quote:

Sorry. I get your meaning now.  And you're right, and the word "And" is part of the linguistic flag here:

pull it = demolish the building

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it (to demolish the building).' And they made that decision to pull (to demolish) and then we watched the building collapse."

Linguistic evidence
If we assume that pull it means to pull (the plug on) the operation, to stop the operation, then the second pull doesn't fit grammatically, because it would have to carry the same meaning. It'd have to be "....they made the decision to pull out ...", a different verb altogether.

The problem here, or rather the apparent problem, is the phrase pull it. It's ambiguous, that is, it has two potential meanings:

1) to end an operation, to pull out of an operation
2) to demolish a building

If the idiom pull it means to pull out of an operation, then its base verb form to pull should follow semantically. That is, in order to keep the same meaning, which is evident by the speaker's use of the conjunction "And" which connects the two sentences, to pull would have to be to pull out.

In short, you are correct. Good eye! Pull in pull it and to pull means to demolish, not to pull out.

To pull is short for pull it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne



Caught on TAPE;

This man identified himself as a police officer and
accused Rudkowski of 'having a bomb' and 'being a
terrorist' to silence his free speech for Larry
Silverstein. It is a serious federal and state crime
to publicly state that someone has a bomb and is a
terrorist when not true-- like extreme example of
yelling fire in a theater-- and needs to be
prosecuted.

Such knowingly misleading and false information is not
only malicious and immoral, but has been made
specifically illegal under the Anti-Hoax Terrorism Act
of 2003-- and expanded for more stringency in 2004 and
the Terrorism Prevention Act of 2006, not to mention
long-standing protections against defamation and
public endangerment. There are also many state and
local laws prohibiting such activity.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6784729690941085123



Above the law?

quote:

ORIGINAL: scifi1133

The 2 lines I am referring to are. the first where you say he identified himself as a police officer and the last where you write "above the law"
no one is above the law. and he did not identify himself as a police officer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: stef

If you're going to bleat endlessly about people slandering you, it might be in your best interest to take a moment and actually look up the word in the dictionary.  Unless it's your goal to look like a fool, that is, in which case you should keep on making libelous statements.

~stef 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Since slander and libel are in effect the same with the very fine distinction being slander = oral and libel = the same words written, i really doubt that justifies the fool label.

quote:

Opinions vary.

quote:

I know exactly how you meant it.