Et tu, “young debunka”?!

This is a response to “Debunking Dad” whose first post, “Pull It,” argues that Larry Silverstein was talking about pulling firefighters out of the building.

Sorry DD, but I’m gonna have to school ya!

As you know I’m an English teacher as well as a homeschool dad. So it is my professional duty to point out some errors in your blog post.

First, when you put words in quotation marks, they should be the words actually spoken by the person you are quoting. Adding your own interpretations in brackets is normally a bad idea.  It is usually preferable to just give the quote, then explain what you think it means.

More to the point, your interpretation that Silverstein was talking about pulling firemen out of WTC-7 is implausible. WTC-7’s perfectly symmetrical 6.5 second collapse happened around 5:20 p.m. on 9/11/01 (twenty minutes after it had been prematurely announced by the BBC!) There were no firefighters to “pull” from WTC-7 that afternoon, because the firefighters were not allowed to enter the building. If you google around you will find videos of firefighters talking about how crazy it was that they were ordered NOT to enter WTC-7 and put out the relatively small fires.

Along with the fact that there were no firefighters in WTC-7 to pull out, please note that the idiomatic English construction exemplified by “we did X and then watched Y” normally refers to events that occur in very close temporal succession and have some kind of causal link. For example: “We pulled the marshmallows out of the fire and then watched their swollen brown surfaces exude thick, sweet smoke.” In this instance, as in most other instances with this construction, the watching happens immediately after the pulling, and what is seen is the effect of what was pulled. Another example: “We pulled out of the driveway and then watched our house fade from view.” Here, as in the marshmallow example, what was seen closely follows from what was done, both temporally and causally.

Imagine: You say “We pulled out of the driveway and then watched Jesse Ventura’s Conspiracy Theory on TV.”  I say “huh?” You explain, “What I meant was that we pulled out of the driveway to go to school in the morning, and then that same evening we watched the TV show.” Sorry, that doesn’t parse,  because there is no close temporal or causal connection between the two events.

Getting back to the Silverstein quote: There could not possibly be a causal connection, because pulling people from a high-rise doesn’t cause it to collapse. And there could not possibly be a close temporal connection, because there were no firefighters in WTC-7 immediately before the collapse (nor were there any during the hours before it.)

Finally, if he were talking about pulling firemen out, he would have used the pronoun “they,” not “it.”

For all of these reasons, Silverstein’s quote only makes sense if he was talking about “pulling” as in “demolishing” the building.

Why would Silverstein admit to demolishing a building whose demolition would earn him 700 million dollars in insurance fraud money, based on the false idea that it collapsed as the result of a terrorist attack?

The best hypothesis is that when Silverstein was interviewed for the America Rebuilds video, he and the other perps hadn’t yet gotten their story straight about WTC-7. Something obviously went wrong with their plan, since they cannot have planned to demolish WTC-7 in front of cameras at 5:20 p.m.  They probably planned to have it hit by Flight 93, which was shot down before it got there. Or perhaps they were going to take it down under the cover of the dust clouds from the demolished Towers. In any case, when Silverstein did this interview, he probably couldn’t imagine that anyone could plausibly claim that such an obvious controlled demolition was anything else. So he nervously tried to make up an excuse about it being demolished to prevent further loss of life.

When Silverstein mentions the “er, fire department commander” he hesitates noticeably, suggesting that he knew that person under a different designation. In fact, the chain of command in the NYFD on 9/11 was probably altered by the insertion of FEMA personnel (or 9/11 conspirators in those roles) supposedly due to the massive Tripod 2 bio-terror exercise scheduled for 9/12/01. So the acting “Fire Department commander” was probably a federal official who was part of the 9/11 operation.

Note that Silverstein credits himself with the idea for conducting the demolition. This is not entirely implausible, since Silverstein is a billionaire kingpin in the  Zionist mafia that seems to have played a major role in 9/11, especially in New York. For some background on Silverstein and his accomplices, google “Pakalert Press Israel did 9/11 all the proof in the world.”

Finally, I would be remiss in my duties as a homeschool dad if I failed to point out that you have a sentence fragment in the second paragraph of your post, and that “lets” is missing an apostrophe.

So…nice try, and “keep on debunking!”

Love, Dad