.

Originally posted by AgentSmith
You appear to have missed the responses to these statements when you previously made them, go back and read.

Couldn't find them, could you post?

Just read the statements Howard posted a few posts back and read the previous page.

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Just read the statements Howard posted a few posts back and read the previous page

Nope, still couldn't see how those arguements refutted what I said. Could you try to re-explain?

Originally posted by Killtown
1) Since when does a Fire Commander need permission from a landlord to "pull out" his firefighters?

Hey Killtown,

I agree but, I think they were not talking about permission. maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it. Uh, and they made that decision to pull it.

2) There was NEVER any attempt to fight the fires in the WTC 7 so there was nothing to END!!!

I heard about this, but also that there was some firefighting attempt. Maybe he was referring to time when the firefighters were still in the WTC 7. BTW, do you have some links to more info about this (that there wasn't any attempt to fight the fires)?

Howards response which are you trying to find is on this page.

Originally posted by zer69I agree but, I think they were not talking about permission. maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it. Uh, and they made that decision to pull it.

Here's his whole quote:

"I remember getting a call from the, uh, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'You know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it.'

This sounds like Silverstein is saying that the Commander called him, Silverstein then says "let's pull it" and then after he gives his order or "recommendation" (which ever one prefers), "they" -- the people he gave the order to -- followed up on his order.

I heard about this, but also that there was some firefighting attempt. Maybe he was referring to time when the firefighters were still in the WTC 7. BTW, do you have some links to more info about this (that there wasn't any attempt to fight the fires)?

No problem, the firefighters were "pulled out" before Silverstein even got his call:

"...the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers.
WTC 7 collapsed approximately 7 hours after the collapse of WTC 1. Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY. -FEMA: WTC Building Performance Study, Chp 5 (05/02)


"Falling debris also caused major structural damage to the building, which soon began burning on multiple floors, said Francis X. Gribbon, a spokesman for the Fire Department. By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons." -New York Times (11/29/01)

Howards response which are you trying to find is on this page.

Are you asking which of Howard's posts I'm trying to find?

[edit on 23-1-2006 by Killtown]

[edit on 23-1-2006 by Killtown]

If you read the accounts by the firemen from that day, you will, if nothing else, get a picture of utter confusion.

Quite probably, they already made a decision to abandon the building to the fires before the call.

The call to Silverstein was probably nothing more than a courtesy call. Certainly there was nothing he could do or say that would have changed the decision to abandon the building.

Well I'm new to this subject, having only just spent the entire weekend (literally 54 hrs) researching because I read the Stephen Jones paper.
I think the important thing with Silversteins comment is to put it into the context of other things. By itself it isn't all that significant, but put into the context of Guliani being forwarned about the Towers' collapse, firefighters being forwarned about the second Tower collapse, the fact that firefighters had abandoned any effort to extinguish WTC7 for lack of water and manpower, that there were no figherfighters working WTC7 to be "pulled" (also as a former firefighter "pulled" was not a common term for abandoning interior efforts on a building), the same PBS documentary having a demolition worker saying they were pulling building six meaning they were demolishing it, and other numerous contextual events, it seems silly to think that Silverstein meant pulling out of the building or pulling the firefighters out.
I have begun to think that the conversation didn't happened with anyone from the fire service. I think it was probably a conversation with someone else that got peppered into a lie about a conversation with the NYFD.
What I mean is, did you ever notice someone practiced at lying will add bits and pieces of true events to make a fabrication more believable? You see it alot in trials, politics, business, etc.
I think Silverstein blundered and peppered the wrong bits into the fabricated story. Part of getting old.
Pehaps the real conversation was with someone with the actual ability to demolish the building...like whomever demolished them all.
Just a thought.
Of course we're precluding what most of us mean when we say "pull it".

[edit on 23-1-2006 by Outriderdark]

[edit on 23-1-2006 by Outriderdark]

Originally posted by Killtown
Here's his whole quote:

"I remember getting a call from the, uh, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'You know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it.'

Thanks, he said that the fire dept. commander told him that they were not gonna be able to contain the fire. If there was no firefighting attempt (as stated at your link from FEMA: WTC Building Performance Study, Chp 5), why the fire dept. commander is suggesting that they're not able to contain the fire?

This sounds like Silverstein is saying that the Commander called him, Silverstein then says "let's pull it" and then after he gives his order or "recommendation" (which ever one prefers), "they" -- the people he gave the order to -- followed up on his order.

OK, but that means that they were explosives weeks before and fire dept. commander knew about them? And that he (commander) or his crew were able to use them?

Are you asking which of Howard's posts I'm trying to find?

No I was answering to your question about which Howard's post is AgentSmith referring to. I am not a native english speaker..

What is the debate here from those support the official story?

There IS none!!

How can you support the official story, yet deny what they say? By their OWN reports, there were NO FIREFIGHTERS IN THE BUILDING!!! Again, when Silverstein said what he did, there were no firefighters in the building. None.

I already can see what the response will be, looking at the past responses. I post info showing what FEMA and NIST had to say about firefighters AND the official explanation for Silverstein's quote. See, I kept an open mind with it; I coulda just posted the stuff that helped me make my point. But, you peeps don't wanna keep an open mind.

What is the debate here? I posted the official explanation, a guy SAYING "pull" in reference to a demolition, and the explanation is that Silverstein suddenly screwed up his English? That is rich, let me tell ya.

So, here will be the response to the fact that it's not debatable that there were not firefighters in the building when Larry said "pull it:" "we don't know when Silverstein said 'pull it.' He could have said it earlier in the day."



I guarantee someone will say this. Sure, he said "pull it" in the morning, and they then watched the building collapse, BY HIS OWN ADMISSION, later in the day. I can't believe it; he "may" have said "pull it" at any time in the day! Watch, someone will say this!

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Did you read my post above?

You do realize that they weren’t just concerned with firefighters going into the building, the comand was concerned with the firefighters in the immediate vicinity also.