Silverstein's 'Pull It' Comments - Whatever Excuse Works

Silverstein Answers WTC Building 7 Charges -
(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? Was Building 7 "pulled" - a red herring to distract from the evidence -

"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 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.

What about Craig Miller, a

What about Craig Miller, a Secret Service Agent temporarily assigned to NY for the UN?

Can anybody verify that he was in WTC7 when it collapsed? If so, they DID NOT evacuate the building.

Why has everybody jumped on

Why has everybody jumped on Silverstein's "pull it" response so late?

I covered it 3 months ago.

(Nice to see P/P linked me though!)

Anyways, we need to find out who the Fire Commander was who "called" Silverstein and what time this call took place more precisely than "the afternoon" as Silverstein's PR person said. Reports are that the firefighters were ordered away before
noon which conflicts with Silverstein's PR person's claim that it was "later in the day." I'm wondering if this "later in the day" order was around 3 pm when rescuers reported that they were told the WTC 7 might collapse?:

LIEUTENANT WILLIAM RYAN: "I guess around 3:00 o'clock, that they thought 7 was going to collapse."

Email Silverstein Properties:

Or call them at: 212.490.0666

(not joking about the "666" part. That's really their number!)

The controlled demolition of

The controlled demolition of WTC 7 is absolute proof that 9/11 was an inside job. Silversiein is involved in the biggest insurance fraud of all time. Why the insurance company hasn't pressed charges is beyond my understanding. Why the American people aren't up in arms over 9/11 is beyond my understanding. Mass insanity?

I was reading an article

I was reading an article about Craig Miller, think about it, why was a secret agent in building 7?????

He's not a firefighter, or FDNY, why would he be in there rescuing people from an empty building?

He was an agent, setting fires and/or demolition charges, and didn't get out in time.

Good post and I love the

Good post and I love the example at the end. :)

As far as WTC7, this essay it quite interesting: why was the building blown so late in the day? The article also refers to the SS agent in the building when it went down.

No one just decides to "pull

No one just decides to "pull it", or demolish a building based on events within the past several hours. It takes days and/or weeks to set the explosives and plan the detonations. Silverstein's comment is even more outrageous when this is taken into consideration.

in the nadant 9/11 movie

in the nadant 9/11 movie they where moving the injured from WTC1 to guess where listin close to the movie to WTC7
other sorce said that all the security for the twin towers was controled from WTC7
after the plane hit the first tower WTC2 started to evac and it came over the intercom for them to RETURN TO ther office's over the security intercom
why was the mayor and fema setting up their base at 75 barclay
when WTC7 had the bunkerd office for the head of FEMA and the mayor?

Hi Spooked, On that essay,

Hi Spooked,

On that essay, ,
I just skimmed through it, but if they're thinking the 7 was set to implode after the 1 did, how would the perps explain what caused the 7 to collapse? Imploding later in the day gives the perps at least a seemingly realistic alibi that the "fire burning for hours" is what collapsed it. I'm not sure if the article mentioned, it was very long, how the perps would explain it if the 7 collapsed so early.

My thinking of why the perps imploded it when they did was because they used the OEM bunker for orchestrating their conspiracy until the towers collapsed, then used the time to go do what they had to do throughout the building when everybody else was evacuated, and then they imploded it at 5:20 pm, a time when lots of people were heading home from work and unlikely to be watching TV just in case some news crews aired the 7's collapse live on TV or minutes after.

I just want to know why the

I just want to know why the fire chief had to call Silverstein and get permission to "pull" his own FIREMAN out of the building?
Because thats what it sounds like to me.

if after WTC2 fell and every

if after WTC2 fell and every one had evac'd then when WTC1 fell if they droped WTC7 at the same time
no one would have seen it cause WTC1 dust cloud and after it settled then look what a news story that would have been "WTC1 falls and takes out WTC7" that would make for a better cover story

also after working in the fire industry for a few years yes we we need to " pull them out" but if you want to say pull it even ment pull the fire fighting effort that would be wrong that would be caled a write off and let it burn
ask your local fire fighters about the tearms

is this were an open thread

is this were an open thread -

Morgan Reynolds on Daryl Smith show yesterday...2nd hour only

I would think if they pulled

I would think if they pulled the 7 under cover of the cloud of dust from the 1 imploding, people will be wondering where the 7 went after the dust clears! I think that would have been MORE suspicious for the 7 to collapse "under cover" and for them trying to say debris for the 1 collapsed it when the 5 & 6 didn't even collapse, which are between the 1 & 7, and the skyscrapers next to the 7 were hardly bruised.

Sorry if I disagree with Baker's theory.

First of all, this is a load

First of all, this is a load of crap: "..telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire..".

Second: "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it". Yes, I'm sure letting this turn into this (in the middle of a city) will be much safer for everyone?!!?!?!?

Third, he _clearly_ explains what he means by 'pull':
"And they made that decision to pull ***and we watched the building collapse***". Are we supposed to believe the firefighters were holding the building up with their heads!? Geesh...

Well we all know that the

Well we all know that the building was brought down by controlled demolition. Lets not "eat our young" trying to figure out the meaning of "it". I hear Bill's voice.

dz, excellent points you

dz, excellent points you make.

I think Silverstein made a slip of the tongue, and tried to minimize direct involvement by citing the NY Fire department: "they made the decision to pull it."

I'd put money on it that Silverstein wished he'd never said that.

The fact that we're debating the meaning of his words, rather than the REALITY that WTC7 collapsed without explanation says something, doesn't it? I mean, there's nothing wrong with debating this, but I think we need to keep our eyes on the prize, and not get mired with in-fighting. The more fractured the 9/11 truth movement, the better for the perpetrators.

I think it is important.

I think it is important. Yes, we know it was demolished, but with this we also know by who. And the fact that he says he did it makes it easier to help understand others that it was, in fact, demolished.

kw, bang on man well said!!

kw, bang on man well said!! That weasely fuck Silverstine is definitely involved to some degree, obviously it’s largely a financial thing for him because that what he’s getting out of it as payment for playing his part in the crime. I genuinely think “pull it” really was a fraudulent slip up, similar to Dubya’s many many giving the game away comments, “See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." — Bush in Greece, New York. Hahah classic, you know Karl Rove or Cheney were putting their hand over their eyes in embarrassment when he said that. Rumsfeld’s fucked up and spilled the beans nuff times also, telling troops that flight 93 was “shot down”, and a “missile” hit the pentagon.

^ Shit i forgot to sign it

^ Shit i forgot to sign it lol.

NSA Whistleblower Asks To

NSA Whistleblower Asks To Testify!!!

Think Sibel's statement had something to do with it?

Dem Bruce Lee Styles, yes

Dem Bruce Lee Styles, yes indeed and your correlations about Bush's slip-ups and especially Rumsfeld's are spot on with how I see Silverstein. The best evidence against Silverstein, along with his "pull it" comments, are the timing of his purchase of WTC, especially since WTC was a liability, and his demanding double the insurance afterwards (payment for each of the twin towers). I'm actually surprised the insurance company hasn't tried to nail Silverstein.... but, then again, perhaps the insurance company was paid off too. Nothing would surprise me anymore.

See my Liberty Forum post on

See my
Liberty Forum post
on this.

I figured out what

I figured out what Silverstein meant by "pull":

"pull out the insurance policy"

Here's the full

Here's the full quote:


"We didn't know what to do about WTC7. We had a batallion down there trying to fight the fire but water pressure was low and we were worried that the building was going to collapse. We didn't know whether to risk their lives or pull that batallion out. 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."

****We didn't know whether to risk their lives or pull that batallion out.*****

One CIA hack to another: "Hey, let's clip the context, whatsay?"

reader, is that a factual


is that a factual full quote or a supposition? please supply some details or references.

I think everyone who is a

I think everyone who is a regular on this site has the smarts to realise the "pull it" comment was not a slip-up of any kind. This is rite on point with the mentality of these sick f*cks. This is Larrys way of saying "yea Im in on this too; yea f*ck you we did this and I wont lose any sleep tonite after I fill my belly with fillet; HAIL SATAN!". This provacitive comment is his little part for the elite and is the least he can do considering his return on investment. This is no different than members of the external visible government takeing heat in the public spotlite in return for their rewards from the war machine. These guys brag like gangsters. The "pull-it" statement is irrelevant as proof since we already have the crime on video from multiple angles. Larrys statement only gives one insight into the mentality of these sick f*ucks once one learns the truth. Anyone who cant conclude wtc 7 was a controlled demolition after watching the videos is beyond reason. "Pull-it" doesnt help our cause in court or the court of public opinion which is as far as any of this will ever go. The entire system is invested in the lie.

I agree, the entire system

I agree, the entire system is invested in the lie. I want to see the entire system fall. I have been wanting it since the JFK murder. That was another cover-up of massive proportions. I have had utter contempt for our so-called government ever since. I think it is about time we take our government back and hang those responsible. Since JFK was murdered America has been run by gangsters. 9/11 proves my point. Lets stop playing games with these punks. Time to take off the gloves truth seekers!

This debate regarding

This debate regarding Silverstein's comments all seems to be a litle late in the day and a little too similar to a number of other articles I've been reading on various 9/11 topics recently, all of which sound terribly defeatist. What's going on? Clearly WTC7 was demolished - it doesn't matter what Silverstein says - much of the evidence points to the WTC and WTC7 being rigged well in advance of 9/11. Let's get this show back on the road and stop apologising - we're on the same fuc*ing side.

As it turns out, the full

As it turns out, the full comment was only made up.

But what if it wasn't? Until you look for yourself and see the full context of the quote, you are playing right into the hands of whomever edited it.

Have to agree with

Have to agree with "reader's" take on it.

"reader," you almost got me there with your fabricated context of a fire brigade (singular) being the actual referrent for "it" .... damn that would have been embarrassing for all of us who've been talking about this for years now as though it's the universal smoking gun of 9/11.

But yes, it's not that bad. The tape provides only the snippet from "I remember getting a call..." so it's still interpretable in our way.

And irrelevant.

dz, the point is, in an interview snippet, unlike a court, Silverstein is under no obligation to be coherent, clear or consistent, or accurate in his use of pronouns, terms or tenses. He can be tanked to the gills and say anything short of an explicit confession, it will almost never have legal standing or be so airtight that some moron can't dispute it.

Today, basically, he can claim he meant anything he likes, should he ever again comment on his own comments. " 'It' was my dick, a firefighter stroked me off and then we watched the building collapse."

And what would you respond? "You did too say what I think!" "No I didn't!" "Yes you did, my interpret is more logical." "I didn't!" "You did!" Etc.

Now, of course he's slipping somehow, on some level, or else feeling frisky, and admitting to a demolition!

Why am I sure of this? Because it was a fucking demolition, and nothing he says changes that in any way.

But the quote constitutes watertight proof of nothing, and is therefore a distraction when we spend this much time discussing it. (So I should shut up myself, yes.)

Doesn't it figure that the State Dept. like this as a "debunkable"? It keeps the spotlight off what really matters, and puts the ball in Larry's court.

Let's stick to time of collapse, inward kink, footprint, squibs (traveling upward), pulverization, possible chemical signatures, etc.

Also to the building's tenants, curious history, and actual mortgage owner at the time, which may just unravel the whole plot.


As someone else above points out here, Silverstein is a lieutenant to the overall play pulled on 9/11, which was done for TRILLIONS, not just the billions he got. Getting WTC into private rather than public (Port Authority) ownership in advance of the WTC destruction removes the standing of ownership that every citizen of New York and New Jersey would have enjoyed.

I'd like to float some reminders out there, and a new name.


Anyone know who was in charge of that? His name is David Cohen.

Plus OEM (the better known but less likely candidate for 9/11 headquarters), Treasury/ATF, Pentagon, Secret Service and, of course the SEC with its paper files on 200 open securities fraud cases.

Silverstein is important, but often a distraction when seen alone. Hauer and Cohen, Blackstone Group execs would also make the dream list for grand jury scrutiny.