...They did this by a controlled pull demolition...

reply to post by Nathan-D


When an operation is underway....a group effort....THAT is the context of using the pronoun "it".

"IT". The project. IT, the plan is not working, it's too dangerous...etc.

Seems rather obvious to most everyone else, in context....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I can think of common examples in everyday conversation...it is only on THIS TOPIC that people scrutinize, over-analyze, and dig so deeply, trying to assign meaning where none exists --- or infer it, whichever the case.

Found this, there are many other sources that talk about "it":

The pronoun it also serves as a place-holder subject (dummy pronoun) in sentences with no identifiable actor, such as "It rained last night" or "It boils down to what you're interested in."

en.wikipedia.org...(pronoun)






[edit on 17 July 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by roboe

Originally posted by Doctor Smith

Originally posted by roboe

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by thedman

 

Even though that is the origin of the term it is also used as a common term for any demolition. Especially by those who have been in the industry for awhile. Often obsolete terms are used in a general sense in a lot if industries.

It's obvious what Silverstein meant in the context of his statement.

I've seen that claim before, yet noone has bothered to back it up with a source so far. Colour me surprised...

I agree it's obvious what Silverstein meant in the context of his statement though, he was referring to the withdrawal of firefighters from the immediate area. A decision that was made by the FDNY Chief on the scene.

Silverstein Asked Insurance Co to Allow Controlled Demolition of WTC7

911blogger.com...

No, a Faux News reporter says he heard someone say, that he heard someone say that Silverstein had asked the insurance company.

That's beyond even hearsay.

No.

"Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall. A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy."

Originally posted by Nathan-D

I don't really see how anyone can misinterpret that. If we was referring to the firefighters and not the building as he subsequently claims then he has a nary understanding of English lexicography because he uses 'pull it' in the wrong context. He should really have said we made the decision to 'pull them out'. I guess he could have been referring to the firefighters but the fact that WTC7 looks identical to a controlled demolition doesn't help his case.

Yes, this discussion is getting beyond ridiculous. Imagine instead of "pull it", Silverstein said "Because there was already such a large loss of life, the decision was made to [fill in the blank]". We say this means...

"Because there was already such a large loss of life, the decision was made to [evacuate the firefighters out of the buildling]"

...but the conspiracy people claim it means...

"Because there was already such a large loss of life, the decision was made to [sneak in and plant secret explosives when noone is looking]"

The first interpretation makes perfect sense, while the second is just one big, "What the heck...?" that makes no sense whatsoever. It's blatantly obvious the point was to get the firefighters out of danger so the only way anyone can take these conspiracy claims seriously at this point is if they WANT them to be true.