It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Another look at "Pull It"

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 05:50 PM
link   
No, this is not the highly-anticipated remix of Push It.


This is in regards to the now infamous quote by Larry Silverstein. I read here that most people agreed here on ATS that "pull it" meant pull the firefighters. Well, I think y'all should check this out...

Building 7 "Pull It" Comment: Silverstein Responds

OK, so far, we have that "pull it" meant pull the firefighters, at least from the official story people. Apparently, the guy at Thought Crimes didn't know that "pull it" allegedly refers to demolishing a building, and Silverstein's people didn't tell him.

The Collapse of World Trade Center 7

Now here, we have "proof" that refutes the "ridiculous" conspiracy theories. Here, it states that, to save lives, the firefighters in the building were "pulled."

Funny how, in the audio clip here, the guy says they're going to "pull" building 6. Isn't that amazing?
(BTW, I'm using this article for most of my info here. People don't like prisonplanet.com, so I'm not using this article as the main one for this thread, even though it's full of nice info)

But, there is one MAJOR problem with this explanation. Apparently, there were no firefighters to be "pulled" from the building in the first place. Hell, even that hit piece from Popular Mechanics that "debunked" the myths says this here. They got this from Dr. Shyam Sunder of NIST. FEMA apparently concurs . This article says the same thing.

So, FEMA, NIST, and that Killtown article all maintain that firefighters were not in the building. And, we have a construction guy saying they're going to "pull" building 6. So, what does this mean for the explanation that "pull it" referred to the firefighting unit, which was invisible or ignoring orders from their superiors?

What do YOU think "pull it" means?




posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Great post truthseeka! I'm happy to see at least someone else here gets it!

To all those other people who still think "it" mean "the firefighters, I challenge you to go up to any firefighter and refer them as an "it"!


And btw, for those coincidence theorists, what a HUGE COINCIDENCE it was for Silverstein to use a demolision slang right before his building imploded!

"Pull it!"



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 10:19 PM
link   
From my Indira Singh thread, which has so far received no replies (and I'll take that as a compliment, lol):


Originally posted by bsbray11
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 addressing.

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 be pulled.

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 Larry meant. 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.


Pretty much, "it" is a pronoun; "out" is an adverb.

They are not interchangeable in a phrase.

And Larry uses both "it," as a pronoun, and "out," as an adverb, within very close proximity, indicating a clear distinction between the two.

That should pretty much destroy any arguments that he meant "out."



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 12:42 AM
link   
He knows exactly what he meant to say, now they are just trying to cover their ass. "Pull it" is a very common phrase, something a person in construction or who owns and builds structures will 100% know the meaning of. Who on this planet calls people it? He would have said them, a mistake that is impossible to make. I'm sure they will send their little drones out soon with a story or distraction, deltaboy has been busy lately. I wonder how much he gets paid?



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 01:01 AM
link   
I still don't get how people can get "the firefighters" out of the word "it" especially when the narrator was talking about the WTC 7 and was just leading up to "it" collapsing:


Narrator: "World Trade Center 7 had always been considered the starting point for rebuilding. Locating north of the slurry wall, Seven had been cleared faster than the rest of the site and there had been no bodies to recover.

Pelted by debris when the North Tower collapsed, Seven burned until late afternoon allowing occupants to evacuate to safety."



The narration was leading up for Silverstein to talk about it's collapse:


Silverstein: "I remember getting a call from the, uh, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'You know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it.' Uh, and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."


See, "pull it" = "pull [the building]"


No one, I mean NO ONE mispeaks that bad that they refer to a group of people (the firefighters) as "it".

I mean what, was is just a HUUUUUUUGE coincidence that Silverstein talks as if he is referring to a demolition slang and then right after that he says:


"and then we watched the building collapse"


It's CLEARLY obvious that when he says they watched the building collapse, the collapse came very soon after "they made that decision to pull."


Jesus Christ, WAKE THE FAWK UP AMERICA!!!!!!

.



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 02:16 AM
link   
and relevant...

Which of the following quotes are real, and who said them?


1) On why Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed


I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire in Building 7, and I said, "You know, 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 then we watched the building collapse.



2) On why President Kennedy was assassinated


I remember getting a call from the FBI director telling me that they were not sure they would be able to change Kennedy's foreign policies, and I said, "You know, you've had such terrible luck with his domestic policies, that maybe the smartest thing to do is pop him." And he made that decision to pop, and then we watched his brains fly out.



3) On why Jesus was crucified


I remember getting a message in a dream from God telling me that He was not sure He would be able to contain the anger towards Jesus, and I said, "You know, the world is so full of sin, that maybe the smartest thing to do is nail him." And He made that decision to nail, and then we watched Jesus get crucified.




If you think you know the correct answer, email it to: answers@cia.secret.gov



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 05:46 PM
link   


thanks for that



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Of course the fact the guy who said it has since said what he meant means nothing of course. He can only be trusted when there is a vague chance of twisting his words... Regardless of what any dictionary, 'expert' or lepricorn says, at the end of the day the only person that knows what they mean is the person themself. He has spoken, it has been said he was talking about the firefighters.
The morals behind referring to them as an 'it' or his errors in grammar are another discussion, but it is irrelevent as the only thing that matters is what he meant.

So of course, unless you're saying it is only OK to accept what he says when you think it backs up your ideas, and it's crap when it doesn't...


This mastermind of international crime managed to pull enough strings to blow up these buildings using resources only dreamed about in movies, and yet managed to fluff things up in a recorded interview on TV a year or so later. Bloody hell the guy could get the towers blown up and his building demolished in a few hours, yet clumsily revealed the plot on a recorded interview and then didn't even have the power or influence to have it retracted before airing.
All so Captain Cruton and his caped crusaders could catch him the act of course and reveal his plot to an unsuspecting populace via the medium of the Internet.....



Congratulations on your physics degrees, shame you were too busy to look at the real world around you...


[edit on 13-1-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Of course the fact the guy who said it has since said what he meant means nothing of course.


Really? Hadn't heard of this. Last I heard, he only responded by refusing to clarify what he meant. But if he's said something else since then, feel free to post some sources.



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 06:55 PM
link   


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.


As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.
usinfo.state.gov...


That was the official word from his office, people like Silverstein don't grace the screen because Jimbob Walton says he must, sorry, so that has to do I'm afraid.. But then it must be a lie of course as it wasn't him saying it face to face, but if Silverstein did say it to your face that would be a lie too - so who cares?
And why bother asking me? Everyone knows I'm a Government shill so I'll always have an answer, apart from when brainbox catches me out of course, or when something I say is deemed worthy to the cause.

Someone in Mr Silverstein's office saying what he said means nothing, but Fred's uncle's cousin's dog's sister's owner's cousin's uncle who worked in the Pentagon says that Ronald McDonald hit it anyway, and evidence citied at this independant online journal clearly suggests Ronald McDonald's involvement... The Oracle has spoken....



[edit on 13-1-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith


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.


As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.
usinfo.state.gov...


That was the official word from his office, people like Silverstein don't grace the screen because Jimbob Walton says he must, sorry, so that has to do I'm afraid.. But then it must be a lie of course as it wasn't him saying it face to face, but if Silverstein did say it to your face that would be a lie too - so who cares?


No; it's a lie because that claim has already been refuted by a number of sources, including an early FEMA report, Building Performance Study, where it is stated in Chapter 5 (5.6.1, specifically) that firefighters were never in the building.

But the rest of us have known this for quite some time, because we actually know what those reports say.


And if he did mean "demolish," he would of course come out and admit it with no problem. He certainly wouldn't lie. He's a businessman suspected of some pretty high crimes. Those kinds of people wouldn't lie. It must've been FEMA, among many other organizations detailing the fact that no firemen were in that building, that were lying. Oops, did I say fact? I mean lie.



And why bother asking me? Everyone knows I'm a Government shill so I'll always have an answer, apart from when brainbox catches me out of course, or when something I say is deemed worthy to the cause.


Stop flattering yourself; you're not good enough to be a disinfo agent.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Stop flattering yourself; you're not good enough to be a disinfo agent.


LOL, there's a reason for that - I'm not - so I just voice my scatty opinon, rather than stop at nothing to put a point across.

Regarding the firefighters - could it be that there were none in there at the time becasue they had been pulled out?

People seem to envision him saying it just before it collapsed. I always got the impression he was on about saying it much earlier. I don't think he meant the firefighters were evacuated and then the building collapsed instantly you kinow which is what a lot of people seem to assume.

Don't forget you have to look at what he said from the point of view of a regular person who doesn't question everything and try and find 'evidence' of some higher conspiracy (or basically warp the interpretations of what people say as I like to call it), as that is who he was addressing.

Unless of course, you are suggesting the FEMA reports said specifically that there were no firefighters in there when Silverstein said to pull them out, which I doubt would be the case somehow.


Priginall posted by bsbray11
No; it's a lie because that claim has already been refuted by a number of sources, including an early FEMA report, Building Performance Study, where it is stated in Chapter 5 (5.6.1, specifically) that firefighters were never in the building.

But the rest of us have known this for quite some time, because we actually know what those reports say.


It actually seems to say


Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY.

www.fema.gov...


This does not mean that they would not have had anyone in there trying to assess damage, etc. It also says 'Preliminary indications were' which is a bit of a non-commital to saying that there was definately no firefighting taking place anyway. The wording seems to imply that it was the original opinion which has since been refuted.

Elsewhere in the report it says:


5.23[...]the development of the fires was not significantly impeded by the firefighters because manual firefighting efforts were stopped fairly early in the day.

www.fema.gov...


That kind of implies to me that an attempt was made, but ceased...

It also talks about the assessment of the locations of fires, so I imagine firefighters will have been in there to do this.

"But the rest of us have known this for quite some time, because we actually know what those reports say."

As Silverstein does not give even a hint at the timeline of the events he talks about, there is nothing to say that it does not tie up with other records of events.

I'm also fascinated as to why Silverstein would be discussing any sort of demolition plans with the Fire Department commander who rang him anyway. What a clutz, he spills the beans to the FD on the day and then promptly announces it on TV a years or so later without even thinking about having his slip-up destroyed. Gee whizz mister, couldn't actually be that he meant what he says he meant could it..
That has to be a far more illogical explanation, we just have to make it up to suit the rest of our story...

Don't you just love know-it-alls that think they know what you mean better than you do..
Not only that, you think the man should waste his time justifying himself to people like that
Whatever....
Not that it would make any difference:

Scenario 1

Silversteins says nothing

"His silence is evidence of it being true!!!"

Scenario 2

Silverstein explains what he meant

"His obviously lying and trying to cover up his mistake!! I know his game..... "*twitch*

-----

Emmm.. ever feel like there's no point even trying?... Where's that razor...


Just out of curiosity, what would have to say or do so that you would believe him... *silence*...

You've obviously made your mind up and have no intention of ever changing your opinon, so why bother discussing it? Or are you just helping produce more mindless drones...

[edit on 14-1-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Example

Jim: "I' so gay..."

Bob: "Aahaa! You're a poof!"

Jim: "No I'm not, I meant it in the context of being happy, I'm not homosexual, I'm just happy."

Bob: "No your a homo, you admitted it! I know what you meant, no-one uses gay to mean happy any more."

Jim (Getting irritated): "Look I know what I meant thanks, OK so it was a dumb way to say it but I'm telling you I just meant - I'm happy! I am definately not a homosexual!"

Bob: "I don't care what you say, you meant your a homo and I'm going to tell everyone that you are. I recorded you saying it and it doesn't matter what you meant because everyone will believe what I want! hahaha.."

Jim: "Don't you think you're being a bit immature, anyway no-one will believe you because it's ridiculous.."

Bob: "Wanna bet? People will believe anything these days, I'll write about it on the internet. There are countless examples of it being used as reference to being a homosexual and hardly any of it meaning 'happy' any more, they'll believe me. Your silence will be an admission of guilt."

Jim: "Fine, then I'll send out a statement explaining what I meant, no-one would be stupid enough to believe a weirdo like you over me anyway, especially as common sense would dictate that I know what I mean better than anyone else."

Bob: "Err.. yeah, whatever mate... You havn't been on the Internet have you? Homo! hahahahaaha."

Jim: "Moron....."

Bob: "Actually we call ourselves 'enlightened' these days, cheers."

Seem familiar?



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   
(dont like talking on 9/11 threads becouse i get upset and angry. i think its the biggest injustice ever witnesses and when ppl make immature remarks i feel like ripping there heads of and would if i could see them, but all this does is get me into trouble with ats)

so i'm gonna say this in a quiet gentle voice, He was refering to demolishing the building, there i've said it maybe i can come out of this one unscaved,
any other opinion is wrong, wrong on all levels of humanity.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Tis folly I tell you, the world is flat! Hear my words and take note of what I say. Ignore all logic and common sense, you won't need them where I'm taking you..



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   
??

was the "Pull It" phrase
actually a metaphor for 'pull the plug'....you know all the different life support devices that a severely injured person is attached to,

i'd guess that 'pull it' was a commanders decision
that the victim (in this case a building)
was not salvageable or worth risking any lives to 'save'

a determination was made to not commit any more heroic efforts
and 'pull it' (inferring the life cord) was more communicative than
saying.... 'get the heck out of dodge'

imho



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Of course the fact the guy who said it has since said what he meant means nothing of course. He can only be trusted when there is a vague chance of twisting his words... Regardless of what any dictionary, 'expert' or lepricorn says, at the end of the day the only person that knows what they mean is the person themself. He has spoken, it has been said he was talking about the firefighters.


What did you expect him to say, this?...

"Yep, you caught me. I meant pull the building. Take me away to jail and keep the angry mob from lynching me in the streets."




The morals behind referring to them as an 'it' or his errors in grammar are another discussion, but it is irrelevent as the only thing that matters is what he meant.


No one, except for maybe kids or foreigners just learning to speak english and forming sentence structures, would ever make such a grammatical error like that, especially an educated guy at his age.



This mastermind of international crime managed to pull enough strings to blow up these buildings using resources only dreamed about in movies,


Who said he was the "mastermind"?



and yet managed to fluff things up in a recorded interview on TV a year or so later.


That's what happens, lies are hard to hold in 24/7 for some people. Hell, Rumsfeld has slipped a couple times now!

1) predicted 1st crash 2 minutes before
2) predicted Pentagon crash minutes before
3) said missile hit the Pentagon in 'Parade' mag interview
4) said Flt 93 was "shoot down"



Bloody hell the guy could get the towers blown up and his building demolished in a few hours


Who said they didn't plant the bombs before 9/11?



yet clumsily revealed the plot on a recorded interview and then didn't even have the power or influence to have it retracted before airing.


You're asking me to speculate, but who says he didn't even realize he said that until the video came out?

.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Regarding the firefighters - could it be that there were none in there at the time becasue they had been pulled out?
People seem to envision him saying it just before it collapsed. I always got the impression he was on about saying it much earlier. I don't think he meant the firefighters were evacuated and then the building collapsed instantly you kinow which is what a lot of people seem to assume.


Simple Timeline of WTC 7:

11:30 - Firefighters ordered away from building

"afternoon" (which starts at noon) - Silverstein gets call from unknown Fire Chief

"later in the day" - "They" made the decison to "pull"

about 3pm - rescuers recieved word that WTC 7 is "coming down"

5:20 pm - WTC 7 implodes on it's on footprint, the objective in a controlled demolition.


Still think a "fire" brought it down?

.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio
was the "Pull It" phrase
actually a metaphor for 'pull the plug'....you know all the different life support devices that a severely injured person is attached to



The firefighters were ordered away from WTC 7 BEFORE Silverstein received this call from the unknown Fire Commanders, so there was no "plug" that needed pulling.

.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Regarding the firefighters - could it be that there were none in there at the time becasue they had been pulled out?


There were none in there to be pulled out.


Unless of course, you are suggesting the FEMA reports said specifically that there were no firefighters in there when Silverstein said to pull them out, which I doubt would be the case somehow.


It says specifically that no actions were taken by the FDNY on Building 7.


WTC 7 collapsed approximately 7 hours after the collapse of WTC 1. Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY.


That means they never went in. Guess now you'll have to argue that they were being pulled from the area.



This does not mean that they would not have had anyone in there trying to assess damage, etc.


Any sources for this or are you just pulling this one out of your behind? There would have to actually be people in there I would imagine; if one guy was running around in there at some point during the morning, I don't think Larry would be saying much. Btw the building was evacuated around 9 AM.


Elsewhere in the report it says:


5.23[...]the development of the fires was not significantly impeded by the firefighters because manual firefighting efforts were stopped fairly early in the day.

www.fema.gov...


That kind of implies to me that an attempt was made, but ceased...

It also talks about the assessment of the locations of fires, so I imagine firefighters will have been in there to do this.


The FEMA Report also says this in Chapter 5.5.3:


In addition, the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers.


"Decision," "early on," "not to attempt." Another quote suggesting they never went into Building 7 to fight the fires, and this one is quite explicit.

But I'm not surprised that they would word other sentences to seem contradictory to this. The FEMA report implies a lot of things that were not true. This page offers commentary on the FEMA Report that points out similar issues in the way information was presented.

Firefighters are known to have been in the same area as WTC7 by a number of witness reports. The same witnesses describe the FDNY/police as telling them to evacuate because the building was about to come down (ie, Indira Singh, Tom Franklin). They were telling people to move along because Building 7 was about to come down. What led them to believe that, judging by the pitiful fires, I have no idea. But there is nothing to suggest they actually went into the building to fight the fires. Again, even FEMA telling you this. Nobody was pulled "out" of the building. They pulled it, just as Larry said, whereas the building was clearly "it"; the building itself was pulled. Not the firefighters.


As Silverstein does not give even a hint at the timeline of the events he talks about,


That usually indicates that there was no significant lapse of time.


Don't you just love know-it-alls that think they know what you mean better than you do..
Not only that, you think the man should waste his time justifying himself to people like that
Whatever....


What's with all this as of late, anyway, Smith? This is borderline ad hominem and you spew it constantly throughout all of your recent posts, this being a milder example.


Just out of curiosity, what would have to say or do so that you would believe him... *silence*...


A) Prove that WTC7 could have came down naturally (ie. no explosives).







*silence*


You've obviously made your mind up and have no intention of ever changing your opinon, so why bother discussing it? Or are you just helping produce more mindless drones...


Another example of your recent posting habits. Not that they've ever been that objective, but this stuff isn't very becoming of objectivity. I could say the exact same thing to you, but what's the point?

If that's what you think then so be it; I don't really care. Keep this stuff to yourself. It isn't exactly advancing your argument. Just polarizing people.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join