Silverstein Pull It Comment Examined

Originally posted by LightWorker13
Silverstein took out his record insurance policy on the complex in July 2001, 2 months before the attacks...

This is a very common untruth that really needs to be put to bed. Silverstein tried to woefully under-insure the buildings.

Trade Center Financing on Shaky Ground
In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding.

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

He didn’t close on the lease until July of 2001. Would an “innocent man” have bound the insurance prior to taking over the lease?

Originally posted by zorgon
The world trade center was a dinosaur and lossing money...

It wasn’t healthy, certainly. But that’s why Silverstein got it so cheap. The “fact” that it was a no-win proposition is, however, revisionist history…

From Real Estate Weekly, MAY of 2001
Silverstein wins 99-year WTC net-lease
When it opened its doors in 1970, many called it a white elephant. In the years that followed, the World Trade Center developed an international reputation and is now viewed as a cultural icon. In recent years occupancy and revenues have soared, with many forecasting a rosy future for the complex.

Originally posted by nick7261
Why was Silverstein in the loop at all then?

Great question, and I think the clear answer is: He wasn't. None of his actions surrounding that day point to prior knowledge, and the only "evidence" is a two word comment that makes no sense if you truly consider the ramifications of it.

WTC7 may have been rigged.
9/11 may have been completely manufactured.

But there is ZERO evidence that Silverstein was an accomplice.
Quite the opposite.

Originally posted by coughymachine

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.

This reminds me of the CSX railroad ownership of the Greenbrier resort in West Virginia. The U.S. government paid CSX railroads $1 a year to lease a secret bunker beneath the resort. The bunker was there to host the U.S. government in case of a nuclear attack. In exchange for the $1 lease payment, the government built a complete hotel complex above the bunker to be used as part of the resort.

So how could this same model fit with Silverstein and the WTCs?

Let's assume there's a deal between Silverstein and the U.S. government. Silverstein agrees to lease the WTCs and in exchange he allows the government to have full access and control of the buildings. The exisiting leases with the CIA and FBI for office space in WTC7 probably already cover some of this, but the feds need the same sort of access to WTC1 and WTC2 as well.

Maybe this all goes down because the feds already know OBL is planning to attack WTC1 and WTC2 with planes, and they decide rather than try to stop them, just to let them do it. Why? Because they would never be able to implement the martial law, heavy handed security needed to stop the attacks if OBL was determined to carry them out.

So not unlike the 1993 WTC bombing in which the FBI reportedly had prior knowledge but failed to stop the attack, the feds allow OBL to play out his attack. Except the feds are ready with the explosives to finish off the buildings, especially WTC7 which contained the records of the FBI's anti-terror task force. This would effectively wipe the prints clean of the government's foreknowledge.

Of course like you said it's all speculation.

Originally posted by Ahabstar

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.

I’m not sure that’s the original PBS video or not, but it might well be. In this State dept. debunking it’s all about what “It” means. A Silverstein aid explains this, never taking the easy route (if true) of arguing the quote was edited and he actually said them. No one else alleges it’s misread. PBS, Larry’s aides, State, CTers, all believe Larry said “pull it” and all of that just as he said it.

Facts: On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement on this issue:

Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

usinfo.state.gov...

Originally posted by runetang
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.

Excellent post. For video link see above. As for loss of life, see also the quote about firefighters being inside. Two towers had already fallen from damage and fire, WTC7 was damaged and on fire, it had firefighters inside. Another possibility was to save THEIR lives, right? I'm still undecided too.

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.

Right, he was merely agreeing that the plan probably already rolling was "the smartest thing to do." Ordering is not in there.

Originally posted by Griff
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?

Yes! Early October: Meyssan starts arguing online for no plane at the Pentagon.
October 12: Rumsfeld's "missle admission" is printed in Parade.
Silverstein's Pull it was aired in America Remembers, released about 9/11/02.
Dunno for timing on that.
Rummy again with the Shoot Down slip, I think Christmas time 2004.
Others are less direct, like Bush "admitting" he saw the first plane hit on TV (twice, at Thown Hall meeting in 2002).
Condi Rice, May 16 2002: "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would [...] use a hijacked plane as a missile." This slip got us all in a huff over how many times therrorists had tried this, reaffirming the reality that they did it for good on 9/11.

Language is a tool, which can mean a weapon...

I guess some of us just have a problem with believing a man smart enough to earn millions would 'accidentally' admit to demolishing a building at WTC without making sure the footage never left the building.

Sorry for being so ludicrous.

I think we also need to know what the coversation was right before the "pull it" part.

The firefighter he was talking to must know what he meant. Can we find him and ask him?

Is it possible that they (firefighters) DID actually take down the building? Maybe not with explosives? If it was already in a weakend state, it might not have taken that much effort to take it down.

Just some thoughts...

Originally posted by IrvingTheExplainer
Is it possible that they (firefighters) DID actually take down the building? Maybe not with explosives? If it was already in a weakend state, it might not have taken that much effort to take it down.

This is actually what Indira Singh, a civilian EMT on the day suggests in an interview with Bonnie Faulkner of KPFA's Guns and Butter radio show.

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.

You know what - I have come to the conclusion that Silverstein just meant "pull it"...

There is no other way to explain it...
offcourse it depends on the perspective -

Which either means he said "pull it" - Because he meant "pull it" or just "pull it" as if he really meant "pull it"....

- Does that make any sense to you?

I have only been researching this event for the last 14 months.

Prior to that, I had little or no knowledge as to the composition of the towers, or even that there was a building seven, let alone that it had completely collapsed.

Since then, I have come to believe that this particular aspect of the entire event is the waving red flag of inside involvement.

That said, I also believe that Silverstein was minimally, if at all, involved.

He had barely taken over the lease for the complex, and would have had very little involvement in what would have had to have been an overwhelmingly large demolition operation.

His "pull it" comment is entirely non sequitur. I see this as an obvious reference to the firefighting effort. At that point in time, with the water mains on Vesey Street ruptured, the only means of fighting the fire would have been to enter the building with extinguisher units. [run-on-sentence]For a building that size, and I don't have the specifics of the size or scope of the fires; the prospect of sending in an appropriate fire detail - especially after two major building collapses calimed the lives of over 300 firefighters - was an inappropriate risk to take.[/run-on-sentence]

The key to the comment was that "they" (the NYFD) "made the decision to pull". The NYFD does not make decisions to demolish buildings. They can declare structures unfit, but the NYC Building department or the building owners make that call.

I wish people like Avery and Rowe would lay off of that statement, since it only makes them look even less informed.

But, of course the building was demolished with a combination of thermite devices (what the hell do you think caused all of that greyish-white smoke for so long?) and then some medium-powered ordinance to finish the job.

In all three cases, one of the most significant indicators that demolition material was used is found in the rapid collapse rates. In the case of building seven, they even took it down from the bottom up.

This thing was in the works for close to ten years. There was a lot of high-level involvement, simply because many of the key players demanded that the destruction be total.

IMHO, Silverstein was given a complimentary heads-up to avoid coming in until later that day. Most likely he was told nothing more than something big had been uncovered by law enforcement, but they did not have any specifics. Ergo, his impromptu doctor appointment for that morning. Otherwise, he would have been in his office on the 104th floor of the North Tower at 7:30 a.m. that day.

[edit on 25/5/07 by EugeneAxeman]

@runetang: I came to the same conclusions. If you watch the video (it is available at YouTube under the keywords Silverstein 9/11 pull it), and watch his body language as he talks, I get the feeling he is telling the truth, and as you have done, after scrutinizing his English, he means "pull it" in reference to the building.

nick7261 wrote:
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.

The Fire Commander is the perfect choice. His guys are in there, he is their boss. If the building really was in as bad a state as it seems fire-wise, then they maybe concluded that getting the firefighters out, clearing the area, and bringing the building down controllablly, before it fell down was the best course of action.

Assuming for a moment they are accurate about the level of damage to the building, and that it was a collapse risk, then this only makes a CD more plausible.

At this point, I think the bigger question is becoming why try and cover up the CD of WTC7? Insurance?? Or was WTC7 unintentional collateral damage that just happened to be a convenient loss in light of the pending investigations, the fact that WTC1 and 2 came down earlier, and that the "rest" of 9/11 WAS pre-planned and/or allowed to happen.

WTC7 in itself was an inconvenience. No aircraft hit, no terrorist apparently attacked it, yet it seemingly just "fell", making the linking of any cause of its collapse to 9/11 almost impossible without raising too many questions.

If they take the line of a CD with WTC7, due to the similarities of its collapse to not only WTC2 but WTC1 AS WELL, to draw attention to the fact that WTC7 was CD, would raise too many questions regarding WTC1 and WTC2.

Throw into the mix the seismic recordings, and you've got one hell of a mess, which would explain the lack of any investigation into its collapse, or in certain cases, even acknowledgment of its existence at all. It just doesn't fit with the rest of the official story.

[edit on 25-5-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

It is good to see that people still consider 9/11 as a topic of debate. I am not going to post my specific opinion but, I AM OBJECTIVE. Objectivity is the main principal of scientfic analysis and I see all opinions as valid until proven otherwise. I enjoy reading opinions of all PERSPECTIVES. What I mean by this is everything is a matter of perspective whether you believe the "official" story or the "unofficial" story either of them can be proven. For example I could PROVE to you that God exists (Which I personally believe) and with the same body of evidence I could prove that God DOESN'T exist just by changing the wording of the body of evidence... It's all a matter of perspective............ THINKING.......... I am very wary of the current political and PHILOSOPHICAL status of the world......... It all seems to be a farce to gain public opinion to support the "Needs of the Elite." I know for a fact that there are a set number of "Families" who rule the world by financial power, in other words the "Families" collectively are richer than the most powerful nations of the world and WHOEVER HAS THE MONEY HAS THE POWER IN THIS WORLD...... to quote a famous saying... POWER CORRUPTS AND ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY. All that can be said and needs to be said HAS BEEN SAID.

PS Sorry for the caps but I type as I speak.

All is one and one is all. God is everything and we cannot escape judgement.

[edit on 25/5/07 by Hippycracker]

Not another one of these. Seriously Nick, if you want to get answers then do the research yourself.

Your question and points only take in a few of the various motives.

Your thinking of a man from a businessman perspective. You're thinking, he's already rich so why blow up a building that could be saved? What could I get out of it?

Yet, you aren't taking into account everything else. It ISN'T ABOUT MONEY. It's about power. It's about getting rid of evidence and it's about establishing a power base.

This is a dead subject because both sides of the coin will just go back and forth and get nowhere. Yet I will give you a point with a response but I will not flag this thread.

It's either that you are truly ignorant (not an offensive comment, ignorant meaning that you do not have many of the facts on the subject [or lies depending on your stance on the subject]) or you are simply trying to push people's buttons.

Originally posted by dariousg
Not another one of these. Seriously Nick, if you want to get answers then do the research yourself.

I did. After all the research I still can't come up with a feasible scenario that links the "pull it" comment to the next step in the chain of events.

Your question and points only take in a few of the various motives.

This thread has nothing to do with motives, and everything to do with the mechanics and sequence of events.

It's either that you are truly ignorant (not an offensive comment, ignorant meaning that you do not have many of the facts on the subject [or lies depending on your stance on the subject]) or you are simply trying to push people's buttons.

No, I'm trying to see if anybody who trots out Silverstein's "pull it" comment as evidence of a CD can tell me a scenario that follows Silverstein deciding to "pull" the building.

Can you?

Originally posted by Ram
You know what - I have come to the conclusion that Silverstein just meant "pull it"...

There is no other way to explain it...
offcourse it depends on the perspective -

Which either means he said "pull it" - Because he meant "pull it" or just "pull it" as if he really meant "pull it"....

- Does that make any sense to you?

Of course, of course... I think the second one is close, but really I think it's like a mix of "pull it" and "pull it." Emphasis on "pull" (not pull pull, just plain pull).

Originally posted by IrvingTheExplainer
I think we also need to know what the coversation was right before the "pull it" part.

The firefighter he was talking to must know what he meant. Can we find him and ask him?

I'd bet dollars he says the plan was to pull their guys out and preserve their lives, fearing a structural collapse, whether that's true or not. Unless of course he "slips" too and says "demolish" when he meant to say "abandon" (and then years of debates until its cleared up, mass enegy wasted, etc...)

Originally posted by EugeneAxeman
I have only been researching this event for the last 14 months.

Prior to that, I had little or no knowledge as to the composition of the towers, or even that there was a building seven, let alone that it had completely collapsed.

Since then, I have come to believe that this particular aspect of the entire event is the waving red flag of inside involvement.

That said, I also believe that Silverstein was minimally, if at all, involved.

He had barely taken over the lease for the complex, and would have had very little involvement in what would have had to have been an overwhelmingly large demolition operation.

Good point. His taking the complex over so shortly before is both what makes "Lucky Larry" so suspicious and, IMO, too suspicious, too obvious. By a few degrees in fact.
As a lightning rod he had to take a lot of harsh words and so on, so imagine this: he might have just wanted to hand us a poison pill. So what's the "it" that it's the smartest idea to "pull?" Our chain?

His "pull it" comment is entirely non sequitur. I see this as an obvious reference to the firefighting effort. [...] the prospect of sending in an appropriate fire detail - especially after two major building collapses calimed the lives of over 300 firefighters - was an inappropriate risk to take.

Exactly. Informationally this is all lining up. Loss of life in this case probably means in the fire dept. WTC7 and I think the whole area was cleared of non-essential people by early afternoon anyway. At the very least, how does pulling the building preserve life any more than pulling the firefighters out?

The key to the comment was that "they" (the NYFD) "made the decision to pull". The NYFD does not make decisions to demolish buildings. They can declare structures unfit, but the NYC Building department or the building owners make that call.

Presuming that's true, and it sounds about right... taa-daa! They decide where to put their people, not when a building is demolished. So pull what?

I wish people like Avery and Rowe would lay off of that statement, since it only makes them look even less informed.

But, of course the building was demolished with a combination of thermite devices (what the hell do you think caused all of that greyish-white smoke for so long?) and then some medium-powered ordinance to finish the job.

My jaw just dropped. I don't know if that's right, but I've been looking at that smoke lately and wondering how it was pouring out so uniformly... Hmmm...
Where can I see this explained more fully?

IMHO, Silverstein was given a complimentary heads-up to avoid coming in until later that day. Most likely he was told nothing more than something big had been uncovered by law enforcement, but they did not have any specifics. Ergo, his impromptu doctor appointment for that morning. Otherwise, he would have been in his office on the 104th floor of the North Tower at 7:30 a.m. that day.

Did not know that... So O'Neill was needed as a martyr, but for "Lucky Larry" to live on and do his thing for the myth, he had to be, well, alive.

Great post!

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Assuming for a moment they are accurate about the level of damage to the building, and that it was a collapse risk, then this only makes a CD more plausible.

True enough, but it seems to make the official collapse from damage and fire scenario even more more plausible. Don't you think?

Originally posted by Ram
You know what - I have come to the conclusion that Silverstein just meant "pull it"...

There is no other way to explain it...
offcourse it depends on the perspective -

Which either means he said "pull it" - Because he meant "pull it" or just "pull it" as if he really meant "pull it"....

- Does that make any sense to you?

That just reminded of two things at the same time. Bill Clinton arguing the definition of what "is" is and the Dude arguement in Baseketball.

Silverstein could drive people to the edge of sanity for years by doing a video of the old "rooster, pullet, hen" gag. Or do it on his index, middle and ring fingers...which one's this?

"Pull comment": www.debunking911.com...

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Assuming for a moment they are accurate about the level of damage to the building, and that it was a collapse risk, then this only makes a CD more plausible.

True enough, but it seems to make the official collapse from damage and fire scenario even more more plausible. Don't you think?

...but as the seismographs show, it didn't get that far, so we'll never actually know.

If it was to have naturally collapsed, it wouldn't be collapsing straight down as it did. I've just tried looking through the 9/11 Commission Report to see what the official stance on WTC7 was. Is it me, or isn't it there??

reply to post by Caustic Logic

Does anyone know the time at which Silverstein said "pull-it" on 9/11, 2001?

This in itself could be used as incriminating evidence against him.

9/11 Commissioner, Thomas Kean, said some time after the 9/11 Commission Report that the reason WTC-7 was not included in the original 9/11 Commission Report
was quote" there was no loss of life in that Building " endquote (WTC-7).

However, Barry Jennings, a survivor of WTC-7 explosions and Government employee said that he had to step over some people
to get out of the lobby of WTC-7.
Try www.youtube.com and search "part 1 barry jennings uncut" and find the clip with Barry Jennings on the balcony giving an interview.
Barry Jennings said he knew why WTC-7 fell and that it was because of all the explosions he heard prior to the collapse of both TWIN TOWERS.
Barry tried to tell the 9/11 Commission and the Port Authority about
the explosions but they ignored him. The same way they ignored Scott Forbes when he tried reporting a POWER DOWN for 30 hours on the weelend prior to 9/11, 2001. All this smells of a big COVER-UP. Barry Jennings then mysteriously dies 19th August 2008 which happened to be 2 days before the Government released its version of how WTC-7 fell which by the way is codswallop.
HELP GET 9/11 RE-INVESTIGATED LIKE ED ASNER says.
Be BRAVE and help uncover the TRUTH !
I believe this is largely about oil and slavery.
Check out FREE ENERGY.. Stanley Meyer (watercar inventor - dead), Troy Reed ( Magnet car inventor - dead), Bruce De Palma (free electricity inventor - dead), Daniel Dingel (watercar inventor 82 years old www.danieldingel.com recently charged after being given $400 000
around September 11th, 2001,
by Formosa Plastics a TEXAS BASED COMPANY connected to OIL. Why did they wait 7 years to ask for their money back ? Was it because they are afraid more people are looking to people like the kind and smart Mr Daniel Dingel and the Oil Companies are getting worried. I have spoken to Daniel
and he wants to help his poor Filipino People. When in Court, Mr Daniel Dingel said the reason he did not go to the TEXAS PLANT was because he
feared for his life as he had received pressure to give away secrets about his water-splitting invention (which makes hydrogen and oxygen on demand) before any deal had been finalised.
So who should we believe ?

Originally posted by zorgon
I do not believe the Fire Department was in on this...

When Larry talks about the "pull it" comment, he is speaking of a phone conversation with the Fire Department Commander....so if that's the case, and if this conversation (as some people claim) resulted in a decision to demolish WTC7...then the FDNY would HAVE to be in on it.