Silverstein's 'Pull It' Comments - Whatever Excuse Works
Silverstein Answers WTC Building 7 Charges - prisonplanet.com
(be sure to check out this whole article for a great summary)
The State Department, as part of its pathetic efforts to debunk 9/11 research, has posted the response from Silverstein's spokesperson Dara McQuillan on its website. It reads as follows.
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.
The State Department website then comments,
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 insurmountable problem with this explanation of Silverstein's statement is that there were no firefighters inside WTC 7.
A real, thorough, impartial, independent investigation of the collapse of Building 7 needs to take place and if the conclusions of that investigation are that Building 7 was professionally demolished, criminal charges need to be brought against those suspected of involvement.
And here is another new article on the same subject:
"Pull it" is a deliberately ambiguous statement that could have been a form of bait, and now has been discredited by its utterer, probably in an effort to discredit its promoters just as the Rumsfeld "missile" quote was floated and then withdrawn.
It is hard to say whether the Silverstein "pull it" quote is (1) bait, (2) boasting or (3) greatly misinterpreted. Any attorney or public relations representative would state that the context is "the firefighter team had such a terrible loss of life, so therefore they made the decision to pull it (the firefighters)."
The State Department discussion of "pull it" shows that this prediction has been verified.
I continue to grow weary as the discussion of Silverstein's 'pull it' comments are debated by some in the 9/11 truth movement. At one point Silverstein's comment was a veritable holy grail for 9/11 skeptics, but now even some in the movement are becoming convinced that the otherwise simplistic comment was perhaps a trap all along.
I find those that are now trying to read new meaning into Silverstein's comments to be giving him a bit more credit than he deserves. Thinking that Silverstein sat down for a quick and frank interview with some sort of grand plot intended to discredit the 9/11 movement 3 years later is more than just a bit conspiratorial. When the Department of State issues what is in essence a very weak explanation to Silverstein's quote, we have every right to be skeptic of their explanation and how it fits with the facts, or at least ask if the explanation makes any sense at all.
While it should go unstated that 911blogger.com intends to be non-judgmental of the opinions on such subjects by 9/11 skeptics, I can't help but feel the need to point out the simplicity of the 'pull it' statement.
Silverstein 'Pull it' video download
"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
So what does 'it' mean?
1) Used to refer to that one previously mentioned.
2) Used of a nonhuman entity; an animate being whose sex is unspecified, unknown, or irrelevant;
3) a group of objects or individuals;
4) an action;
5) an abstraction:
polished the table until it shone;
couldn't find out who it was;
opened the meeting by calling it to order.
In reference to #1 above ("Used to refer to that one previously mentioned."):
The idea that 'it' refers to firefighters holds no water. Given the context, the only previously mentioned nouns include the fire department commander, the fire, and WTC7 which was the main subject of the discussion. To think that by 'it' Silverstein was referring to the fire obviously makes no sense, and to think he was referring to the fire department commander doesn't make sense in the context as well (the correct pronoun for that context would be 'him'). All this leaves left is WTC7, the main subject of the discussion in question, in which the term 'it' could easily have been used. Given that the firefighters had not been referenced in the conversation, saying 'it' could in no way have referred to the firefighters as the statement would make no sense to the listener and 'the firefighters' could not have been determined from 'it'.
In reference to #2 above ("Used of a nonhuman entity; an animate being whose sex is unspecified, unknown, or irrelevant;"):
Firefighters are not 'a nonhuman entity', and while they are indeed 'animate being[s] whose sex is [..] irrelevant' (in this context), the proper pronoun would have been 'them' (if they had been mentioned prior). While 'it' could perhaps refer to a firefighter squad, using 'it' to replace 'firefighters' is not proper grammar. Given the #2 definition however, 'a nonhuman entity' would make perfect sense for the primary subject of the discussion, WTC7.
Beyond the fact that using 'it' makes no sense grammatically, by using the word 'it' Silverstein assumes that his audience can easily understand the reference of the word. If Silverstein had indeed meant 'the firefighters' then using the word 'it' would obviously make no sense to his audience given that the firefighters were not the subject of discussion, and were not previously mentioned at all (let alone in the scope of the usage of 'it').
I hate to beat a dead horse here, but the explanation provided by the state, and the other interpretations that some want to glean from his comments, are simply reading more into the simple statement than is there (in my opinion). Given the fact that the firefighters had already been removed, the explanation makes even less sense. Even if one were to suppose that he did indeed mean 'the firefighters' (and not WTC7), then the idea that he had the expertise (and not the fire department commander) to know that the building might collapse is just as farfetched. And if he did mean 'the firefighters', then how could his audience (the fire department commander) know the details of what 'pull' meant in that context?
I'll end this rant with a simple example of a similar conversation:
I was talking with Joe about how the deer was bleeding uncontrollably from being hit by the car, and I said, 'We wouldn't want to suffer like that, maybe the smartest thing to do is shoot it.', and they made that decision to shoot and we watched the deer die.
3 years later when asked to clarify:
By 'it' I meant our friend Bob (who wasn't even there), and by 'shoot' I meant 'shoot the shit with him' (even though the deer was full of holes).
Obviously we can all come to our own conclusions, but throwing out what appears to be a frank admission of intentionally demolishing building 7 on 9/11 is not something I would consider a wise decision, especially given the incredibly weak explanation and lack of investigation provided by those in question.
EDIT: One further point.. When Silverstein referenced 'the fire' he did not feel the need to specify which fire, because WTC7 was the implied subject, just as WTC7 would have been the implied subject for 'it' given that no other appropriate subjects were mentioned in between.