What did Larry Silverstein mean by "Pull It"?

Originally posted by ashamedamerican
Tsk tsk Pinch... Don't you have better tactics?

Tactics? Naw...just making an observation and voicing my opinion based on the posts of this thread.

And as such, the "pull it" reference when tied to malice aforethought belongs in the same category as the nukes and cloaking devices and the super-destructo laser beams.

reply to post by Wildbob77

We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca

it was a couple floors, and minor fires, there are videos of this, so statement #1 from Lieutenant Robert LaRocca is a lie.

Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down.

Steel frame buildings "creak" now do they, that's very interesting.
"fully involved in flames" Statement #2 from FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn is another lie.

The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC 7] building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt.

Check out the video of 'The Windsor Building' in Madrid, Spain.

The fact that a Spanish skyscraper is still standing after an intense
fire consumed the steel and concrete tower for 24 hours provides real
world evidence that fire alone does not cause high-rise towers to
collapse.

Source: SPANISH SKYSCRAPER FIRE RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT 9/11 COLLAPSES
Did WTC look ANYTHING like that? no. Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro's statements of "severely damaged" and "appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt" are both lies as well.

I won't even waste my time on the rest of your post.
Stop wasting your time trying to debunk, and research instead.
you will find that steel frame buildings don't just collapse from fires.
And they definitely don't collapse from a couple little fires on a couple floors.

Originally posted by Wildbob77
You're dealing with the impressions of firefighters who were on the site. So you get statements that might not be the complete view of the situation but it was their impression at that time.

YOU searched those quotes. I showed you how they contradict the NIST reports.

You've got a choice now. Admit that either some of the FDNY members may have been wrong, or the NIST report was wrong. They can't both be right, when they describe completely different observable fire scenarios.

If you put all the information from the firefighters together then you have a more complete version of what was happening at specific points of time.

Only if that information is correct!!! The two quotes that YOU searched are clearly contradicting the NIST report. Who's telling the lies?

It's easier for you to admit that the google search that you did may have supplied you with quotes that are not accurate. Unless, of course, you want to admit that the FDNY is correct and the NIST report is wrong?

Instead of believing everything that google matches for you, why don't you validate claims by reading some of the official reports???

Originally posted by tezzajw
Only if that information is correct!!! The two quotes that YOU searched are clearly contradicting the NIST report. Who's telling the lies?

It's easier for you to admit that the google search that you did may have supplied you with quotes that are not accurate. Unless, of course, you want to admit that the FDNY is correct and the NIST report is wrong?

Instead of believing everything that google matches for you, why don't you validate claims by reading some of the official reports???

Silly tezzajw of course they're all right.
27 sources all contradicting eachother can very easily be right as long as it goes against what we are saying, and gives the "911 liars" something to argue with us about.
The only thing that can't be right is your statement that they can't both be right, right?

Careful man you're committing debunker heresy now, you're going to make them angry.

Originally posted by pinch

Originally posted by ashamedamerican
Tsk tsk Pinch... Don't you have better tactics?

Tactics? Naw...just making an observation and voicing my opinion based on the posts of this thread.

And as such, the "pull it" reference when tied to malice aforethought belongs in the same category as the nukes and cloaking devices and the super-destructo laser beams.

If you're going to attempt to contradict anything that has been said here people may actually take it as a constructive addition to the thread.

If you're just here to point fingers and say things like
"ha ha look at the retarted troothers, with their nukes and cloaking devices and the super-destructo laser beams"
none of which have been mentioned in this thread by the way, than I think I speak for everyone, and very possibly even the mods when I say...

Go troll somewhere else, due to member demand this forum is now under close staff scrutiny, any inappropriate comments, insults, topic derailment, or trolling will result in immediate posting ban or account termination.

Originally posted by ashamedamerican
Careful man you're committing debunker heresy now, you're going to make them angry.

Yeah, silly me for using the NIST report, that they believe in, to debunk their other contradictory claims, that they also believe in!

What was I thinking pointing out how fatally flawed their logic is??!!??

I guess that what happens when people graduate from Google University.

reply to post by tezzajw


Do you have a source that you can link to, proving that they actually did graduate?
Because I find that claim you are making to be highly suspicious.

Originally posted by ashamedamerican
Go troll somewhere else, due to member demand this forum is now under close staff scrutiny, any inappropriate comments, insults, topic derailment, or trolling will result in immediate posting ban or account termination.

Wow. Its quite obvious you don't like it when someone disagrees with your comments.

As far as the Silverstein comment, if I am not able to provide example of other, similar claims from the troother groups, what is the use of a discussion board? Invisible planes, nuclear bombs, holograms and space-based destructo weapons have all been put forth and indeed are current theories of causal events of 9/11 put forth by those who claim to be searchers of "truth".

I am not derailing anything, "trolling", insulting anyone (unless you do not have the power of your beliefs), and I don't think you should be the arbiter of "inappropriate comments".

So, for the record, I believe that claiming that Silverstein told the whole world on global television that Building 7 was demolished by pre-positioned explosives makes as much sense as nuclear bombs, invisible planes, holograms and space-based destructo beams.

Attention Members!

Please stick to the topic and stop the name calling from both sides.

If you feel a post is only for baiting then why fall for it?

What I want to know, is who refers to a group of firemen as "it"?

wouldnt you say, "pull them out" not "pull it"? even if it were a conversation like, "hey, this is dangerous, we've got a team of guys in there now.. what are we gonna do?"... you'd say "pull them out"...

First - get the name right its FDNY !

On a fire scene the fire chief has authority to remove or have arrested
anyone interfering with operations. Chief Nigro was in command
(Chief Ganci, Deputy Commissioner Feehan were killed in collapse of towers). His statement indicated decision to suspend operations in WTC 7
and clear collpase zone around building were his - not Silversteins.

The term "pull" is commonly heard on the fireground - have heard over
radio several times when chief orders "pull those guys" - have man inside
structure to evacuate as conditions are too dangerous.

The time of Silverstein statement - approximate 2:30pm, this was
result of information that WTC 7 was beginning to "creep" or move
a surveyors transit had been fixed on a landmark on the building to
watch for this. The building has already been cleared (I know several
people who worked there for Salomon Brothers) Collapse zone
was being established around building for just such a contingency.
Collapse zone was set up around 3PM (I heard the orders being passed down while listening to radio scanner in my firehouse that day)

Fires - as stated FDNY members witnessed numerous floors involved in fire
as day progressed. Can get idea of the fires from this clip from Steve
Spak "DAY OF DISASTER" who filmed area around WTC 7.



Top Clip from NBC news is of North face - side not damaged by debris impacts . Can see several floors involved.

Clip 3 are of Southwest corner Again fires on multiple floors

Clips 9, 10. 11 Again North Face - heavy fire pushing out of windows

In other clips can see heavy smoke pouring out of multiple floors on South
face of WTC 7 - side badly damaged by debris strikes from WTC 1

reply to post by thedman

Owner's Admission?
Silverstein's Apparent Admission that Building 7 was Demolished
'Pull it' as Demolition Admission
Silverstein apparently admitted that the building was deliberately demolished by the New York City Fire Department late in the afternoon.
Silverstein's alleded admission consists of his following on-camera statements shown in America Rebuilds.
What does Silverstein mean by "the decision to pull" Building 7? Many observers have suggested that a later passage in the same documentary indicates that, in this context, "pull" means to destroy a building through controlled demolition. In preparation for the controlled demolition of irreparably damaged Building 6, a Ground Zero worker says
... we're getting ready to pull the Building Six.
An alternative explanation for Silverstein's remark is that he was referring to a decision to "pull" firefighting operations in Building 7. That explanation is advanced in a September 9, 2005 statement issued by Stilverstein Properties spokesperson Mr. Dara McQuillan:
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.
A more sophisticated interpretation of Silverstein's comment is that it is bait, eliciting the widespread circulation of an interpretation that is easily denied if not refuted. While failing to provide substantial evidence for the controlled demolition of WTC 7, the story has functioned to eclipse the overwhelming case for demolition based on the physical characteristics of the collapse documented in photographs and videos of the event and the rubble pile that resulted. Those visual documents establish that the building's collapse was an implosion exhibiting all of the features of a standard controlled demolition, including:
• Very rapid speed of fall
• Symmetric collapse around its vertical axis
• Production of large quantities of dust
• Collapse into a small, consolidated rubble pile, with exterior walls lying on top

911research.wtc7.net...

Larry Silverstein, WTC 7,
and the 9/11 Demolition
9/11/2001 radio broadcast: "We were just sitting here watching all the smoke pouring up from
number 7 ... we really couldn't see much damage on it ... I turned in time to see what looked like a skyscraper implosion, it looked like it had been done by a demolition crew ... that's number 1,
number 2, and now number 7 that have come down from this explosion and folks just simply can't believe it. ... I just never for the life of me imagined that these huge buildings would just fall, and that's what happened, they just crumbled." [338kB wma download]

Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish WTC 7 late in the afternoon of 9/11. In the documentary "America Rebuilds", aired September 2002, Silverstein makes the following statement;

"I remember getting a call from the, er, 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." [wmv download]
In the same program a cleanup worker referred to the demolition of WTC 6: "... we're getting ready to pull the building six." [wmv download]
There can be little doubt as to how the word "pull" is being used in this context.
The building fire alarm system [for WTC 7] was placed on TEST for a period of 8 h beginning at 6:47:03 a.m. on September 11, 2001. Ordinarily, this is requested when maintenance or other testing is being performed on the system, so that any alarms that are received from the system are considered the result of the maintenance or testing and are ignored. [NIST]
An explosion occurred in WTC 7 prior to the collapse of the twin towers:
After the initial blast [Flight 11 hitting WTC 1], Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell," Jennings said. [Traverse City Record Eagle 9/11/2001]

Barry Jennings "We started walking down to the eighth floor. Big Explosion. Blew us back into the eighth floor." - Barry Jennings on 9/11 news video.

WMV video download (678kB)







whatreallyhappened.com...

Say what you want, however, Larry Silverstein order building #7 to be demolished
That is the “truth”!
My opinion is, our Government with the help of [sic] Larry Silverstein blew up all the WTC and *murder* all those people (prove me wrong?) Prove the Government did not blow up the WTC? Prove there were no bombs in those WTC? Prove to me that our Government did not “lie” to the American people about 911. YOU CAN’T!
The reason you cant is, they have destroyed all the evidence and silent everyone that was involved. The Government did not want “any” investigation in to 911 because “they” did it.

We all know what he meant by "pull it".
We all know that in order for him to say that - he would have to have
known that someone had planted explosives in the building.
HE knows it - "THEY" know it.
We ALL know it.


[edit on 13-12-2008 by spinkyboo]

Yeah, silly me for using the NIST report, that they believe in, to debunk their other contradictory claims, that they also believe in!

What was I thinking pointing out how fatally flawed their logic is??!!??

I guess that what happens when people graduate from Google University.

Google University? Maybe you and the other tin foilers - Get most of my information from friends who were ON THE SCENE fighting the fires in
World Financial Center across the street. Spent most of that afternoon
listening to radio transmissions from the scene at my firehouse

6 months after 9/11 went to seminar featuring FDNY officers who described
in detail what they did on 9/11 - first hand accounts from the people in
charge of operations. That includes the men monitoring WTC 7 as
conditions through the day worsened.

So whom am I going to believe - Firemen I known for 20 years or some
trolls posting lunatic conspiracy theories....

The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC 7] building.

Maybe the decision (more probably an order planned well in advance) to create a collapse zone around WTC 7 was not to save firefighter's lives, but to prevent them from potentially discovering any damning evidence - such as the building being wired for demolition.

reply to post by cashlink


Pretty outlandish accusation.

Any proof? I'll be waiting.

posted by thedman
Get most of my information from friends who were ON THE SCENE fighting the fires in World Financial Center across the street. Spent most of that afternoon listening to radio transmissions from the scene at my firehouse

6 months after 9/11 went to seminar featuring FDNY officers who described
in detail what they did on 9/11 - first hand accounts from the people in
charge of operations. That includes the men monitoring WTC 7 as
conditions through the day worsened.

So whom am I going to believe - Firemen I known for 20 years or some
trolls posting lunatic conspiracy theories....

So who are we to believe? Do we believe an anonymous internet person with unverifiable 'friends' and exaggerated claims and made up declarations, or do we believe the very first earliest reports on the news on the day of 9-11?

See my thread Early News Reports Of WTC Demolition On 9-11-2001 That They Would Rather We Not See for followup and videos.

One thing is a constant, which I find amazing. In all of these theories, a lot of supposed wiring and explosion placing occured prior to collapse of all buildings. ALSO, debris was "planted" on the lawn at the Pentagon.

What I want to know is this. Why did no one see them doing this? Do you know much work and how many hours of planning and actual placing of explosives, and running of miles of wiring takes? And not ONE person saw this happening? People supposedly placed wreckage on a lawn clearly visible to the world, and no one saw this happening. WTC: Supposedly wired for explosions, it was a huge pair of buildings, which would take who knows how many days or weeks to prep for demolition.. but no one noticed it happening?

So aside from the utter lack of common sense in regards to the supposed demolition, a simple comment is automatically assumed to mean he was talking about demolition. Even if pulling something could just as easily mean firefighters, or to simply pull out of a rescue attempt.

The biggest issue I have with all the truth-seeking that goes on in regards to this, is the blatant biased views. I'd be more apt to believe this sort of thing, if those who were trying to prove it, did not twist everything to fit their agenda, and ignore the things that don't add up.

Another interesting thread. I find it difficult to believe that any demo charges were set in advance. This is an especially dangerous thing to do in buildings occupied by people carrying on daily commerce and business, much less while in an emergency situation filled with uncertain events. Setting charges to destroy #7 would require drilling multiple holes, placing charges, placing caps, tamping charges, checking circuits, checking grounds, and running the lines to the blasting machine. This would be a wire job because anything that would use radio in this situation would be likely to fail or have a cell phone accidentally do something really loud at the wrong time. The idea that this would be like the movies and mission impossible guys in black balaclavas would casually lay satchel charges with blinking red lights against a couple of pillars, back off a few feet and press a big red button on a walkie-talkie and watch it all come down is just plain wrong. Demoing something of this size without weeks of preparation, including precuts and cabling, would take so much explosive that the blast would have been really noticible and parts would have been flying. Imagine a stick of 2000 pound bombs going off and ask yourself if someone might notice. Remember the size of the truck bomb in the previous attempt that didn't take out a column?
The FDNY firefighters were rightfully pulled from the building. "Pull it" could mean to pull the operation (the "it") and extract the firefighters because the building was a writeoff, anyway. The firefighters on-scene were the ones who knew the situation and made the reports to their Chief about the extent of the fires. They are the ones with experience and knowledge and their Chief trusted their opinions and made the call to clear a safety zone around an empty building. Had he asked them to fight it, they would have, but he knew he had to protect his crews. Bigshots may have given the public impression that they were consulted first because they have to appear to be important. The Chief was in charge and the bigshot was not in the loop; he was just another no-load.
In my opinion, the FDNY did what they could do to save as many people and firefighters as possible. They are not part of any conspiracy. They are heroes. They put themselves in harm's way in a difficult situation and behaved in an exemplary fashion while buildings were coming down around them. If you are ever in a fire and need help, ask the responders if they are part of a conspiracy and if the Chief split the bribes with his men. Don't worry, they'll save you anyway because that's what they do.