• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

'Pull It'

JAStewart

Graduate Poster
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
1,521
CT'ers, as you know, often use the Larry Silverstein interview where he says 'Pull it' as evidence that WTC7 was rigged. This point was made on the Loose Change forums:

Killtown said:
OCTs (skeptics) say that the word "pull" when used in demo terms is slang for only meaning pulling a building down with cables.

So what's the demo slang for using explosives to demolish a building? Don't tell me there isn't one!

So I decided to find out what the demo slag was for using explosives. Something that KT didn't seem capable of. I sent out a few emails:

Hey I had a question regarding demolition Jargon - I understand "pull it" means to literally pull down the building with cables, but what is term for when a building is demolished by explosives?

Thank you, James.

Here is the first, hasty reply:

“Implosion”

Sent to me by Stacey Loizeaux <ssl-at-controlled-demolition.com>

I just thought i'd share this with you all, cheers.
 
Does "pull it" have the same meaning to a firefighter than it does to a demolition tech?
 
OCTs (skeptics) say that the word "pull" when used in demo terms is slang for only meaning pulling a building down with cables.

Once again, Killtown is using a strawman arguement. Skeptics don't recognize the word 'pull' as having been used in terms of demolition. The word was used in relation to the firefighting team that had been fighting the fire at WTC 7.

The use of the word 'pull' in the demolition world is irrelevant. Killtown might as well as what the word 'pull' means in skeet shooting!
 
How about this: Did Silverstein ever say "pull it" to anyone? All we know is that he told a reporter that he had agreed with the FDNY to "pull it." We don't even know if he said those words to the FDNY.

I'm given to understand that the concept of "pulling" has to do with aborting a military operation. To "pull" a mission is to end it prematurely. So, Sileverstein was properly employing a bit of miltary jargon left over from his youth during WWII.
 
CT'ers, as you know, often use the Larry Silverstein interview where he says 'Pull it' as evidence that WTC7 was rigged. This point was made on the Loose Change forums:

So I decided to find out what the demo slag was for using explosives. Something that KT didn't seem capable of. I sent out a few emails:

Here is the first, hasty reply:

“Implosion”

Sent to me by Stacey Loizeaux <ssl-at-controlled-demolition.com>

I just thought i'd share this with you all, cheers.
Good to know they're keeping a sense of humor at CDI!

JA, I devote a section of my WTC 7 paper to this issue (summary: "Pull it" is not a term that's ever used for explosive demolitions.) http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf
 
The use of the word 'pull' in the demolition world is irrelevant. Killtown might as well as what the word 'pull' means in skeet shooting!

My little brother once showed my dad a box of skeet loads (which had a picture of a bird on it, which my little brother assumed to be a skeet) and told my dad that he was going to go hunt skeet.

My dad said "OK son.. remember the skeet call, it's "Pull! Pull! Pull!" They'll come over like they were shot out of a cannon or something."

I wonder if the CT call is "Pull it! Pull it! Pull it!"
 
Has anyone ever asked Silverstein what he meant when he said "pull it"?
 
Has anyone ever asked Silverstein what he meant when he said "pull it"?
Allegation: 9/11 Revealed suggests that the 47-story World Trade Center 7 building, which collapsed at 5:20 pm on September 11, was intentionally demolished. The primary piece of evidence for this is a comment that Mr. Larry Silverstein, who owned the World Trade Center complex, made on the September 2002 television documentary American Rebuilds. Mr. Silverstein said:

I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, "We've had such terrible loss of life that the smartest thing to do is just pull it." And they made that decision to pull it and we watched the [World Trade Center 7] building collapse.

9/11 Revealed and other conspiracy theorists put forward the notion that Mr. Silverstein's suggestion to "pull it" is slang for intentionally demolishing the WTC 7 building.


Facts: On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement on this issue:
Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.​
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.​
In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.​
Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.​
As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, "I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it." Mr. McQuillan has stated that by "it," Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology has stated unequivocally, "NIST has seen so evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition," in its Collapse of WTC 7 report (p. 6). NIST's working hypothesis for the collapse of WTC 7 is that it was caused by the collapse of a critical column due to "fire and/or debris induced structural damage." There was substantial damage to WTC 7 when the nearby WTC 1 tower collapsed and fires began shortly afterwards. Also, WTC 7 was a very unusual building because it was built over an existing Con-Edison power generation substation, which contained two large 6,000 gallon fuel tanks for the emergency generation of power. The fuel from these tanks could have contributed to the intense heat that apparently weakened the supporting columns in WTC 7.
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html
 
I really don't see the big deal over this remark at all, it is abundantly clear he is talking about the fire fighting operation.

Admittedly it was said in a kind of off hand way but it in no way implicates him in this ridiculous plot.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100
 
Last edited:
Has anyone ever asked Silverstein what he meant when he said "pull it"?

Yep:
On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement on this issue:

Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html
 
It seems to me that any instruction to a fire chief, including "pull it" would have its meaning restricted to the limitation of the fire department's capabilities.

Removing his firefighters from a building is one of them. Is covert controlled demolition within the fire department's remit?

Bear in mind that firefighters are really not the most educated of people and such people do not tend to keep secrets very well. If they had been used to employ these tactics on this building I imagine there would be numerous credible testimonies as to what type and size of devices were used and I don't believe there has been.
 
It seems to me that any instruction to a fire chief, including "pull it" would have its meaning restricted to the limitation of the fire department's capabilities.

Removing his firefighters from a building is one of them. Is covert controlled demolition within the fire department's remit?

Bear in mind that firefighters are really not the most educated of people and such people do not tend to keep secrets very well. If they had been used to employ these tactics on this building I imagine there would be numerous credible testimonies as to what type and size of devices were used and I don't believe there has been.

I dunno where you live, but here, a firefighter is required to have a college degree.
 
I dunno where you live, but here, a firefighter is required to have a college degree.

To be a FDNY fire fighter you only need 15 college credits or military experience. With that said, education has little to do with intelligence or the ability to keep a secret.
 
Implosion

So I decided to find out what the demo slag was for using explosives. Something that KT didn't seem capable of. I sent out a few emails:

Here is the first, hasty reply:

“Implosion”

Sent to me by Stacey Loizeaux <ssl-at-controlled-demolition.com>

I just thought i'd share this with you all, cheers.
Since pretty much all 9/11 Deniers repeat themselves with the constancy of the Northern Star, I may as well warn you... "Implosion" is another word they get excited about with respect to WTC 7, because the FEMA Report uses it to describe the building collapse:

FEMA said:
The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the facade was pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and implosion.

The NIST Preliminary does not use the word "implosion," but instead discusses "disproportionate global collapse."

The Troothers will have you believe that, since FEMA used the word "implosion," they implicitly agree that explosives were used. I tried to disabuse Killtown of this precise notion during his brief reign of error over here, but I'm sure he's retreated back into his cruel fantasies since then.
 
The CTers favorite 9/11 “mystery” is the collapse of WTC 7, but it’s really the dumbest, most complicating idea they could come up with.

This is how it must of played out in August, 2001:

Silverstein: The WTC will be destroyed on September 11, 2001 and I need your help with something.
Mysterious Fire Commander: The WTC is going to be destroyed! I have to inform the proper authorities and stop this!
Silverstein: Did I mention your assistance will make you a very, very wealthy man?
Mysterious Fire Commander: I’ve devoted my career to public service and an attack on the WTC could possibly kill my fellow fire fighter friends, who on many occasions risked their own lives for mine. However, if your talking at least seven figures Larry, I’m in.
Silverstein: Good. What I need is for you and a few of your buddies to do is pull off a controlled demolition of WTC 7.
Mysterious Fire Commander: Controlled demolition? We’re fire fighters, not demolition experts.
Silverstein: Come on, you must know some people.
Mysterious Fire Commander: Well there is this guy in my poker game. He works for the most well known demolition company in the U.S. but rigging a job that big is gonna take a lot of people. How do we keep them all quite?
Silverstein: EVERYONE is willing to commit mass murder if they get paid well enough and it's a well known fact that fire fighters and demolition experts have no morals or principles anyway.
Mysterious Fire Commander: Ok, so we’ll pull it as soon as WTC 1 & 2 fall.
Silverstein: No, no, no. You have to wait for my ok. We may have to wait for several hours after the initial attack.
Mysterious Fire Commander: Why? Won’t that raise suspicion?
Silverstein: I didn’t get to be one of the largest real estate developers ever by listening to morons like you. After the initial attack I have to consult with my small army of accountants and insurance experts and see exactly how much I’ll profit if we destroy the building. It’s all about the numbers.
Mysterious Fire Commander: Wow Larry. Only you could pull off such a complicated plan and afford to pay hundreds of heartless, evil minions millions in bribes. If you ever need more help in your plan to take over the world don’t forget your friends at the FDNY!
 
Does "pull it" have the same meaning to a firefighter than it does to a demolition tech?

Is pull it, what he said or just what they want to hear when he said pull out? Very very close in terms of phonems, and easy to hear what you want to with a bit of background noise.
 
6516.jpg
 
Let's think about it, change the wording to the possible meanings for "pull it", and see which sentence makes sense:

"We've had such terrible loss of life that the smartest thing to do is just evacuate it."

"We've had such terrible loss of life that the smartest thing to do is just blow it up to smithereens."


The first sentence makes sense. People have died fighting fires, so pull the firefighters out, and let nature take it's course. The people are more importnat than saving the building.

The second version makes no sense at all. How is blowing up a building a response to a statement of a lot of people dying. "What the hell are you talking about" is what anyone would say if they heard the second sentence. The second half of the phrase is a non sequitor.
 

Back
Top Bottom