Explosives Used on 911 - Here's All the Evidence Needed

[Cap-Z-ro]

No nano thermite involved there though...still no troll food here.

[utilitarian]

No nano thermite involved there though...still no troll food here.

The whole point is that steel building can collapse without thermite or explosives, but merely due to fire.  I do not follow you.

[utilitarian]

if you watched the whole interview it would be painfully obvious, to a elementary school child even, that the context of the conversation was demolition. firemen don't say 'pull it' when they give up. 'pull it' is demolitions lingo not firefighting lingo, idiot.

OK, here is the whole quote:

"I remember getting a call from the 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 then we watched the building collapse."

Larry Silverstein is being interviewed by PBS here, by a documentary crew.  So it is not like he was surprised by a reporter.  He is describing what happened for a documentary.

So your position is that he just slipped up and made a confession, and did it twice. (He used "pull" twice.)  Silverstein is not an idiot, mind you.  He is a smart guy to get to where he was.

So let's examine what he said.  Right before the "pull it" phrase, he mentions that there has been such terrible loss of life, and because of that, the smart thing was to "pull it."  How is blowing up his own building a logical follow up to the comment on loss of life?  It makes a lot more sense to interpret "pull it" as to cease firefighting operations, and therefore risk no more firefighters lives.

You can still debate what it means, but do not tell me it is obvious from context what he said.  It makes more sense the other way.

[Cap-Z-ro]

yawn

[utilitarian]

yawn

You started this thread.  Sorry the discussion is boring you, now.