Larry Silverstein explaining what he meant by 'pull it'

NoahFence said:
So Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania because a real estate mogul in New York couldn't foot the bill for asbestos remediation.

:jaw-dropp


Ergo - every retarded theory you and your kind come up with has to include flights 77 and 93. You are woefully short on that.
Click to expand...

Flight 93 was likely a threat against the White House, or ?, to ensure the participants directing/enabling the attacks didn't back out.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Flight 93 was likely a threat against the White House, or ?, to ensure the participants directing/enabling the attacks didn't back out.
Click to expand...

So they threatened themselves with flight 93, and when it turned out they hadn't backed down they arranged for 93 to crash?

What if "participants" were in different places at the time? One plane each?

The true horror of your claim is that you'll now feel obliged to defend its utter stupidity.

:rolleyes:
 
It's nice to see that Ergo maintains his usual standard of posting whenever he tries to make direct assertions.
Clayton Moore said:
Flight 93 was likely a threat against the White House, or ?, to ensure the participants directing/enabling the attacks didn't back out.
Click to expand...

A threat...against themselves? :boggled:
 
Here are some comments posted by a retired firefighter regarding larry silverstein's "pull it" comment 3 years ago.

"Thats NOT what he is saying. Building 6 was pulled with cables. The demolition term 'pull-it' means that. If Silverstein were using a demolition term in the interview, thats HOW they would have demolished building 7. He wasn't using a demolition term. He was refering to recomendations from firefighters who were inside building 7 performing an objective of putting out fires. Due to the damage, the FIRE CHIEF made a decision to 'pull-it' (the objective). Silverstein was refering to that"

"Pull It" to many firefighters, especially to those oldtimers like me that served long before portable radios became popular and affordable means to cease all interior operations"

-firefighterforums

"The reason they used the expressions before radios was because when firefighters need to evacuate a building and had no radios, the firefighters would pull on the hose. That signaled the firefighters inside to evacuate immediately. They just happen to still use the same terminology. When an order to 'pull it' was given then, it meant pull the hose, now, it means radio in and get them out"

truthers response:"there were no mention of 'hoses' at any time.You could not 'pull' a hose under pressure that's so stupid.How about shouting 'pull'?Nice try but you people that believe this official crap are just coming up with more and more ludicrous explanations


you think that a fire team is going to cut off the water supply to a fireman so that they can 'pull' the hose?I think you should get a thesaurus and see how many explanations for 'pull' you can squeeze out.Don't forget the one that refers to controlled building demolition"

stratocaster539 3 years ago

Reply by firefighter: "That is THE reason. They dont literally PULL THE HOSE anymore now that they have radios. THATS where the terminology comes from. 'pull it' is a firefighter term AS WELL as a demolition term, however, pull-it in demolition terms has NOTHING to do with explosives. It means to literally attach cables to the building and PULL IT DOWN. That obviously did not happen because Larry Silversteins quote was put into demolition context when he meant it in a fire-fighting context. PERIOD"

lgradyl 3 years ago

you can find these comments and more at this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csn6Em87eEE

makes sense to me.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Ignored by the debunkers is the fact the towers were no bargain but more of an eventual liability. Why would a real estate shark like Lucky Larry bother?



Thanks for the eggcorn. It's not often I learn something here.

http://www.word-detective.com/2008/04/11/all-told/
Click to expand...

Yeah, Larry is a well know real estate tycoon, why would he invest billions on a project that is guaranteed to fail?

If you believe that, I have a bridge for sale.

Good price too.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Flight 93 was likely a threat against the White House, or ?, to ensure the participants directing/enabling the attacks didn't back out.
Click to expand...

LOL!!!!

And who planned flight 93? The people in the Pentagon?

So the Pentagon was attacked by the people in the White House, and the White House was attacked by the people in the Pentagon.

They just happened to have the same idea on the same day.

You people are un-friggin-real.
 
Between Ergo's insistence that 9/11 was completely due to asbestos removal, and Clayton's that the powers that be attacked themselves to make it look good, man. I just don't know. I've never seen such blatant idiocy in my life.

Guys, it's OVER.

Get a new hobby.
 
I forgot something. With the tons of people the bad guys would've had to hire to plant the explosives, what happens if they get caught for some crime in the following ten years? All they have to do is sell the conspirators out and they have instant immunity.

Unless you go with the theory that the bad guys were powerful enough to keep them out of jail, anywhere, in which case they are so powerful they don't actually need 9/11.
 
000063 said:
I forgot something. With the tons of people the bad guys would've had to hire to plant the explosives, what happens if they get caught for some crime in the following ten years? All they have to do is sell the conspirators out and they have instant immunity.

Unless you go with the theory that the bad guys were powerful enough to keep them out of jail, anywhere, in which case they are so powerful they don't actually need 9/11.
Click to expand...

Arrested? Where? In Israel?
 
ergo said:
And surely you're aware what other ends were achieved via the 9/11 event.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the end of 3000 lives. Your delusion still has no connection to the Illuminati or NWO or whatever fantasy cabal that you fear. From what I've been reading in this thread it sounds like you're claiming Larry was behind the whole 9/11 "plot" cause of asbestos and fiber optic cables that for some reason won't fit into the communications conduits that were built into the building for just that kind of upgrade.

Most
Retarded
Theory
Ever....

:rolleyes:

ETA: after recalculating. The vicsims report is still more retarded, but only just slightly.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
I see you didn't read my post. Quelle surprise.

No, because of floor-by-floor demolition costs.

And surely you're aware what other ends were achieved via the 9/11 event.
Click to expand...

Don't you first have to show there would be any reason to demolish it in the first place?:confused:

Asbestos clearly was not an issue so what other possible reason do you think he had?
 
ergo said:
I see you didn't read my post. Quelle surprise.

No, because of floor-by-floor demolition costs.

And surely you're aware what other ends were achieved via the 9/11 event.
Click to expand...

You anywhere near NYC? Would love to see you go down to a FDNY house and tell firefighters that they lost their brothers in nothing more than a cheap way to destroy the tower. It's easy for you to sit behind a computer and lay claims, but you wouldn't have the intestinal fortitude to tell a firefighter something like this to their face.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Truthers who aren't Clayton Moore, here is another opportunity to reject and distance yourselves from the rabid racism and anti-semitism of a significant portion of your movement.
Click to expand...

The famous WOO response.

Pay no attention the man behind the curtain.


In order to believe 9/11 was not 19 people hijacking planes with absolutely maximum imagery and minimal loss of life there has to be an alternative to be assigned the blame.
 
ergo said:
I see you didn't read my post. Quelle surprise.

No, because of floor-by-floor demolition costs.

And surely you're aware what other ends were achieved via the 9/11 event.
Click to expand...

I feel like I'm participating in a Turing Test. (And no, I am not the machine)

Each post you make in the discussion is Part of the Discussion. No post is an island.

Demolition costs, asbestos removal costs. Come on.

ETA: what other ends? Larry wanted a war in Afghanistan?
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
The famous WOO response.

Pay no attention the man behind the curtain.


In order to believe 9/11 was not 19 people hijacking planes with absolutely maximum imagery and minimal loss of life there has to be an alternative to be assigned the blame.
Click to expand...

Wow, let's all just smile politely and back out of the room. (Nervous laugh)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom