What did Larry Silverstein mean by "Pull It"?

Pull it is indeed a term used by firefighters was a volunteer fire fighter for 3 years all ways took it to mean remove the hoses and pack it up. Now there may be other industries that use it as well. But i really dont think a statement by a person who you dont know really proves anything?

Could only mean one thing. Pull the building/enduce the collapse. He is not the only one saying it either, John Kerry used almost the same language when asked about the event, and he went one step further and said wtc7 was brought down in a controlled fashion.

YouTube Link

Fox had to cover his comments up in a totally biased way, slandering the 9/11 conspiracies (see video above), they even cropped the video so you don't hear the question.

In the interview Larry makes no reference what so ever to wtc7 collapsing naturally so they had to evacuate, instead thought we get a statement like that implys controlled demolition. If Larry meant pull the firefighters out he would of said something like:



Or something to that effect. I don't believe for one second the garbage Silversteins lawyers put out to cover Silversteins comments. You can bet also, Larry has the best Lawyers his blood money can buy to keep that comment tightly under their control.

reply to post by Insolubrious

---

I don't believe that Larry had any say in the events of the day so his statements are superfluous. The firemen at the scene said that they were told to cease firefighting efforts and move away from the damaged building. This was a good move by the on-scene commander and saved FDNY from further losses that would have occurred had they tried to save the building.

Are you even listening? Larry said "They made the decision to pull". What part of "They" don't you understand? And I am sure the so-called firefighters in question would of run it by the building owner just to let him know "they" were bringing it down.

YouTube Link

Watch the vid above, it's a reconstruction of an interview with controlled demolition.

And just to add, I wouldn't be suprised in the least if "they" warned him about the decision "they" made to "pull" the towers too.

[edit on 10-2-2009 by Insolubrious]

If you listen very very hard when he says "pull it" he farts!

Second line...

I pulled your mum, but she was crap.

That's my two british dollars for yah, "it", since when do we refer to people or peoples as "it"? is this some new bastardisation of the English language? If so then Larry bwoy certainly got there first, "it" refers to an object not a living animal/person/s - i had this argument last night with a fair foe over the "pull it" situation and it he just couldnt accept that

a. it is a industry term used prior to and post 9/11
b. silvershizteinenho#zer did say "pull it" and was referring to the demolition of the building (i honnestly do think he is that stupid enough and when caught up in a days worth of attrocoties might forget what his SCRIPT actually said and thus blurted out what was probably the lead demo expert said in the final meeting before 9/11)

and

c. the BBC had quite clearly reported on live msm tv the Solomon Building (WTC7) had collapsed (in defending his POV he used the bs notion that people make mistakes especially on a day like 9/11 and all reporters want to do is have the exclusive) - sorry but you just dont report that a building has collapsed no matter how "very very sketchy" the details are

as i had said to this poster, would you tell your brothers, sisters, sons, daughters etc that your mother is dead if the details were "very very sketchy" and you wernt entirely sure of the information?

I dont think so, do you.


I agree with OP time for people to stop debunking this as theres nothing to debunk, shizstein cocked up cos all he could see was $'s as a result of the days events and theres no going back on it same with the BBC cock up amongst 100's of others.

Thats very abusive and insulting, i hope the mods give you a spank for that

I asked a friend of mine who is a sign and lip reading instructor to look at the video without the sound and he wrote the transcript down and his transcript included the word them (actually 'em) and not "it". Afterwards I asked him why he thought it was "them" instead of "it" and he specifically said watch his mouth... the word "it" completes with an open mouth teeth closed, while 'em (them) completes closed.

So, according to him he says "Pull 'em". Now listen to it again with that in mind. Now I hear "pull 'em"

Anyway, I thought that was interesting.

Personal insult deleted.

---

Removed quote of entire post directly above this one.

From the Terms and Conditions;

2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, hateful and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.

Also, please read:

Warnings for excessive quoting, and how to quote



[edit on 10/2/09 by masqua]

[edit on 10/2/09 by masqua]

Funny how when people cant make an intelligent argument to prove there case they resort to insults reality is does it really matter what he said that day not really. Do you have any idea how long it takes to set up a demolition on a building. So he either had it set up at least a week before hand including cutting support beams setting charges and lets not forget i think people would have noticed someone cutting though support beams in a high rise. Its not something you can hide. So obviously in your delusional world we decide to blow up a building and poof its gone. Now whos the idiot.

Has anyone ever mentioned that they where physically cut at any time, if you look at whats presented in the plethra of information weather it be fact or fiction, the suggestion goes that thermate charges were used to slice the steel providing the angled cuts to aid in the apparent almost free fall footprint collapse of a building which had some minor fires and external structural damage to one side as a result of the prior collapses, putting any of the bombing, thermite, thermate, mini nukes, hydrogen/atom bombs, high energy beam weapons, command bunker business aside for a moment do you not think that if a building is serverly damaged on one side that it would collapse in an almost symetrical patter without any sort of aid.

Go try it with your lego blocks, build the biggest building you can and take a chunk out of the corner/side (including the base), do you not think it will give way in that direction, especially when in the lower floors a small number of large central colums were used to create an open plan floor system, dont you think it will give way at its weakest point or do you feel all buildings collapse into their own footprint in a symetrical manner with the penthouse going first.

Given that a bombing had taken place way back in 93 at the WTC complex when either bush senior was in power or clinton had just come in (cant remember was only 13 then and im from uk) enough time has passed since that event up to 9/11 for so called "fail safes" to have been put in place in case of a "terrorist" sorry "trrrrrrrrrist" attack, which would aid the buildings collapse into its footprint as opposed to the length and width of manhattan (especially with WTC1/2).

reply to post by Insolubrious

---

What is a "reconstruction of an interview with controlled demolition."

Not many put faith in the words of Larry and trying to use them as any sort of "proof" is pointless. What is needed to show demolition is specific physical evidence of which there apparently is none.

Yes. Conveniently it was shipped away. Or can you find a link showing ANY investigation of the steel at WTC 7?

Yeah. Didn't think so.

Since "they" refers to the FDNY, if your claim is correct then they were involved.

This whole thread is moot. L. Silverstein explained what he meant. Case closed.

reply to post by Griff

---

"An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7"
by J.R. Barnett, R.R. Biederman, and R.D. Sisson, Jr.

JOM, 53 (12) (2001), pp. 18.

www.tms.org...

A section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure as a result of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. This building was not one of the original buildings attacked but it indirectly suffered severe damage and eventually collapsed. While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.

ANALYSIS
Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge.

reply to post by phushion

---

As you mentioned it was a central support structure floors would hit the floor directly below it causing failure downward not to the sides and having used explosives your not going to cut though support beams with explosives without cutting the support beams explosives tear metal not melt it. The only way you can guarantee the explosives do there job is to score the beam then place explosives to tear the rest of the support. Use explosives on any steel beam you dont get a neat slice.

reply to post by pteridine

---

Ok. My bad. I should have said:

"Can you find any investigation of WTC 7 steel performed by NIST"?

I was aware of the FEMA study, but I'm fairly sure that no WTC 7 steel was kept and/or examined by NIST.

Again, my bad for not being specific.