Does "Pull it" = controlled demolition?

Author Topic: Does "Pull it" = controlled demolition?  (Read 7546 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline pjcz

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 134
Does "Pull it" = controlled demolition?
« on: October 23, 2010, 06:39:30 PM »
So, I was visiting the website www.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, deals with his now famous quote during the PBS documentary entitled "America Rebuilds," which aired on September 10, 2002. His 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 the 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 (could he be that stupid?), 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.

Offline citizenx

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,086
Re: Does "Pull it" = controlled demolition?
« Reply #1 on: October 23, 2010, 07:21:34 PM »
I guarantee Silverstein wasn't talking about his pecker.

Pulling?

Implosion?

I believe the politically correct term for it now is Zionist Extremist Lightning -- a wholly owned subsidiary of Bilderberger Globalist Lightning, Inc.



"How do you start a flood?"

Offline 2jax

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: Does "Pull it" = controlled demolition?
« Reply #2 on: October 23, 2010, 07:51:45 PM »
I have always  thought it was very curious  that Silverstein said  "Pull it".

Since Larry is a major player in the 9/11 fraud, and  because he  allowed NOVA to tape  and broadcast  his remarks, I  doubt  that he 'mis-spoke'  or 'slipped'  and revealed something by accident. Maybe it was intentional?

Therefore I  have been wondering if  maybe  his  remarks might be an intentional set up. They could someday say that wtc7  was  rigged for demolition long ago. Maybe when built, for security or whatever BS reason they invent, and they decided to  pull it on 9/11 because  it  might collapse. They cannot say it was rigged quickly that day.

Setting up a 'Honey Pot'  comes to mind. Could they get away with that?

Or, are  there solid reasons that such a lie could not possibly succeed?