larry silversteins silence prior to 'pull it' comment

TimmyG · Post by **TimmyG** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 12:04 am

just wondering if anyone can remember the details of an interview in which silverstein was questioned about wtc7 and his 'pull it' comment. i seem to remember reading something on prison planet about him refusing to comment when questioned about it.. a year later he worked out the 'pull the firefighters out' idea.

anyone remember the interview?

TimmyG · Post by **TimmyG** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 12:09 am

ahh
found the pp article
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11 ... mments.htm

"The journalist who wrote the hit piece, Sam Smith, directly questioned Silverstein. Silverstein told Smith that he "meant something else" by the "pull it" comment but mysteriously refused to elaborate any further."

interesting . this doesn't seem to get mentioned much. why would he refuse to elaborate at that point in time if the explanation was as simple as 'pulling firefighters'

marky 54 · Post by **marky 54** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:03 am

TimmyG wrote:ahh
found the pp article
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11 ... mments.htm

"The journalist who wrote the hit piece, Sam Smith, directly questioned Silverstein. Silverstein told Smith that he "meant something else" by the "pull it" comment but mysteriously refused to elaborate any further."

interesting . this doesn't seem to get mentioned much. why would he refuse to elaborate at that point in time if the explanation was as simple as 'pulling firefighters'

it would seem a bit odd to be talking how the building was on fire and they thought it might collapse and then refer to pull "it" meaning firemen.

i think we can positively say the term pull it was refering to the building, if he was refering to firemen he surely would of said pull them. so if it meant anything else other than demolition it was still a referance to the building as he was talking about the building then said the smartest thing to do was "pull it". the firemen explaination dosnt make any sense but have know critics to say it.

TimmyG · Post by **TimmyG** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 10:22 am

i agree.
but some people still buy the 'pull the firefighters' excuse.

this response to sam smith is more evidence in our favour.

Skeptic · Post by **Skeptic** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 12:27 pm

It's important to remember that the last firefighters left the building at around midday, but WTC7 came down at around 5pm.

ian neal · Post by **ian neal** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 12:37 pm

I agree Timmy that this is an interesting angle to look at.

http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=silverstein

Of course the debunkers will claim that when he uses 'it' he didn't mean WTC7 but a contingent of firefighters

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/in ... ilverstein

But that just doesn't hold up in my mind.

For a start 'it' is a strange term to use in reference to a 'contingent of firefighters, surely 'them' or something more specific like 'the remaining firefighters' would be more appropriate and natural

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, '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."

–Larry Silverstein

It would be interesting to identify the 'fire department commander' and hear from him his account of this phone conversation. Did the conversation happen? What time was this conversation? Were firefighters still in the building?

The Silverstein quote proves nothing, but a truly independent investigation would dig into the questions and hold people to account, instead of completely ignoring WTC7 as the commission did.

Wokeman · Post by **Wokeman** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 12:50 pm

His story about 'it' meaning 'them' (the firefighters) may not prove much, but I believe interested researchers will draw their own conclusions.

TimmyG · Post by **TimmyG** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:15 pm

i'm trying to work out what might be the most likely explanation for events surrounding wtc7. i think it was demolished.. but we still have to explain all the testimony from firefighters which suggests they knew (or thought) the building was going to collapse.. ofcourse, just becuase they thought the building looked like it was about to collapse, doesn't prove it wasn't a controlled demo.. but some of the comments they made in interviews (or the way the comments are documented) are strange.

there are loads on a site.. am newyork news or something. lost the link now.. but in one of them the interviewer (Cheif Malkin) tries to assert that the jet fuel and the explosion from the south tower caused wtc7 to collapse in such a fashion.. the firefighter goes along with it and Malkin raps up the interview quickly after getting this response... as if the 'job is done' .. onto the next.

Theres also an interview I downloaded off 911blogger a while ago with a first responder who says she was told wtc7 was about to be intentionally pulled down prior to the collapse, and she was to get out of the area. if any one can remember the link to the interview please post it. trying to piece things together better.

I'm also having trouble finding any information on Cheif Malkin

TimmyG · Post by **TimmyG** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:29 pm

another thing to note about pull it statement...

I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, '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."

now if you take this statement to mean 'pulling the firefighters out' and combine this with the official truth apparently supported by the testimony of several fighters... surely this comment would logically be something more like this

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander telling me that the building looked like it was going to collapse. I said 'we've had such a terrible loss of life..maybe the smartest thing to do is to get everybody out of there and clear the surrounding area. And they made that decision to abandon wtc7, and then we watched the building collapse"

Do people generally go around thinking that burning buildings (especially steel framed ones) automatically collapse after a certain period of time?
It kind of sounds like wtc7 had a conscience, and was holding out until everybody got out of there..

ComfortablyNumb · Post by **ComfortablyNumb** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:36 pm

Sorry to be a killjoy but I don't think the 'pull it' term holds much credence. In fact I'm surprised how the term is used so widely as proof.

http://www.911review.com/errors/wtc/pullit.html

A search on Google only brings up 9/11 references and nothing relating to the demolition industry.

I'm happy to be corrected on this!

Regs,
Numb

TimmyG · Post by **TimmyG** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:00 pm

yes. i've read those debunking sites

Even if "pull" were industry slang for demolition, there would be no reason to expect Silverstein to know this.

equally they'd be no reason to expect him to be immediately aware of the difference between the standard slang used to describe a building being 'pulled' down (as the PBS documentary and others describe the official 'pulling' down of other wtc buildings) and a controlled demolition with explosives.

"Pull" IS used to describe buildings that are being forceably collapsed, usually with wires and a crane and such.. how often those in the industry use it to specifically refer to explosive demolition is uncertain

ian neal · Post by **ian neal** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:55 pm

You're not wrong numb.

I'm not familiar demolition industry jargon, but the closest I've seen is it being used as a term to describe the process of literally pulling over a low rise building (as the 911myths page says).

IMO Silverstein's comments are curious and difficult to explain from either the official or alternative conspiracy theory point of view, but digging into the questions that arise from this would shed some light. This is what any genuine investigation would have done

Such as

Get Larry under oath and cross examination to explain his comments
Who was this phone call with specifically? A name please
What was the time of the phone call?

Assuming they were referring to a contingent of firefighters, were they 'pulling' them because of the risk from the fire or the belief that the building would collapse?
If it was because they thought the building would collapse, why did they believe this?
Is there evidence that the fire was so huge that it could not be contained?

Then cross examine 'the fire department commander'.

Then ask if this evidence tallies with the testimony of others?

Does it tally with the investigation undertaken by insurers of WTC7
and so on until we get the full picture.

Of course it would help if the insurance companies investigation was made public

http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflas ... #building7

and if the insurer's investigation was led by someone who had not clearly already decided the answer in advance

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press.office/press ... 1003502612

It would also be interesting to know what information was presented to the board of Allianz and the minutes of the board meeting that decided that there had been no insurance fraud

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/article ... lfraud.htm

http://www.wtc.com/wtc_news_content.aspx?news_id=74

Thermate · Post by **Thermate** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 7:48 pm

Why say "pull it" when you meant "pull them"

Bongo · Post by **Bongo** » Fri Jan 19, 2007 12:47 am

Try an advanced google search for "pull controlled demolition"
and within the 'without the words' box type "Silverstein"

this filters the silverstein searches and leaves some interesting results...

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/kingdome5.html

http://www.ci.des-moines.ia.us/departme ... 202001.PDF

The principles used on an implosion are basically the same whether it is a true implosion, or if the structure is simply going to be laid out. The principle tool in an implosion is gravity. The explosives are used to weaken and cause the supporting members of the structure to fail, thus allowing gravity to pull the structure down or over.
http://www.dykon-blasting.com/faqs.htm

This one is particularly interesting as... A) It is from 'Controlled Demolition Inc' and B) They use the word 'Pull' in conjunction with demolition explosives, not as Popular mechanics said... by tying cables to a structure then pulling it over.

The preparation of the structure for implosion could have been approached a number of ways. Following in depth discussions with CABI’s selected preparation/debris removal contractor, NDA Member-Omega Contracting, Inc. of Pompano Beach, Florida, it was decided that CDI could effectively minimize the amount of linear shaped charge explosives to be used in the structure. By torch-cutting splice plates on selected upper columns/floors, and utilizing approximately 3,000 feet of steel-core cable on alternate upper floors to help “pull” the northern and eastern walls away from the fiber optics cables in NE Third Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard.
Utilizing a total of 137 pounds of linear shaped charges and 50 lbs of dynamite “kicker charges”, CDI worked in only the partial basement to the west, the Lobby Level and 4th floor of the structure. Placed in over 400 locations, the shaped charges were sequentially initiated over a period of 5.4 seconds, working from southwest to northeast through the structure. Following the seemingly endless 2.6 second natural pause in the non-electric initiation system, the structural charges detonated on cue, allowing the southwest wing of the structure to fail first, creating the desired lateral “pull” on the north and east curtain walls.

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/de ... 0317195824

It is easy to find the 'pull' references in the above articles by just going to 'Edit' then 'Find (On this page)' in explorer and search for 'Pull'.