What did Larry Silverstein mean by "Pull It"?

Originally posted by dragonridr
Use explosives on any steel beam you dont get a neat slice.

What happens when nano-thermite sol-gel explosive is applied to a column? Don't know for sure? Yeah, me neither. But, since you are not sure, then that makes your statement above false. Unless you do know exactly and can explain what happens or maybe even show a video of the materials?

This thread is suddenly alive again...(funny.)
I think a couple of things are worth pointing out:
1.- It has been clearly established (IMHO) that Silverstein WAS NOT the one to take a decision as far as the destination of WTC7. Whatever he is saying in the interview is “his way” of telling the story. A story were he didn´t “decide” anything. Because we have seen that chief Nigro was the one who decided what was to be done.
2.- If Silverstein was involved in any way in a conspiracy to destroy WTC7, what would his attitude be? Isn´t this obvious?
Of course he would have to act completely ignorant on any aspect of the demise of the building.
He would say:
I don´t know what happened.
Ask the fire chief.
Ask the engineers.
Ask somebody else because I have no idea what happened.

Also a question:
Can you refer to the “fire team” as “it” when you say pull it?
Pull the fire team out?

Originally posted by rush969
Also a question:
Can you refer to the “fire team” as “it” when you say pull it?
Pull the fire team out?

I don't pretend to know everything but I think you may:

* The team's poor sportsmanship made all of them look like whiners.

The pronoun them is trying to refer to the members of the team. However, neither the word team nor the word members is used in the sentence. Instead, the possessive form team's is used. A possessive antecedent may be used only for a possessive pronoun.

Correction: The team's poor sportsmanship made all of its members look like whiners.

owlet.letu.edu...

It's very likely that Larry was trying to use proper English. Just that he did it improperly.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by dragonridr
Use explosives on any steel beam you dont get a neat slice.

What happens when nano-thermite sol-gel explosive

Thermite is not an explosive...what's this "nano-thermite sol-gel" you speak of?

Originally posted by adam_zapple
Thermite is not an explosive...what's this "nano-thermite sol-gel" you speak of?

www.abovetopsecret.com... - Brief description

en.wikipedia.org... - Sol-gel

Here's a nice paper to read.

Aero-Sol-Gel Synthesis of Nanoporous Iron-Oxide
Particles: A Potential Oxidizer for Nanoenergetic
Materials
Anand Prakash, Alon V. McCormick, and Michael R. Zachariah*
Departments of Mechanical and Chemical Engineering, University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455
Received August 8, 2003. Revised Manuscript Received January 22, 2004

There has been an increased research effort toward
use of nano-aluminum in explosives.1-

However, the nature of the sol-gel derived iron oxide
is unique because of its highly porous nature and may
afford the opportunity to infuse that material with
organics, which would lead to much higher pressurization
rates resulting from gas expansion. It is necessary
to caution the reader that these nanothermite reactions
of aluminum and metal oxides are extremely energetic.
Reactions can be very explosive in the case of a few other
oxidizers such as CuO and MoO3;

www.enme.umd.edu...

Originally posted by thedman

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....

Whenever witnesses dispute the 'truthers' version of events, they are conveniently tied to the conspiracy.

My apologies if this is already posted.

Wikipedia gives an answer to this one.

en.wikipedia.org...

"We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it". "They made that decision to pull", he recalled, "and we watched the building collapse." Some proponents of the controlled demolition hypothesis have taken the remark as a confession that he ordered the building to be demolished.[43] Silverstein issued a statement that rejects this interpretation, asserting that it was the firefighting team, not the building, that was to be pulled.

It's possible he's lying, but it's equally possible he's telling the truth and mistakenly used the wrong term in the wrong situation.

Think for a moment...you are the owner of the building and somehow you alone or with the help of a group, have decided that you are going to have the building destroyed for your monetary benefit.
OK? Are you getting the idea?
So, then...What would you be saying to anybody who asks you what happened?
Would you be SO DUMB as to give any clue whatsoever of your conspiracy?
OF COURSE NOT. The easiest and smartest thing to do would be to play ignorant.
Simple, easy, and the surest way TO NOT GET CAUGHT. Don´t you agree?
So...What did he mean? He meant, have the team pulled. Which is what he was informed by chief Nigro that had been decided. It was not up to him (Silverstein.)
Another question for SPreston:
Are you implying that demolition crews went to work in the building to prepare it for demolition, as the building was burning?


[edit on 13-2-2009 by rush969]

Originally posted by rush969
Think for a moment...you are the owner of the building and somehow you alone or with the help of a group, have decided that you are going to have the building destroyed for your monetary benefit.
OK? Are you getting the idea?
So, then...What would you be saying to anybody who asks you what happened?
Would you be SO DUMB as to give any clue whatsoever of your conspiracy?
OF COURSE NOT. The easiest and smartest thing to do would be to play ignorant.
Simple, easy, and the surest way TO NOT GET CAUGHT. Don´t you agree?
So...What did he mean? He meant, have the team pulled. Which is what he was informed by chief Nigro that had been decided. It was not up to him (Silverstein.)
Another question for SPreston:
Are you implying that demolition crews went to work in the building to prepare it for demolition, as the building was burning?

[edit on 13-2-2009 by rush969]

Why would he have used the most technocally correct phrase to demolish a building ,in that context?

It is also a phrase uttered by more than a few first responders, the EXPERTS there on that day. Heck, the very people we train to respond and asses things in an emergency.

Originally posted by rush969
Which is what he was informed by chief Nigro that had been decided. It was not up to him (Silverstein.)

Well, if Silverstein was only called to be informed that the firefighters were pulling back, then he (Silverstein) is still a 100% liar.

"I remember saying, 'we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the best thing to do is to pull it'".

That right there tells me that, at least in Silverstein's mind, he is the one who suggested the firemen be pulled back.

Either way, Silverstein is a big fat liar.

reply to post by Griff


I don´t see the point in “spinning” the phrases of Mr. S. so much.
Why don´t you try to analyze the other things that I mention in my post?
Don´t you agree with the logic that I present?

reply to post by rush969


Like I said before.

It's very likely that Silverstein was trying to use proper English. He just did it improperly.

I still feel that he was trying to grandiose himself by implying (lying) that he was the one who suggested to remove the firefighters though.

reply to post by Griff



Finally!!! I´m glad to say, I agree with you.
Yes, I agree he is probably trying to “look good” for the interview. And he is telling the story “his way”. I don´t think that makes him a liar or an assassin though.
And I understand that you also agree that what he meant was to “pull the team out” right?
What he is implying really is that he accepted the decision by chief Nigro or agreed with it don´t you think?


[edit on 13-2-2009 by rush969]

Originally posted by rush969
reply to post by Griff

 

Finally!!! I´m glad to say, I agree with you.
Yes, I agree he is probably trying to “look good” for the interview. And he is telling the story “his way”. I don´t think that makes him a liar or an assassin though.
And I understand that you also agree that what he meant was to “pull the team out” right?
What he is implying really is that he accepted the decision by chief Nigro or agreed with it don´t you think?

[edit on 13-2-2009 by rush969]

Larry meant they pulled the building, simple as that. You don't refer to firefighters as 'it'. That's considered very rude, especially from an educated man like Larry. And I am sure Larry didn't mean to be rude about his dodgy contacts.

[edit on 16-2-2009 by Insolubrious]

reply to post by Insolubrious


He is not reffering to people. He meant "the team" pull it out. Besides, it has been shown he wasn´t the one who decided anything.

But now that you mention it, please explain:
How would you "pull" a 47 story skyscraper?
And also, how would you manage that when it is under fire?
THANKS.

Originally posted by Wildbob77

Obviously one of the two is not telling the truth.

It just depends on what time the phone call was made. If Dan Nigro had already PULLED his men back before he call Silverstein, then both statements could be true.

Pull it means demolition.

If they were referring to the firemen, they would use a different term, such as, pull them out, or call it off and tell the firemen to gtfo...

not "pull it".

Idiots.

The Way Home or Face the Fire -

www.jahtruth.co.uk...

Let´s see:
Q.- Where´s the team at?
A.- It´s at WTC7.
Q.- Is it team 1234?
A.- Yes it is.
Well, lets pull it out, because that building is doomed!
IT, IT, IT, IT. Anything wrong with these sentences?
I don´t think so.

reply to post by verbal_assassin


Why do you think pull means demolition? Did you read that somewhere or do you have experience in this area? "Pull" is often printed on doors and most of them are undemolished even though they open and close frequently.
I think Larry was talking big and wanted to use fireman talk for the media so he could be cool, too. The firechief said that he meant the team or rescue effort. "Pull it" in firespeak must mean "run for it before you are roasted."

It just goes to show no matter what you say or do, so long as you have the right lawyers and the money to pay them you can get away with cold blooded murder, and people will believe whatever you want them to believe. Anyone still believing the kind of tripe Larry's lawyers spew forth from their foul mouths are clearly very guliable or benefitting from it in some way. I guess it's true that people just can handle or don't want to face the truth.


[edit on 16-2-2009 by Insolubrious]