CDI says"pull it" means "pull the building down"

[mirandapriestly]

The other thread sent me over to Killtown's site and I saw this. The call is recorded and you can hear it at the site. Just thought I'd mention it...

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/06/cdi-pull-it-means-...

For those who still question what Larry Silverstein meant when he said "pull it" when talking about the collapse of the WTC 7, Jeff from PumpItOut.com called demolition experts Controlled Demolition, Inc (CDI) and asked them what "pull it" means in demolition terms. This is what CDI told him:

Jeff: Ok, I was wondering if there was someone I could talk to briefly -- just ask a question I had?
CDI: Well what kind of question?
Jeff: Well I just wanted to know what a term meant in demolition terms.
CDI: Ok, what type of term?
Jeff: Well, if you were in the demolition business and you said the, the term "pull it," I was wondering what exactly that would mean?
CDI: "Pull it"?
Jeff: Yeah.
CDI: Hmm? Hold on a minute.
Jeff: Thank you.
CDI: Sir?
Jeff: Yes?
CDI: "Pull it" is when they actually pull it down.
Jeff: Oh, well thank you very much for your time.
CDI: Ok.
Jeff: Bye.
CDI: Bye.

[Jazz2006]

1. Not exactly earth shattering news.

When they "pull it down" they mean that quite literally ~ they pull the building down with cables. It has nothing to do with controlled demolitions by way of pre-planted explosives.

Edit to add: you probably should not put much stock in the site of a poster banned repeatedly from DU. The admins here strike me as smart people and there's a reason they keep banning him.

[mirandapriestly]

4. His "being banned" has nothing to do with the quality

of his web site. The only thing I saw him do wrong is make observations that a lot of people agree with.
I am more shocked by who is NOT banned.

[Make7]

6. He called me a name once. It was hurtful. :-) nt.

[Jazz2006]

8. Of course you are.

"shocked by who is not banned", that is.

But that's because you believe shit like the stuff posted at the killtown site.


One goes with the other, it seems.


But wasn't the point of your thread the "pull it down" quote?

Funny that you didn't respond to that part of my post, since that was, presumably, the point of the thread.



See post #1.

[mirandapriestly]

10. I'm shocked because extremely abusive

people are not banned. I happen to be with the majority of DU on my beliefs, you are in the minority. In fact I think the only place you are in the majority is the FOX news poll. Most DUers do not buy into the Bush administration's version of events. They are known liars (Bush not DUers)
You are the one who used an ad hominem to respond, but you have expectations for others that you do not apply to yourself.
As far as your other talking point, I agree with Kevin said, "civilians" misuse terminology.

you people were saying it meant to pull the firemen out before.

I'll believe the guy on the phone who doesn't have an agenda, not the guy who is probably trying to get gov't demolition contracts.

[Jazz2006]

11. No, you aren't.

The vast majority of DU agrees that the dungeon should be in the dungeon for a very good reason.

No ad homs on my behalf, despite your assertion to the contrary.

But the burning question is:

Why are you still not addressing the very (alleged) point of your thread?

You know, the part about "pull it down" meaning literally pulling a building down with cables and having nothing at all to do with controlled demolitions?

[Grateful for Hope]

32. Do you have proof of this statement?

"The vast majority of DU agrees that the dungeon should be in the dungeon for a very good reason."

Hey, Jazz, my husband was an attorney (and from Canada - imagine that?), and, during the 27 years of our marriage, I learned a lot from him.

I do know this: He would never, ever post a statement of fact unless he could support it. And, his arguments (we had our fights, and he could be very exasperating), were always well thought out. Even in the heat of anger.

So, in the spirit of recognizing a kindredship to my husband, can you support what you are saying?

Also, this goes for any future statements you might post here.

[Jazz2006]

12. And, by the way,

Are you "shocked" that "killtown" has been banned several times in several incarnations? You've been around for a while, and you know of several of his identities, and he's been tombstoned several times for the exact same behaviour using several identities. Does that really "shock" you?

[salvorhardin]

14. The majority of people (50% anyway) in the country also happen to believe

That Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. http://jrkinnard.blogspot.com/2006/08/americans-dumber-...

Does that make them right? Besides, what evidence do you have that the majority on DU shares your beliefs? There's over 93,000 registered users now. Did you poll them all? Did you poll a representative sample? Was your poll scientifically designed?

[greyl]

17. Argumentum ad populum - "I'm with the majority".

Sorry, another logical fallacy, MP. The legitimacy of a position does not depend on its popularity, only on its basis in truth.

[LARED]

18. Reminds me of something I read on the

bathroom wall a long time ago

"Eat $hit, 400 billion flys can't be wrong" Anon

[salvorhardin]

21. Tasty

[Make7]

2. This was linked to in another thread, just thought I'd mention it:

Source: WTC_COLLAPSE_STUDY - Brent Blanchard, www.implosionworld.com

- Make7

[mirandapriestly]

9. I think the point is pre knowledge over the

term "pull it', not whether Silverstein dictated it, that is sort of a straw man. I think Brent wants some nice gov't contracts and it would be interesting to look at his list of clients in a year, he already has some (gov't).

[Make7]

16. No comment on the second paragraph? Odd...

... that's the paragraph that deals directly with the subject of your opening post.

It's the one that shows that not asking questions properly can lead to incomplete information that will remain open to interpretation and not prove anything at all.

Thanks for posting.

- Make7

[KJF]

3. Hoffman says it's for mechanical demolition, not explosive

He says a builing is "pulled" when cables are used to "literally pull down portions of the building."
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/pullit.html

I think this is right. If Silverstein meant "destroy the building" by "pull it" then he used the term inexpertly - assuming he knew the method of destruction beforehand (although you might not want to assume that). However, AFAIK he wasn't an expert in explosive demolition. Here's his article at Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein
I don't see any reference there to him having experience in demolition. Although that's not necessary comprehensive, maybe the guy did a blaster's course before he got rich, or just for the sheer hell of it.

My experience is that laymen sometimes use "specialist terms" in a slightly incorrect manner, so maybe he did in this case. I find it hard to say for sure. It'd be nice to find out the timing of the call, wouldn't it?

[mirandapriestly]

5. Well, I thought the CDI people would probably be hip to

the rumors about "pull it", maybe not... In any case people are trying to say it means "pull the firemen out" which I definitely do not think he meant.


What do you mean by the timing?

[KJF]

7. I mean when was the call made

It would be interesting to see Silverstein's phone records (not very likely at the moment, but you never know). That way we could find out the time of the call and then we could try to find out if any firemen were in the building at that time. That would be tangible progress.

[Artdyst]

19. Not having the time of the call allows defenders of the OCT to rationalize

that it hasn't been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Larry didn't mean "pull the firemen out". Is that what you're getting at? NO? Of course not. Just trying to be helpful, as usual.

Thanks mirandpriestly. Serious people appreciate the extra effort of getting an industry insider to explain the term "pull it" -- and s/he didn't say anything about it referring to firemen.

[Make7]

26. Just trying to be helpful

Artdyst wrote:

Serious people appreciate the extra effort of getting an industry insider to explain the term "pull it" -- and s/he didn't say anything about it referring to firemen.

Why do you feel that a demolition company would comment on this phrase in any other way than how it relates to the demolition industry?

- Make7

[Artdyst]

27. I wouldn't, and they didn't. Thanks for asking.

nt

[Make7]

31. Then your previous statement makes little sense. ( n/t )

[salvorhardin]

13. This is ridiculous

It's a leading question. If he had wanted an relevant answer he should have read them a transcript of Silverstein's words including the full context and then asked whoever answered what they thought was meant by the phrase "pull it" in the context of Silverstein's interview.

Secondly, who did "Jeff" talk to at CDI? The receptionist? Are they the best person to answer any question regarding a highly complex and technical trade?

[Jazz2006]

15. Yes, it's bullshit.

No surprise, in light of the source.

[Artdyst]

20. Maybe the naysayers here will call them. Think so? NO? Why not? nt

nt

[salvorhardin]

22. Because it's the job of a person making a claim to prove it

And in this case you are making a charge of criminal conspiracy against Larry Silverstein. Remember the whole innocent until proven guilty thing? It is still the law in this land.

[Klimmer]

23. Think of it this way . . .

At CDI it is so common knowledge that even the receptionists know what "Pull it" means.

It's brain-dead obvious.

Yet . . .

I sure hope when 9/11 truth is finally accepted by all, and the BCF and the Neo-Con Rethug administration is behind bars, that people that have been posting here for so long now defending the official conspiracy hypothesis will then stand-up and say who they really are.

No need to mention any DU names, we know them all well.

It's really amazing though, if it where me I would had given up ages ago. You official CT's have a lot of endurance, tenacity, and delusional thought to hang-in there with the government lies. Simply amazing . . .

[democraticinsurgent]

24. Must be the fees

Heck, anyone would post crap all day long if they got paid enough to do it.

[Artdyst]

28. Right, and you don't even have to be a Republican.

I think the major PR firms recruit former varsity debate team members. Lawyers would be too expensive, and they might not even be better advocates FOR THIS case.

It's also very possible that various Gov't agencies just recruit them directly, but it's more likely that for plausible liability reasons they'd just give a contract to someone like Hill & Knowlton and let them recruit their own "advocates".

[Bolo Boffin]

25. Even the receptionists know it? Read the transcript again.

The receptionist told him to hold on a minute, presumably while s/he asked somebody what it meant.

[Blondbostonian]

29. ..

IMO- People who think that these message boards are filled with psych-ops need a boost in their medication.

If you think the NSA is watching your internet activity and the black op helicopters are following your drive to the market, it would be a good time to call a local mental health professional.

I'm not making a joke.

[Artdyst]

30. Yes. All objective people should stay and fight. The OCT'ers are

not leaving anytime soon. Instead, they're calling in reinforcements every time you turn around. And, their skills almost makes you wonder if they've actually been trained for this kind of work.
Most of 'em are pretty good debaters/advocates...at least at this level.