Pull it

Um, they showed the building collapse while he was saying that!

How is it protecting further loss of life when everyone was already pulled out?

Again, who said it was the fire dept?

 

How do you know he was really talking to one?

10 years later and you still don't know. Great research on your guy's part.

Call him and find out. That would be a big boon for the anti-truth movement.

Are you going to retract your mistake saying "pull" is not a demolition term?

You: "Pull" is a demolition industry term meaning demolish a building (this is false)"

Video: "Hello? Oh, we're getting ready to pull building six." "We had to be very careful how we demolished building six.

Nope, still don't understand it. Can you rephrase?

 

what?? They demolished everyone who was in the building?

Mod edit

 

It seems that Suede has some (admitted) reading comprehension problems.

We are strictly speaking about the quote that Silverstein gave. He said they decided to "pull it" to protect against further loss of life. The how doesn't enter into the quote, does it?

Clearly Silverstein said it was the fire department that made the decision to pull.

If pull means demolish, you must try to show that Silverstein is saying that the Fire Department made the decision to demolish the building.

Read the quote again.

The first they is qualified as being the fire department, for which the fire department commander ostensibly speaks. The second pronoun "they" is not modified by a different proper noun so it must be the same proper noun, the "fire department."

The fire department made the decision to pull and then Silverstein and the fire department watched the building collapse. Silverstein directly removed himself from the decision to pull, stating that they made the decision, and then they both watched it collapse.

It's simple grammar. I'm not sure why you're having such difficulty.

 

He was the building owner. Someone from the fire department spoke with him that day. It's a dead on 100% guarantee.

10 years later and I still don't care. You're the one that thinks there's something to this "pull it" thing. Why don't YOU know who the representative from the fire department was that spoke with Silverstein? Where's your research? Have you spoken with Cruthers, or Fellini? That would be a great place to start I would think.

The "pull it" remark is already discredited. If you think there's something to the story, you should do the research.

I made no mistake. "Pull it" is not an industry term that means "demolish a building"

Let's start with a correct parsing of Silverstein's use of pronouns before we get into anything more complex.

 

Let me help you out, suede.

The "fire department" is the antecedent of the pronoun "they". Here is the definition of antecedent for you.

Definition. An antecedent is the word or group of words to which a pronoun refers. One way to look at this is: A pronoun is a form of shorthand that we use instead of repeating a certain word or group of words; the word or phrase that the pronoun replaces is a duplicate of the word or phrase that is the pronoun's antecedent.

Therefore, in Silverstein's quote, "they" refers to "the fire department".

Hope this helps.

 

You guys are saying his "pull it" comment meant pull the firefighter operation (nice he doesn't mention the brave firefighters as if they are unimportant), but weren't they already pulled out when the alleged call happened?

No, at best he eludes to one of the "they" was that alleged FDNY commanders. Says nothing about the whole dept.

You guys are saying that. We are not.

Have you ever heard that saying about assuming?

Obviously you do seeing you here all the time posting against us.

In your biased skeptic eyes, maybe.

Why are you now being dishonest on what you originally said? You didn't say "pull it," you said:

2. "Pull" is a demolition industry term meaning demolish a building (this is false)

Please apologize for you blatant dishonesty and then admit you were wrong it's not a demo term when the video clearly shows it is..

Stall all you want.

 

I know you guys think the "they" must be the fire dept, but that is your mistake that you think that, because we don't think that.

1) No proof he was called by an FDNY member
2) Even if he was called by this alleged commander, the "they" could have been a group of people that just included this commander. For example, the "they" could have been: the mayor, this alleged FDNY commander, a NYPD commander, FBI agent, CIA agent, etc. NOT necessarily saying that's who the "they" were, just giving you an example.

 

Silverstein does not tell us when the call happened, just that he remembers it.

More logical circles. Who makes decisions for the whole department if not the commanders? Is there someone the commanders need to check with before they commit the whole department to their command decisions?

Oh you mean like assuming that Larry's "pull it" comment was a reference to blowing up his building?

It's SOP for the fire department to be in contact with the owners of property that they are currently working. In fact, it's a crucial aspect of their job description. Are you insinuating that you think the fire department was remiss in contacting the property management?

I'm not being dishonest, and you're having difficulty with grammar.

I didn't realize I needed your permission.

 

I thought his spokesman said he got the alleged call in the "afternoon" and the firefighters were ordered out before noon? That would mean there would have been no "firefighting contingency" to "pull" by the time the alleged call happen and that would be more evidence that "pull it" meant the building.

Again, we don't think the Fire dept ordered the building to be pulled.

If I had said that it's a dead on 100% guarantee that he said that, then yeah.

No, but do Fire commanders take orders from building owners?

Don't try to weasel out of your lie. You said "pull" and that wasn't a demo term and when I showed you that wasn't true, then you tried to say you said "pull it." But btw way, "pull it" is a demo term also, according to CDI. See, someone has contacted the "source"!

 

There's that logical circle again. If Larry wasn't talking with fire commanders how could he have ordered them to do anything?

There's no need for the circle there, though because Larry didn't order anyone to pull anything. He said they made the decision. He didn't say "I ordered them to pull the building," or" they followed my orders to pull the building." He said "they made the decision to pull the building." If I'm wrong, please quote the portion in which Larry says he ordered the fire commanders (or anyone else for that matter) to do anything.

Who's we? Who's Larry talking about when he says "they made the decision to pull it?"

Again, I did not lie, and you're still having difficulty with grammar. "Pull" is not a demolition industry term meaning demolish a building.

 

What is the name of the person at CDI that made that claim? I'll call CDI right now and confirm.

 

In case you missed it the first time.

The "fire department" is the antecedent of the pronoun "they". Here is the definition of antecedent for you.

Definition. An antecedent is the word or group of words to which a pronoun refers.

You do know how pronouns work, don't you? But just in case.

A pronoun is a word that takes the place of a noun, noun phrase, or noun clause.

You do know what nouns are, right?

Just because you don't think that doesn't mean the rules of grammar don't apply anymore.

No proof he even exists.

That's good. You're making progress. The fire department ordered the fire fighting operation to be pulled.

 

It's official, truther's can't do any of the three "R's".....

 

One of the synonyms off official is lie.

Official = lie

 

Wow all that intellectual dishonesty.

Yeh this has been settled years ago.




in order to be grammatically and syntactically correct "to pull" and "pull it" have to be used in the same context et al or the whole sentence falls apart.

​

I cant believe these official propaganda promoters are still being so intellectually dishonest not only destroying physics but grammar as well when this has been settled as "demolished" 10 years ago.

Came to another gunfight with a toothpick LOL

 

No,it's not...try again.

 

Well I'm not convinced he was talking to one, so...

Well gee, thanks for clearly all that up.

Ah, so they ordered the building destroyed. Glad we got that all straightened out.

Did you not watch that video I posted where the guy says "Oh, we're getting ready to pull Building 6," and right after another guy comes on as says "We had to be very careful how we demolished building six"?

"Pull" is a demolition term. Get over it.

 

Well I'm not convinced he was talking to one, so...

Well gee, thanks for clearly all that up.

Ah, so they ordered the building destroyed. Glad we got that all straightened out.

Did you not watch that video I posted where the guy says "Oh, we're getting ready to pull Building 6," and right after another guy comes on as says "We had to be very careful how we demolished building six"?

"Pull" is a demolition term. Accept it.

 

Ask Jeff at pumpitout.com, or call CDI and ask. Btw, in the phone call, the receptionist clearly goes to ask someone else in the office what "pull it" means before coming back on the phone.

 

I just spoke with Stacey Loizeaux and she doesn’t use the terms pull, or pull it to mean demolish a building. She also doesn't believe that any employee of her company could make such a stupid and uninformed statement.

Your video does not establish that "pull" is a demolition industry term.

Accept it.

 

I believe a taped phone call over the word of a skeptic.

Plus this is interesting:

Deny it all you want:

"Hello? Oh, we're getting ready to pull Building 6."
"We had to be very careful how we demolished Building 6."

I have. It is you who clearly hasn't.

 

"pull it" is not and never has been a demolition industry term that means "to demolish with explosives". Unless you think WTC7 was demolished by being pulled down with cables (like WTC6), then your argument is pointless.

Besides all of that, even if by some far fetched stretch of the imagination it was an industry term, neither Silverstein nor the FDNY are in the business of controlled demolition, so they would have no reason to use an 'industry term'.

Your team were better off arguing for the use of space beams than this pitiful tripe.

 

It's of by the way. Making grammatical errors when you are arguing about grammar makes you look even sillier if that's possible.

Can you show me in a thesaurus where official and lie are synonyms?

Did you see any cables attached to Building 7?

 

Do you not own a phone? You don't have to take my word for it. I gave you her name. Her business phone number is on the web and quite easy to locate.

Call her.

And who was the person on the taped phone call? Why do you believe they have any knowledge about demolition?

Just because she used the word in a sentence that does not make the word industry jargon for demolish a building. If you had read the whole interview objectively you would have seen:

and

The terms "implosion" and "shooting buildings" are both demolition jargon for demolishing a building. Pull it and pull are not.