Another look at "Pull It"

Originally posted by HowardRoark
That makes no sense whatsoever.

Did you read my post above?

You do realize that they weren’t just concerned with firefighters going into the building, the comand was concerned with the firefighters in the immediate vicinity also.

Well, Howard...

Nice! I hadn't thought of that excuse. So now the argument, which was pull the building vs pull the firefighters in the building, goes to pull the firefighters outside the building in the immediate vicinity. Oh, you just gotta love it...especially when the OFFICIAL story says there was no firefighting going on at the time. Guess those firefighters "in the vicinity" were just standing around on their break yukkin it up...

Perhaps you should read the testimonies written by firefighters from that day a page or two back.

2. THE MYTH OF 'IMPLOSION'

Over the past several decades, the word 'implosion' has been used to describe almost every type of explosive demolition project. Whether due to convenience, or to the absence of any word that accurately describes this type of activity, 'building implosion' has been the title given to thousands of projects involving explosives.

DID YOU KNOW that only a small percentage of explosive demolition jobs are true 'building implosions'?

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. Therefore, the only time a building is truly 'imploded' is when exposures (other structures or areas of concern) completely surround it. 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. - implosionworld.com

Originally posted by AgentSmith


Regarding the firefighters - could it be that there were none in there at the time becasue they had been pulled out?

People seem to envision him saying it just before it collapsed. I always got the impression he was on about saying it much earlier. I don't think he meant the firefighters were evacuated and then the building collapsed instantly you kinow which is what a lot of people seem to assume.

Hey look at that you used the word WE use for getting out of dodge. We evacuate, we retreat we never "pull out"! We may pull out a charged hoseline, but not our people on the fireground.

When he said "pull it" no way did he mean the FDNY! No one would say that about poeple, he would have said evacuate just like everyone else in the world! I used to think poeple were jumping to conclustions when they said he admitted to pulling the building. I always figured he meant that he wanted to pull the building but afer he made that desicion he was trying to say the building had collapsed on its own. This hogwash stating he meant the Firefighters makes me think he really did admitt to pulling that building.

Edit to add: Howard what does pulling back have to do with Larry saying "pull it"?

[edit on 20-6-2006 by LoneGunMan]

Here is an interesting tidbit from Ireland.

1:30pm EST on Sept 11, 2001:

Third building on verge of collapse

6:27:11 PM

Another building in New York is on the verge of collapse.

The building near the collapsed World Trade Centre towers was hit and damaged by falling debris.

CNN reports it looks likely to fall down.

The station has also aired reports of a gas leak in the wreckage of the towers.

archives.tcm.ie...

Silverstein is not firefighter, nor is he a demolition expert. The fact you guys give no credence to the possibility he doesn't know either vocation’s vernacular fits with the usual CT pattern of coiling "evidence" to support pre-conceived notions. Have you considered he was just trying to use firefighter vernacular but got it wrong? No, no, no … impossible.

Following this logic, WTC 7 was pre-rigged for demolition, but at the last moment they / someone decide to try and save it … but then Silverstein changes his mind … and decides maybe it’s better to demolish WTC 7 after all.

Or more preposterously, it would mean WTC 7 was rigged for demolition in a few short hours.

Either way, was the NYFD was also in on the whole thing too?

[edit on 21-6-2006 by vor75]

Originally posted by truthseeka

Originally posted by HowardRoark
That makes no sense whatsoever.

Did you read my post above?

You do realize that they weren’t just concerned with firefighters going into the building, the comand was concerned with the firefighters in the immediate vicinity also.

Well, Howard...

Nice! I hadn't thought of that excuse. So now the argument, which was pull the building vs pull the firefighters in the building, goes to pull the firefighters outside the building in the immediate vicinity. Oh, you just gotta love it...especially when the OFFICIAL story says there was no firefighting going on at the time. Guess those firefighters "in the vicinity" were just standing around on their break yukkin it up...

The only one changing the meaning is you. It's a standard firefighting term that hasn't changed. It's always meant to pull people from the building and its collapse zone. What you think that if a firefighter is standing on the sidewalk outside of a collapsing building he will be safe? No, there is a collapse zone for buildings and they need to be pulled out of the collapse zone into a safe area. This means that the firefighters working on other buildings within WTC7's collapse zone must be pulled. These buildings are all right next to each other so these claims are just utterly silly. Just look at the pictures where you can see how little space there is between many of the buildings.

And so you are implying that he was referring to demolishing the building? He is not a demolition expert, nor is the firedepartment he was talking to. And then this also implies that all the firefighters gave their lives on purpose since they are all in on it as well. They must have had fun being involved in 'pulling' WTC 1 & 2 huh? Nice of them to give up their lives in some dark governemtn plot to take over the world.

And then to have these supposed planted explosives in a damaged and burning building and expect them to work and not have pre mature detonations. And forget the fact that it often takes over 4 months to prepare such a thing...

And there is one demolition company that uses the term pull. but they were on the other side of the country. And when they use the term pull them mean to literally 'pull' the building to one side. Most demolitions do not come straight down, they are pulled to a clear zone. Hence the term 'pull' to pull the building away from the surrounding ones.

So these assumptions that becuase he said "pull it" (meaning pull the building which referes to the people within the collapse zone) it means there was a controlled demolition is wrong in every way imaginable. It's clearly a case of having a pre determined conclusion and looking for evidence to reach that conclusion.

Originally posted by snoopy
It's a standard firefighting term that hasn't changed. It's always meant to pull people from the building and its collapse zone.

Really, then lets see what a real firefighter has to say about it.

Originally posted by LoneGunMen
Hey look at that you used the word WE use for getting out of dodge. We evacuate, we retreat we never "pull out"! We may pull out a charged hoseline, but not our people on the fireground.

Hmmm...seams this firefighter has something different to say.

and they need to be pulled out of the collapse zone into a safe area. This means that the firefighters working on other buildings within WTC7's collapse zone must be pulled.

Hmmm...you didn't use the terminology "pull it" but used what someone with knowledge of the English language would say...i.e. "pull out", "pull them out", "pull them" I didn't know Larry wasn't from the USA and English is his second language. Pull it refers to a non person. Pull them would indicate people.

It's clearly a case of having a pre determined conclusion and looking for evidence to reach that conclusion.

Really? Or is it the other way around? Is it that some don't want to know the truth and simple say pisha to the terminology of Larry when he specifically says "it" instead of any other objective describing people?

edit: I can't believe I'm posting on this subject again when I thought I was done argueing this.

[edit on 6/21/2006 by Griff]

"It"....the operation.

You guys are unbelievable.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by snoopy
It's a standard firefighting term that hasn't changed. It's always meant to pull people from the building and its collapse zone.

Really, then lets see what a real firefighter has to say about it.

Originally posted by LoneGunMen
Hey look at that you used the word WE use for getting out of dodge. We evacuate, we retreat we never "pull out"! We may pull out a charged hoseline, but not our people on the fireground.

Hmmm...seams this firefighter has something different to say.

and they need to be pulled out of the collapse zone into a safe area. This means that the firefighters working on other buildings within WTC7's collapse zone must be pulled.

Hmmm...you didn't use the terminology "pull it" but used what someone with knowledge of the English language would say...i.e. "pull out", "pull them out", "pull them" I didn't know Larry wasn't from the USA and English is his second language. Pull it refers to a non person. Pull them would indicate people.

It's clearly a case of having a pre determined conclusion and looking for evidence to reach that conclusion.

Really? Or is it the other way around? Is it that some don't want to know the truth and simple say pisha to the terminology of Larry when he specifically says "it" instead of any other objective describing people?

edit: I can't believe I'm posting on this subject again when I thought I was done argueing this.

[edit on 6/21/2006 by Griff]

The firefighter you are quoting is from NYCFD? It would be very easy to post many many firefighter quotes from 9/11 that say it is indeed a term used. It was even dsigust in that firefighting magazine. So you taking a quote from one person saying that he doesn't use the term and that unvalidates all other professionals? Sorry, but that's not gonna cut it.

Why didn't I use the term Pull it? Because I am not a firefighter and I don't work with those guys. I use laymens terms. yet you seem to think that no one in any industry uses any industry jargon at all. So no one in a hospitol ever says 'stat' because as humans we would just say 'now'. Think about your flawed logic here.

Pull it does in deed refer to a non-person. It referes to the situation. A building needs to be pulled, hence the process of getting everyone out of the way. This is really basic logic here. but instead you prefer to assume they are misusing a term used by a particular demolition company. So why would they use the term "pull it" when they weere not pulling a building but rather imploding it? Your own logic does not even work on your own conclusions. This is a clear cut case of having a pre determined conclusion and trying to find facts to support it.

So Snoopy pls post some proof that 'pull it' means to pull out the fire crew.

No on else has managed to do that yet, otherwise we wouldn't still be discussing it.

You also have to put the whole quote in context.

Right after he said 'They made the decision to 'pull it', he said 'And then we watched the building fall' Not 'And then we watched the NYFD evacuate the building'.
Think about what he's saying here.

When does the owner of a building have any input as to what the fire department does with it's crew? And why would he use fire department jargon? It's logical he would use demo jargon, seeing as this is not the first building he has owned that he has had demolished. He made a lot of money buying old buildings and demolishing them. That is his job, real estate not fire fighting.

According to FEMA there were no fire fighters to pull out of the building anyway.
There were also people in the building when it collapsed, did they not hear the command to 'pull it'?

"When 7 World Trade Center came down on Sept. 11, an agent on loan from Washington, special officer Craig Miller, perished, and the entire Secret Service office was buried in that building.

To 'pull' a building is a common controlled demo term. The only reason an owner is contacted is when they have to demo a building.

We know that the term 'pull it' means to bring the building down by means of explosives because in the same documentary a cleanup worker (in December 2001) refers to the demolition of WTC Building 6 when he says, "...we're getting ready to pull the building six."

www.prisonplanet.com...

For Building 7 to have been imploded so precisely as it goes down in the video clips, that would imply that the explosives were already in the building. This was an idea I had heard mentioned shortly after the events of 9/11, in referance to the main towers. That the explosives were built in during construction in case of an emergency requiring the drastic measure of implosion in order to prevent the building from toppling and causing much more widespread destrution.

It was mentioned that the emergency was something such as an earthquake, not a terroist attack. If it is true that the explosive were installed in the buildings at or near construction, how many more such buildings are out there?

The previous attempt to put a bomb in the basement seems it might have been done with the knowledge of these explosives, because the charge they planted was not sufficent to bring down the Tower, but possibly the objective was to trigger the installed explosives.

The most interesting thing about the towers collapse was the 30 story section that was starting to topple, then suddenly its gone in a cloud of dust....

Originally posted by ANOK.

We know that the term 'pull it' means to bring the building down by means of explosives because in the same documentary a cleanup worker (in December 2001) refers to the demolition of WTC Building 6 when he says, "...we're getting ready to pull the building six."

www.prisonplanet.com...

Thanks for this example. It IS in context with the term.

Building 6 was not taken down with explosives. It was taken down mechanicaly.

A fellow worker of mine was a FEMA volunteer firefighter at the scene. He tells me that the biggest problem and the reason so many firefighters lost their lives in the tragedy was the fact the the radio frequencies between the fire fighters and the other rescuers were not the same.

I see in the news after a big stink about those radios, that we need a system of communication that is all on the same page.

The notion that buildings are constructed with explosives installed is the stupidest, most absurd nonsense ever. Only a totally paranoid moron would even consider that to be possible.

Really?

Seems many others think its possible. I refer you to this current thread

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by zorgon
That the explosives were built in during construction in case of an emergency requiring the drastic measure of implosion in order to prevent the building from toppling and causing much more widespread destrution.

It was mentioned that the emergency was something such as an earthquake, not a terroist attack. If it is true that the explosive were installed in the buildings at or near construction, how many more such buildings are out there?

I must agree with Howard on this one (though not the name calling part) in that although initially it might sound like a good idea from a safety aspect - an earthquake threating to topple WTC Towers would cause mass damage, so evacuate and press a 'self-destruct button' and use explosives and bring it down in a controlled manner - if you think about it this just simply would not happen

The risk of an accidental explosion far, far outweighs the unlikely event of an earthquake.

I think I can safely say that there has NEVER EVER been a commercial building constructed with explosives built into the structure - would you go to work in such a place surrounded by bombs?

I am not saying that WTC 1 & 2 were not brought down by thermite or other means, just that it would not have been part of the design and original construction of the towers

[edit on 22/6/2006 by alienanderson]

Originally posted by zorgon
Really?

Seems many others think its possible. I refer you to this current thread

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Where in that thread does anyone purport that explosives or thermite was installed when the building was constructed?

Why don't you e-mail steven Jones and ask him if he thinks the thermite was installed when the buildings were constructed.

I think I can safely say that there has NEVER EVER been a commercial building constructed with explosives built into the structure - would you go to work in such a place surrounded by bombs?

You are probably correct on this, it certainly wouldn't be logical. I suppose the rumour comes from the fact that there is so much talk about explosives used to bring down the buildings yet no explanation of how they got in there. Its obvious by video that at least WTC 7 was a controlled drop, yet did "they" run in amidst all that chaos of the day and perfectly position explosives? The toppling 30 stories also just went poof in a cloud of dust as it was tipping over. Does entropy cover that?

Nobody saw them? They had the explosive on hand ready to go?

I mean it is plausable that a crack demolition team zipped in and set charges in time. One thing the gov. is good at is blowing things up. We may not know the truth for 50 years or so, but there are way to many questions to just let it go away



To HowardRoark

You can call me any name you want... all it shows is lack of tolerance on your part for others opinions

[edit on 22-6-2006 by zorgon]

Originally posted by zorgon
For Building 7 to have been imploded so precisely as it goes down in the video clips, that would imply that the explosives were already in the building.

It might imply that to you, but that doesn’t mean that that is what happened.

A failure of a support column near the transfer trusses could have cause the same failure sequence.

A failure of a support column near the transfer trusses could have cause the same failure sequence.

The building didn't look that badly damaged for this convienient structual failure.

These two clips are hard to dispute

www.911research.com...
www.911research.com...