Larry Silverstein explaining what he meant by 'pull it'

OCaptain said:
That you don't know to what speaks volumes, but I'll help.

You're gullible to the notion that if Silverstein talked to "x" on the phone, then 9/11 was an inside job, but if he talked to "y", it wasn't an inside job.
Click to expand...

hummmmmm...ok ...who did he speak too then??
 
twinstead said:
seriously senenmut? Is THIS what it has come to?
Click to expand...

imo it was probably the OEM guys and that unknown "engineer" that predicted the wtc's collapse and also wtc 7 five hrs before it collapsed and was "right on the money" about the timeframe concerning wtc 7. so larry probably spoke to someone in that small circle. i know rotanz (fireman) was there...of the top of my head.
 
Senenmut said:
imo it was probably the OEM guys and that unknown "engineer" that predicted the wtc's collapse and also wtc 7 five hrs before it collapsed and was "right on the money" about the timeframe concerning wtc 7. so larry probably spoke to someone in that small circle. i know rotanz (fireman) was there...of the top of my head.
Click to expand...

All I can say is wow; somebody is grasping at straws. Why don't you just ask Larry?
 
cantonear1968 said:
I would be very surprised if Clayton even knew what he means.

Anyway, back on topic: I still claim "pull it" is the dumbest claim to come out of 9/11 Truthers. And I find it very telling that Richard Gage uses this in his PP presentation.
Click to expand...

This one always kills me, they cling to these 2 words like they have never been used in the history of time to describe anything other than a building being destroyed.

As someone who used the term "Pull It" as my goto euphemism for masturbation for nearly a decade (until the truthers ruined its humor value, or rather changed it.) i find the shock at the term pretty funny.
 
sadhatter said:
This one always kills me, they cling to these 2 words like they have never been used in the history of time to describe anything other than a building being destroyed.

As someone who used the term "Pull It" as my goto euphemism for masturbation for nearly a decade (until the truthers ruined its humor value, or rather changed it.) i find the shock at the term pretty funny.
Click to expand...
Let's also not forget that Larry Silverstein is not a stupid person and would never agree to a scheme that was sure to not make him money.

Let's put the moral issues aside that Mr Silverstein would surely not be comfortable with. Plain and simple, Larry Silverstein would have made more money if none of this happened. If any one wants to argue this, give it your best shot. RedIbis, originator of "Larry made out like a bandit" has even abandoned this claim.

Larry Silverstein being involved is the biggest red hearing of the "truth" movement.
 
Last edited:
OCaptain said:
Please explain why you think it matters who Silverstein talked to on the phone?
Click to expand...

Larry 'Hello Mr Loizeaux, we have a problem. There's been such a terrible loss of life, I'd like you to send a team of demolitions guys into a burning skyscraper to pull it. It's 2 0'clock and I need the building down in 3 hrs. But you can't use your normal stuff, it has to be special hushaboom® nanothermite, you can get it from Lawrence Livermore but it'll have to be flown in by military helicopter, then your teams will have to strip the drywall and paint it onto the steel. Allow 2 hrs for drying/curing time'

Mark Loizeaux 'Respectfully Mr Silverstein, $^%^#*#$^#^#^#*$^#$^#!!!!!!!!!..... click'
 
alienentity said:
Larry 'Hello Mr Loizeaux, we have a problem. There's been such a terrible loss of life, I'd like you to send a team of demolitions guys into a burning skyscraper to pull it. It's 2 0'clock and I need the building down in 3 hrs. But you can't use your normal stuff, it has to be special hushaboom® nanothermite, you can get it from Lawrence Livermore but it'll have to be flown in by military helicopter, then your teams will have to strip the drywall and paint it onto the steel. Allow 2 hrs for drying/curing time'

Mark Loizeaux 'Respectfully Mr Silverstein, $^%^#*#$^#^#^#*$^#$^#!!!!!!!!!..... click'
Click to expand...

Stop painting such a vivid word picture! You're going to leave him thinking that was even possible! LLOL
 
sadhatter said:
This one always kills me, they cling to these 2 words like they have never been used in the history of time to describe anything other than a building being destroyed.
Click to expand...
It's CT 101. Scour the record for anything that they don't instantly understand. Any misstatement, coincidence, obscure fact or counter intuitive event is automatically evidence - not of their ignorance - but of conspiracy.

A building owner's inarticulate request for the fire department to "pull out" of an already irreparable and dangerous WTC7 is shocking to no one but a CT.
 
alienentity said:
Larry 'Hello Mr Loizeaux, we have a problem. There's been such a terrible loss of life, I'd like you to send a team of demolitions guys into a burning skyscraper to pull it. It's 2 0'clock and I need the building down in 3 hrs. But you can't use your normal stuff, it has to be special hushaboom® nanothermite, you can get it from Lawrence Livermore but it'll have to be flown in by military helicopter, then your teams will have to strip the drywall and paint it onto the steel. Allow 2 hrs for drying/curing time'

Mark Loizeaux 'Respectfully Mr Silverstein, $^%^#*#$^#^#^#*$^#$^#!!!!!!!!!..... click'
Click to expand...

Roger that... lets get the cables inside this burning building, we don't have to worry about safety or anything.... just go in, bring in the equipment.... air's clean...

I think it's been put in a million different ways just how stupid the "pull it" cherry pick is... If it still doesn't sink in... I'm inclined to just let them believe in it and smile. I Kind of expect this sort of thing out of politics.... but when it deals with something this objective... why does this discussion ever happen? :boggled: (Dumb question I suppose when I did it before but...)
 
sadhatter said:
This one always kills me, they cling to these 2 words like they have never been used in the history of time to describe anything other than a building being destroyed.

As someone who used the term "Pull It" as my goto euphemism for masturbation for nearly a decade (until the truthers ruined its humor value, or rather changed it.) i find the shock at the term pretty funny.
Click to expand...

Would it be appropriate to make a "that's what she said" joke at this point?

Robrob said:
It's CT 101. Scour the record for anything that they don't instantly understand. Any misstatement, coincidence, obscure fact or counter intuitive event is automatically evidence - not of their ignorance - but of conspiracy.

A building owner's inarticulate request for the fire department to "pull out" of an already irreparable and dangerous WTC7 is shocking to no one but a CT.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes, the "anomaly". The CT's favorite tool.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Roger that... lets get the cables inside this burning building, we don't have to worry about safety or anything.... just go in, bring in the equipment.... air's clean...

I think it's been put in a million different ways just how stupid the "pull it" cherry pick is... If it still doesn't sink in... I'm inclined to just let them believe in it and smile. I Kind of expect this sort of thing out of politics.... but when it deals with something this objective... why does this discussion ever happen? :boggled: (Dumb question I suppose when I did it before but...)
Click to expand...

Honestly, seeing is believing. It does boggle the mind that this meme is still breathing - it's a classic zombie doctrine, I guess: can't be killed with facts.

Maybe it just shows the powerful will to believe which possesses people - in this case a 9/11 conspiracy myth, but it exists elsewhere of course. I also suspect that the flawed argumentation is a symptom of this will to believe: while a purely philosophical discussion would indeed allow one to ponder various possible outcomes or ideas, given that the concepts are abstract enough there is room for liberal differences of opinion. But when it comes to discussing hard reality or facts, this wiggle room is much narrower or in many cases nonexistent. But it almost seems with truthers that they think if they can just 'win' a semantic point, somehow reality will accommodate. (Along the lines of 'something created the universe, therefore it was God') Obviously this is a debate tactic, a rhetorical device, rather than a competent effort to measure reality. Thus the word 'it' becomes unchangeably interpreted as 'the building' - the grammatical ambiguity is perceived as the 'wiggle room' to hide this belief, no matter how illogical it really is to do that.

A deliberate misinterpretation of ambiguity, in order to maintain a doctrinal belief.

How deliciously ironic that Silverstein's grammatically-challenged reminiscence would be seized on by people who themselves are so often borderline illiterate. (Consider that in the US, 14% of the adult population is at the "below basic" level for prose literacy; 12% are at the "below basic" level for document literacy; and 22% are at that level for quantitative literacy. Only 13% of the population is proficient in these three areas—able to compare viewpoints in two editorials; interpret a table about blood pressure, age, and physical activity; or compute and compare the cost per ounce of food items.).

I'm not referring to Senenmut, btw, but to the average truthbot typical of those who visit my channel and leave mangled comments in all-caps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom