I recently came upon a woman by the name of Indira Singh. On 9/11, she was present at the WTC complex and worked as a civilian emergency medical
technician at Ground Zero.
In a radio interview on April 27th, 2005, which you can access by mp3
, Singh states
the following regarding Building 7:
If you had been there, not being able to see very much, just flames everywhere and dark smoke, it is entirely possible… 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 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 gonna come down, or being brought down.
BF: Did they actually use the words brought down, and who was it that was telling you this?
IS: The Fire Department, the Fire Department, and they did use the word, we’re gonna have to bring it down. And, for us, there observing the nature
of the devastation it made total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility.
More transcript may be found here
. A video
of Singh discussing PTech and 9/11 may be found here
. This would coincide with Larry
Silverstein's infamous quote regarding Building 7 being pulled, when he said "pull it."
Let me also provide a little English lesson here.
"It" is a pronoun. That is to say, it takes the place of a noun
. "Pull" is a verb. In the phrase "pull it," what are "they" pulling?
"They" are pulling "it," whereas "it" takes the place of a noun
, not to be confused with a verb
, which indicates action
"It" is not
an action. "It" is
a thing. A separate
thing, both from the speaker, and the person or persons the speaker is
Therefore, when someone says "pull it," they are referring to 'pulling' an object that is separate from both the speaker and whomever is being
addressed. A building would fit this perfectly, as a third object or idea. An action would not fit there at all, just as an action could not be
represented in the English language by a noun. It would make no sense and would not fit so-called 'context clues,' especially with the phrase
"watched the buildings collapse" so soon afterwards. Almost as if the 'pulling' and 'collapsing' were....
... somehow related!
"Pull it" indicates a person/place/thing/idea is actually being 'pulled', either literally or figuratively or what-have-you. The phrase "pull
out," by contrast, acts in practicality as one big verb. "Out" is not being pulled, obviously, as "out" is not a noun, and therefore cannot
Basically, you can't "pull" out
in the same sense as you can "pull" it
. The two phrases are completely incompatible. The words
"it" and "out" are not interchangeable in the English language. There is a huge difference between a noun and an adverb. And, as we all know,
again, Larry did not say "out." No one was even in the building anyway, as it was evacuated much earlier, but no one seems to mind that, but that
doesn't even matter.
Whether Larry was simply using incorrect English, or actually meant what he said, is another matter. But "pull it" is NOT
the same as "pull
out," and Larry only said the former, not the latter. Give up the argument of what "pull it" meant. That argument should rather be what
His words themselves were very clear.
Silverstein actually did use the phrase "pull out," though, in a distinctly different, and grammatically correct
usage, when he stated "We
didn't know whether to risk their lives or pull that batallion out" in that documentary. Notice that pull "out" makes sense here. The same meaning
could, again, not
be applied to the phrase "pull it." And Larry apparently knew one from the other, as he used them both in different
contexts. So much for the argument that he used improper English.
But I digress. Indira's testimony fully validates what Larry's words themselves actually meant. The testimony would also stand perfectly well on its
own. This is a very clearly articulated experience, unlike Silverstein's recollections. The FDNY would obviously not have set up the charges in the
building, let alone would charges be placed by anyone in such a short amount of time. It's unfortunate that gag orders have been placed on key
eyewitnesses (Indira is apparently subject to such gags herself, as referenced in the above-linked video, and also by the Rodriguez vs. Bush
case's statements), as they would likely be able to shed light on the relation between the FD and WTC7.
Indira also mentions the nature of the illnesses that came to those exposed to the toxins at Ground Zero. These are very interesting and worth looking
into as well. The symptoms included, among ulceric sores and other such oddities (some of which Indira herself experienced and describes in the
interview), loss of hair
. What exactly is a loss of hair associated with? And by loss, she says it just fell out.
What part of the building's materials would cause that, exactly? The steel? The gypsum? The asbestos? The concrete? There's something for you guys