What did Larry Silverstein mean by "Pull It"?

Quick question - Silverstein challenged that both towers falling were individual acts and received billions for EACH tower.
Is he gonna make a claim for WTC7, or is he not allowed as he was responsible for 'pulling it'?

Originally posted by StevieC9
Quick question - Silverstein challenged that both towers falling were individual acts and received billions for EACH tower.
Is he gonna make a claim for WTC7, or is he not allowed as he was responsible for 'pulling it'?

If you had very important renters that required a certain amound of discretion, and you had a building that was already set up to be taken down quickly in an emergency.....you don't think that that they'd have the means to have the owner compensated in advance already set up?

That'd be stupid piece of the set up to forget.

[edit on 2008/12/16 by Aeons]

Originally posted by Aeons
If you had very important renters that required a certain amound of discretion, and you had a building that was already set up to be taken down quickly in an emergency

I would have no problem with this if true. The problem I would have is that we are being told something else. See my signature about how I feel about lying.

Anagram Alert:
Silverstein = Rile Invests

Doesn't mean a thing.

However by pull it he meant: to go ahead with the final
stage of their elaborate plan to bring down the buildings.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Aeons
If you had very important renters that required a certain amound of discretion, and you had a building that was already set up to be taken down quickly in an emergency

I would have no problem with this if true. The problem I would have is that we are being told something else. See my signature about how I feel about lying.

I assume that there are some things that they don't want to be known.

Layering a lot of poop on the whole thing is probably the best way to control the situation, when literally it was broadcast over the entire planet.

What happened there open up my eyes to the fact that sometimes things that are even on TV all over the World can just disappear from public view. The rolling media blackout that went from the USA, to North American and Europe was just astonishing. It never occured to me that I should be RECORDING everything I was tracking that day.

I doubt very much that most of the conspiracy stuff is true. I think most of it is intentionally planted or husbanded information.

There are kernels of truth in there, under all the poop.

The two plane manifestos that didn't jive. On 9/12 the white house said the shot a plane out of the air. I was watching very closely for the information, because I was one apparently one of the only people trying to figure out what happened to the fifth plane that was heading the white house/camp david. That one disappearing from the networks was an example of the roll out media black out.

The kernel of truth is there. The manifestos from the two planes where probably put together, because the two planes came from the same place and they were heading in the same direction. One plane went down due to the actions of the passengers. The other plane got shot down.

I'm one of the few people who seem to have been tracking Plane Five that just disappeared in the tracking on 9/11.

It is probably very easy to just feed the frenzy and then crush the opposition for errors of logic. Help others create strawmen and then knock them down. All the while plowing the real bits of information under. Its brillant. Really.

Number 1.
It is ridiculous to think that Silverstein would admit on any interview, TV or other, to beeing in a conspiracy to demolish WTC7!! This would be a confession!! Could anyone be SO DUMB? And also be so smart as to be involved in such a conspiracy and have so much money?
Number 2.
By "PULL IT" he is reffering to the TEAM of firemen. Then you can use the term "it". Pull the team out. Pull it out.
Number 3.
Is this statement not corroborated by the fire chief statements? Did Silverstein not recieve a call from the fire chief? You can bet he talked to that fire chief several times that day, and he may have gotten some facts mixed up, or the fire chief may have.
In such an event, those confussions about who called who first or what was said exactly allways show inconsistancies or contradictions with time.

Originally posted by rush969
Is this statement not corroborated by the fire chief statements?

No.

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire chief" - Silverstein.

"For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility)" - Fire chief Daniel Nigro

Did Silverstein not recieve a call from the fire chief?

According to the fire chief (Daniel Nigro), NO HE DIDN"T.

You can bet he talked to that fire chief several times that day,

Yeah, because I'm sure all the fire chief was worried about on 9/11 was talking to Silverstein on the phone several times that day.

and he may have gotten some facts mixed up, or the fire chief may have.
In such an event, those confussions about who called who first or what was said exactly allways show inconsistancies or contradictions with time.

It's not a matter of who called whom first. It's a matter of Silverstein saying he got a call from the fire chief and the actual fire chief saying he DIDN'T consult the owner AT ALL. That's the problem here.

Originally posted by Griff
It's not a matter of who called whom first. It's a matter of Silverstein saying he got a call from the fire chief and the actual fire chief saying he DIDN'T consult the owner AT ALL. That's the problem here.

This is conjecture that we could go in circles forever, the problem here is what Mr. S. meant by "pull it".
The phone call specifically reffering to the decision to PULL the team of fire fighters away from WTC7 because it was in danger of collapsing MAY or MAY NOT have taken place. The fire chief has to make HIS CASE, that he took that decision ON HIS OWN and it was his responsability.
On the other hand, Mr. S. probably talked to the fire chief more than once that day or he got calls "from" the fire chief, he may have gotten calls "ON BEHALF" of the chief, and he can still state he got a call FROM the fire chief.
But going back to the actual words by Mr. S. he never stated he decided anything really:

"And they made that decision to pull" ((THEY)) So actually Silverstein never states that HE made any decision!!

He is referring to the FIRE DEPT. so he didn´t actually take part in any decision!

Originally posted by rush969
He is referring to the FIRE DEPT. so he didn´t actually take part in any decision!

Then why does Larry say that he was the one who gave the suggestion to Pull It in the first place?

"We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it."

If Larry didn't take part in any decision, why does he want to look like he did?

Especially since Nigro states he didn't contact the owner AT ALL?

No matter which way this is spun, there is ample evidence that SOMEONE is lying. Period.

[edit on 12/18/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by rush969
The fire chief has to make HIS CASE, that he took that decision ON HIS OWN and it was his responsability.

Here ya go. In Nigro's own words.

Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).
The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

911guide.googlepages.com...

This isn't something I just pulled out my ass you know.

posted by rush969
The fire chief has to make HIS CASE, that he took that decision ON HIS OWN and it was his responsability.

posted by Griff

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Therefore WTC7 came down 3 hours after all firefighters were ordered out of the building and collapse zone around the building, and ordered to stop all activity within that collapse zone.

So when Lucky Larry said PULL IT he could not possibly have been referring to the team of firefighters because they had been pulled out of the building and collapse zone three hours previously.

The only possible thing Lucky Larry could have been referring to when he said PULL IT was the WTC7 building itself and that is when they set off the demolition charges. By they, I do not mean the firefighters because they had already been removed from the WTC7 building and the collapse zone around WTC7.

By they I mean the team of demolition experts Lucky Larry had hired to destroy his WTC7 building and double his investment.

WTC 7

$386 million invested
$861 million Court awarded payout
_________

$475 million profit

www.911review.com...

WOOW, SPreston really, getting things out of context here!!!

1.- The fire chief Nigro saying he didn´t consult anyone DOESN´T MEAN HE DIDN´T CALL Mr. S. to let him know of his decision. DOES IT?
He may actually have called Mr. S. to INFORM him of his decision, not to consult him or ask his opinion.
Or he may have had someone call Mr. S. on his behalf.
2.- Mr. S. admits HE DIDN´T make the decision and he WASN´T CONSULTED, he says he was INFORMED "THEY" HAD DECIDED to pull it.
And what I say is that he is referring to THE TEAM. PULL THE TEAM OUT!!

Originally posted by rush969
WOOW, SPreston really, getting things out of context here!!!

1.- The fire chief Nigro saying he didn´t consult anyone DOESN´T MEAN HE DIDN´T CALL Mr. S. to let him know of his decision. DOES IT?
He may actually have called Mr. S. to INFORM him of his decision, not to consult him or ask his opinion.
Or he may have had someone call Mr. S. on his behalf.
2.- Mr. S. admits HE DIDN´T make the decision and he WASN´T CONSULTED, he says he was INFORMED "THEY" HAD DECIDED to pull it.
And what I say is that he is referring to THE TEAM. PULL THE TEAM OUT!!

Two things here.

First you say that Nigro or someone else called LS to tell him of the decision to pull it. But, then LS claims to have consulted with the fire chief and suggested to pull it. Something doesn't add up. No way you can spin it to add this one up. Sorry.

Originally posted by Griff
It's not a matter of who called whom first. It's a matter of Silverstein saying he got a call from the fire chief and the actual fire chief saying he DIDN'T consult the owner AT ALL. That's the problem here.

You can't sum it up any simpler than that.

If people still don't see the contradiction, then that's their problem.

These are the exact words of Mr. Silverstein:

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me 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 just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

1.- Mr. S. is saying he GOT A CALL FROM the Fire Dep. Commander. Could this be a call on the commander´s behalf, by somebody else? I believe it could.
2.- Could it be a call just to inform him a decision has been made to pull the team of fire fighters away? And he is just sharing his thoughts on the issue, perhaps trying to feel he participated in that decision?
3.- He clearly states that THEY made that decision, not him. So this is corresponds to chief Nigro´s comment that he alone decided to pull the men out.

Also, another issue being overlooked by the OP is from the statement made by chief Nigro which is self explanatory:
2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.
Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.
Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

He says he made the decision without consulting anyone. THAT DOESN´T MEAN HE DIDN´T LET ANYBODY KNOW OF HIS DECISION. He probably informed many others of this, Silverstein among them, or had a subordinate do exactly that!!

reply to post by pteridine



the fact of the matter is, if u look at the way the WTC7 building came down, its definately a controlled demolition. there is no way that those fires took that god damn building down. there are videos of buildings engolfed in flames for 15 hours that never came down.

WTC7 was demolished. a controlled demolition. We all know that, and so did larry and maybe thats why he said it on tv the first time cuz we and him all knew it was a controlled demolition. but he probably got in big # for saying that cuz we started to put together the peices. who knows. but he slipped up big time.

he didnt mean pull the firefighters.... "pull it" and "we watched the building collapse" go hand in hand. just say it back to yourself..
now if he really ment pull the fire fighters he would have said something like this "we decided to pull it..and good thing we did, cuz as soon as the firefighters came out, the building collapsed!"

people dont wanna believe something like this could have happened. but its very real. that building was a controlled demolition. which clearly means the explosives had to have been put in there a long while before 9/11, and if they were in the WTC7 then they were probably in the two twin towers. and since we figured that out, larry then changed his story.

and im sure they brought in people to put in the explosives a while before too, get people to come in in maintenance clothing, pay em a little money on the side, rig up the building, no one will notice. im sure it couldnt have been that hard!

i find it so funny that most people wanna believe that this building just fell down on its own. the truth of the matter is, it didnt. and people need to start accepting that.

I dont see why people are arguing over this.
i dont know why people cant just accept that the WTC7 was a controlled demolition. if you look at the building right before it was pulled it did not look like it was burnt to a crisp. it didnt even look like alot was wrong with it.

and the lies.. oh the lies about how it was badly built and already unstable.. PUHLEASE. coverup!

it was pulled, larry said it was pulled, we all could see it was clearly pulled.
once we started putting things together he then changed his story.

when i first heard that interview, without even knowing about his new recanted story i automatically assumed he ment pull the building.

and who wouldnt when someone says "we decided to pull it and we watched it fall"

i mean u have to be retarded if you dont know what that means.

i guess i think people are in denial because they wouldnt even think the government would have something to do with this. i think dick cheney, george bush and larry silverstein both know what happened.

i mean think about. i know it was 100% controlled demolition. u can clearly tell.

which then means, that the building had to have been rigged with explosives BEFORE 9/11 BECAUSE it is a long and hard job to complete.

which means if they were put in before 9/11, then there obviously had to be a reason for putting them in before 9/11..

AND if they were in WTC7 they probably were in the two twin towers as well.

TA DA!


Larry silverman knows the whole story i really believe thats the smoking gun to 9/11.

what first comes to mind when you are referring to a building, and you hear someone say "pull it"? here is what ive gathered and in no means want to start an argument. the two towers were hit by aircraft, and 10,000 gallons of jet fuel each. guessing that the fuel oil tanks in wtc7 arent as big as this, ill assume that it wasnt the fuel oil that exploded and brought it down. jet fuel, diesel fuel, kerosene, and heating oil are all pretty much the same. and thats what most people misunderstand about this. emergency preparedness and management offices for nyc and the atf, irs, and many other spook agencies chose the buildng to have offices in, so ill assume it was of fairly safe design and construction. any and all pictures ive seen do not look anything like a fully involved fire that ive seen in my life. and have left wood structures standing. giving the fact that all the pictures ive seen of the other surrounding buildings with as much, if not more damage were burning, contained fuel oil tanks (im assuming this) for heat and generators, and the fact that it fell "straight" down 5 minutes after i was told on live tv that it HAD ALREADY fell, the term and usage IN MY MIND, when he said"pull the building" meant demolish it. im joe the mechanic. off the street. no engineering degree, no physics degree, just someone with alot of common sense and a good idea about how metal and other building materials react. who cares when it was wired, if it was wired. what he meant was what he said.

[edit on 18-12-2008 by guinnessford]

reply to post by ashamedamerican

I've been thinking a little about this "pull it" business. My focus in this post is the psychology of Larry Silverstein, his inflexibility, what one might see as an obsessive compulsive response to an unforeseen emergency.

At first I thought "Oh, this is dumb stupid Larry putting his foot in his mouth just because he is so dumb and stupid, but I realized that if Larry had just kept his mouth shut, the perps might not have had such a big WTC7 problem."

The fact is that WTC7 was damaged, though not enough to cause it's classic controlled demo collapse. In the fog of the average American brain, the damage would have been sufficient to keep the ones you can fool, fooled.

So, why did Larry say what he said. Here's my explanation. It's subtle.

I think that rather than going off script, as most people assumed he was doing, Larry was trying to stay on script.

If you think of 9/11 as a stage performance, somebody missed a line. Somebody failed to feed him his line and like a smart performer, Larry ad-libbed, to fill the gap and keep the script on track.

Flt. 93 failed to arrive in New York and failed to crash into WTC7.

In the script that Larry was committed to, a reason for WTC7's collapse was to have been supplied by the arrival of Flt. 93 at the address of WTC7. When it didn't arrive, he stayed on script, he ad-libbed a reason, because the script called for a reason and Larry's anal retentive personality couldn't resist the compulsion to supply one, even against common sense and his best interests.

A smarter performer than Larry would have kept quiet, counting on fog of war and incidental damage to the building, to keep the public off the track.

Larry had probably seen the damage to the building, knew (as a building guy) that no building guy would accept that amount of damage as sufficient reason for a collapse and decided the "FDNY approved decision to pull it" would do as a situationally appropriate ad-lib.

So yes, Larry was dumb but "smart dumb" as people sometimes are, not "dumb dumb" as I originally thought he was.