You cannot question this sacred doctrine without being attacked mercilessly by the "truther" mob (below).
The claim is, nonetheless specious and inaccurate.
Determining "pull it" to mean "pull the building", one needs to rely on several misunderstandings simultaneously (and to irrationally cling to them after being corrected).
Misunderstanding 1: "It" couldn't refer to firefighters. Wrong. "It" can refer to an operation involving any number of people. The operation is the discrete unit which correlates to a singular pronoun. Silverstein's words correlate to "pull the operation," not to "pull the building." This is managerial shorthand, something that does fit in with Silverstein's position.
Misunderstanding 2: The timing of the phone call allegedly proves something. Guess what? We don't know what time the call was made because Silverstein never said. It could easily have preceded the order to stop the firefighting operation and pull the remaining men out, because the phone call indicated that the operation was still underway at the time of the call: "telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire." It is crystal clear from this sentence that firemen were indeed trying to "contain the fire," i.e. the operation was still in progress.
Misunderstanding 3: The man admits he was talking to the New York City "fire department commander." The NYFD does not implode and demolish buildings. Private demolition companies like Controlled Demolition Inc. do that. Further, the thought of firemen wiring, moving, or in any way touching high explosives in the midst of a raging and out of control fire is absurd on its face.
Unless you have some other evidence implicating the NY Fire Department in blowing up building 7, then you are out of your mind to make this claim. Things just don't happen that way. This is a credibility damaging claim, a claim with implications that you are accusing FIREMEN of being traitors on September 11th 2001. That is not a claim that any fringe movement would want to put out to the general public. You are shooting yourselves in both feet. Words have consequences.
I once believed this Silverstein "evidence," (sic) several years ago. It sounded like the holy grail, a bonafide smoking gun. Alas it is not so. Note that disputing this PBS claim has nothing whatsoever to do with the collapse of building 7, whether it was brought down by explosives or not. I have not adressed that issue at all. I have concentrated only on what Silverstein said during the interview and on the context and implications of that comment.
Like children who cover their ears and sing "Mary had a little lamb" at the top of their lungs, the "truthers" can't handle being disputed. Here is a sampling from 911blogger.com.
"And if Silverstein's "Pull it" comments weren't so damning...
then why did Popular Mechanics (and so many others) lie for him by saying that "Pull" isn't a demolition term?" --stallion4 on Mon, 01/29/2007 - 8:32pm.
"Pull it" is a demolition industry term. Yes, it is. But neither Silverstein nor the "fire department commander" are IN the demolition industry. The "fire department commander" IS in the firefighting business, and that is where the phone call started. "...they weren't sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire." I don't place any faith in what Popular Mechanics says about anything. Their purpose is to discredit all 9-11 skepticism.
Another "truther" thinks he has the real dirt on Silverstein:
"He's a stupid old man... speaking from the cuff... .thinking that the story that they told us would never be in question... so there was no need to consider his words would be analyzed or questioned either." --JJames on Tue, 01/30/2007 - 2:38pm.
That "stupid old man" who has no idea how to speak English just made the greatest business deal in the history of mankind (in his favor)--
