It onlt took Silverstein 4 years and one well paid publicist to explain that quote....

after four years.... why even explain at all especially when unprovoked?

We decided just to pull it..... what was "it" again?
___________________
Ignorance is NOT Bliss

then why did Popular Mechanics (and so many others) lie for him by saying that "Pull" isn't a demolition term?

More about that here:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/4524

When this was quoted on 28 April 2006 it said...

The term Building Implosion can be misleading to laymen, although its name includes the word implosion, it is not an implosion phenomenon. Implosion occurs when the difference between internal to external pressure is such that a structure collapses on itself. When external pressure on a structure is greater enough than its internal pressure, the structures implodes. The building implosion technique does not rely on the difference between internal and external pressure to pull the building down, but simply on the effect of gravitational pull.


Now if you look at the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_implosion

both references to PULL have been removed !!!

hmmmmm


also, at http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=6&reqItemId=20050317195824

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.


Best wishes

FYI: It's still posted at:
http://www.answers.com/topic/building-implosion

--------------------

"This is work of man. This is a hired job. (Silverstein) said it himself. You hear him saying 'Pull it' down."

-Controlled Demolition Expert Danny Jowenko

I suppose I'm gunna have to look through the wikipedia change history to try and see if I can work out who's covering up...

Thanks S4

I'll be back !!!

The building implosion technique does not rely on the difference between internal and external pressure to push the building down, but simply on the effect of Gravitation.

Has replaced "PULL" with "PUSH" and "Gravitational PULL" with "Gravitation".


Tut-tut... naughty naughty

AND THE CULPRIT...

Tom Harrison - "9/11 Truth is the lowest form of conspiracy theory, because it doesn't offer an affirmative theory of the crime."


Page as of 10-Dec-2006 18:34 -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Building_implosion&direction=prev&oldid=93405919

Page as of 10-Dec-2006 18:38 -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Building_implosion&direction=next&oldid=93405348

FYI, i've reposted your findings here:

Popular Mechanics caught in a lie?
http://www.911blogger.com/node/4524#comment-111842

If you have time, please create a blog about this cover-up.

as of today at 9am 1/29/07

"The building implosion technique does not rely on the difference between internal and external pressure to pull the building down, but simply on the effect of gravitational pull.
Numerous small '''''ex'''''plosions are used to catalyze the collapse, having been strategically planned within the structure and timed to occur in concert, often detonating within milliseconds of one another. Days or even weeks of preparation frequently precede such an event.
The explosions blow the air out of the building along with the support structures thus leaving a "vacuum" which has the effect of "pulling" the building down at near free fall speeds."

somebody got in there and did some fancy editing...

is from Gerald Holmgren and the webfairy disinformation crew. Hoffman is one of the few credible researchers in this movement.

John, that comment is extremely juvinile. Trying to make false associations between me and the "webfairy disinformation crew", etc., just proves to people that you have no valid arguments to address what an increasing number of people see as very troubling and serious problem with your friend Jim Hoffman.

If you are going to use such an immature tactic as accusing me of being Gerald Holmgren, I can just as easily accuse you of being Jim Hoffman. Two can play at that game, but I really would prefer to have a more mature and substantive discussion.

You are quickly making me lose respect for you. It behooves you to look honestly and objectively at the behavior and tactics of your apparent hero Mr. Hoffman, if you are truely concerned about the issue of disinformation and disruption within the truth movement, as you claim.

I don't deny that Mr. Hoffman has made contributions regarding the WTC demolitions, but no matter what good a person has done for a movement in the past, that can all be cancelled out at any point that that person becomes a disrupter and resorts to destructive and dishonest tactics. You need to understand the history of COINTELPRO and the way in which people infiltrate movements, gain credibility and respect, and then at some point become a boobytrap.

So, please, Show some maturity on this issue.

that Hoffman's crew was disruptive and divisive at that event in Oakland - it turned off a lot of people, including myself. But people do make mistakes, you know. That was quite awhile ago and I haven't heard of anything like that happening again. Last I saw Hoffman he was presenting at the all day WTC science conference at UC Berkeley, a very successful event where he shared the stage with Steven Jones, Peter Phillips and others. If you were going to convince me that Hoffman was an agent you'd have to present a much stronger case than you have so far. I met the guy before he started wtc7.net, when he was going around showing people video clips of the demolitions on his laptop. He went on to organize and present the strongest arguments for controlled demoliton that exist to this day, inspiring the work of Steven Jones among many others. Sure, an infiltrator could do that - but you'd have to show a lot more than a few disagreeable actions and arguments if you wanted to make the case.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Just take a look at Hoffman's web site: 911review.com. The entire website is devoted to attacking and discrediting most of the other well-meaning 9/11 researchers. His primary target is those who argue that there was no Flight 77 involved in the Pentagon attack. He states that this is "an idea that may be single most elaborate and well-orchestrated hoax used to undermine the credibility of the 9-11 Truth Movement." Have a look for yourself. Here's the URL: http://911review.com/disinfo/index.html. It's in the section labeled, "disinfo". Need I say more?

While not mentioning other 9/11 researchers by name in regards to the Pentagon issue, it must be reiterated that he is smearing the overwhelming majority of 9/11 researchers, including Professor Jones, David Griffin, Kevin Barret, James Fetzer and most of the Schollars for 9/11 Truth, Webster Tarpey, Barrie Zwicker, Jim Marrs, Dylan Avery, Jasen Bermes and the folks at Louder than Words, the scientists at 911physics.net, SPINE, Eric Hufschmid, etc., who have rejected the Flight 77 at the Pentagon theory, and most have PUT THEIR EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS ON THE TABLE WITH PUBLISHED BOOKS, ETC. In contrast, Jim Hoffman has not published anything about the Pentagon attack. Rather, he mainly engages in attacking those who do.

"There's no question that Hoffman's crew was disruptive and divisive at that event in Oakland - it turned off a lot of people, including myself. But people do make mistakes, you know. That was quite awhile ago..."

That was not a mistake. That was a well funded and orchestrated operation that is absolutely inexcuseable. Jim Hoffman is not just some bumbling idiot, fumbling around and inadvertently sabatoging an event by one of the most respected of all 9/11 reserchers - David Ray Griffin. He knows what he is doing, and he has contiinued doing similar things at many other events. His same flyers show up at just about every screening of Loose Change.

It's amazing how many of Hoffman's arguments used to discredit other 9/11 researchers are identical to those used by shills from Popular Mechanics. Way too many of his arguments are identical to standard disinfo type arguments for it to be an honest mistake. Jim knows what he is doing, and its sad how many people are fooled by this.

This is not about disagreement over theories. I dont' have a problem with other 9/11 reserarchers honestly disagreeing over various theories, but the arguments should be over evidence and should not be utilizing ad hominem attacks and propoganda techniques. Jim Hoffman continues to utilize the latter kind way too often and we need to draw a line. He has crossed the line of what is considered acceptable and honest behavior way too many times for him to be given the benefit of the doubt anymore. If someone continues to act like a disrupter and disinfo agent, he needs to be treated like one, and not constantly forgiven just because he contributed something positive in the past.

Hoffman's site and his statements of opinion are nothing like that of Nico, Siegel, Reynolds, and other real disruptors.

Hoffman disagrees with others based on his personal research, and I happen to agree with him most of the time. Just because it is popular to think no plane hit the Pentagon doesn't mean that it isn't easy as hell to debunk, just ask any of the countless thousands that could have been turned on via better avenues like WTC7 but instead found Snope's quick and easy debunking of the 16-ft Pentagon hole and other types of disinformation. You can believe it all you want, but that doesn't make it provable, and it certainly requires a willingness to believe all eye-witnesses are liars, all plane parts are planted, etc. etc. etc. which most people will not do. Hoffman is welcome to his opinions.

Comparing Hoffman's tactics to those of Nico, Reynolds, Siegel, etc. is like comparing apples to oranges, there really is no comparison.

Here, I'll repeat it:

"an idea that may be single most elaborate and well-orchestrated hoax used to undermine the credibility of the 9-11 Truth Movement."

Do you understand the difference between an argument based on "his personal research" and one based on ad hominem attacks?

It's not a popularity contest. I'm not arguing that the fact that Jim Hoffman is in the minority of opinion automatically makes him wrong. That's not the point. It's about that fact that he smears most of the other well-meaning researchers. The issue is about his tactics, not his theories.

If Jim Hoffman really has valid arguments for his position on the Pentagon issue, why must he engange in ad hominem attacks, propoganda techniques, and turning reality upside down by implying that only a small handfull of hoaxters disagree with him? If he really honestly disagreed with all those other researchers, than these tactics would not be necessary.