Silverstein Pull It Comment Examined

Originally posted by AhabstarWithout 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:

It seems fairly clear to me from this video that he did say 'pull it' and that it hasn't been used out of context in the manner you suggest it might have been.

Originally posted by coughymachine

It seems fairly clear to me from this video that he did say 'pull it' and that it hasn't been used out of context in the manner you suggest it might have been.

This is exactly the splice in that I am talking about. Notice that the pretext to the pull it line is a voice over of other action being viewed? Notice that it not the clear original PBS interview that I asked to see? Again, I can not see the full context of what Larry is saying and have no proof that there is no editing of his words. For something to be an irrefutable sticking point should not the whole context be viewable and widely available. I have seen the spliced and maybe edited footage in many videos like the one you posted. Why is not the original as widely available unless there is something not quite right with the rest of the context of the interview.

I am not saying that you or anyone else is wrong for agreeing with what you can find. But to fully agree to something that may be editing to misinform is wrong if the original context can not be determined from the original interview.

In a related vein, there is a clip In Micheal Moore's Fahrenheit 911 in which a comment from W was from the annual Press Dinner in which comedy is commonly exchanged between the press and the president. Sometimes the press gives the president a roast sometime the president speaks in the context of humor. Moore deliberately took the words out of their humorous context and made them out to be a factual context.

That is why it is important to know the context from the interview and to verify that no edits were done to change the meaning of or the actual words said. I mean we could run his words with a video clip of the arcade game Rampage. There are peole out there that would actually think a CGI sprite destroyed the building. Sad but true, there actually are people that disconnected from reality. Not saying you personally or the majority of the truth movement, but someone out there would. Look at how many promoted the the CGI UFO that Sci-Fi did as a promo advertisement.

Silverstein took out his record insurance policy on the complex in July 2001, 2 months before the attacks...

And guess who was responsible for security at the WTC complex? Marvin Bush, close relative of George Bush president, in fact his 2 year contract actually ended, guess what date...on September 11....stands back in amazement, cant believe it...

I have never one time ever in my life heard a firefighting term that says "pull it" the fires are out of control, so pull it??? Pull out, maybe. Pull them, maybe. Pull it??? That makes no sense...

But, I have heard many times demolition teams use the words pull it, refering to taking the building down.

Its like pulling the main supports off, and you watch it topple. Thats where we get the term "pull it" it has nothing to do with firefighting.

It just seems to me that you skeptic debunkers out there will just find any reason at all, even reasons that are completely ludicrous, to disclaim us so called CTer, and try to defend your crooked governments views. Why?





[edit on 24-5-2007 by LightWorker13]

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?

Power. Power always trumps mere money, which is only an aspect of Power; one of the sums that go into the Sigma of Power.

Love the cartoon plunger quote

Very well said lightworker

There is really nothing to counterpoint on the things you just said.

I have heard that Silverstein insured the world trade centers of terrorist attacks a few weeks before 911...

Does anyone have the source to confirm this?

[edit on 24-5-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by LightWorker13
I have never one time ever in my life heard a firefighting term that says "pull it" the fires are out of control, so pull it??? Pull out, maybe. Pull them, maybe. Pull it??? That makes no sense...

I've talked to 2 firefighters that confirmed the "pull" term. The "it" part might be shaky, but that's not enough to sum it all up as if the only thing that could have possibly been meant by it was to order a controlled demolition.

Originally posted by nick7261

Were the explosives already in WTC7

Yes

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?

Most likely. Since the files against Enron and others under investigation were kept there, with no back up copy anywhere, a whole lot of investigations into big companies went up in smoke

Since Silverstein was already 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?

The world trade center was a dinosaur and lossing money... To pay to have them demolished would have cost a fortune. This way he didn't have to pay for demolition, collected double on the insurance and Bush got a reason to bomb Afghanistan, Iraq create the Homeland Security setup and the Patriot act. I would say there was a LOT to gain... and those are just the main items. I bet a thorough search would find more

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

I do not believe the Fire Department was in on this... a friend of mine works for Fema and he told me those fire fighters who lost their lives were not on the same radio frequency and did not get the word to get out. This is born out by the fact that after the event they made a big deal about making sure ALL rescue workers were on the same frequency

Anyone who believes jet fuel is hot enough to melt steel AFTER it all blew up on impact is living in a dream world and deserves every thing the government has plans to do to you


BBBAAAHHH BBAAAHHHHH

Originally posted by LightWorker13

It just seems to me that you skeptic debunkers out there will just find any reason at all, even reasons that are completely ludicrous, to disclaim us so called CTer, and try to defend your crooked governments views. Why?

This thread is not about defending the government or disclaiming CTers. It's about seeing if anybody could present a plausible sequence of steps that might have led to WTC7 being "pulled," if indeed Silverstein's "pull it" quote actually referred to a CD of WTC7.

So far nobody has been able to present a plausible scenario that would tie the "pull it" comment made by Silverstein to what happened after Silverstein decided to "pull" WTC7.

Why?

Because it's ludicrous, almost to the point of insanity, to actually believe Silverstein had a discussion with the fire commander that directly resulted in WTC7 being wired with explosives and imploded on 9/11. And it's just as nuts to think that WTC7 was wired with explosives pre-9/11 just waiting for Silverstein and the fire commander to decide when to blow up the building.

If you think otherwise now's your chance to post your theory on what happened.

After Silverstein told the fire commander to "pull it," what happened next?

Why does everyone assume that Bush and Silverstein were actually the ones who "planned" the 9/11 attacks? Don't you understand how ridiculous that theory is?

IF there really was a conspiracy, Bush and Co did not "plan" the attacks, they simply "let them happen." If Bin Ladin and Al Qaeda hadn't planned these attacks on the towers, then they probably never would have happened. But they DID plan the attacks, and it is possible that certain people in the Bush administration had prior knowledge of the attacks, and they allowed them to happen to help further their political agendas, as well as Silverstein's "asbestos" problem and any other problems he was having with the buildings.

So quit it with the "Bush planned the attacks" theories, because they are ridiculous. Like I said, IF there was a conspiracy, they conspired to let it happen for their own reasons instead of preventing it...

It's completely subjective. You can never say for sure what the guy really meant. Personally I would lean towards pulling the firefighting operation at WTC7, as the other meaning would suggest theres a whole bunch of firefighters in on the conspiracy... And that's kind of insulting.

Originally posted by LightWorker13
It just seems to me that you skeptic debunkers out there will just find any reason at all, even reasons that are completely ludicrous, to disclaim us so called CTer, and try to defend your crooked governments views. Why?

Very excellent post... and why indeed?

Bush and Co have been in it since great grand daddy Bush with the Rockefellers and Standard Oil funded the Germans to power before WWII

One day we will all wake up and see the results...

Only it will be too late

[edit on 25-5-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

"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.

Okay, I normally don't post in this forum, it isn't my "cup of tea" usually, but this thread in particular has grabbed my attention from lurking in the dark. Specifically this comment here by "Silverstein".

I happen to be a self-proclaimed master of reading comprehension, reading hands, reading gestures, pulling the correct meaning out of rhetoric or spin, knowing what someone means even when they are speaking to the contrary in an attempt to cover up or change a story, you name it. And not just on paper, it's with reading sentences and also heairng them, but seeing the person say them has a big factor in it as well. Granted, i didnt see him say it, so I can't use that as an aide, but from these words themselves..

"pull it" is clearly denoting the building. he was talking about the building in the previous sentence to the fire department commander. he mentions more loss of life and pulling it as a possible way to avoid things such as loss of life. he then goes on to clear himself of liability by saying "they" then made "the decision to pull", then says "and we watched the building collapse". here he is, clearly speaking about the building again in the sentence after. so you have a re-occuring theme here in both sentences before and after the actual pull it comment. he says pull twice in the quote as well, both times talking about the building, clearly. at least to me, that looks clear, and i am not in the "9/11 truth movement" persay, im unbias, I dont have an exact opinion on what happened that day.

to say whoever wrote/said that quote from the external source wasnt talking about the building is to be avoiding the obvious to me, IMO. there is only one other possible thing he could've been talking about.

and that is the entire operation.

he could've been saying "so they made the decision to pull". as in, "pull out", pull their fire fighters and equipment from the affected building or area. but since he is speaking about pulling as a way of avoiding the loss of life, reading comprehension points to it being the building over it being the relief effort by the fire fighters based on this text alone.

does someone have a youtube vid of him saying this? it would help.

[edit on 5/25/2007 by runetang]

Originally posted by nick7261So far nobody has been able to present a plausible scenario that would tie the "pull it" comment made by Silverstein to what happened after Silverstein decided to "pull" WTC7.

nick, actually, I have. I just haven't set it out clearly enough. Here it is, stated as fact for convenience, when of course it's speculation.

The felling of WTC7 was part of the original plan, conceived a long time before 9/11. It was rigged, as were the twin towers, well in advance.

It was expected to come down with the North Tower but the charges failed to go off as planned. Although it sustained major tramua, WTC7 remained standing.

There was limited water available to fight the fires in WTC7 and the FDC assessed that the FDNY would not be able to contain the fire. Further, the FDNY reported considerable damage along the south face and south west corner and were particularly concerned about a 'bulge' near the south west corner - so much so that they put a transit on it.

When the FDC called and explained the situation to Silverstein, he responded by simply expressing a view that, perhaps the best thing to do was 'pull it' (bring the building down) rather than run the risk of it toppling over into an area populated by firefighters tackling blazes elsewhere. He was not issuing an instruction to the FDC.

Meantime, during the course of the morning and early afternoon, non-FDNY personnel were inside WTC7 trying to identify why the charges failed. By the time of Silverstien's conversation with the FDNY, the problem had been fixed.

After the call, and after sufficient time had passed for the area to be cleared of FDNY personnel, 'they' made the decision to 'pull it'.

At no point was this Silverstein's decision. He neither instructed the FDC to 'pull' the building, nor did he instruct the FDC to 'pull' his men.

Originally posted by zorgon

One day we will all wake up and see the results...

[edit on 25-5-2007 by zorgon]

Some of us are already wide awake and watching the show...

Get ready for some ruff decades.

I haven't read the whole thread yet but it got me to thinking.

Has anyone figured out when these quotes were said (Silverstein pull it, Rummy Missile, Cheney shot down) as oppossed to when the first CTs started comming out about these subjects?

My point is that CausticLogic got me thinking about disinfo and such. What if all these guys said these things so they could turn around and say "see, this is how this CT started, from a slip of the tounge".

Does that make any sense?

Originally posted by Diplomat
Why does everyone assume that Bush and Silverstein were actually the ones who "planned" the 9/11 attacks? Don't you understand how ridiculous that theory is?

No... this is a famous debunker tactic. I do not know of any "CTers" that think Bush/Silverstein are the masterminds behind 9/11... just players in a larger game.

Personally, I would look to the PNAC and the Intelligence Communities as possible designers.

www.debunking911.com...

Originally posted by coughymachine

At no point was this Silverstein's decision. He neither instructed the FDC to 'pull' the building, nor did he instruct the FDC to 'pull' his men.

Nice theory, except for one thing that doesn't make sense to me. Why was Silverstein in the loop at all then? The FBI and CIA were tennants of WTC7 and certaintly had ample opportunity to rig WTC7 with explosives without Silverstein's knowledge or consent. What reason would Silverstein have for knowing about any of this?

Originally posted by nick7261 Why was Silverstein in the loop at all then? The FBI and CIA were tennants of WTC7 and certaintly had ample opportunity to rig WTC7 with explosives without Silverstein's knowledge or consent. What reason would Silverstein have for knowing about any of this?

Again, to speculate...

As leaseholder of not just WTC7 but also for the entire complex, Silverstein's participation may well have been required in order to rig WTC1 and 2 as well, assuming all three were demolished. His payoff is presumably wrapped-up in the financial details, which I doubt will ever be fully transparent to the rest of us.