Pull it

All 9/11 truthers point to the famous quote by Larry Silverstein as proof that WTC 7 was destroyed by explosives and/or thermite.

They say the words "pull it" mean that Larry was saying they decided to destroy the building.

So 9/11 truthers, answer me this: Why the frosty (*)(*)(*)(*) would Larry Silverstein allow his admitting of blowing up WTC 7 to air on television?

Do you really think he was admitting to blowing up WTC 7? Why the hell would he do that? Don't you think someone would have noticed and informed Silverstein that he slipped up? Don't you think he would have silenced the station from airing that segment?

"Mr. Silverstein, you just said that you decided to destroy WTC 7!"

"What? I did? Oh (*)(*)(*)(*)! Cut that from the tape!"

"I'm sorry! We won't! We are going to air it anyway!"

"Oh (*)(*)(*)(*). I can help kill 3000 people in the most elaborate false flag attack in history but I am powerless in stopping you from airing my admitting it because that would be illegal. Woe is me."

Come on guys! Do you really think this evil mastermind would allow his slip up to air on TV?

 

He claims he was referring to the people. When's the last time you called people "it"? "Pull it" is standard jargon for bringing down a building via controlled demolition. Google it.

 

You completely missed what I was saying.

WHY WOULD HE ALLOW THAT SLIP UP TO AIR?

 

No ,in fact it's NOT

No,it's NOT,standard 'jargon' for controlled demolition is to 'shoot' the building.


Besides,why would a businessman be using supposedly standard 'jargon' for the demolition industry?

Wouldn't he say 'blow it up' or 'knock it down'?

 

Maybe he was referring to his finger?

 

How would he be able to retract it? It's not like the people who interviewed him were his people. What could he have done?

 

That's a great question. People who think he could have kept them silent also need to answer these questions:

What could he have done to keep firefighters silent?
What could he have done to keep police silent?
What could he have done to keep medical workers silent?
What could he have done to keep demolition teams silent?
What could he have done to keep office workers silent?
What could he have done to keep clean up teams silent?
What could he have done to keep the investigation teams silent?

 

Please answer mine first.

 

I don't think he wanted to or needed to keep anyone silent about the phrase "pull it"

 

By the way, what's the deal with all these hypothetical situations that try to get others to provide you with the answers to the dissonances in your own theories?

Can't you come up with the answers to the flaws in your story on your own?

 

Ask the OP.

 

I asked you.

You're the one that didn't answer the question posed in the OP and tried to get someone else to resolve the problem at the root of the question's premise.

 

OK, since the interviewers were not his people, there was no way he could have retracted it without arousing suspicion, especially if he didn't realize it until much later.

If he could, I'd like to know.

 

Logical circles.

I thought the statement "pull it" was supposed to arouse suspicion.

But your answer conflicts with the premise that he told fire fighters to "pull it."

The firefighters were not his people. How did he prevent the arousal of their suspicion?

 

You are saying we are saying he said that to purposely arouse suspicion?

Not sure I understand what you are saying.

 

It's usually easier to spot a circular argument if you're not the one committing it.

 

On the documentary when Silverstein was being interviewed, what was the segment of the doc about? What subject, specifically?

 

You are awful at paraphrasing. The truther argument goes like this:

1. Larry Silverstein said he spoke with the fire chief and decided to "pull it"
2. "Pull" is a demolition industry term meaning demolish a building (this is false)
3. Therefore Silverstein decided to demolish his building.

The rest of the argument is kinda fuzzy. To fit the narrative, at some point Silverstein must have decided he needed to hide the fact that his building was demolished. This would, of course, necessitate his need to avoid the arousal of suspicion. The truthers then contend he made a mistake and admitted demolishing the building in a later interview, which would be the ultimate in arousal of suspicion. Would it not?

Why would it arouse less suspicion to broadcast the admission of guilt, then it would to attempt to [insert the truther hypothesis as to how Silverstein kept everyone else involved quiet] one more time?

I'm not sure you want to.

 

Who was this "fire chief"?

Oh, so they didn't [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNEoiOP76QQ]pull Building 6[/ame] to demolish it?

He said "we," so sounds like he wasn't the only one involved.

When watching the video, doesn't it?

You'll have to rephrase that. I don't understand it.

Yes I do. Fire away.

 

He does not say "we" made the decision to pull, he says "they" made the decision to pull.

Based on who he says he was speaking with, controlled demolition makes no sense.

 

Let's look at what he said.

Let's substitute what the truthers think he meant.

Does that make sense to anyone??

And even if it did, why would "they" the fire department make the decision to blow the building up??

 

Larry Silverstein is obviously a fan of Fahrenheit 451.

 

Now substitute the phrase "remove the fire fighting operation". Isn't that sentence more logical?

 

Close enough. Not just him.

Who was the name of that person again?

 

Answer this and maybe you'll see why it does make sense:

On the documentary when Silverstein was being interviewed, what was the segment of the doc about? What subject, specifically?

Who said they did again?