Support 911Blogger


Does "Pull it" = controlled demolition?

So, I was visiting the website 911research.wtc7.net the other day and I saw there a whole page (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/pullit.html) devoted to Larry Silverstein and his alleged admission about the controlled demolition of WTC 7. This, of course, was dealing with his now famous quote during the PBS documentary entitled "America Rebuilds," which aired on September 10, 2002. The quote again:

"I remember getting a call from the, er, 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 we watched the building collapse."

At the bottom of this page, 911research.wtc7.net has a heading/section called "A Closer Look" in which the writers say:

"Although many people are convinced that Silverstein's statement is an admission that he and the fire department commander conspired to demolish the building, the statement fails to support a case for such a crime. 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."

Well, I did some very basic Google searching and on the website for Controlled Demolition, Inc. (http://www.controlled-demolition.com/) I found evidence that DOES link the terms "pull" and "pulled" to controlled, explosive demolition.

At this link (http://www.controlled-demolition.com/article/everglades-forever-gone) the company describes:

"Utilizing a total of 137 pounds of linear shaped charges and 50 lbs of dynamite “kicker charges”, CDI worked in only the partial basement to the west, the Lobby Level and 4th floor of the structure. Placed in over 400 locations, the shaped charges were sequentially initiated over a period of 5.4 seconds, working from southwest to northeast through the structure. 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."

At this link (http://www.controlled-demolition.com/sears-catalog-warehouse) the company describes:

"Approximately 2,700 lb. of explosives were placed in 2,918 holes on six levels of the structure. CDI’s delayed detonation of charges, the product of 50 years of explosives demolition experience, pulled the massive warehouse structure away from a U.S. Post Office facility only 18 -ft away without damage."

Also, here is a PBS/Nova interview of Stacey Loizeaux, who at the time was 26 years old and had worked for Controlled Demolition, Inc. since the age of 15.
Link: (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/kaboom/loizeaux.html)

Quote:
"NOVA: A common misconception is that you blow buildings up. That's not really the case, is it?

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."

At this link: (http://www.seattlepi.com/kingdome/main.shtml) Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc., says this of the Seattle Kingdome demolition back in 2000:

"The roof did its job, the gravity engine worked. It provided the energy we needed to pull the columns inward."

There are just four examples... I bet I could find more.

Now, I am not saying that Silverstein was actually admitting anything, but a simple Google search seems to find more support for "pull" or "pulled" being linked to controlled demolitions with explosives than the 911research.wtc7.net site suggests.

Not enough proof!!

The links you listed above do not sound like industry slang. They sound like literal use of the word pull. Pulling in one direction doesn't mean pull like the way you are saying Larry Silverstein used the word. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/pullit.html This link you provided states it's case well and I still see it as the truth. The Larry Silverstein quote was most likely referencing the removal of firefighters from the building. There is not enough evidence to prove Larry meant anything other than that. Furthermore, this out of context quote from Silverstein is not necessary to prove the problems with how WTC7 came down, or that Silverstein benefitted from it. So far I say NO to your question. You have still not provided us with enough references above where the use of "pull" or "pull it" is an INDUSTRY SLANG CONSTRUCTION TERM for CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS SPECIFICALLY.

I found a firefighters forum where it seems most of them describe pull it as a term used for removing firefighters from a building.

http://www.firefightersforums.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t...

Nothing on any of these construction slang dictionaries referencing pull at all

http://daveosborne.com/construction-dictionary/construction-definitions....
http://www.topfloorstore.com/doodads_h/dds-glo-trm-aaa.shtml
http://www.msue.msu.edu/objects/content_revision/download.cfm/item_id.52...

It would be huge if Silverstein was actually admitting a planned demolition of the building, but unfortunately he cannot be proven to be referencing demolition in the one video clip everyone has seen.

Funny, I just came across a proof page, re: CD

No mention of it in a dictionary. I started with your firefighter discussion page. On it, junior member altermany opposed the older fellow who talked about the history of firefighters pulling the line to indicate evacuation the building. Before thinking this is disinformation, I was first struck by the older man's enjoyment of history.

So then, a little google, and voila...

http://911review.org/WTC/WTC7_pullit_Industry-term.html

And sure enough, there appears to be a lengthy list of quotations in the demolitions business. The history/etymology of this term appears to date back to demolitions times when they would literally use cables and pull walls down. But after that, the quotes start rolling in...

From link above...
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22pull+down+a+building%22
828 results for for "pull down a building"

Samples from the search results there:

Sept. 24, '98
Four executive members of the Atebubu youth association (AYA) have been arrested by the police
over the demolition of a building which was being rehabilitated for use as the office of the Atebubu town council.
Members of the association allegedly went on rampage and pulled down the building
because, according to them "as a swish building, it was not fit to be used as a town council office."
http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/artikel.php?ID=4018

The next house erected in Seneca was a concrete stone building, put up by Downing & Stewart;
the latter soon after selling to A. M. Smith. Downing & Smith sold to L. J. McGowan,
who finally pulled down the building and erected the substantial stone structure in which Hazard & Sons now do business.
http://www.kancoll.org/books/cutler/nemaha/nemaha-co-p4.html

Sadly, this location is now history. The folks that opened Coach and Horses years ago
finally sold out the land and building for development and the dozer pulled down the building just last month.
http://dinesite.com/info/review-read/post-39614/??&t=0

The Gweru Synagogue complex was sold to a church, the KweKwe one sold to the
Hindoo Community as a temple, I understand it has since been re-sold. The
Kadoma Synagogue was also sold to a church last year who pulled down the building
and I understand built a larger complex on the site.
http://www.zjc.org.il/showpage.php?pageid=261

Ox’s hoof found in wall
‘When I lived at Lyddon House some twenty years ago, a very old cottage adjoining was pulled down.
The building was largely of rubble and one of the men engaged in the task of demolition, found embedded in a wall,
the hoof of an ox shod with a miniature horse shoe
http://www.apotropaios.co.uk/dorset_survey.htm

: the President soon spread his Lodgings westward on their present site;
and the old Hospital buildings were not pulled down.

The quadrangle was given its present appearance little more than a hundred years ago.
In 1822 the north side was pulled down. The building was said to be in a dangerous state of decay,
but in fact the demolition was apparently carried out at the instigation
of a faction among the Fellows during the long vacation.

The remains of the building, including the Grammar School,
were pulled down as unsafe in 1824,
and the Grammar Hall was restored and adapted by Buckler.
http://www.magd.ox.ac.uk/history/buildings.shtml

The story of Samson is paralleled in the history of a hero named Zipanca, told of in the "Popol Vuh,"
who, being captured by his enemies and placed in a pit, pulled down the building in which his captors had assembled,
and killed four hundred of them.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/atl/ataw/ataw306.htm

Ok now we are getting somewhere

All of these examples use the phrase 'pulled down'. I can't fully conclude though that any of these remarks is construction or fire fighter slang that refers specifically to a controlled demolition. That being said, these quotes are more convincing than the ones in the original post. I still don't see proof a 'pull' or 'pull it' or even 'pulled down' being used consistently to specify demolishing a building to conclude it as a common enough slang that Silverstein used it in this specific way (referring to demolition) . I can now see how it "could" be used in referencing a demolition (still more literally than in the sense of industry or insider slang), but certainly not from Silversteins quote. What has been misleading about the 'pull it' quote for sometime is the implication from the quote that, Larry Silverstein knew about the potential building coming down and actually gave the order himself to do it. This still hasn't been proven even with people using the term pulled down in regard to removal of structures. I need to not only see that 'pull it' could generally be known as a slang term for demolition, but also need to see how it can be proven that Silverstein was referring to demolishing the building and also that he gave the command to do so.

pull it down

Sure this works. You could say, "they pulled the building down", and if the subject was already in use (the building), then "pull it" would be short for "pull it down". "It" would refer to the building.

"Pull the building down"

"Pull it down"

"Pull it"

But you've raised a very good point re: Firefighters

Because Silverstein was on the phone with the fire department, and that is when he said, "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to 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 pull it, uh, and they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse"

Either way, the SLANG is being applied by Silverstein himself. Whether by old firefighter or by demolition usage. In the case of what he said about firefighters, it would mean withdraw the firefighters and give up, and in the case of demolition, it would be to pull the building down. Either way HE IS USING SLANG ON THE PHONE WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMANDER. I don't use caps much, but it just felt right. Cheers - Mark

Jim Hoffman

that site is Jim Hoffman's. I disagree with him on this, and the rest of the work that he does is impeccable.

The Burden of Proof Falls on You

These quotes you have provided do not use "pull" to refer to controlled demolition. They do not reference a construction slang for controlled demolition. You all must prove that pull it is a controlled demolition construction slang term that Larry Silverstein is familiar with. You all must provide proof of where this comes from. It is a simple question. There are alot of problems with the way building 7 came down. Unfortunately this alleged proof you claim of Silverstein's admission is unsubstantiated. I unfortunately spread this myth about the quote for some time, but it was a mistake on my part. Silverstein didn't admit to anything and we sound silly claiming that he did. Again the quotes provided above only using to term pull in a literal sense and not in construction slang. We need proof of these claims before we ascribe to them.

There is a National Geographic docu

on controlled demolition and CDI and in it they count down at the beginning of a implosion: three, two, one, pull!!!

So no slang for controlled demolition? I guess that's only after 2002 criptycally remarks by Silverstein and the "debunkers" controll over the language meanings...

Links?

Guys we need definitive proof here.

Searched long for it

couldn't find it online. But my ears don't lie. The docu was shown on german newschannel n-tv.
There aren't that many docus on CDI??? Surely one can find it.

Question for you,

Hi, I saw in a nother thread here you wrote,

" I had a polite email exchange with Professor Thomas A. Cahill. I just ask him questions regarding the aerosols. He was on scene in Kuwait with the burning oil drills and China with the burning coal as well.
He did published some studies on the WTC dust. He did provide me these studies."

I have recently been curious about what I know he has said in the past regarding evaporated iron in the air, and requiring very high temps, but not sure if that is still his song. I would like to ask him a couple of questions. Do you still have his email address?

My email is on the http://www.coopassembly.org page (at bottom), if you can pass his along to me, thx very much.

Aresolized chromium, vanadium, etc, where else but the aluminum cladding could this have come from? I don't know, but, how?

At what point did I say that

At what point did I say that he admitted to anything. In fact, if you read my entire post you see that I say explicitly that I'm not saying that. This is (in part) why your criticism of my post fails to impress. It clearly suggests that you have a knee-jerk response to this topic, plain and simple, and that you didn't even read all the way through my comment. I provided four examples (after only a few minutes of searching) of the people who run Controlled Demolition, Inc. (one of the biggest demolition companies in the world) using the words "pull" and "pulled" to describe demolitions that were explosive-based operations, not the type that use ropes. Your choice to dismiss that evidence is just that, your choice. It doesn't make it less true.

No one is criticizing but you "pjcz" .

This is not personal, though you keep attempting to make it so. I'd love to prove 'pull' or 'pull it' means controlled demolition. I think you are confused about these quotes you found. Here is one of the quotes you "pjcz" found:

"Utilizing a total of 137 pounds of linear shaped charges and 50 lbs of dynamite “kicker charges”, CDI worked in only the partial basement to the west, the Lobby Level and 4th floor of the structure. Placed in over 400 locations, the shaped charges were sequentially initiated over a period of 5.4 seconds, working from southwest to northeast through the structure. 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."

This is a literal use of the word "pull." It's implication is directional and has nothing to do with explosives other than it was used in the same paragraph.

"Approximately 2,700 lb. of explosives were placed in 2,918 holes on six levels of the structure. CDI’s delayed detonation of charges, the product of 50 years of explosives demolition experience, pulled the massive warehouse structure away from a U.S. Post Office facility only 18 -ft away without damage."

Again, still directional and NOT industry slang for controlled demolition.

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."

Once again, literal usage of the word 'pull' for simply a directional sense. 'Pulled' is not being used here to refer to the demolition specifically see?

None of these three quotes use the word 'pull' or 'pulled' specifically as construction slang referring to controlled demolition. At most, the quotes at least contain the word, but only use the word in a directional sense, not specifically construction slang referring to demolition.

You "pjcz" also wrote,

"At what point did I say that he admitted to anything"

Here I think you are simply confused. If 'pull' or 'pull it' is indeed a construction slang term for controlled demolition (which so far we have been provided no conclusive proof of this) then Larry Silverstein's quote would indeed be considered an admission (be it accidental in this hypothetical case) of controlled demolition.

"At what point did I say that he admitted to anything. In fact, if you read my entire post you see that I say explicitly that I'm not saying that. This is (in part) why your criticism of my post fails to impress. It clearly suggests that you have a knee-jerk response to this topic, plain and simple, and that you didn't even read all the way through my comment."

Obviously I did read through your comment. Not only that, it inspired me to do what I had done in the past which is do my own google searching for references of 'pull' being used specifically as a slang term for controlled demolition. Then I posted (above) links to a fire fighters forum and 3 construction term and slang dictionaries.

So, I appreciate that you found some quotes from one controlled demolition group which actually use the word 'pull.' However, your question is not about whether the term 'pull' is used in reference to directional aspects of motion or is used by construction workers, your question here is whether 'pull it' means controlled demolition. The quotes you provided DO NOT use the term 'pull' referring to controlled demolition.

Again, if 'pull it' does mean controlled demolition obviously this would be a HUGE smoking gun about WTC7's collapse. So far however, as amazing as it would be (and I even spread it around that it was true for a number of years), so far this Silverstein quote has NOT been proven to reference any controlled demolition. The debunkers have even used this quote of Silversteins for years to debunk us regularly. So far, the debunkers have turned out correct on this subject. I'd be open to this changing, but I realize that I can't prove 'pull' = controlled demolition thus far.

As Jim Hoffman says:

"Even if 'pull' were industry slang for demolition, there would be no reason to expect Silverstein to know this."

http://911review.com/errors/wtc/pullit.html

One could argue that he might have picked up the term in a telephone conversation that day with someone working in the demolition industry. Whatever the case, Silverstein has later denied having used the term in that sense, and as there is an alternative interpretation for his usage of the phrase - however debatable - this is an avenue that leads us nowhere.

Right, and by that logic

Right, and by that logic because Government officials have said they didn't have anything to do with September 11, 2001, and because the 9/11 Commission and the NIST reports provide an alternative interpretation of what happened that day, we should just stop with the whole "new investigation into 9/11" thing.

Also, I don't understand this "how would he know that term" perspective. He's a real estate investor and developer, and has been since 1957. His company, Silverstein Properties (according to Wikipedia) was involved with many building developments and building renovations. Do you really think that developers don't communicate with the architects, construction workers, and other experts (e.g., demolition experts) who help them to build their developments or who help them to tear down buildings to make room for new ones? That seems entirely reasonable to me.

I just meant that...

... by insisting that "no, Larry, what you really meant was this: " we get nowhere, as he can always reiterate that "no, I meant that", and in the circumstances he arguably could have been referring to the firefighters. That is not the kind of evidence that proves anything. Let's concentrate on evidence that does prove something, like the perfect CD of WTC 7.

I do understand, and I agree.

I do understand, and I agree. I still believe, however, that the four links I provided above significantly qualify/challenge the initial assertion at 911research.wtc7 (that there is no support for the term in the industry). Is this the issue that we need to lead with? Of course not, but I also don't believe we need to bury it either.

Lucky Larry Silverstein EXPOSED

Lucky Larry Silverstein EXPOSED

The strongest connection is the proximity of the word

pull to his next comment being about watching the building collapse. This in itself implies a direct causal relationship between the decision to pull and the collapse of the structure. In reality I doubt Silverstein made any of the real decisions and was attempting to cover up the obvious mishap in the delay of the demolition. He rightly assumes that any objective observer would naturally assume demolition and tries to cover the story with what turns out being a ridiculous scenario. He has shown himself to be a weak link among those with inside knowledge which in itself present problems down the line for the deep perps.

Further analysis of the statement would also imply

he was in a position to "watch the building collapse"
After either pulling the firefighters or pulling the demo lever he implies knowledge that the structure was going to collapse and he was watching at the right time from the right window or what? It also implies that he was not surprised or shocked. So even if we are to believe that pull just meant pulling the firefighters out then to avoid additional loss of life, indirectly he has implied that lives were in danger and after pulling them out in time you were not surprised to see the total structure demolished in seconds. Not a raging fire that would burn for hours, not that you were in meetings somewhere to discuss the days events, no you and presumably others somehow had ringside seats to watch it disappear as you expected into dust in SECONDS!!!

I think his statement implies that at the very least he expected the building to collapse and that the fire department knew it too. But somehow he wants to salvage his humanity by his comments about the loss of life and what does that really mean? It means that when the demo charges hit a snag and the building was still standing the real decisions were about 1) continue the plan and finish the job, probably not much discussion there I presume. and 2) limit the loss of additional life especially firefighters and evaculate prior to the demo or not inform anyone else without a need to know. AKA the good mayor etc. So in effect Silverstein is really saying hey discussions were made to save lives here folks we're not entirely heartless maniacs! Yeah right Larry and here's a toast to you that your luck doesn't run out before justice can be won!

Ingenuous!

"limit the loss of additional life especially firefighters and evaculate prior to the demo"

What you delineate above may indeed be what underlies his statement! There could be a dual meaning to it. I never thought about that. He may be saying two things at the same time: that they 1) pulled the firefighters out and 2) "pulled" the building. Lives were saved because the firefighters were pulled out before the building was pulled down.

Frequency

In the 2000 feature film "Frequency", starring Dennis Quaid and James Caviezel, "pull" is used as a term to evacuate firefighters from a building. See time mark 7:40. "We're pulling everyone out of the building".

I understand it's just a movie, and the actor does say "pull out", not "pull it".

Other than that, I'd like to remain neutral on this issue. I believe Jon Gold contacted the FDNY to ask about this. Perhaps Jon would like to repost this exchange here?

Jon Gold

Contacted Daniel Nigro, former FDNY chief, and asked him if he was on the phone with Silverstein. According to Nigro, he was not, and he told Mark Roberts, the 'debunker', that he made the decision to evacuate the building.

http://911blogger.com/news/2009-09-25/former-debunking-director-jref-schooled-richard-gage-aia#comment-217932

So we don't know who Silverstein allegedly spoke to, do we?

No...

We do not.

There is no evidence that the alleged conversation

even took place.

When Mr. Silverstein was asked about this he hemmed and hawed, and gave no intelligible response.

Personally, I think he made the entire story up.

I'm also very happy that we pulled this whole "pull it" nonsense from the new versions of the "11 remarkable facts" cards.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

PBS America Rebuilds

http://nate.flach.s3.amazonaws.com/Pulling_Building_6.wmv

It's slang... not science. Personally I don't think Larry was talking about the Firefighters.

Silverstein once DID say "controlled demolition"

according to witnesses:

http://911blogger.com/news/2007-09-19/was-wtc7-controlled-demolition-new...

See Tony Szamboti's post:
"I know it won't help in court but for anyone out there doubting, I actually watched Larry Silverstein say "Bldg. 7 was a controlled demolition for safety reasons" on a History Channel Show called History's Business on a Sunday morning in late 2002 or sometime in 2003."

So, does anyone know how to find a copy of this show?

If Silverstein really said that

I think they would scrub it from and/or destroy all the tapes. I think getting a copy isn't going to work, and even if you get it, how will you know they didn't 'pull' that quote in the editing room? It's hopeless. You might have more luck if you put out a call in a national newspaper if anybody recorded that show.

Great suggestion

but is there any web-based way of putting out a call? A place with a lot of traffic - put up a substantial $ price for it, and people may start digging through old VHS tapes.

I am haunted that somewhere out there, in someone's basement or garage, there is a copy of the original show.

A video of Silverstein saying 'controlled demolition' would be *very* incriminating.

Let me give you an example of scrubbing

Or something that looks like it:

"A clandestine British torture programme existed in post-war Germany, “reminiscent of the concentration camps”[11]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_2000#cite_note-t...
^ a b c d e f "59 things that would have stayed secret", The Times, 5 March 2007. Retrieved on 22 June 2007.

That link goes to: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/global/article1471409.ece ... and it's dead. When I go to the Wayback machine, I get robots.txt exclusion... a tactic frequently used by sites with pay walls. I had to go to Lexis Nexis to look it up and verify.

I can't even look up the article on Google.. yes it's copied on some websites, but it's scrubbed from the London Times. Odd..found another article discussing this here... at The Guardian newspaper. I bet you never heard of this before!

And yeah, Silverstein saying that would be incriminating, but the PTB would do anything to prevent us from getting our hands on that jackpot, if it exists. Yet, it can't hurt to try, I agree.