Originally posted by Stiney
kerry.senate.gov...

In a related story, John Kerry's comments that Building 7 was deliberately demolished during an Austin Texas speaking event have gone viral since the You Tube video was posted and featured in our story on Monday.

Calls to Kerry's office for a further clarification on his comments were not returned.

Originally posted by etshrtslr
So now your saying one of the biggest demolition companies in the world uses the word pull when talking about bringing down a wall with explosives does not mean demolition?

Its not someone else from outside the demolition industry using the term its the company and their website using the term.

www.controlled-demolition.com...

Read the name in the url.

Here is the home page in case you dont get it.

www.controlled-demolition.com...

Arguing that the term pull is only used to bring down a wall verses a building is semantics and only shows your desperation.

Following the seemingly endless 2.6 second natural pause in the non-electric initiation system, the structural charges detonated on cue, allowing the southwest wing of the structure to fail first, creating the desired lateral “pull” on the north and east curtain walls.

The common assertion that "pull" is industry slang for demolition lacks support. A Google search for the term "pull" in relation to controlled demolition fails to return uses of "pull" meaning demolition outside of the widely circulated story of Silverstein's admission on 9/11 conspiracy sites. See the analysis on wtc7.net.
Even if "pull" were industry slang for demolition, there would be no reason to expect Silverstein to know this.
The above quote by a Ground Zero worker about pulling Building 6 is not evidence that "pull" means controlled demolition, since he was apparently referring to using cables to literally pull down portions of the building.

A third explanation is less obvious but makes sense of the non-sequiturs in the above explanations: perhaps Silverstein's statement was calculated to confuse the issue of what actually happened to Building 7. By suggesting that it was demolished by the FDNY as a safety measure, it provides an alternative to the only logical explanation -- that it was rigged for demolition before the attack. The absurdity of the FDNY implementing a plan to "pull" Building 7 on the afternoon of 9/11/01 will escape most people, who neither grasp the technical complexity of engineering the controlled demolition of a skyscraper, nor its contradiction with FEMA's account of the collapse, nor the thorough illegality of such an operation. Thus the idea that officials decided to "pull" Building 7 after the attack serves as a distraction from the inescapable logic that the building's demolition was planned in advance of the attack, and was therefore part of an inside job to destroy the entire WTC complex.

Web research supports the theory that Silverstein's remark was part of a calculated distraction. The pull-it remark is copied by hundreds of websites, many citing the remark from the Ground Zero worker about Building 6 as proof that to 'pull' means to demolish. However, searching sites specific to the demolition trade does not support this meaning of 'pull'. The following Google searches of the two best known controlled demolition sites in October of 2003 did not return any results indicating that pulling and demolition are synonymous.

site:controlled-demolition.com pull
site:implosionworld.com pull
Searching Google with the query demolition pull and filtering out sites referring to the Silverstein pull-it remark returns only one result in about 10 pages of results that uses 'pull' to mean demolish:

City staff have contacted the property owner by phone to request that he obtain a demolition permit and pull down and demolish the building

A review of the numerous websites that assert that Silverstein's remark constituted an admission of demolishing WTC 7 is revealing. Few such sites note that the physical characteristics of the collapse exactly match conventional demolitions, or that fires have never before or since felled steel-framed high-rise buildings -- two facts that constitute an overwhelming case for the controlled demolition of WTC 7. Instead, the pull-it controversy seems to have created a distraction, eclipsing the case for controlled demolition.

Originally posted by Stiney

What he said was that “one wall had to be taken down” He never said that the whole building was intentionally brought down by a controlled demolition.

Link

Dang!