"Pull it" did not mean "demolish the building"

Moderator: Moderator

User avatar
Revision
Member
Member
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2020 2:09 pm
Contact:

"Pull it" did not mean "demolish the building"

Postby Revision » 1 year 9 months ago (Thu Sep 02, 2021 2:00 pm)

From this excellent article: https://www.cancelthiscompany.com/911-lies.html (This article has also more on WTC-7.)

In a 2002 PBS conducted an interview with WTC Building 7 lessee Larry Silverstein. In that interview he used an ambiguous word in two sentences... "pull"

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure that they were going to be able to contain the fire. And I said you know we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it. And they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse." -- Larry Silverstein


Truthers hailed this as proof positive that building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition, and this sparked a back and forth red herring debate about whether the ambiguous word "pull" is or isn't a term used by the fire department or in the demolition business.

Unfortunately truthers didn't think this one out.

For starters, the only thing that matters is what the word "pull" meant to Larry Silverstein. A spokesperson for Silverstein later said that he meant withdraw firefighters. And for what it's worth, according to at least 11 demolition companies surveyed, "pull it" is not a term that they use to describe "demolishing a building". Furthermore, fire departments are in the business of fighting fires -- Not demolishing buildings!

And lo and behold, NY Deputy Fire Chief Peter Hayden used the same P-word to describe moving people out to safety when asked about WTC7 in an interview with Firehouse Magazine:

“...we started PULLING the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to PULL guys back because we were concerned for their safety" -- Deputy Chief Peter Hayden of the New York Fire Department


But just for fun, let's assume for a moment that when Larry said "pull" he meant "trigger the explosives". Why on earth would he openly admit to insurance fraud in a TV interview? It makes absolutely no sense. And better yet, why hasn't the insurance company that paid out on the claim investigated this? Obviously even they don't believe in controlled demolition fairy tales.

Even more ridiculous is that in believing that Larry meant "trigger the explosives" you must also believe that the New York City Fire Department conspired with Larry Silverstein to commit insurance fraud by demolishing World Trade Center 7! And you must also accept that conspirators had both 1) advance knowledge of the 911 attacks and 2) had previously arranged for crews to rig building 7 with explosives without being detected by tenants or security. It's so fantastically absurd that even Hollywood would reject this script.

The cost of rebuilding WTC7 plus paying back the loans on WTC 7 exceeded the amount of the WTC 7 insurance payout. Therefore there would be no motive to destroy WTC7 in the first place.

Furthermore, Larry Silverstein is already worth 3.5 billion. Why would a billionaire risk going to prison for insurance fraud, for potentially accidentally killing hundreds or thousands of people with high explosives in order to hopefully save money when he's already mega-wealthy? The idea of rigging a huge building full of tenants with explosives without being noticed or getting caught is certifiably absurd to begin with. How would you even begin to recruit people to work on such a massive nefarious project, and then keep them quiet? Nobody would even consider such a thing. Only truthers dream this stuff up!

Then we have these facts: WTC7 burned out of control for 7 hours. Firefighters and others on the scene said that by 2 PM WTC7 was bulging and shortly thereafter began making creaking noises. Accordingly, NYFD evacuated the area due to safety concerns. Seismic records recorded by the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory showed no trace of detonation charges. The plane impacts and building collapses produced signals, but there was no trace of any detonation charges. WTC7 did not collapse symmetrically. No conspirators have ever come forward with any information about any nefarious destruction of WTC7. Case closed.



Here is also an excellent video explaining how the WTC-7 collapsed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hki30uLgsnU
The mainstream Holocaust story is a baseless conspiracy theory.

Bitchute: http://www.bitchute.com/channel/revision

Breker
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 909
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: Europa

Re: "Pull it" did not mean "demolish the building"

Postby Breker » 1 year 9 months ago (Sat Sep 04, 2021 6:37 pm)

Like all the sites allegedly brought down by enemies of Israel, science exposes the impossible Zionist claims made about them all.

We suggest the WTC-7 section here:
https://www.ae911truth.org/
and:
https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/the ... heory-wtc7
B.
Revisionists are just the messengers, the impossibility of the "Holocaust" narrative is the message.


Return to “The 9/11 Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests