Thursday, September 21, 2006

Pull It

One of the more amusing mythologies of the 9/11 denial movement is the claim that the phrase "pull it" is an industry term for demolishing a building with explosives. This was created, of course, so that Larry Silverstein could have casually confessed to being involved in the plot during an interview with PBS. There is, however, absolutely nothing to show that this is in fact true, but that has not kept the conspiracy geeks from repeating it to themselves so many times that it self-referentially becomes widespread knowledge that the term "pull it" refers to controlled demolition.

If you ask any CD expert though, you will find out that it doesn't. Brett Blanchard, from implosionworld.com explains:

We have never once heard the term "pull it" being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers, etc.) to "pull" the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement.
But hey, who are you going to believe, someone who has been working in the industry for years, or a retired philosophy professor?

The new Popular Mechanics book addresses this same issue on page 57:

Four demolition and engineering experts tell Popular Mechanics that pull it is not slang for controlled demolition. "I've never heard of it," says Jon Magnusson of Magnusson Klemencic Associates.

Ron Dokell, retired president of Olshan Demolishing Company, says the same thing. Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc. adds that the only way he can imagine the term being used is in reference to a process where the legs of a structure are precut and attached to cables, and then large machines are used to literally pull the building to the ground.
Now 9/11 Myths has come up with an excellent example of this in action. From a video of the demolition of WTC 6:

Worker #1: Oh, we’re getting ready to pull building six. Luis Mendes: We have to be very careful how we demolish building six. We were worried about the building six coming down and demolishing the slurry wall, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area.

Worker #1: We’ve got the cables attached in four different locations... <”going up”? hard to hear>... Now they’re pulling [gestures to vehicles] pulling the building to the north. It’s not every day you try to pull down a eight storey building with cables”
















OK, so let's summarize. The conspiracy theorists have absolutely nothing but their own religious fervor to show that "pull it" means to blow up a building. We, on the other hand, have multiple expert and reliable sources to show that it does not. So why exactly do these "truth seekers" keep on believing this?

I think it is time to "pull" this theory.

19 Comments:

At 21 September, 2006 20:27, Blogger MarkyX said...

Hooray!

 
At 22 September, 2006 01:18, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

Now when they say "pull it", respond with "SHOVE IT!"

 
At 22 September, 2006 06:06, Blogger CHF said...

You gotta be pretty damn stupid to think that "pull" could possibly be slang for "blow up."

 
At 22 September, 2006 06:12, Blogger CHF said...

Or that firefighters blow up buildings.

Or that a conspirator would sit in front of a TV camera and blow the whole cover-up.

 
At 22 September, 2006 06:27, Blogger Cassiopeia said...

CHF - 'blow' the whole cover-up?
Don't you mean 'pull'?

 
At 22 September, 2006 12:29, Blogger AbrashTX said...

Christopher Bollyn was the original perpetrator of that lie, IIRC. I enjoy how defensive the CTers get when I point out they got conned by a Holocaust denier.

 
At 22 September, 2006 13:04, Blogger Triterope said...

This is a great example of what's dangerous about the 9/11 CTs. They can force the discussion onto areas of trivia, and away from the catastrophic flaws in their own logic.

Any discussion of Larry Silverstein ought to focus solely on the fatal stupidity of the conspiracy theory: that he ordered his own property destroyed on national TV, and then successfully collected billions of insurance dollars on it.

And not only does this require us to discuss what CTs want to discuss, it requires to accept all the crazy assumptions that are necessary to get to that point.

It requires us to assume that that building owners have the authority to issue orders to the Fire Department. It requires us to assume that he couldn't have collected insurance unless the building fell down. It requires us to assume that destroying the building would be preferable to leaving it alone, since the CTs argue the building took no damage. It requires us to assume that an instant demolition job would have been feasable. And above all else, it requires us to assume that Larry Silverstein's actions on 9/11 were of any relevance whatsoever.

 
At 22 September, 2006 13:59, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Amazing none of the mosquitoes have posted a rebuttal here yet.

TAM

 
At 22 September, 2006 14:15, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Good point!!
No cookie cotter responses yet that usually make no sense.

 
At 22 September, 2006 16:04, Blogger Triterope said...

Amazing none of the mosquitoes have posted a rebuttal here yet.

Don't you mean, "flies"?

 
At 22 September, 2006 16:48, Blogger Thomas said...

Amazing none of the mosquitoes have posted a rebuttal here yet.

Yes. What happened to SS-nyc? I miss him already.

 
At 22 September, 2006 17:03, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

well most flies don't stick you and try to drain your blood like these guys. ALthough, a little further north there are these flies called "nippers" that do jus that. :)

TAM

 
At 22 September, 2006 17:52, Blogger Triterope said...

I think of the 9/11 CT community as "flies" in a "Lord of the" sense.

 
At 22 September, 2006 19:03, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

ah yes...the double meaning. I suppose from that perspective, they are "flies".

SO is the conch the "truth"?

 
At 22 September, 2006 21:11, Blogger James B. said...

Cue the crickets...

Actually anytime we write about the actual evidence regarding 9/11 we get very little response from the conspiracy theorists. If we do a post making fun of Dylan or something, THEN they start posting that we do not want to discuss the evidence.

 
At 22 September, 2006 21:41, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

EVIDENCE!! Actual conversation from WWII!


Sgt. Pickens: SMITH!! Take your satchel charge, get across that wall and PULL that damned Tiger tank NOW!!!

 
At 23 September, 2006 10:26, Blogger Pepik said...

well said triterope.

 
At 02 March, 2007 16:09, Blogger pullit said...

Wow, so if some people lie or say something wrong, IT'S ALL WRONG HUH? Then you are all liars too.

 
At 30 May, 2011 05:44, OpenID 800598ce-8aba-11e0-806c-000bcdcb471e said...

wow..what a bunch of losers you all are. you got conned much worse than the CTs you idiots!

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home