So who the heck ever said "Pull it" was slang for controlled demolitions?

Might have already been mentioned, but 'pull' is an old term to demo a building, I think we all agree on that? Well old terms like that stick, regardless of the technology or method changing.

People in the UK still call vacuum cleaners 'hoovers', even if they're not made by Hoover.

Larry Silverstein made his fortune buying old complexes and re-building them. He has been involved in building demolition for years. He knows very well what 'pull it' means.

But what is the point of making silly arguments like this? You can't even prove that sagging trusses can pull in columns, and you think you can 'win' this debate with nonsense about what Larry said?

I thought we'd moved beyond this nonsense years ago. How about a thread on how the trusses pulled in the columns Dave? Don't forget to explain why the bolts didn't break first OK?

you guys can't even admit that it's even possible the "it" meant the firefighting and rescue team? Really? You can't see that?

The argument that no plane hit the building is just crazy, not one but TWO 100 story buildings collapsed spreading themselves over blocks and crashing into all the surrounding building. There are plenty of pictures out there showing MASSIVE structural damage to WTC7 just because you don't see it in the video that gets replayed over and over again doesn't mean it wasn't there.

EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS:

Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
Dave, why is everyone jumping on your jive?
I may be incorrect
I am new here but there is something I read about in the rules that says something like,
Don't be a moron use the QUOTE button.
if you use the Quote button you would have already answered your own question.

All right, then, I will presume from the context that you referred to the preoccupation over Clinton's Cigar sex issue being such a distraction that it made people overlook what was brewing elsewhere...and I would respond, no, that wasn't it. According to the 9/11 commission report it was the war on drugs that caused the distraction that it made people overlook what was brewing elsewhere.

According to the report, the DEA had whole armies dedicated to hunting down smugglers, traffickers, and the like...but only a tiny handful of people on the lookout for Islamic fundamentalist activity, and despite everyone sneering at the validity of the 9/11 commission report, I can definitely believe that part, at least. The military was constantly bragging how good they were at intercepting suspicious boats and aircraft coming in from abroad that were being used to smuggle drugs in, so I can understand how that would have the unexpected result that they weren't watching what was happening to aircraft already within the country.

I don't know if this answers your question.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by XLR8R
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Actualy it is a term used to demolish buildings. Loosly used it means to take out the supports. Originaly it means as as building's supports are taken out, an explosion inside the building is set off to burn the oxygen creating a vacuum that helps "pull" in debris. Where do I know this from...beat the heck out of me. I'll try to find a source for it.

Not actualy a source but pretty much what I'm saying

That isn't a source. That's unknown person A asking a question based upon the "pull it means controlled demolitions" claim because it's the whole reason why the person asked the question, and unknown person B responding with what he thinks "pull it" means, which again, comes entirely from what this person had heard what Silverstein was referring to by saying "pull it".

In short, over and over and over, everything points to this "pull it means controlled demolitions" definition coming about entirely because of everyone quoting Silverstein's "pull it" thing. In other words, THE DEFINITION NEVER EXISTED BEFORE HE SAID IT. It's this whole "Silverstein said 'pull it'" bit that put the term into our lexicon, not from any lingo that was supposed to exist before he said it.

There isn't much info on this.

Actually, there's NO information on this. There's just people who keep repeating "pull it means controlled demolitions" over and over without an inkling on whether it's even true or not. Why then am I unjustified in saying regardless of what he meant by "pull it", it does NOT refer to controlled demolitions and the term didn't even exist until the controlled demolitions proponents got hold of it?

I find it quite funny Dave that you neglect to recognize :

1- Multiple sources reporting explosives going off in tower 1 tower 2 and tower 7.
2-Firefighters , citizens , and WTC employees saying on video they had experienced explosions.
3-Explosions captured on video with squibs several stories below the the supposed pankcaked floors.
4-The recovery of nano-thermate from the world trade centers
5-Molten steal under rubble months after the collapse of the trade centers which further corroborates nano-thermate being used.
So arguing about Larry Silverstein meaning of a term he used is quite a mute point.

We have video evidence
physical evidence
Witness testimony
Paper trails leading to the saudi's and Mossad
Also arrested Mossad agents in a van filled with alot of cash, and video evidence.
And another van that Captured Israeli Mossad agents ran from before it exploded. So put it all together and what do you have?

Originally posted by drock905
you guys can't even admit that it's even possible the "it" meant the firefighting and rescue team? Really? You can't see that?

Looking at the big picture, no.

WTC landed mostly in its own footprint, evidenced by the outer walls folded in on top of the rest of the collapsed building. Implosion demolition style.

To me it's far more of a stretch that he meant the fire crews. Since when did a fire crew stop working on a building on fire, and when does a building owner ever have any say in it?

Can you even admit the possibility that you're wrong?



Pretty obvious it was CD if you know what you're looking at.

Originally posted by ANOK
Might have already been mentioned, but 'pull' is an old term to demo a building, I think we all agree on that? Well old terms like that stick, regardless of the technology or method changing.

The only way I'm seeing this is "an old term" is if you consider the fact the conspiracy proponents have been insisting it means "controlled demolitions" for the past ten years. That's not because of the term meaning anything at the time Silverstein said it. That's because the term was only invented after he said it, and specifically because he said it, which shows that's NOT what the term means.

Larry Silverstein made his fortune buying old complexes and re-building them. He has been involved in building demolition for years. He knows very well what 'pull it' means.

Can you give me an incident where he was involved in any building demolitions? I looked into his bio and from what I see he only went into undeveloped lots or buildings that were already developed.

I thought we'd moved beyond this nonsense years ago. How about a thread on how the trusses pulled in the columns Dave? Don't forget to explain why the bolts didn't break first OK?

Start a thread on that topic and I'll respond to it. In the meantime, I'll keep asking this question on this thread until I get a different answer than "I heard it from someone else and I just assumed it was true"

Originally posted by Clunky
So put it all together and what do you have?

I'd say what we have is "misdirection". The question was about what "pull it" means, not about whether controlled demolitions actually brought down the buildings.

Where is it written that the towers can't have been destroyed by controlled demolitions AS WELL AS Alex Jones, Dylan Avery, et al can't be lying through their teeth when they say "pull it" is slang for controlled demolitions? Just because the glove didn't fit on OJ Simpson's hand it doesn't disprove the possibility the glove really was planted in addition to OJ Simpson really being a murderer. One doesn't necessarily cancel out the other.

For one thing, if "pull it" really isn't lingo for controlled demolitions like everyone says, wouldn't that suggest that Silverstein would actually be innocent and all these conspiracy theorists are just making stuff up to railroad him? You could even go so far as to say the real conspirators have invented the term themselves to put the blame on him and move attention away from themselves.

Something to think about.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

I know it isn't a source. That's what I called the link. Now "Pulling" coming from a friends of mine comes from back in the day when they didn't use explossives. They demolished the the support columns and leave only the supporting walls. Then they would literally pull the building down. Now this sounds right. As a kid I remember tearing down my grand dad's barn just like that. Rip out the wall and cut most of the posts. Tie the tractor to the truss' and off we went. Pretty neet show.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Now that's odd, since I spoke with TWO fire fighters who confirmed it means "get the fire fighters out of a dangerous area". It comes from a term back before they used radios, where the teams outside would give the fire hoses a good hard pull as a signal to the teams inside to clear out.

Its still taught Dave - at least in my area. FF on engine companies are taught not to lose contact with
the hose. Its your protection from the fire and your way out.....

As stated term comes from earlier days of Fire fighting when crews did not not have radios, today everyone
(at least in my town) has radio. We still use it for simple reason

Radios dont always work, especially in large buildings

Now that everyone has radio problem is everyone talking over others, can cut off communications

Pump operators taught to yank on lines as signal to vacate structure if danger of collapse or conditions
becoming too severe

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Clunky
So put it all together and what do you have?

I'd say what we have is "misdirection". The question was about what "pull it" means, not about whether controlled demolitions actually brought down the buildings.

Where is it written that the towers can't have been destroyed by controlled demolitions AS WELL AS Alex Jones, Dylan Avery, et al can't be lying through their teeth when they say "pull it" is slang for controlled demolitions? Just because the glove didn't fit on OJ Simpson's hand it doesn't disprove the possibility the glove really was planted in addition to OJ Simpson really being a murderer. One doesn't necessarily cancel out the other.

For one thing, if "pull it" really isn't lingo for controlled demolitions like everyone says, wouldn't that suggest that Silverstein would actually be innocent and all these conspiracy theorists are just making stuff up to railroad him? You could even go so far as to say the real conspirators have invented the term themselves to put the blame on him and move attention away from themselves.

Something to think about.

Ok so are you Larry Silversteins publicist or part of his family or something? Because you focusing so much attention on the words he used and trying to defend him at every chance you get makes no sense what so ever.
I think you are right the point is misdirection. You want people arguing about something as pointless as Larry Silversteins words while ignoring the hard evidence. Good job make a thread that wastes people's time so they get caught up arguing irrelevance with you.

Originally posted by XLR8R
I know it isn't a source. That's what I called the link.

Now "Pulling" coming from a friends of mine comes from back in the day when they didn't use explossives. They demolished the the support columns and leave only the supporting walls. Then they would literally pull the building down. Now this sounds right. As a kid I remember tearing down my grand dad's barn just like that. Rip out the wall and cut most of the posts. Tie the tractor to the truss' and off we went. Pretty neet show.

edit on 20-3-2012 by XLR8R because: (no reason given)

So in other words, "pull it" wasn't slang for controlled demolitions or any other demolitions for that matter, any more than how "pull it" is slang for how a horse would make a plow move or how "pull it" is slang for removing the stopper out of a sink. It was literally describing the action they were doing to do the work. Why then does Silverstein's "Pull it" have any more significance?

Since it's a given they didn't pull down WTC 7 with cables and a tractor, the next logical assumption would be that he was referring to "pulling the plug" on the efforts to save the building. The next logical assumption after that would be that he was using fire fighter lingo to "pull the firefighters out of a dangerous situation". He was after all talking to fire fighters when he said it and he very well might have picked up the term from their conversation himself. Regardless of the actual context, all this means is that he wasn't referring to controlled demolitions and that's not what "pull it" means, as we've repeatedly been told.

Yes? No?

Originally posted by Clunky
Ok so are you Larry Silversteins publicist or part of his family or something? Because you focusing so much attention on the words he used and trying to defend him at every chance you get makes no sense what so ever.
I think you are right the point is misdirection. You want people arguing about something as pointless as Larry Silversteins words while ignoring the hard evidence. Good job make a thread that wastes people's time so they get caught up arguing irrelevance with you.

Excuse me, Mr. Double Standard but a week doesn't go by here where someone or another tries to indoctinate us into believing "pull it means controlled demolitions" becuase they want to get us to believe Silverstein was referring to demolitions instead of something innoculous...and characters like Richard Gage do it every time anyone visits their web sites. Why is it that when you conspiracy theorists mention "Silverstein said 'pull it" it's supposed to be some kind of incredibly important smoking gun but when I bring it up it spontaneously becomes a pointless topic? Either it's relevent or it isn't.

The point you're glossing over is this- if the conspiracy proponents believe "pull it" means "controlled demolitions" simply because you've repeatedly been told that until you started to believe it, then how can you be so sure that any of the OTHER things you've repeatedly been told until you started to believe it is true either?

Howstuffworks

advanced pre-Sept 11th 2001 Google search..

The basic idea of explosive demolition is quite simple: If you remove the support structure of a building at a certain point, the section of the building above that point will fall down on the part of the building below that point. If this upper section is heavy enough, it will collide with the lower part with sufficient force to cause significant damage. The explosives are just the trigger for the demolition. It's gravity that brings the building down.

alright, so we all have an idea of what an explosive demo is..

A Real Implosion? Strictly speaking, an implosion is an event where something collapses inward, because the external atmospheric pressure is greater than the internal pressure. For example, if you pumped the air out of a glass tube, it might implode. A building implosion isn't truly an implosion -- atmospheric pressure doesn't pull or push the structure inward, gravity makes it collapse. But the term implosion is in common use for this sort of demolition. In this article, we use the word this way.

and that clearly Gravity makes it collapse..

Every time you jump, you experience gravity. It pulls you back down to the ground. Without gravity, you'd float off into the atmosphere -- along with all of the other matter on Earth.

and Gravity Pulls..

You see gravity at work any time you drop a book, step on a scale or toss a ball up into the air. It's such a constant presence in our lives, we seldom marvel at the mystery of it -- but even with several well-received theories out there attempting to explain why a book falls to the ground (and at the same rate as a pebble or a couch, at that), they're still just theories. The mystery of gravity's pull is pretty much intact.

also, gravity's pull is still a mystery, yet a very much real force..

implosionworld.com

Here we have a professional company describing what is happening in an "implosion"..

Webster’s Dictionary defines implosion as "a violent collapse inward". In the demolition industry, a blaster is usually trying to pull a structure away from adjacent exposures and towards an area large enough to contain the debris.

and in that explanation explains the technique is to use gravity's PULL to keep other surrounding buildings safe..

When this situation exists, the blaster has no choice; he must make the building collapse in on itself. This is by far the trickiest type of explosive demolition project, and there are only a handful of blasting companies in the world that possess enough experience—and insurance—to perform these true building implosions.

and that making the building collapse in on itself it the goal.

It is impossible for a professional demolition crew to advertise their trade without using the term "gravity" to their clients..

how could professionals not use the word gravity to imply the PULLING action that are counting on to do the very task they are being paid to do?

How then, is it so inconceivable, not being a professional, while trying to explain what a controlled demolition is, that someone would refer to this technique as, wait for it.. to "pull it" down? ie use a slang term?

why would you be looking for a professional example using a slang term to describe their trade? that's idiotic. do you know what slang even is?

yet when Silverstein uses the term, not being a pro, but involved in the real estate market, it is correct slang properly describing the technique involved for the actions that very much took place. In the quote he tells you this. In reality we watched it happen. In the real world buildings do not fall as seen without careful planning.

Even if one side was damaged, the building would tip over. Not fall as described by Professionals.

furthermore, if materials in the construction of a building would cause a fire that would melt a steel frame to allow a building to collapse as fast a gravity's pull, according the known laws of physic's, this would be deemed unsafe to use.

if buildings fell "in on themselves" naturally... why would there even be a profession to do so?

Is their secret out now? Do not hire them with expense contracts and the like.. just have your secretary lite her wastebasket on fire.. after you've cleared out of course, because according to the new version the whole thing is going to fall.

can you provide a precedent in which a building fell in on itself naturally? you can not. you never will.

you are obviously not looking for any real discussion on this topic and have not looked honestly at the situation.

the Matrix has you. actually, you exhibit signs of being an Agent GoodOlDave. maybe the reason you started this thread was to break free from your programing..

reply to post by Cassius666


So, then, can we take that as a "No Sir I have no evidence that "pull it" was industry slang for controlled demolition"?

reply to post by ANOK


That's your opinion and that's completely fine we will agree to disagree. When I read the firefighters testimony saying and see a building missing a third of its structure at the base it's not really that fantastic that it collapsed in my opinion.

what else could it mean?
move the buildings location?

This argument should not have made it anywhere near this far, considering it's IMO, obvious how this is to be taken in context. Regardless of the fact that I believe the buildings were brought down by CTD, Silverstein sure as hell didn't give it away in this quote.

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

He is informed that they probably aren't going to be able to contain the fire, so to not risk the lives of any emergency crew in an unattainable mission, he said " pull it".

Pull it, meaning "pull the operation" " stop fighting" " abort" .

I don't understand how delusional you have to be to convince yourself otherwise.

This link could have saved me a lot of words.

https:// sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/larrysilverstein's%22pullit%22quote

Originally posted by samkent
If TPTB control all the media how could something like that slip past the censors? It's not like it was aired live. There had to be one or more editors involved.

Why haven't the all powerfull censors forced all the websites remove that video of him saying 'pull it'?

Hi sam,

If you really think about. You know how a wall is built one stone at a time?
They fall apart that way too. Actually the Larry stone fell out long ago.
ljb

Originally posted by drock905
reply to post by ANOK

 

That's your opinion and that's completely fine we will agree to disagree. When I read the firefighters testimony saying and see a building missing a third of its structure at the base it's not really that fantastic that it collapsed in my opinion.

It's not my opinion.

To "Pull' a building is a demolition term, period. It comes from the days of pulling buildings down with chains etc. If that is what you're referring to?

In an implosion demolition the outer walls are 'pulled' in on top of the rest of the building, and is why the term is still used and still relevant.

OSer's even used to try to claim 'implosion demolition' was not a real terms also, they never give up trying to make excuses and argue irrelevant nonsense.

Stacy Loizeaux: No. The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion." There are a series of small explosions, but the building itself isn't erupting outward. It's actually being pulled in on top of itself. What we're really doing is removing specific support columns within the structure and then cajoling the building in one direction or another, or straight down.

www.pbs.org...

reply to post by reeferman


Hi reefman

My page went all haywire when I pressed the little white star at the top of your post. The big long one that dave can't understand. What's with him ?
The one that explains it real good. Hey the star turned blue.
good post
ljb