Was Larry REALLY reffering to demolishing WTC7 and not pulling the firemen?

[criticalunity]

A friend pointed out to me that Larry Silverstein was talking about pulling the firemen out, not actually admitting live on television that he had it demolished. I'm thinking now that my friend could be right, even though blatant, psychotic admissions such as the following have occurred:

http://criticalunity.org/videos/viewvideo/664/nwo-and-martial-law/cnbc-admits-we-re-all-slaves-to-rothschild-central-bankers-global-government.html


So, Larry could've been talking about demolition in terms of 'pull it' as well. - A double meaning. - Only way to know is to ask him personally, has anyone done this? It's slightly discrediting to push something that isn't necessarily what you're claiming it to be, and unfortunately people are already so closed minded that your weakest point is what is scrutinized, not the strongest evidence, due to cognitive dissonance.
It is therefore imperative to present the hardcore, irrefutable facts FIRST, then have a section for supposition, theories.


This is part of our conversation:

Friend: it [loose change] was pretty good but the one 30 second clip where larry silverman (or whatever the dude who owned the WTCs name was) says to pull it on building 7, that clip is shit dude. it's obvious he meant pull out the firemen
friend: but the others are good
friend: the shit with rumsfeld
me: people make mistakes, even reporters like Alex Jones, the thing is, a lot of the time we cover irrefutable evidence.... You can't discredit the entire film based on one clip in it
friend: look, you can choose to listen to me or not. if you wanna keep pushing good and bad evidence then do it but I am telling you, if you refine your evidence and throw away the stupid bullshit stuff like larry saying pull it, I would have a lot more confidence in your beliefs
me: so there's no thermite, buildings just fall at free faall when they have a few fires, etc...
friend: nah, I think there was thermite
friend: I don't think that what larry said is an admission, someone just found the clip, heard the wording and thought they could use it to their advantage
Friend: I believe in the 911 thing now
friend: I think it's awesome what you are doing. I'm sure you have seen the good evidence but the fact that you back this shitty evidence makes you lose credibility
me: i just said that ur right, thanks for pointing  it out,
friend: this is just me trying to help you become more effective in your mission

me: but  there still is the chance that he is actually admitting, cause they DO DO THAT....  but most probably not in this case, ....
me: OH, another open admission cause they think we can't do anything: cnbc-admits-illuminati-running-america-10-24-08
me: greenspan-admits-the-federal-reserve-is-above-the-law-answers-to-no-one

friend: yeah man, I just mean if you want people who are not into this to get into it, your arguments need to be solid as f**k not just "probably" stuff cause people are already very sketched about conspiracy theories and using any sketchy argument will just reinforce their negative stereotype on conspiracy theorists
me: The thing is it doesn't matter about the stuff that is probable, for it is not theory overall. It's more of an AGENDA... One can have their own ideas, but they can't have their own FACTS
 me: and when u watch Endgame, you'll see a lot of quotes coming from the horses mouth
friend: ok but I just mean you are treating things that aren't facts as facts
me: but I know what you're saying, has to be all facts, that's why I have a section ONLY for speculation
 friend: you need to just put out facts
ME-  i know
friend: good
friend: speculation is cool to hear but I mean, it usually makes the entire idea less credible
friend : your entire argument is only as strong as your weakest individual arugment
Me: Well said..... Unfortunately that is the case. Given the magnitude of importance of the subject, most people should still continue watching until the end before coming to any conclusion, but I don't suppose that happens sadly.

[goforward]

It's relevant to look at all the pieces, info, testimonies, and obfuscations
more telling is the money he made off the blood
truth isn't for those who want to be spoon fed

WeAreCHANGE confronts Larry Silverstein
http://youtu.be/EtPC0W4HII8

Larry Silverstein no response to WTC 7 lies
http://youtu.be/wJsEGgc5L2c

[Geolibertarian]

Even if Larry Silverstein said -- "When I said 'pull it,' I was referring to Building 7, not to a team of firemen." -- the intellectual cowards in this country would still twist themselves into pretzels in a desperate attempt to explain it away.

There's just no helping some people, because they're literally hell-bent on finding everything out the hard way.

So unless you enjoy casting pearls before swine, simply move on to someone with eyes to see and ears to listen.

[criticalunity]

Yes I know about the pointlessness of trying to convince someone who is more willing to not believe, go with the status-quo... But that's changing.

"more telling is the money he made off the blood
truth isn't for those who want to be spoon fed"

 Yes, and the way he reacted when confronted convinces me he is guilty. Regardless, the event was clearly orchestrated.

[criticalunity]

Furthermore, the thing is, 9/11 was still irrefutably obviously an orchestrated event. I guess I'm hallucinating thermite in the rubble, and building 7 could've been demolished in less than a day when it takes WEEKS to set things  like that up... I'm living in the twilight zone... The government's explanation of 9/11 is the most wild conspiracy theory I've EVER heard and there is NO proof... Only to the contrary!

[Valerius]

the pronoun it does not generally refer to a group let alone a group of  humans.

[Geolibertarian]

the pronoun it does not generally refer to a group let alone a group of humans.

It doesn't matter. Authority-worshiping coincidence theorists would believe 2+2=5 if the banker-owned political establishment told them to, and would accordingly scream "conspiracy theory" if someone said 2+2=4.

That's why I won't even waste my time arguing with them. If they're that determined to find everything out the hard way, far be it from me to stand in their way.

[Scootle]

Personally I think it was neither. The firemen explanation doesn't make sense because the firefighters had already abandoned building 7 due to lack of water. And the demolition confession explanation doesn't make sense because while "pull" is a demolition term, it means with cables and it isn't very widely known. Try doing a Google search for "pull demolition -9/11 -wtc7 -silverstein" or something and you'll get hardly any results. There is a third explanation, what I call "truth bait". His whole quote could have been a psyop to bait truthers into saying "see, larry confessed" so debunkers can then discredit us for it. That's what Jim Hoffman of wtc7.net thinks...

http://wtc7.net/pullit.html

Regardless of what he meant by his "pull it" quote, we do have more evidence that he was planning to demolish WTC7 in the form of that fox news hit piece on Jesse Ventura by Jeffrey Scott Shapiro...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/bombshell-silverstein-wanted-to-demolish-building-7-on-911.html

[Jackson Holly]

 ... for what it's worth:

I saw the old movie OCEAN'S ELEVEN this weekend. If you
don't remember it's about a heist at a Casino in Vegas which
involved blowing off the doors of the vault. After they set the charges
and stood back the guy said, "Pull it!" ... then boom.