Larry Silverstein explaining what he meant by 'pull it'

Nice to know I'm not alone and lonely;)

Ergo - not once - ever - have I heard or used the word "pull" to describe a demolition use of exord - not ever - 36 years experience.

You have a couple of years on me and are probably more current than me too. As an ex instructor/trainer in matters relevent to most things that go boom, militarily anyway, I too have never ever come across this terminology.

Given that we are accustomed to still be dealing with ordnance from both world wars and current advances in dems and having some really really old military and civil demolition manuals, even older than me, I still can't find the term 'pull it' in any true context that these muppets keep sprouting. Odd that! Yet here they are trying to convince those who they need to convince.

After all, we are likely to be the peers that they will need to review their 'peer review papers'. They can't even get it up on youtube and certainly can't get it up on JREF.

Get some in. 3 weeks is all you need. ;)
 
You have a couple of years on me and are probably more current than me too. As an ex instructor/trainer in matters relevent to most things that go boom, militarily anyway, I too have never ever come across this terminology.

Given that we are accustomed to still be dealing with ordnance from both world wars and current advances in dems and having some really really old military and civil demolition manuals, even older than me, I still can't find the term 'pull it' in any true context that these muppets keep sprouting. Odd that! Yet here they are trying to convince those who they need to convince.

After all, we are likely to be the peers that they will need to review their 'peer review papers'. They can't even get it up on youtube and certainly can't get it up on JREF.

Get some in. 3 weeks is all you need. ;)

Given that we have instances of "pull" being used in reference to cables tied between parts of a structure such that when one falls in a demolition involving explosives the cables will ensure a direction of fall for the other section of the structure; it would hardly be suprising if military demolitions perssonel have never heard or used the term. In military demolitions I would assume that such care and planning on the direction of fall is not a common concern.
Would I be correct in assuming that military demolitions are usually concerned with bringing a structure down as quickly as possible (that is, taking as little time to prepare the structure as possible) rather than stringing heavy cables within, and/or outside, the structure to ensure a direction of fall?
 
Last edited:
It really only underscores the ridiculous nature of truthers that they need to cling to these nonsensical semantic games.

I'd agree with that and add another common 911 conspiracist mannerism;

that in which they seem adept at derailing a thread into a topic tangential (if related at all) to the OP.

As I asked above, "what does this ("pull it") have to do with thermite, or bangs and fizzles?
 
It really only underscores the ridiculous nature of truthers that they need to cling to these nonsensical semantic games.
I've seen people who are sane and rational on this forum go just nuts in USA Politics or Current Events, in a manner comparable to truthers. I suppose it depends on context.
 
Given that we have instances of "pull" being used in reference to cables tied between parts of a structure such that when one falls in a demolition involving explosives the cables will ensure a direction of fall for the other section of the structure; it would hardly be suprising if military demolitions perssonel have never heard or used the term. In military demolitions I would assume that such care and planning on the direction of fall is not a common concern.
Would I be correct in assuming that military demolitions are usually concerned with bringing a structure down as quickly as possible (that is, taking as little time to prepare the structure as possible) rather than stringing heavy cables within, and/or outside, the structure to ensure a direction of fall?

Seriously! You want me to discuss the word ‘pull’?

Why the emphasis on ‘pull’? It’s dead in the water. If Silverstein had used the words ‘bugger it’, or ‘oh blast it’, or ‘jack it in’, then I’m sure that we would be discussing how they would fit in with terms supposedly used to describe something dastardly.

The tediousness and irrelevance of discussing a common word such as ‘pull’ in any real context is surely better off in maybe a language forum. Is it not just a word that describes an everyday action, in much the same way that we use the same word in ‘pull your socks up’, ‘pull your finger out’, ‘pull your weight’, ‘I’m on the pull tonight’. I have used it when about to fart by saying to my kids & grandchildren, ‘pull that finger’. The word ‘pull’ is on millions of doors. So what?

The instances of ‘pull’ that you suggest and the context that you suggest they have been used have nothing whatsoever to do with any terminology/phrase/buzz word/technical lingo in common use for either civil demolition contractors or military personnel.

I am shocked that you think that “it would hardly be surprising that military demolitions personnel have never heard or used the term”. What term? It’s an every day word. Do you honestly believe that because we tend to destroy things for military purpose that we therefore wouldn’t be aware? Seriously? Please tell me that I haven’t misjudged you.

I also don’t believe you to be so naive to also believe that the military haphazardly ‘blows things up’ with no precision and that such care and planning on the direction of fall is not a common concern. It would be correct to say that time plays a huge part and it isn’t always possible to gain architectural blueprints or to fully access the building/structure but we would inevitably still concentrate on preparing the support structure, initiate the charges, which may/may not be overkill, and allow gravity to do the rest. If we want/need it to fall a certain way then we do. If not, then we don't.

We could also use SWR as an improvised method of demolition, specifically when attempting to deny a route or channel an enemy to a kill zone. Imagine a road/street with tall buildings either side and we want to fill/block the road/street. Using explosive means to carry that job out could/would give your position away and/or explosives may not be available. SWR could/would be readily available from a usable winch system attached to a piece of plant equipment, tractor, recovery vehicle, tank etc or it could be an improvised system of roled SWR and a AEH set (Anchor Earth Holdfasts) and a pulley system. All known methods and nothing unusual whatsoever. We generally use the terms ‘winch in’, or ‘take up the slack’ when we want to start winching in or ‘pulling’.

Civil contractors use steel cables/SWR directly on support columns as a secondary means to ensure that they are indeed ‘pulled’ in a certain direction as the building/structure falls. I would also imagine that no command words whatsoever would be neccessary for this 'pulling' to start as the CD would be set up from initiation and the 'pulling' comes into play as gravity takes effect. ''Pull it'? Why? You wouldnt see it!

Blasting now' or words to that effect, is all that is said.

SWR is also used, primarily, in buildings less than 20 storeys and alongside the wrecking crew’s kit, which could be cranes, steel balls, pincers etc. Again, nothing new.

Using the word ‘pull’ or the term 'pull it' means jack **** to me.
 
Jackanory, perhaps you misunderstood my post

I agree with all you posted

»pull» is not and never has been used as a term to initiate a CD by explosives

I am done with this derail
 
Last edited:
Jackanory, perhaps you misunderstood my post

I agree with all you posted

»pull» is not and never has been used as a term to initiate a CD by explosives

I am done with this derail

Yep, I failed to read the passage of posts as I couldnt be arsed reading and discussing the stupid. I have now read it and my apologies.

I was used to sending the stupid for a 3 mile hill run with a 50lb bergan for their naivity.
 
»pull» is not and never has been used as a term to initiate a CD by explosives

Doesn't matter. It's still a demolition term. It's not a firefighting term any more than "move in" or "shut down" or "hold up" is.

And Newson started the derail. Not me.
 
And Newson started the derail. Not me.

Yes, I did inadvertently begin a derail out of curiosity of whether you ever actually payed your wagered $10, not over the god dam meaning of 'pull it'.

No more :deadhorse
 
INdeed...this has been explained to ergo time and time again, yet he chooses to use quotes where they talk about the process of elements of the building pulling on each other during collapse, and then attempts to equivocate that with the term "pull it" as term generically used in reference to explosive demolition. Ergo has no time for facts; just semantics & mental gymnastics.
I think "contortions' is a more appropriate term.

:D
 
My challenge to the conspiracy proponents to to point out where the term "pull it" is used as professional jargon for "lets blow up a building with explosives and incendiaries".
Just to reiterate in the unlikely scenario that someone might actually answer the question. I'm optimistic that at some point a supporter of this "pull it" claim might actually see the inconsistency between what therm has ever been used for and what methods they keep claiming were actually used. I imagine 10 years in "thinking" should have been more than enough time to suffice in considering an answer to this very simple request.
 
Last edited:
I think "contortions' is a more appropriate term.

:D

That would do as well. Now he is trying to claim that even though its not used for explosive demolitions, its still a term in demolitions itself. Given the kind of evidence presented about "pull" in demolitions we could also say just about any word in the English language is a demolition term (puff-pastry may be a tough one to find), as I am sure someone somewhere in demolitions has used most of them at some point in an interview or in print. Ergo's illogic works in that if a word is used in statement regarding demolitions that word is therefore a demolition term.
 
or: "Rick Gibney and the Happy Hooligans shot down Flight 93, which was supposed to hit building seven, which HAS to come down because of all the information in there we absolutely have to destroy, so pull it and we'll explain it later. When we're done with these people they'll believe anything. Even Chris Mathews and the Amazing Randi will laugh at the usual 'conspiracy theorists’.
 
or: "Rick Gibney and the Happy Hooligans shot down Flight 93, which was supposed to hit building seven, which HAS to come down because of all the information in there we absolutely have to destroy, so pull it and we'll explain it later. When we're done with these people they'll believe anything. Even Chris Mathews and the Amazing Randi will laugh at the usual 'conspiracy theorists’.

who are you replying to?
 
Flight 93 was supposed to hit Building 7. That's why it was traveling towards DC..

:covereyes

timemap.gif
 
Flight 93 was supposed to hit Building 7. That's why it was traveling towards DC..

:covereyes

[qimg]http://emperors-clothes.com/images/timemap.gif[/qimg]

Now you see, he's been reading TWOOFER sites, so he probably knows a bit more than you or I.
 

Back
Top Bottom