September 23, 2005

Silverstein's First Public "Pull It" Response

I just stumbled across the first real public response for Larry Silverstein's "pull it" remark. It comes from the U.S. State Department's Spreading Disinformation, I mean "Identifying Misinformation" website (paid for at taxpayers expense of course) posted on Sept. 16, 2005 that included in a rebuttal to, among others, a section about the WTC 7 from the new 9/11 conspiracy book, 9/11 Revealed...

"The book suggests that the 47-story World Trade Center 7 building, which also collapsed on September 11, was intentionally demolished, citing a comment by the property owner that he had decided to “pull it.” The property owner was referring to pulling a contingent of firefighters out of the building in order to save lives because it appeared unstable."

It State Dept's site posts a statement released by Silverstein Properties spokesperson, Mr. Dara McQuillan, on Sept. 9, 2005 that says the following:

"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."

Then the USINFO site goes on to say...

"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."

Just what I thought, he gives the "pull out the firefighters" response! "It" referred to "the contingent of firefighters"??? Yeah right! If that was the case, Silverstein would have said "pull them out", not "pull it". No one misspeaks that bad. The word "it" clearly refers to the building (singular), not a "contingent of firefighters" (plural). How condescending that he would refer to a contingent of firefighters as "it".

Also, it's already been reported that the FDNY never sent any firefighter "contingency" inside the WTC 7 and this order was made at 11:30 am...

"With the collapse of both towers by 10:30 a.m., larger pieces of the twin towers had smashed parts of 7 World Trade and set whole clusters of floors ablaze. An hour later, the Fire Department was forced to abandon its last efforts to save the building as it burned like a giant torch.

Falling debris also caused major structural damage to the building, which soon began burning on multiple floors, said Francis X. Gribbon, a spokesman for the Fire Department. By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons." - New York Times (11/29/01)

and then FEMA reported that the FDNY never even attempted to fight the fires in the 7...

"In addition, the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers. Hence, the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded by automatic or manual suppression activities.

It appears that the sprinklers may not have been effective due to the limited water on site and that the development of the fires was not significantly impeded by the firefighters because manual firefighting efforts were stopped fairly early in the day.

WTC 7 collapsed approximately 7 hours after the collapse of WTC 1. Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY." - FEMA (05/02)

So there is a conflict of facts here with the Silverstein spokesperson saying the Fire Commander called in the "afternoon" to say firefighters were attempting to contain the fires in the building and the news and FEMA reports saying the firefighters never attempted to put of the fires and had already been called back in the late morning and not "later in the day" as the spokesperson claims.

(See also Silverstein Properties Boycott.)


Anonymous said...

Incredible Find !!!

Anonymous said...

You guys are like UFO hunters. If you see some little light in the sky, you immediately label it as a UFO. It is so absurd to say "nobody would talk that way". These are New Yorkers (for godsake) we're talking about and by saying "Pull it", he obviously was talking about the rescue operation or mission, not the people. Maybe he meant "pull the plug". Who knows. But you are really pushing the edges by trying to find something incriminating in this statement.

Also, so much has been said about the 2 main towers collapsing due to explosions in the lower levels. All we have to do is watch the video to clearly see that in both incidences, the towers collapsed as a result of the floors immediately above the crash sites caving in on the floors beneath. Not, as so many have declared "just like a controlled demolition". I have seen many different videos of controlled implosions, and they are always set off by explosions at the base of the buildings. And in every case, it is the lower levels which collapse first, then each level above collapses in succession: 1,2,3,4... like that. Both the main towers collapsed first at the levels where they were struck. Is it so hard to see that if you have several hundred thousand tons of weight falling even 10 feet (1 floor level) that the strain will be too much on the floors beneath it, and that they will successively give way? This is exactly what we see in the videos of the north and south towers. They collapse starting with for example 79 (and above), 78, 77, 76... etc. This is the exact opposite of a normal controlled demolition.

So, regardless of all the hype surrounding the "demolition theory", the video does not confirm it. Granted, eyewitnesses testify to seeing the lobby and lower floors gutted. But I choose to believe my own eyes and it is clear that the tower was not imploded from below.

Anonymous said...

*For those who can't see how this could happen, I suggest trying the following experiment:

First, take a 25 lb. weight (a barbell plate will do fine) and carefully balance it on the top of your head (you know, like they do with fruit baskets in third world countries). This will be difficult, but if you get it just right, you will be able to walk around with it on your head, supported by your nicely aligned vertibrae. After all, an extra 25 lbs. of mass at rest can certainly be supported by your spinal column.

Now, take that same 25 lb. plate and have a friend climb up a tall ladder, holding the plate approximately 10 ft. directly above your head (while you are still standing, of course). Now have your friend release the weight. As it travels, it gains momentum due to the force of gravity. Notice that the force of this momentum, as the plate reaches your skull, tends to first split open your skull, then as it drives further downward, it successively compresses each vertebra in sequence causing massive damage and structural failure to your spinal column, and eventually the weight comes to rest on your lifeless body curled up in a bloody heap on the floor.

Now imagine this same principle applied to thousands of tons of steel and concrete, office desks and other furniture, glass, flooring, water coolers, computers/office equipment, and people falling only 10 feet on the floor immediately below it, as the structural support of only 1 floor fails due to majorly weakened support from a missile containing 60,000 lbs of jet fuel and ripping into the support structure. Does anyone see how that might cause a 100+ floor building to collapse?

I do apologize for the graphic nature of this example, but apparently some people do need a stiff blow to the head, since they obviously fell asleep in physics class a little too often.

Killtown said...

For the previous two anonymous posters, this blog entry is about the WTC 7. Not sure why you guys brought up two buildings that have nothing to with this post.

Chronicles from the Panopticon said...

And why would Silverstein have a say in whether they pull the firefighters out of there or not?

Why was he called by the FDNY chief? Do Silverstein have a say in firefighters' security? What does he know about that?

And why would they choose to let such a tall building right into Manhattan burn away by "pulling it [firefighter team]" ? Because they expected it to fall right into its own footprint ?

IMO this isn't a smoking gun but, you know these convenient coincidences?

"We'd pull the building, but by an act of god, shortly after we made that descision, it collapsed by itself"


spooked said...

Great post, Killtown.

And WTC7 was CLEARLY controlled demolition. In some videos, it is identical to known videos of controlled demos. There is no way a fire brouhgt down WTC7 that smoothly and evenly.

WTC1 and WTC2 were also controlled demos, buit done differently. They couldn't make it so obvious. They started where the planes hit, to make it seem like the collapse started there. But the biggest give away to the controlled demo of WTC2 was the way the top chunk of tower disintegrated into dust within seconds after it started to tip over. There is no fucking way that a normal gravity collapse would do that.

And the commenter above simply has their physics wrong-- their example is not accurate at all (nor is it even funny).

Donald E. Stahl said...

There was published recently a photo of the controlled demolition of the Grand Casino barge on the beach in Gulfport, MS on 9-21-05. The demolition was conducted in the same manner as the Tower demolitions, i.e., top down. The plumes of dust resemble very greatly those seen on the Towers.

As to Silverstein's recorded inept lies, anyone who sees and hears him in that video knows that when he says "and they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building go down" the intonation contour of the utterance clearly shows that he meant the last clause as a description of the result of 'that decision to pull'. Too bad flacks like Mr. McQuillan are unaware that there is such a subject as discourse analysis. Too bad Mr. Sliverstein is so dumb. (Still, don't get between him and his next billion.)

Anonymous said...

Yet, again an answer for every thing. As Bush has said, "keep telling the public over and over until they know the real truth." I think Hitler said that too.
My mother always said, "it's as plain as the nose on your face," I add, "or building that fall with no valid reason, or a plane crash with no wings." Or hell, a levee system that is dire need of repair, but not one person (or camera) bothers to watch it during a hurricane.

Anonymous said...

There's a blatant lie in every other sentence of that article.

Makes a nice partner with the 9/11 Commission Report.

At what point does the pure volume and weight of this bullsh*t cause IT to fall down upon it's own bloody footprint?

Anonymous said...

And I don't care what anyone says - you shills who come on here perpetuating the fallacies of this ridiculous scenario, that stell structured buildings caught fire and burned, then fell AT FREE-FALL SPEED to the ground...

Exactly what wing of the Pentagon do you work in? I'll bet it wasn't the West wall.

And btw, as your vertbrae compressed, they would SLOW the fall a little. And if your vertebrae were constructed of steel beams, and there was 110 of them, they'd slow the fall considerably.

Now, who was asleep in physics?

Anonymous said...

biggest give away to the controlled demo of WTC2 was the way the top chunk of tower disintegrated into dust within seconds after it started to tip over. There is no fucking way that a normal gravity collapse would do that.

Newton's First Law of Motion:
I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

...if something starts to tip over, it will continue to tip over...meaning that building should have just tipped over, leaving the other 60+ floors standing albeit in pretty bad shape.

but no, suddenly, somehow, the building rights itself and falls into its own footprint.

how many times do the laws of physics have to violated in one day for sheeple to wake the F&CK UP?!

Anonymous said...

If Silverstein meant that firemen should leave WTC-7 he would've said "pull out", or "pull back", not "pull it". (Also, reports indicate that there were no firemen in WTC-7 hours before the collapse.) Then, according to Silverstein, the firemen exited the building and it fell. Sure, all by itself. Right on cue. Of course.

Silverstein's slip-up reveals that WTC-7 was pre-wired with explosives for implosion. This proves Gov't foreknowledge & complicity in 9/11 because it takes weeks or months to plan & set-up such a demolition. This is a real smoking gun.

Anonymous said...

By "pull it", he meant not the contingent of firefighters, but the entire operation in general of trying to put the building out...

Anonymous said...

Don't you guys understand by "pull it" he ment pull the chemtrails that were holding up the building. Don't you realize that all of the buildings in NYC are held up by chemtrails. Those little x's in the sky are all that holds up those glass buildings. Geshs you guys are dumb.

Anonymous said...

^^Please keep going, your just making the case against yourself even stronger. If you can't face up to the fact that a controlled demoliton was the root cause of the WTC buildings collapse, then what physical proof do you have to dispute everyones elses claims? Btw, what do you know about chemtrails, I'm curious?

Brad said...

None of you here know me, but I am convinced that 9/11 was an inside job. There are several excellent videos on google videos that confront the MANY reasons why. Those of you who are not that familiar with the 9/11 conspiracy, go to google video and type in "9/11 Conspiracy" and prepare to be shocked by some of the things you'll see there. Particularly look at the video footage of the planes hitting the towers in slow motion. The underbellies of the planes tell a tale that those are NOT United Airlines jets. This whole ordeal is one big shit sandwich that the American people have swallowed whole so that a few neo-cons can attempt to decapitate the government and bend it to their own will, taking us to war with sovereign nations, stealing their natural resources, and calling it 'liberation' in the name of fighting 'terrorism'.

The truth will set us free. It might take a while, but none of us who have seen these things can forget what we've seen with our own eyes. Resist their efforts at hysteria and keep focused on what happened before your eyes.

Remember the Pentagon. Remember how only 5 measley frames of grainy video were released to the public, while the Pentagon is covered with surveillance cameras, and in the immediate surrounding area there were at least 2 tapes, one from a hotel and one from a gas station, which were confiscated have have not been seen again.

sumy23 said...

I think there might be something to chemtrails.... but I laughed out loud at the post by anon at 11:52. That was funny, seriously. I've talked to a lot of my friends about chemtrails and they agree that they've seen them and always wondered what they were... but then they go to the NASA website for the official explanation. I give up. Some people don't get the fact that if there is something to chemtrails and the government wants to hide it... why would you go to a government website for information. Ridiculous. I remember when I was in columbus Ohio in about 2000. I saw all the criss crosses in the sky and made it a point to come ouside later that evening and check it out. The entire sky was in a haze. I think it was at that point I was convinced it was not normal. Planes making clouds through natural processes? I've never heard of that before. FYI, if you eat some garlic every day you WILL feel better. Try it. May be a placebo but whatever. It works. Peace out.

sumy23 said...

A good book to read is "Confessions of an economic hitman"

After you read that pay special attention to what Michael Parenti says about Iraq and Sadam. Developing a bigger picture > than arguing about the loose change shoulder fired cruise missle.

Anonymous said...

UNBELIEVABLE....Do you know or have you ever heard of Gotting Money from us government grants ..If you are interested in finding out how to get more info on us government grants visit us at There are so many things you can get grants for.. Homes, school, work, business, college..ect.. Find out how everybody is getting money from us government grants today... Quit living in poverty educate yourself and improve your life..

Anonymous said...

Disinfo alert!
I think Brad his post contains a poison pill as described on

He says: "Hi guys, I am with you all. Now all go to
google and look at the video's and in particular
the underbellies of the planes" (like in the in plane
site disinfo video).
He is pointing at the wrong direction!
Why should we look at the underbellies of the planes?
There is nothing to see there. As if a remote controlled
plane has a box mounted underneath it with an antenna
an a red blinking light. What is this: Toy Story?

Of course anyone is free to study what he wants, but
i.m.h.o. the right thing to ask is: why did wtc7 collapse?
Be alert. Do not get distracted.
Do not swallow the poison pill.

SmokeNMirrors said...

No poison pill; it's just yet another thing to look at. The bottom of the plane(s) shows that they were not, COULD NOT have been civilian planes - for any plane at an airport with something like that attached to the bottom of it couldn't fail to have been noticed, at the very least by baggage handlers and ground crew.

As other people have already pointed out, why did the Fire Department need the building owner's permission to pull the building? Surely if it was a risk it would have been pulled regardless of whether he had given his consent or not? Plus, how did Larry know how many lives had been lost? Were they giving hima running total? How comes he didn't have to wait for the totals to be worked out like the rest of us?

Also, what risk? Fire? But that is what Firemen DO!! When there is a fire they put it out; they don't run away and instead demolish the building, unless as a very last resort. But the Madrid fire (sorry, forget the name!) shows that the last resort is a long long way down the line.

ALSO, look at the part of Silverstein's statement where he says "and they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse". Again, that's terrible speech. So bad that it makes no sense (like a Russian speaking English) - UNLESS he's talking about the building. For otherwise he'd have said "and they made the decision to pull them out"; at the very least he'd have said "and they made the decision to pull THEM". But no. "They made the decision to pull." Bald, flat, on its own. Makes no sense. Unless...

Now Larry is a rich man. He's not stupid. He may be a greedy heartless murdering Zionist bastard, but he's far from stupid; you just don't get to be that rich if you are. Without any shadow of doubt, IF he'd been talking about the fire team he'd have said "pull them out". But he said "pull" twice, and both times he said the wrong thing if he was talking about the non-existent fire team. "Pull it". "Pull". Add to that the fact that the building fell like a classic controlled demolition, and what do you have?

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, and smells like a duck, and LOOKS like a duck, at what point do you start to suspect it MAY actually be a duck???

Ken said...

I am not sure about the two towers, spectrogarphic analysis shows low rumbles that may be internal, basement explosions prior to the collapse, but I cannot say with any certainty that the two towers collapsed due to explosives.

WTC 7 however is another matter. That was hit by debris, but suffered no apparnt damage serious enough to cause a total collapse. There where a couple of light fires, According to witnesses. and so, uniquely in the history of the world, a small fire was capable of cuasing the complete and very neat collapse of a steel framed building. This has never happened before or since. Videos of the collapse clearly show minor dammage and a total lack of massive fires.

WTC 7 is a smoking gun that requires much closer scrutiny.

I am not conviced by what Larry Silverstien said on the PBS documentary, but why would he admit, on a public television show, that he ordered the building to be demolished?
I don't get that bit at all, I have seen the video, and he could possibly be refering to pulling out the fire team, but, it seems like a convoluted use of language. It would have made more sense to say 'pull them'

The fact is though that there remains a great deal of speculation and many unanswered questions that the 'official conspiracy theory' does not address.

Surely as tax payers, we, who are paying our money for to cover the costs of the resulting war on terror, WE (the customer) are ENTITLED to a proper, in-depth, public, open and honest, independent full investigation into all the events of and surrounding 9/11?

We NEED HONEST ANSWERS, as yet we have not had them!

Anonymous said...

I am not conviced by what Larry Silverstien said on the PBS documentary, but why would he admit, on a public television show, that he ordered the building to be demolished?
I don't get that bit at all, I have seen the video, and he could possibly be refering to pulling out the fire team, but, it seems like a convoluted use of language. It would have made more sense to say 'pull them'


The 4th plane was meant to strike WTC 7. When something went wrong, and the 4th plane was unable to strike WTC 7, and was exploded by remote control, the zionists had a real problem.

Wtc 7 was prewired, as were the two towers. They could not leave WTC 7 standing or someone would have found out when they searched the building.

The zionists decided the best couse of action was to pull it.. One problem. It would take afew days to gather the nessesary charges, plan and place them in optimal condiditons. It would take even longer under the kaotic conditions in effect around WTC7 on 911..

WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. 911 was an inside job, carried out by the zionists who control the US goverment from Satan's apostate Isreal.