Pull "pull it" from our talking points

The purpose of this blog is to suggest rhetorical strategies for refining the 9/11 Truth talking points. As more so-called debunking sites appear, we cannot ignore them and proceed in an echo chamber of self-congratulation. We must adjust our message to reflect a wider selection of evidence.

In this first entry, I would like to suggest dropping references to Larry Silverstein's famous "pull it" comment in the 2002 PBS documentary. Most Truthers believe Silverstein means "demolish building 7". Critics charge he really means "pull the personnel from building 7".

I recommend avoiding Silverstein's remark not because I think WTC7 fell via a gravitational collapse, but for the following reasons:

  • both interpretations are plausible, so an audience is forced to accept one on the basis of predisposition alone
  • it does not change the physical evidence one way or another
  • for some, this charge reinforces the unfair accusation that 9/11 Truth is about "blaming the Jews"; notice, for example, how this reasonable argument devolves quickly into a discussion of "Zionist circles"; later, Killtown makes excellent points about Silverstein coincidentally having a doctor's appointment the morning of 9/11, but this information will be overshadowed in a debate by ad hominem attacks
  • diverts attention from the most important fact here: WTC7 collapsed in 6.6 seconds, near-freefall speed; notice how other issues arise, such as the fact that Silverstein was not in the demolition business, once you begin the "pull it" debate; then the debate reverts back to my first point, which is the ambiguous usage of "pull it"

Wherever possible, I will advise avoiding arguments that are needlessly ambiguous. I say "needlessly" for WTC7 because the real issue is whether it was felled by a controlled demolition, which is ultimately a question of physical evidence.

I hope to address the debate over the fires at WTC7 in my next post.

Hearing Someone on TV Say that makes me cringe

I'm totally with you Simuvac, it's completely unnecessary.

The WTC7 argument is about physical evidence. Let's keep it that way. We gotta stop getting sidetracked on shit like that.

I agree that "pull it" is

I agree that "pull it" is weak; However, Silverstein still stinks to high heaven, not only in terms of his financial motivations but his close ties with one of the main architects of the "war on terra", Binny Netanyahu.

The Ha'aretz article by Sara Leibovich-Dar reveals the "close ties with Netanyahu" that Silverstein has.

"The two have been on friendly terms since Netanyahu's stint as Israel's ambassador to the United Nations. For years they kept in close touch. Every Sunday afternoon, New York time, Netanyahu would call Silverstein. It made no difference what the subject was or where Netanyahu was, he would always call, Silverstein told an Israeli acquaintance," the Israeli newspaper reported.

Netanyahu was runnning around for years before 911 warning the west about "the dangers of Islamic terra".

You're right about

You're right about Silverstein. I guess I'm trying to parse the 9/11 Truth issue in terms of debatable points.

Certainly, one's suspicions are raised when the NY Times reports that Silverstein met with his company to discuss terrorism just the night before 9/11. It's one of those coincidences that is very hard to dismiss.

I couldn't agree more on

I couldn't agree more on this one. Larry Silverstein is, in all likelihood, neck deep in this thing; but you've got to think that if the guy is cunning enough to be involved, he's probably also smart enough to not casually admit, ON CAMERA, that he ordered the building imploded. I mean, think about it.

I'm not entirely discounting the possibility that it was a genuine slip up on Silverstein's part, but it just makes me want to kill myself when I hear someone on TV or the radio say "WE'VE GOT LARRY SILVERSTEIN ON VIDEO CONFESSING TO IMPLODING THE BUILDINGS, ITSADEMOLITIONTERM~!"

I'm of the firm belief that a picture speaks a thousand words. A video even more. Showing someone that simple, now-legendary video of Building 7's collapse four or five times in a row is all that's needed to set the wheels in motion.

Can anyone verify

whether or not any firefighters were even in the building after the twin towers had collapsed. I had heard there were not. If true, this easily debunks the critics counter claims.

I know what Silverstein was referring to. But if we cannot prove to skeptics exactly what he meant, then it's indeed not worth pushing.

I know the FEMA report said

I know the FEMA report said that "early on, the decision was made not to attempt to fight the fires in Building 7." You can never be sure though that there weren't ANY firefighters in the building.

It's an argument that isn't worth putting too much focus on, because if some picture turns up somewhere of two firefighters casually spraying a small fire in building 7, the casual masses could easily just say, "Welpppp, that thar' proves tha' Jew wasn't involved."


I'm quite confident, based

I'm quite confident, based on Spak's film, that no firefighters were WTC7. The other thing that shows up in his film is firefighters talking about how some of the water pressure was lost. So I think they really had to be selective when using the hoses, and WTC7 was apparently considered a lost cause early on 9/11.

You are being very deceptive re: WTC-7

Let me be frank with you: Stop your bullshit about WTC-7 now!

WTC-7 was never considered "a lost cause" until after the incendiaries & explosives brought it down in a controlled demolition at about 5:20 pm on 9/11!

There were only a few scattered, small fires until it imploded.

Steve Spak's film

Day of Disaster has really influenced my thinking on building 7. It's been out for a while, but I just saw it recently. He took amateur footage at Ground Zero for several hours. He has extended shots of WTC7 from the south side and I believe the east. This footage is what the debunking sites are using.

He captures several minutes of WTC7 from the south, where you can see a wall of smoke and some damage to the SW corner. Here's the thing (I'm going to say more in my next post): It is very clear that on AT LEAST one floor in WTC7 there was what one could call a "raging" fire. Shots of the east side show windows broken and flames bursting from the building. Because the south side was damaged, smoke from the entire building is poring out of the back (south) but not the front, which is the view most Truthers know.

You can actually hear somebody say something about "pulling" everyone out of the building. This is the early afternoon.

Truthers have to modify their claims, to incorporate the evidence from this film. I'll say more about that next time.

Day of Disaster

Do you know if Day of Disaster is available online. It sounds like it might be interesting.

There is a quote from a

There is a quote from a firefighter somewhere where he says a decision was made to take them away from firefighting the building after they had begun to do this. So, the OCTers use this to say that pulling them at least meant pull them away from firefighting the building, even if they weren't necessarily inside.

I have to wonder how much

I have to wonder how much access to WTC7 was limited by the inhabitants of WTC7? I doubt the CIA, FBI, and DoD granted full access to their space in WTC7, even to well-intentioned firefighters. This is the part we'll probably never know: What happened inside WTC7 before, during, and after the attacks? Were any of the fires in WTC7 set by the occupants of WTC7?

Have a look at Spak's film. It's not a spectacular film, but I was straining my neck to get a glimpse of something, anything, in those shots of the flames belching forth from WTC7. More on this tomorrow.

Why did he say it then?

"but you've got to think that if the guy is cunning enough to be involved, he's probably also smart enough to not casually admit, ON CAMERA, that he ordered the building imploded. I mean, think about it."

Yes, but Silverstein DID say it. That's the point! Let him fully explain why he made these remarks on video. There were no firemen in WTC-7. Pull-it means take down a building. Pull-back & pull-out mean to remove people.

Agree 100%

Agree 100% with this post and all the comments above.
BTW, great idea the blog about debatable points.

I think it's sad that some

I think it's sad that some Jewish people think that just because Silverstein -- and Jack Abramoff, for that matter -- played some role in the op that they think all jews will be smeared by association. I have a Jewish friend whom (I suspect) refuses to look at evidence of CD for precisely this reason, even though he is savy of the war games and all the rest of it. Perhaps the suspicion is warranted -- if you go to libertyforum it's all jew, all the time.

However, we can't shy away from aspects of the case out of fear. We have to boldly address the Israeli aspect of the story, while making clear that "teh joos did it" theory doesn't hold water: the Zionists may (probably were) a partner, but no Israeli could have caused the US government to stand down.

I think there's a tendency

I think there's a tendency among some right-libertarians (as evidenced by liberty-forum) to try and exculpate the United States government from its (centuries-old) imperial role by claiming the government has been hijacked by nefarious jews. There's no doubt the Zionists play a negative role in American foreign policy, but the US government has been invading other counries for a long, long time. States and corporations need no Zionist influence to project their power in barbaric ways; that's what they DO for Pete's sake.

Right on.

Right on.

It is very sad. It makes me

It is very sad. It makes me wonder if a fair trial for 9/11 could ever be held in NYC? Perhaps that is an unfair assumption about the Jewish community in NYC. I don't know. Given that people like Eric Hufschmid are out there, I empathize with concerned Jews.

Stop the b.s., okay?

WTC-7 being "pulled" has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. Your remark is moronic.

nice post.. thanks for

nice post.. thanks for sharing!

this actually falls into the argument of desired perception, which has been something eating away at me lately..

i modified your post a bit to make use of bulleted lists, I hope you dont mind.. you can check here, or edit the post, to see how its done, just trying to help out!

thanks again for the entry, good to hear some rational discussion :)



Nice post? You're "pulling" my leg, right dz!

Silverstein said he got a call from the Fire Dept. Commander, & they decided to "pull-it." It's on video. This is called evidence, & don't try to tell me otherwise, thank you.

i think the poster makes a

i think the poster makes a valid arguement, and i think its a good topic to discuss.. it was pretty well written, and a good blog entry to spark discussion..

is there something wrong with him having an opposing position from you? is there no room for that here? i think there is.

I disagree w/you too, dz

Come on dz, I'm not a fool. Please don't patronize me like I'm one, okay my friend.

I would not say to people that Larry "admitted it", but instead

say he "inadvertently admitted it" followed up with "you skeptics are the ones who are always saying that a lie this big couldn't kept secret for long, right?"!

I'm really tired of "pull it."

I think Silverstein was just pulling words out of his ass in that interview, trying to stick an explanation -- any explanation -- on an event that made no sense at all.

On the other hand, as a grad student in English, I don't believe any native speaker of English would say "pull it" (singular) when referring to firefighters (plural). You could argue he meant "the rescue effort" (singular) but in that case I would expect him to say something like "pull the plug" "pull out" or "pull'em out." Also, his delivery of the line really made "pull it" pop in a way that strongly suggests, to me, that he was self-consciously using jargon he'd learned from the demolition guys.

I say focus on the demonstrable attributes of the collapse, and save the Silverstein line for comic relief, not argument.

On a similar note, I think people make too much of Rummy's reference to "the missile hit the Pentagon." I think that was a slip of the tongue, and that whereas he said "Using planes ... blah blah blah ... and the missile that hit the Pentagon" he could easily have meant "AS the missile to hit the Pentagon."

Maybe it was a Freudian slip?

Maybe it was a freudian slip. Hmmmm that got you thinking huh? But I agree with most of the comments about the line 'Pull it". Lets not focus on that. Lets focus on the big picture that 911 was perpetrated by powerful people within the US governement and its associated agencies, the CFR and Israels Intelligence agency 'Mossad'. Lets keep up the fight against mainstream medias lack of asking the 'Hard Questions' or having any guts to publish or broadcast some of those excellent books and documentrys that try to expose 911 and who was really responsible for it. Lets put pressure on these people. Let us hand out DVD's, flyers etc to as many people as we can. I got myself a copy of 'Loose Change 911' using 'Limewire', burnt off heaps of copies and have handed them out to my friends. I also sent a copy to each of our TV stations too. Lets see what happens. I also plan to mail a copy out to as many politicans in my country as I can, as well as the mainstream media outlets too. I urge you all to do the same if possible. I mean over a third of US citizens now believe there is more to 911 than meets the eye. That means over a 100 million people alone in the US believe something stinks about 911! 100 million people!! There is probaly millions more if not a couple of billion people worldwide who believe something is wrong with the official US governments story on 911. Viva la revolution!!

Totally Disagree With You re: Silverstein & WTC-7!!!

Don't hide/avoid any of the insiders mistakes! Silverstein had a PBS camera in his face & may well have had his guard down. It's common knowledge that there were no firefighters in the building. I also read this somewhere such as the Omission Report or NIST Report. (I don't recall any pics of firefighters even spraying water on WTC-7?)

If Silverstein meant firefighters should evacuate the building or leave the area, he would've said "pull back" or "pull out" NOT "pull it."

"Pull it" is a common demolition term to bring down a building. A real estate tycoon like Silverstein certainly knows what it means.

not really PBS camera

Look up who made America Rebuilds--it wasn't a PBS production, it was made by a company that makes documentaries for PBS. The documentary itself is clearly a piece in support of the official story, so it seems logical that this was a chance for Silverstein to make a public statemnet that indeed he could spin either way--as an admission that yes, THEY made that decision to pull, or, should it become prudent, OF COURSE he didn't mean pull it down, he meant pull it out--the contingent of firefighters that is. I think it is perfectly appropriate and from what I've seen effective to play people his comment alongside the collapse video--because most people know what legalese is--cover your ass language. The tortured interpretation just makes people realize what a slime Silverstein really is. I mean come on, this is the same guy who fought in court to pad his multi-billion dollar windfall by claiming the insurance twice (and being denied.) The simple fact is that we KNOW he is guilty, one way or another, and that makes him a much worse criminal than bin Laden could ever dream of being. To suggest that focusing on his complicity in this matter hurts Jews gets it ass-backwards. What hurts Jews is the perception that when a perpetrator of a heinous crime is Jewish, he must be treated with kid gloves for some reason. THAT kind of attitude is the kind of soft bigotry of low expectations that make a lot of people believe that there really is something to the whole global Jewish conspiracy. While conspiracies are certainly not religious, one can't deny that Jews are capable of participating in conspiracies. I think most Jews can accept that but Abe Foxman types do a disservice by convincing many that to go after Jewish conspirators is somehow a sign of bigotry. This is clearly a sensitive issue, but not any moreso than the fact that Muslims get blamed for crimes they didn't commit on a regular basis and they are expected to just suck it up because people are led to believe that Muslims (and Arabs generally) are alwatys conspiring against Americans. Come on, wake up and smell the double standard at play here. Plus, Eric Hufschmid may be a tad paranoid but he is not a hater by any means--he just dares to apply the same (admittedly not so fair tendencies the MSM applies to Muslims to Jews, and gets hammered for it. And calling him a holocaust denier is nonsense since he does not deny the holocaust happened, he just points out, like Norman Finkelstein, some of the distortions that have crept into the over-exploited narrative. Again, no one is doing Jews any favor by hysterically shouting down people who want to discuss these issues like any others are discussed--what they are doing, again, is feeding the perception that a) something is wrong with this picture and b) Jews can't handle debate on certain subjects and c) we should therefore censor ourselves for the sake of their emotional well-being.


"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."

Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers

"I think Silverstein was

"I think Silverstein was just pulling words out of his ass in that interview, trying to stick an explanation -- any explanation -- on an event that made no sense at all."

Makes sense. I think the point of the author is that we don't really need Silverstein's apparent admition to prove WTC7 was cd -- it's obvious to anyone with a pair of functioning eyes. So on the one hand we can argue free fall, on the other we can debate the "pull it" comment ad nauseum with shills.

Another Comment

Maybe when Mel Gibson was recently arrested and made those comments about the Jews, he had a point? Food for thought. Also I like to say this 'where there is smoke, there is fire' I use that principle to people who ridicule all of us who are trying to expose the truth about 911, and our beliefs that the US government is up to its neck in it! Viva le revolution!!

Agree with the "viva le

Agree with the "viva le revolution" comment, but I think you've displaced your anger in the wrong direction by blaming 'jews'.

Don't forget, states and corporations have been around for centuries.

Most of us loath Zionism or "racial superiority" by one group over another, but "jews" is an abstract (ridiculous) concept. I know many Jewish people whom I love, and who believe in peace and justice, and 911 truth for that matter. Let's not get bogged down with half-brained generalizations. Surely, we're wise enough to understand that God created all men equal?

This "jew" stuff should be abolished from 911 truth.


I apologise for my Mel Gibson comment. I dont want to come across anti-jewish or racist. Im neither. I dont have a problem with the greater protion of good jewish people. Infact I dont have a problem with any culture. I agree in lets remain focused on exposing the real terrorists of 911, and I am not talking about Al Queda. Lets remain focused on what we are here for and lets get the truth out on 911. We have so much overwhelming evidence from actual news reports, eyewitness accounts etc that undeniably point out gaps in the official story and investigation that really does call out for a proper independent investigation. But thats a problem too because most, if not all of the physical evidence has probaly been destroyed, sold, contaminated, dissapered, withheld under the national security secrecy acts or similar. The investigation shall report that the destroying or getting rid of the evidence through other ways, was a illegal act under present law, and therefore the beauracrats and authorities which authorised the steel from the towers to be sold oversees, and for all the other rubble now filled in and contaminated and probaly destroyed so no evidence could be found, if any, should be prosecuted. My understanding is that in major disasters where buildings collapse, there is a need for scientists and engineers to retain parts of the rubble to examine and keep for future testing to prevent the same thing happening again in the future?.Also they could have looked for traces of explosives too whilst they were testing. LOL. OK seriously thou, 3,00 innocent lives lost that fateful day, planned and executed by a evil circle of dark powerful people, a shadow government. They are powerful and ruthless, and have a agenda to create a one world order. To achieve this you must get sovreign nations to give up their sovreignity. Giant US corporations are in a lot of countries around the world. At some stage we have crossed paths with these corps. They are the tentacles of this huge spiderweb of deception to create a 'free world' where you are required to be tracked 24/7 by microchips, no dissent towards government will be tolerated. Websites like this will be shut down and the owners arrested. Google is alredy starting to censor the web, telco companies are trying to control the internet, 2 are trying in the US right now to control the internet. This and the war on terrorism are part of a big agenda, they control the worlds wealth, so in esscence control the banks, reserve banks, countrys economies (World Bank, IMF, etc), they own massive companies that have military contracts to create unreal weapons and technology years ahead of our latest stuff we can buy in a shop. They are everywhere. In everything. Most dont know they are helping these people. They are just doing their jobs, getting paid, and going home to a wife, a family, a mortgage. They are trapped and stuck to this spiderweb. They control our drug and pharmaceutical companies, they corrupt our scientists and engineers and free-thinkers. Why is your govt especially GW Bush so opposed to Stem Cell research? Because its a threat to the multi billion dollar pharmaceutical drug companies control over disease and sickness cures. Imagine stem cell research perfected would cure many diseases, so there is no need for drugs and medicines anymore, so down goes the big companies. Listen to the arguments against stem cell research. They are pathetic and seem to me desperate. Using cells from a ball of 8 cells, thou technically is life, is hardly a human form is it. I mean has anyone had a meaningful conversation with a ball of cells? Has anyone being able to interact like a human with a ball of cells? I suspect not. The US govt's opposition, and I suppose the scientific field too, to making viable and cheap alternative fuels, or even better non-polluting, renewable fuels. Why still rely on oil, especially since the US buys a lot of it's oil from Saudia Arabia, which If I remember rightly, is where a lot of those supposed 911 terrorists came from according to the US government!(which I know is BS as most of the supposed terrorists are stil alive and some have never been to the US). SO basically the US is sponsering terrorism every time you fill up your gas tank! Mainstream media is another problem for us as most of the worlds major media outlets are owned by 2 comapnies, Time Warner and GE (General Electric). Look I could go on and on and on but those points above constitute a large portion of what these people have in control. Which basically a lot of those industries have a major part in our lives. It is so ingrained in our society over decades and centuries that it is hard to break free from it all. Our contributions to this website are the begginings of breaking free. By acknowledging that they exist and that they control us in many ways, we can make strategies to combat this and help break the barriers down and for us to regain our freedom and rights again. We all got to learn to live together in peace and harmony and to try and bring all those less fortunate than us up to our level of comfort and health. All the suppressed, poor poverty stricken, hungry people in those third world countries need to be freed and liberated of the terrible burden placed upon them by those evil people in power and control. We must help each other to evenly spread the wealth, lets be fair, stop this obsession with money and wealth and power and world domination.
Viva Le Revolution!!!

Despite the Gibson comment

Despite the Gibson comment that was a really good post.

Word of advice: add paragraphs! :)