Silverstein Pull It Comment Examined

For those of you who believe that Silverstein's "pull it" comment actually referred to some sort of order to initiate a controlled demolition of WTC7, please feel free to pick up the story from there and explain what you specifically think happened after Silverstein gave the order to the fire chief to bring down WTC7.

Were the explosives already in WTC7 and the fire chief just had to find the cartoon-like plunger to detonate them? Did Silverstein wait until 5:20 to give the order because the CIA wasn't able to get through to him on the phone until then to tell him to go ahead with the plan?

Since Silverstein was alraedy worth billions before 9/11, what could his motive have been to blow up WTC7, which was already severely damaged? Did he need the money?

I'm curious to see if anybody has actually tried to think this theory through:

"Billionaire NY Real Estate Developer Conspires with NYFD to Bring Down WTC7 With a Secret Controlled Demolition"

[edit on 24-5-2007 by nick7261]

Silverstein's comment is toast for evidence of demolition since he isn't backing it up, had no good reason to actually SAY that in the first place, and as Nick points out it has no logical place in an actual demolition order. Not to say it wasn't so taken down, but why would Silverstein both be in on it and admit it on TV?

But I still find his grammar interesting. "It" is a pronoun, a replacer for another noun. Normally we clarify which noun it's replacing.

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, '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."

As for what "it" is, we can chose "a call" "the fire department commander" "they" "the fire" "I" "we" "life" "thing" "decision" "the building," or perhaps a noun uttered in an earlier sentence edited out.

He's supposed to have meant the fire effort, referred to as "them," not a single "it." And the pronoun is more clearly coupled with "the building." Somehow I doubt his grammar is normally this odd. Did he intend to mislead CTers into a line of thought re: WTC7? Or to use reverse psychology to help cover it up as apparent misdirection?

[edit on 24-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by nick7261"Billionaire NY Real Estate Developer Conspires with NYFD to Bring Down WTC7 With a Secret Controlled Demolition"

I think you have to take a step back and ask: was either WTC7, WTC1 or WTC2 brought down in a controlled manner? If you conclude one or all likely were, then Silverstein was almost certainly aware of what was going to happen.

I've spent a fair while discussing the "pull it" comment and both sides have big holes in their arguments. You can re-run them here if you want, but I'm not sure what value there would be in doing so.

For what it's worth, I don't think he was giving an order to the fire department commander whatever he meant by the term.

The WTC without a terrorist attack would have been his worst investment ever.
If I remind correctly he got such a great deal because it was actually losing money. The cost to demolish the building was in the order of the billion USD (and they had to...). What better way to eliminate all this abestos (how do you spell that?) than a nice controlled demolition that otherwise would have been impossible due to health enviroment laws?
Yeah he had very very good motives. I am not a native enlgish speaker but even I would have said: we decided to pull them. You pull it it fells point.
He had the motive, he confessed it, he had the preknowledge. Guilty!!! Toast the guy.

Originally posted by piacenza
The WTC without a terrorist attack would have been his worst investment ever.

Sorry piacenze, your reasoning makes little sense. Silverstein is a billionaire real estate investor. If the WTC was such a bad investment why would he sign the lease just weeks before 9/11? Certainly not for the insurance money, which he had to spend years in court to get paid on.

You can't possibly believe that Silverstein leased the WTCs then suddenly realized it was a bad investment and had it blown up. It's also a far stretch to imagine the he planned on blowing up the WTCs before he signed the lease as some sort of Dr. Evil plot to make some insurance money, and that he just called up his contacts in the CIA, FAA, FBI, and White House to help him make it happen.

But more importantly, you didn't answer the question. Please try to come up with the scenario that might have taken place AFTER Silverstein said "pull it" to the fire commander. I have yet to read a scenario that makes any sense.

Nicky I would like to actually oppose your point of view from the above post you should actually check those infos around there are plenty of documentation and articles about it here is an interesting one:

the Twin Towers were always money-losers as rental properties and required huge subsidies (tens of millions of dollars a year) from the State of New York to remain solvent. Because all of the windows in both towers were sealed up tight, and because neither tower was equipped to take advantage of its unique potential to generate power using the wind or solar energy, the WTC complex was ludicrously costly to heat and light. Furthermore, visiting business men and women weren't satisfied to remain within the WTC's purportedly self-sufficient universe, and wished to venture (and shop and do business) outside of it. In the 1980s, advances in information and telecommunication technologies decentralized the financial markets, which in turn "rolled back" the necessity for foreign institutions to be in close physical proximity to each other, Wall Street and the rest of lower Manhattan, which is precisely what the gigantic size and centralized location of the Twin Towers were intended to provide.

In New York City, obsolete buildings are infrequently saved, whatever their historical or architectural interest. Most often, they are simply torn down and replaced. The only thing that saved the Twin Towers from demolition was the fact that they were filled with asbestos, which would be released into the air if the buildings were destroyed by controlled explosions. In 2000, the Port Authority calculated that it would cost $1 billion -- i.e., much more money than the Port Authority could afford to spend -- to remove the asbestos before the buildings were destroyed. And so the Port Authority was stuck with the Twin Towers, that is, until 26 April 2001, when it found a consortium of business interests (Westfield America, led by Larry Silverstein, the owner of the building at 7 World Trade Center) that was willing to lease the property. Supposed to last for 99 years, the $3.2 billion lease mandated that the Port Authority continue to pay taxes on the property. "This is a dream come true," Silverstein said at the 23 July 2001 celebration of the lease's signing. "We will be in control of a prized asset, and we will seek to develop its potential, raising it to new heights."

source:
www.notbored.org...

Read above first by the way he spent only a few million USD to start the lease.

A little more on this story, some interstings FACTS:
According to professor of economics Michel Chossudovsky, the lease called for payments to the Port Authority "amounting to 3.2 billion dollars in installments" payable over 99 years. With several hundred million dollars being provided by mortgage holders, Mr. Silverstein put just 14 million dollars of his own money into the deal. [9]

Quoting from a May 20, 2002 article in The New Yorker, Chossudovsky notes that "Explicity included in the [lease] agreement was that Silverstein and Westfield 'WERE GIVEN THE RIGHT TO REBUILD THE STRUCTURES IF THEY WERE DESTROYED.' " [9] [with emphasis added]

Paul and Hoffman add that "Quoting the British Financial Times of September 14, 2001, the American Reporter wrote that 'THE LEASE HAS AN ALL-IMPORTANT ESCAPE CLAUSE: IF THE BUILDINGS ARE STRUCK BY "AN ACT OF TERRORISM," THE NEW OWNERS' OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE LEASE ARE VOID. As a result, the new owners are not required to make any payments under their lease, but they will be able to collect on the loss of the buildings...destroyed and damaged in the attacks.' " (The American Reporter's article was titled "No Fraud, but Huge Profits Seen in World Trade Center Attacks.") [8] [with emphasis added]

I think Piacenza's at least part right. I'm no expert in real estate and the projected vaue of the WTC for a nother century. Good quotes above... I think he may've turnes a profit here after all. Perhaps the plan was all along to get the Freedom Tower up. Silverstein might've thot he had to have the towers demolished, something insanely difficult. But what if someone above him said "go ahead, take the deal. We want the Freedom Tower up too, and we'll help you get that clutter out of the way. Don't worry how, we'll get it done."

Then they get their bought-in accomplice (it paid off sooner than he thought! What a bittersweet surprise!), and so he plays along. What choice is there? And the powers that be get their suspicious Jewish landlord marrying the wife with the 9/11-realizable dowry six weeks before she dies, the fodder for Jews did it conspiracy theories to discredit us, and he might be playing into it "pulling" us around with grammar psyops. I know that's a paranoid interpretation but it makes some sense. Or else he just meant "them," slipped up like when Rummy said "missile," and we're just reading too much into it.

Anyway, look at the evidence! It fell how it fell. Silverstein's comments may be a clue to something but probably not the WTC7 demolition. It's been said before, and thank you Nick for the challenge. If anyone tries dropping this as evidence again, I'll send them to this thread to see if they can put that story together.

[edit on 24-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

CL was heading in the general direction I was leaning towards - examining his English.

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, '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."

Here is what I think:

I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire

Pretty self-explanatory and without ambiguity I think...

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

The core of the whole debate.

The first part:

We've had such terrible loss of life

speaks for itself.

The next part:

maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.'

Here is why I think he is talking about "the building" (WTC7):

* The firefighters weren't dying (as far as we know) fighting the fires at WTC7, nor did anyone die whilst dealing directly with WTC7 (again, as far as we know).

* You don't refer to people as "it". You refer to people in the 3rd person such as "them/her/him/they".

* People had already died as a result of WTC1 and WTC2 fires and collapses

IMHO he was pre-empting a possible WTC7 collapse with associated loss of life, by saying

pull it

so that loss of life did not occur as a result of any collapse or other problem (including fires) to do with WTC7.

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

Who is "THEY" ?????????????

they made that decision to pull

Hmmm... who is they??

and we watched the building collapse

Sounds like they had front-row seats when it happened.

As for why Silverstein would want his own building to collapse - are you sure there wasn't something in that building that could lose him more money than he stood to gain with its collapse? What if there had been some investigation going on that he knew about? We know several major investigations were taking place at that time, with the records held in that building, together with the offices of numerous US Government departments. Did they have something on him? Are we sure that wasn't motive enough, if there was?

[edit on 24-5-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

I think we all know what he meant when he made this comment. I think he was back peddaling the whole way when he changed it to mean that it meant to "pull the firefighters". Either way, I've pretty much let the "Debunkers" have this one back, as there is way to much evidence to support that WTC 7 came down from any other matter than Controlled Demo!!!! In my opinon Larry S. is a liar and he knows full well of what truly happened that day.

Vinadetta: I agree, but was just answering Nicks question:

For those of you who believe that Silverstein's "pull it" comment actually referred to some sort of order to initiate a controlled demolition of WTC7, please feel free to pick up the story from there and explain what you specifically think happened after Silverstein gave the order to the fire chief to bring down WTC7.

I don't think there is any other meaning to it personally.

[edit on 24-5-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
thank you Nick for the challenge. If anyone tries dropping this as evidence again, I'll send them to this thread to see if they can put that story together.

Vinadetta, MoD, I'm gonna have to direct you back to... this thread. So pull or no pull, did he initiate the order to pull himself and admit it? If so please fill in the missing steps from there to the collapse.

Or is this a red herring of some type for the demo debate? Whatever the big picture I gotta go with the latter. He was saying one thing grammaticaly, another informationaly. It may have just been accidental even.

[edit on 24-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]
Confused as to who I'm directing this at No hard feelings I gotta go now...

[edit on 24-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 24-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 24-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

It appears he suggested it to someone, then "they" put a green light to the idea.

If you look at his body language, I think he inadvertently told the truth.

Motives or not, as CL has pointed out, I'm still looking for some reasonable scenario that would explain the sequence of events AFTER Silverstein made the "pull it" comment. I have yet to see ANY scenario that would explain the logistics of deciding on a CD sometime in the afternoon of 9/11 only to have WTC7 fall at 5:20 pm.

In other words, after THEY decided to pull it, what did THEY do next? Rig the building with explosives on the fly?

And if the building was rigged with explosives pre-9/11, why the need to make any decision to CD it on 9/11?

Originally posted by mirageofdeceitIt appears he suggested it to someone, then "they" put a green light to the idea.

This is kinda what I was getting at earlier when I said Silverstein didn't give an 'order' of any kind to the FDC.

I think he was responding to the FDC's status report and expressing a view that the building should be 'pulled', not issuing an instruction to the FDC that the FDNY should do the 'pulling'.

Nor would Silverstein be instructing the FDC what to do with his men - that's the FDC's call all the way. My understanding is that in a situation such as we had on 9/11, the FDC would have outranked everyone present.

To answer your last question Nick, given the timing of the CD of WTC7, I'd say it was rigged that day. There was one contractor that claimed it could rig a building the size of WTC1 or 2 in around 3 days. With WTC7 being much smaller, 5 hours or so I think would have been enough, considering the building was in a less than perfect state when they would have started.

I think it would have been on the slow side of rushed, but done the same day. I think that company just happened to be in town that day, too.

EDIT: Before I totally forget - as a result of the decision to "pull" WTC7, the press were advised of this event, hence the BBC announcing the collapse 23 minutes too early. A problem rigging up some of the explosives delaying things? I'd say it was likely given the speed of the rigging.

[edit on 24-5-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by nick7261

Since Silverstein was alraedy worth billions before 9/11, what could his motive have been to blow up WTC7, which was already severely damaged? Did he need the money?

I'm curious to see if anybody has actually tried to think this theory through:



[edit on 24-5-2007 by nick7261]

u see... it doesnt matter how much money somone has.. if they find a way to make more money... THEY WILL DO ANYTHING to make more money.. its not that he needed it... but im sure he wanted it...

I have never seen the original PBS footage. His comment to "pull it" is always spliced into other footage. When they do show him speaking, the audio and video always appears out of sync. It makes me wonder if he said "pull 'em" (the contraction of "pull them") or if the there was another splice of the fire chief saying we have company number 7 (or what ever number) in there now. They are all that is in there. What do you want to do? And then Silverstein said pull it refereing to the fire company. The third possibility is that he said pull out and that there was edit to change "out" to "it."

Without seeing a clean copy of the original PBS interview, I am inclined to believe it was not an order to demo WTC7 just because so many are screaming that is what he said. Too many times I have seen information and video edited as "proof" of conspiracy. Deliberate manipulation of words outside their original context to further an agenda is also a "false flag operation" as well. Consider the following:

"There is no way that was a controlled demolition! Anyone that claims that it was anything else, is flat out wrong." Imagine it said aloud. Now think of a simple edit of removing "there is no way" and "that it was" the new bit would be "That was a controlled demolition! Anyone that claims anything else, is flat out wrong."

Quite the difference in meaning. Now imagine it as a videotaped interview. the orignial would be straight forward. The spliced in edited one might not show the speaker until the "is flat out wrong." Again back to Silverstein's "pull it", we see that kind of splice in which we hear him speaking and only see him at the end in many videos proving the conspiracy. Why is that? Is there an edit in there that puts his words out of context? Is it not shown because Larry would make an odd movement while seaking if it was shown "live". Is that why when we do see the video for that snippet the video and audio are out of sync?

Tough questions to answer. I wonder if they will be ignored and glossed over as I am being told how incorrect I am. Or are the questions so hard to answer they will not be addressed at all?




[edit on 24-5-2007 by Ahabstar]

This also ties in with Indira Singh's testimony.

In an interview with Bonnie Faulkner of KFPA's 'Guns and Butter', Singh, a volunteer Emergency Medical Technician on 9/11, suggested that the area around WTC7 was cleared in anticipation of a controlled collapse.

SINGH [at 11:22]: …pretty soon after noon, after midday on 9/11, we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. If you had been there, not being able to see very much - just flames everywhere and dark smoke - it is entirely possible… I, I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable because of the collateral damage. That I don’t know - I can’t attest to the… to the um, validity of that. All I can attest to is that by noon or one o’clock they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University, a little further away, because Building 7 was going to come down or be brought down.

FAULKNER: Did they actually use the word ‘brought’ down, and who was it that was telling you this?

SINGH: The fire department. The fire department. And, um, they did use the words “we’re gonna have to bring… we’re gonna have to bring it down”. And for us there, um, observing the nature of the devastation, it was… they made total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility. Given the subsequent controversy over it I… I don't know. You know, I’m not an engineer, I don’t know. All I know is, you know, that was my experience.

We backed off a little bit to Pace University. There was another panic around 4 o’clock because they were bringing the building down. And people seemed to know this ahead of time so people were panicking again and running.

Singh's talk of "another panic around 4 o’clock" further ties in with CNN's Aaron Brown, who you'll recall beat the BBC to the announcement when, at 16:10 he said, "[WTC7] is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing."