Definitely not. Larry said (quoting from memory): "I was talking with the, er...fire department commander, and we were saying, you know, there has been such terrible loss of life, maybe the best thing to do...is pull it. So we made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

There were no firefighters in WTC-7. (If there had been, he wouldn't say "it," he would say "them." But there weren't any, so the grammatical point is irrelevant.)

The "decision to pull" - "watched it collapse" statement, as all native English speakers know, carries a close causal and chronological link. Making the decision to pull caused the collapse, and the collapse happened shortly after the decision was made.

If there had been firefighters in the building at 11 a.m. rescuing Barry Jennings and Michael Hess (the only reports of firefighters ever entering WTC-7) and if Larry and his friend posing as a "er...fire department commander" had "pulled" them out then, and watched the building collapse at 5:20, six hours later, OBVIOUSLY Larry wouldn't have said it the way he said it. He would have said "we pulled the firefighters out of the building in the morning. Later that evening, when it collapsed, we were glad we had" or something to that effect.

Those of us researching 9/11 in 2004 made a huge stink about Larry's confession, which was well known by then. It was only many years later when Larry finally put out his silly alibi about "pulling firefighters."

Only a fool or someone ignorant of colloquial English could think Larry was talking about pulling out firefighters. These people must really think we're stupid.

Replies: @Sean, @Curmudgeon, @PabloPickAsso

A lot of Youth Rebellions turn out to be less spontaneous than they might seem, but instead are driven by 45-year-old bureaucrats responding to power struggles at the Top, with ambitious students then responding to which way the winds seem to be blowing among the grown-ups.
 

In contrast, PC in the US is essentially orchestrated by the professors. Sure, some get burned, especially if they're moderate liberal, but the professor class controls the students who have no ideas of their own.

In China during the Cultural Revolution, the students ousted the professors and the like for a decade. In the US, the professors remain in the institutions while students are out of there in 4 yrs, to be replaced by new batch of dummies who are easy to manipulate and mold.

In the case of China, as sad as it was, there was a kind of poetic justice because the students and youth mainly attacked communist functionaries(labeled as 'capitalist roaders' for being loyal to Liu Shao Chi and Deng) who'd created the repressive system under Mao. They were devoured by the very system they helped create.
It'd be cooler in the US if the students turned against the professors and administrators and hurled them off roof tops. That I would cheer. A Chinese-Style cultural revolution might actually do some good to US universities. Have idiot students terrorize the idiot professors.

Anyway, it goes to show that tone and manner are very important to the political culture of a society. The problem of CR was its manic tone of hysteria. With emotions running so high, everything was Manichean, a war of light vs dark. And if you were not totally and passionately on the side of the Light, you were on the other side and had to be crushed. You fell out of grace not only with wrongthink but wrongfeel. You had to not only say the right things but hyperventilate about them.

This is why manners must be part of the larger culture. China had a culture of manners, but it had grown overly elitist and haughty, dismissive of most people. It came to be seen as anti-people and anti-progress in modernizing China beset with so many problems. Mao purported to lead the angry Chinese mobs and stirred up their rage. If the requisite rage wasn't there, it was inflamed by commissars and propaganda.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZBDS60iMx0

Anglo culture avoided most such radicalism because the culture of manners. More than the French and Germans, Anglos developed an allergy to mass hysteria, a tendency shared by elites and masses alike. Because emotions were under check by manners, people could venture to offer different views on the basis of reasoned debate dignified by proper manners. Without manners, there is nothing to restrain the emotions, and then, a viewpoint reaches manic delirium that will not tolerate any deviance from its purism.

Looks like the culture of manners is breaking down in the US. Jewish elites, judging by their pieces in NYT, are utterly manic hysterical, and they are fanned the flames of BLM thugs, Antifa nuts, feminist crazies, homo-tranny meanies, etc.
A vulgarized culture of shamelessness/hedonism and radicalized culture of blame-game have led to lunacies like homomania, pussy marches, black self-worship, and out-of-control chutzpah.

According to the Media, it's Trump who inflamed populist rage on the Right, but in fact, Trump voters are far more restrained than Jews, blacks, and PC hordes. The problem is who/whom. As far as the Power is concerned, no amount of hysteria on the 'left' is problematic, but even a bit of health enthusiasm on the 'right' is NAZIS ALL OVER AGAIN. It's like no amount of hysterical paeans to Jews and Israel at AIPAC is problematic in America, but "It's Okay to be White" is deeply 'triggering' and 'white supremacist'.

Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Luke Lea, @Don't Look at Me, @Thirdeye, @PabloPickAsso