Silverstein: Pull it!

Warm greetings to all truthers!

The Larry Silverstein quote "pull it", has for long been pending as a confession of a controlled demolition, among us, and in several videos.
Even though it could be interpreted as demolition-slang, I believe it is not plausible enough to be presented as a confession.

When firefighters abandon a building (pull people out), they do use the term 'pull it'. But this is not all. I find it extremely implausible, that the firefighters should have been able to do it, concerning time, experience, expertise and option.

I see it as the only logical conclusion, that the firefighters did not have a role in the demolition of WTC7, but that it must have been caused by pre-placed explosives. As thus the words "pull it", in the conversation between Silverstein and the fire-chief, must have meant pulling firefighters out.

My plea to you, fellow truthers, is to drop arguements like that. It makes more damage to our credibility, than it helps.

Vive la revolution!

Kenneth Poulsen

"pull it" discussed here:

Seeing Building 7 implode coupled with Lucky Larry's words has been good for spreading the truth.
Once someone starts looking they find plenty of other evidence that proves the "official" story is bullshit.

Because Silverstein had to try to explain away his statement and shills have picked up on that does not mean that we should stop using it.

NIST recently issued the final word on Building 7....should we stop using 7?

NO! Larry said what he meant to say without script or coaching. He may have thought he was talking about "pulling the firefighters", but Truth has a way of SLIPPING out says FREUD.

Main Entry:
Freudian slip

: a slip of the tongue that is motivated by and reveals some unconscious aspect of the mind

pull the wool

Joe, the article you linked notes that Silverstein's brief comments were all that was included from 20" of interview, they were connected with the video of WTC 7 collapsing and the word "pull" was used in reference to demolishing WTC 6 elsewhere in the documentary; it seems this an intentional effort to link "pull" with "demolition" in people's minds.

The author speculates this was done in order to distract people- he also notes the phrase is ultimately ambiguous; it can be interpreted to mean the fire fighter contingent or demolishing a building. This may have all been carefully crafted to plant impressions while leaving "plausible deniability."

From his conclusion:

"There is one final point that needs to be addressed. Silverstein specifically points the finger at the FDNY as the ones who performed the actual ‘pulling’: “…and they made that decision to ‘pull,’ uh, and we watched the building collapse.” But the “Department Commander” that day, Daniel Nigro, has no recollection of speaking to Silverstein about ‘pulling’ anything on 9/11. In the same speech in which he delivered his antenna comments, Silverstein was pressed for the name of the department commander he claims to have spoken with. He ignored the simple question and pushed on to the next subject.

Given Silverstein’s history, it’s easy to see him as someone quite capable of attempting to deflect suspicions elsewhere, much like the Bush administration scapegoated the FAA for the numerous air emergency protocols that went haywire on 9/11. Bottom line, his comments linking the FDNY to the bizarre collapse of his building certainly cannot be relied upon as being hard evidence of complicity by fire officials in the unprecedented collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11."

Certainly, Silverstein and Nigro should be asked about these things under oath, in addition to many other questions. Silverstein's statement is strange and out of place, and if it gets people to investigate 9/11, good- In Plane Site and Loose Change 1 got me to research 9/11, so they're not all bad. However, Silverstein's PR has "explained" this statement, and a jury is unlikely to convict for mass murder based on this. Would a grand jury bring an indictment? Would an honest attorney general open a criminal investigation? Silverstein took out a 99 year lease and massive insurance policies months before 9/11 and apparently doesn't get investigated for insurance fraud- Silverstein may prefer people discussing "pull it" instead of that.

I strongly disagree.

It is blatantly obvious that Larry Silverstein was trying to give a palatable explanation to something that went wrong with the original plan. He knew that the video evidence clearly showed controlled demolition. He was improvising an explanation that he felt would diffuse the subject and make it go away. His statement would have been perfectly effective had it not been for the logistical facts that reveal that it takes weeks, if not longer to set up a controlled demolition of a 47 story high rise building. He neglected to consider that one fact. His statement was an independent attempt to cover up what really transpired. He fucked up. For him to make any statement rather than "I don't know what happened there" tells me that he knew what really happened and was intentionally trying to cover up those facts with his extemporaneous comments. He was one of the biggest beneficiaries of the 911 attacks. He took the lease on the towers just a short time before the attacks. He made billions of dollars in insurance settlements. In my mind, Larry Silverstein was in on it. Maybe he had no choice. Maybe he was told what was going to happen and was compelled to go along with it "or else". That, I don't know. But, I am convinced he was in on it, and so are thousands of others.
I find it curious that some want to steer the movement away from what many of us see as one of the most compelling pieces to the puzzle.

Another alleged statement

Tony Szamboti and some others recall a History's Business episode from year 2002 in which the host had asked the guest, Mr $stein, what happened to building 7, to which the guest is said to have replied, "Oh, building 7 was a controlled demolition for safety purposes".

Here's proof that Mr S really appeared as a guest in the program in question:

A pro-truth lawyer tried to get a program copy from the company, but in vain. He wrote to me a few months ago:

"AETN is now requiring a subpoena before any further efforts at
disclosure; I am working on some other angles, but nothing that I am
trying should keep anyone else from whatever they can think of."

Now, is it really that difficult to get an investigation started, based on all the evidence there already is?

link for Szamboti?

I hadn't heard about this:

"Tony Szamboti and some others recall a History's Business episode from year 2002 in which the host had asked the guest, Mr $stein, what happened to building 7, to which the guest is said to have replied, "Oh, building 7 was a controlled demolition for safety purposes"."

and can't find it in a search; got a link?

This is something they remember seeing, but it's not on tape or what?


The problem is that the program company refuses to provide a copy of the History's Business episode in question.

People like Tony and me asked for a copy based on innocuous reasons, but they replied that the History's Business series was not currently available for sale.

Last summer a lawyer approached the company. They negotiated about him getting a copy of the program. Finally, they sent the lawyer some other History Channel (?) interviews with Silverstein, but not the particular interview in question. Finally, they said they will take no further action without subpoena.

I think this strongly suggests that Tony et al remember correctly...

The phrase was most likely "building 7 was a controlled demolition for safety REASONS". Googling that results in a link to JREF discussion.

Admission of Demolition

I happen to remember Tony S. mentioning this before on I hope that we can get a copy of this video to verify if his memory is indeed correct.

This would be a very significant detail if confirmed.
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

But how we can get a copy...

..., absent whistleblowers, if the company categorically refuses to provide one?

i don't disagree with all this, Rob

Silverstein leased and took out a multi-billion dollar insurance policy on the WTC towers months before they were completely destroyed on 9/11; for this reason alone, Silverstein should be investigated for fraud, but apparently the feds, MunichRE and the other insurance companies did nothing, and the media have not investigated. This stinks; it's obviously possible and probable that Silverstein knew of the impending destruction of the twin towers and 7, which was already his own building. He should be investigated and be called to testify in public under oath in answer to questions the destruction of all 3 towers, access to them, his knowledge and foreknowledge. Unusual trading that was going on around the world months before 9/11, including the Fed's increase of the money supply that indicates major financial players knew there would soon be an event that would cause financial and market instability, and this coincided with the time the CIA, FBI, NSA, Pentagon and White House were receiving increased warnings of a terrorist attack, including of plans to hijack planes and use them as missiles against the WTC and Pentagon. Then, on 9/11 there's war games going on and no intercepts of 4 off course flights over a nearly 2 hour period with multiple signs of hijacking from all flights. 3 timelines have been given, and none add up. We find out later none of the alleged hijackers would've gotten VISAs if laws were followed, the ISI, CIA and Saudia Arabia funneled money to terrorists and had a VISA express program for them (Israeli art student spies and high fivers, plus Mossad gave warnings to US?), questions about whether the people that trained at military bases with the same names as hijackers including Mohammed Atta were the same people were never answered by the military. Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, Mueller, Hayden, Tenet have all lied/dissembled and have yet to be asked real questions- Bush and Cheney have only testified to the 9/11 Commission together, in private, not under oath, not recorded, and with the Commissioner's notes subject to confiscation- it seems clear the official story is a fraud, and many people need to be called to account, including Silverstein. His PBS statement is suspicious, i agree, especially in the context of his apparent foreknowledge, which is in the context of all these other events in which high-level power brokers and policy makers had foreknowledge, and perhaps were even involved in planning 9/11. It seems clear a full investigation is needed to reveal the names and roles of all parties involved. A new investigation may reveal that Silverstein knew 9/11 was going to happen and 7 was going to be demolished- it may have been rigged weeks or months in advance. A new investigation may also reveal that the Silverstein/PBS "pull it" phenomenon was actually a disinfo operation Silverstein and his cronies cooked up to get people speculating about the meaning of something that is subject to interpretation- you may be right, he may have been "compelled" to go along with things including make the appearance on PBS in an attempt at spin control- did it go wrong, or is it going right? If it gets people to research and find all the hard evidence and totality of questions and sites like, great for the 9/11 Truth Movement. John Albanese and others have commented that disinfo has this effect in the information age. But in and of itself, i don't think "pull it" "proves" anything, and there's much more solid evidence of high-level foreknowledge/complicity, including his billion dollar insurance deal- imho. Sure, bring it up all you want- i just hope you're doing it in the context all the other evidence. I feel this is the best way to make the case for the need for full disclosure, to the People and to the media and our public servants, and it's been effective in many other social movements. put together a great outline for a criminal investigation and filed a complaint with NY AG Ellitot Spitzer in 2004 after the Commission Report came out

Cynthia McKinney, Chair- The 9/11 Commission Report: One Year Later - A Citizens Response: Did The Commission Get It Right? – July 22, 2005

I agree with most of what you say, Loose.

Loose nuke,

I agree with most of what you say in the above post.

The "pull it" statement, taken in the context of other facts about Larry Silverstein, as it pertains to the WTC event, tells me that he likely participated in the cover-up. I don't think his PBS appearance, and the statements he made on that appearance, were part of a planned misdirection. I think he believed he had come up with an adequate cover story for one of the unexpected circumstances which arose. The late afternoon controlled demolition of WTC 7 deviated from the original plan. Silverstein's statement was a damage control cover story that he alone thought of without enough careful evaluation. He just plain fucked up. I don't necessarily believe that the "call from the fire department commander" even occurred. The PR excuse that "pull it" refers to the firemen doesn't fly. Common sense is all one needs to see that this excuse is bogus on its face. Later, when confronted again about the collapse of WTC 7 by We Are Change, he said that the radio antenna from the North Tower, WTC 1, fell on the building, and that is what brought it down. This statement was even more bogus that the excuse he made about "pull it" referring to the firefighters. No, I don't think he was consulting with others about what excuses to put out to the public. I think he was flying solo. Why did he even have to come up with a story about how WTC 7 fell, if he wasn't trying to cover something up? I think Lucky Larry is a problem for those behind the event. Because of what he has said, there is no doubt in my mind that he knows the real truth about what happened. Where is his testimony under oath? The fact that he wasn't investigated and wasn't subpoenaed gives more weight to the belief that he was in on it, and so were those who put together the 911 Commission Report. We need a new investigation to shed more light on all these anomalies. On that we definitely agree.

i don't have all the

i don't have all the information; you may be right, Rob- I'm glad you're qualifying your statements by saying things like "I think" to make it clear you're hypothesizing. What Silverstein said and where is not in dispute; a number of different explanations have been given for why he said it and the meaning. Silverstein may have fucked up, but it seems to me like he was being careful to leave the PBS statement wording plausibly ambiguous, but worded in a way so people would interpret that as what he was saying; i still think it may be a red herring, and if it is, it's significant that that it was put out. Whatever the meaning, it's another connection of Silverstein to 7's collapse, besides the fact that he was 7's owner, and had just leased and insured 2 other WTC buildings. From videos of witnesses at the time, plus whistleblowers like Indira Singh, it seems 2 stories may have been prepared about WTC 7; some were saying the building was unstable and was going to collapse; others were saying it was going to be intentionally brought down because it was unstable. Sunder admitted on noliesradio that there was a person or persons that had informed the fire dept 7 was unstable and might collapse. From the statements of Jane Standley, the BBC anchor, Dan Rather it would seem they were given a story about 7 collapsing due to being weakened from fire/damage.

I agree; new investigation, Silverstein must be investigated and testify

Kenneth Poulsen is right

I totally agree that Silverstein was "in on it" from the beginning, but his statement is nonsensical as a confession. Anyone who applies a modicum of critical thinking to its interpretation will NOT come up with "Oh, it was a confession about controlled demolition." It does not help us make the case with the very people we most need to convince -- professionals and elites who are NOT already with us. There's a reason they're still not with us despite all our efforts for the past 7 years, and it's not only because the media are against us. Think about that.

"Pod plane" theories and a lot of other malarkey have "brought a lot of people into the movement," but that's neither a practical nor an ethical reason to keep promoting claims that are not supported by the evidence.

There are at least three dozen stronger and just-as-easily grasped lines of argument than "Pull It" -- including the authorities' own self-contradictory and ever-changing stories. See David Ray Griffin and I don't even use Rumsfeld's "missile" or "shot down" slips. Those WERE Freudian slips -- no doubt about it -- but only "the choir" and people who "want to believe" easily see them as such.

The physical evidence for demolition is right there in all the videos, and the evidence of thwarted investigations is well documented by Ruppert and others. We should be hammering away at THAT material with a relentless focus, and discard everything that is the least bit speculative. People encountering new information with unpleasant implications naturally look for any excuse to dismiss what we are saying. We need to stop giving them any excuse.

The best thing to do with "Pull It" is to just pull it, and watch the newbies' resistance collapse. ;-)