Larry Silverstein explaining what he meant by 'pull it'

LSSBB said:
Eh, they haven't able to prove any CD took place anyway, so why does it matter? Might as well argue about angels on pin surfaces. You have to prove angels exist first or its all just a philosophical exercise.
Click to expand...

It's the price we pay for entertaining the trolls. Arguing from the wrong end of the topic - round in circles - going nowhere - just what the trolls want.

Why argue thermXte was there to use in CD when there was no CD?

Even sillier why argue that the thermXte was proved to have been there by the existence of iron rich microspheres? Over 1700 troll feeding posts on that one.

And there was still no CD.

Meanwhile we go along with the trolls as we join in debating ever more remote and irrelevant minutiae. What next - arguing "What is the colour of the left side of a microsphere?" :rolleyes:

In fact your old and proven example of angels on the head of a pin makes more sense.

..we know that pins exist. :)
 
NoahFence said:
I'm still waiting for the answer to the most basic question of all - how'd the :rule10: explosives even survive the impact / explosion / fire?
Click to expand...

They didn't; there weren't any demolition explosives on 9/11 in the first place. 9/11 did not involve any controlled demolitions, missiles, aliens, remote controlled military planes, or any larger-than-life government plots. Planes were hijacked and crashed into buildings; It has always been and will always remain a terrorist attack.
 
adkinsjr said:
They didn't; there weren't any demolition explosives on 9/11 in the first place. 9/11 did not involve any controlled demolitions, missiles, aliens, remote controlled military planes, or any larger-than-life government plots. Planes were hijacked and crashed into buildings; It has always been and will always remain a terrorist attack.
Click to expand...
True...

Which is why discussion of how the buildings actually collapsed is of relevant interest. The collapses actually occurred.

Discussion of thermXte is irrelevant - there was no CD and therefore no use of thermXte in CD.

Ditto iron microspheres. The microspheres were not there as a result of thermXte which was probably not there and wasn't used even if it was there.

AND likewise (as I once posted on another forum) no need to discuss Santa Claus' custard because it wasn't used in CD either. :)

Discuss what did happen by all means but why humour trolls by discussing what didn't happen?

OR, even more basic, why feed their egos?
 
NoahFence said:
I'm still waiting for the answer to the most basic question of all - how'd the :rule10: explosives even survive the impact / explosion / fire?
Click to expand...
Noah I have actually given a detailed explanation of an answer to the problem you pose - several times on another forum and I think twice on this forum.

The explosives were not placed before the aircraft impacts because the actual point of impact could not be predetermined. Neither could the actual damage caused by impact be predetermined so that which members to cut could be known.

So the solution is fairly obvious.

In addition to the hijacker suicide terrorists there must have been fire suited suicide volunteers who went into the raging fire and placed the explosives just where they were needed after the aircraft impact had done its damage.

I think that explanation is at least as sensible as anything the truthers have proposed. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
NoahFence said:
I'm still waiting for the answer to the most basic question of all - how'd the :rule10: explosives even survive the impact / explosion / fire?
Click to expand...

[Truther Mode]

1.) Looks at mounting evidence supporting your side.

2.) "Just because we don't know all the details...."

3.) Switches subject to something completely unrelated.

[/Truther Mode]
 
ozeco41 said:
<snip>
So the solution is fairly obvious.

In addition to the hijacker suicide terrorists there must have been fire suited suicide volunteers who went into the raging fire and placed the explosives just where they were needed after the aircraft impact had done its damage.

I think that explanation is at least as sensible as anything the truthers have proposed. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
With the towers the actions of the second plane told plenty about there not any explosives... just the fact that they aimed lower in the 2nd tower because the first hadn't fallen yet. You do get some idea of their motivations that way...


This thing with Silversteins "pull it" quote... It seems they look at the word "it" to not make sense with pulling out firefighters... yet "pulling the building" is itself a non sequitor to it's reference to demolishing WTC 7. They claim it's a demolition term... maybe... but it has nothing to do with explosives like they claim. The whole role of which doesn't make sense is in fact reversed; Silversteins' quote has context... plenty of it to suggest he was speaking of the firefighters. "Skeptics" hone in on a single word where the association they make with it makes absolutely no sense
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
...This thing with Silversteins "pull it" quote... It seems they look at the word "it" to not make sense with pulling out firefighters... yet "pulling the building" is itself a non sequitor to it's reference to demolishing WTC 7. They claim it's a demolition term... maybe... but it has nothing to do with explosives like they claim. The whole role of which doesn't make sense is in fact reversed; Silversteins' quote has context... plenty of it to suggest he was speaking of the firefighters. "Skeptics" hone in on a single word where the association they make with it makes absolutely no sense
Click to expand...
Truther's tactics routinely takes a single issue out of context and builds a house of cards on it.

This must be the extreme example - one four letter word, "pull", out of context.

For all practical purposes they could only better that by taking a three letter word out of context..

..there are surely no two or one letter words they could give the treatment.

(Now have I set a challenge....:o )
 
Oh no... I think the challenge has been met. Having read the thread... even Silversteins' use of the word "it" changes the whole meaning from referring to firefighters to referring to inanimate objects; according to the so-called skeptics that is. Still goes back to the non sequitor of associating the word "pull" with explosives, and the complete bastardizing of context.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Oh no... I think the challenge has been met. Having read the thread... even Silversteins' use of the word "it" changes the whole meaning from referring to firefighters to referring to inanimate objects;...
Click to expand...
Curses - I should have thought of that one....must be age....or sumptin...
Grizzly Bear said:
.. according to the so-called skeptics that is.
Click to expand...
take care not to destroy meaning for another word. :) It's bad enough gracing trolls with the label "truther" :rolleyes:
Grizzly Bear said:
Still goes back to the non sequitor of associating the word "pull" with explosives, and the complete bastardizing of context.
Click to expand...
Yes. ;)
 
NoahFence said:
I'm still waiting for the answer to the most basic question of all - how'd the :rule10: explosives even survive the impact / explosion / fire?
Click to expand...

I dont really like this question, because its so boring I feel it almost gives credence to the truthers that there isnt anything more absurd about their position than this question. Dont get me wrong, it IS absurd as your question gets at, but there are much more interesting questions to ask truthers that they refuse to.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Oh no... I think the challenge has been met. Having read the thread... even Silversteins' use of the word "it" changes the whole meaning from referring to firefighters to referring to inanimate objects; according to the so-called skeptics that is. Still goes back to the non sequitor of associating the word "pull" with explosives, and the complete bastardizing of context.
Click to expand...

According to truther apologetics, the only explanation for awkward syntax is conspiracy.
 
Edx said:
I dont really like this question, because its so boring I feel it almost gives credence to the truthers that there isnt anything more absurd about their position than this question. Dont get me wrong, it IS absurd as your question gets at, but there are much more interesting questions to ask truthers that they refuse to.
Click to expand...

But without a plausible explanation on how the explosives would survive, they have literally nothing.

Well, they have nothing anyway, but still.
 
ozeco41 said:
take care not to destroy meaning for another word. :) It's bad enough gracing trolls with the label "truther" :rolleyes: Yes.
Click to expand...
I use "" to disclaimer how I'm using them... Political correctness on my part I suppose, but yeah.

I still find it lame that the conspiracy idea is based off something as stupid as a simple language syntax incomprehension. They can whine all they want about me being snarky and mean, but when it's something this simple I don't think it deserves civil leniency, especially when the context should have been resolved 10 years ago.

On the other hand trolling tends to feed on repetition I suppose.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
I'm curious why RedIbis has not responded to any of my last responses to him. I was polite and respectful.

:(
Click to expand...

Same for my questions, but I've asked him the same question about 5 times in this thread.
 
Edx said:
Same for my questions, but I've asked him the same question about 5 times in this thread.
Click to expand...
I'm assuming you mean this question

you said:
Do you think you are safe if a building collapses so long as you are not directly inside it?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how he could answer this question in this context. You offer no limiting conditions. If in the context of 9/11, there was no certainty of collapse.

Given the wording, I could honestly answer, yes.

If it was a different question, I apologize.

ETA: This version of the question is not much better

you said:
If a building collapses, are you not in any danger the moment you step onto the street outside?
Click to expand...

The answer to this question is obvious. How does it advance the argument?

The focus here is the wording Silverstein used. He would not be consulted about the condition or necessary procedures by any of the members of the FD. How does this question pertain to the subject from Silverstein s perspective?
 
Last edited:
ozeco41 said:
Truther's tactics routinely takes a single issue out of context and builds a house of cards on it.

This must be the extreme example - one four letter word, "pull", out of context.

For all practical purposes they could only better that by taking a three letter word out of context..

..there are surely no two or one letter words they could give the treatment.

(Now have I set a challenge....:o )
Click to expand...
OK Ozeco, "it" has been debated on this thread and elsewhere, but what about "I?" He should have said "I" because as 100% owner of the building, the decision was obviously his alone. Had he said "I" it would have disproven any conspiracy, but since he didn't say "I," does that mean he had co-conspirators with him?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom