Belz...
Fiend God
Except that in NONE of those examples is the term "pull" being used as a synonym for a demo. You're making stuff up. Why am I not surprised ?
Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread
- Thread starter jhunter1163
- Start date
Except that in NONE of those examples is the term "pull" being used as a synonym for a demo. You're making stuff up. Why am I not surprised ?
GStan
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
- Messages
- 1,350
Nice try, an 'A' for effort anyway. You have proven that there are demolition industry people who speak English, that they know what the English word 'pull' means and that they use the word. None of the examples show the authors using the term 'pull' or 'pull it' in remotely the same manner as CTers have erroneously asserted Silverstein was doing, and he's not in the industry anyway. (He may have picked up the term overhearing conversations of demo teams wiring his buildings to explode.) Mark's only assertion is that industry professionals do not use the term pull/pull it to mean demolish a building with explosives. He contacted several and they affirmed his assertion. Perhaps you could contact the authors of these quotes to ask them the same questions Mark did and verify evidence of your claim that Mark's assertion is in error. I don't believe it will happen, but here's my interpretation of how that inquiry might play out:
SD: Do you work in the demolition industry?
NWO: Yes
SD: Have you ever used the English word pull verbally or in written form at work?
NWO: I'm sure I have at some point. That's kind of a weird question.
SD: Thanks, gotta run.
Silverstein Guilty! Implicated by Demo Pros! Proof Tonight on Action News at 11!
ETA: Dave Rogers, great post on the pull quotes...that's what I meant but was too lazy to do in detail.
Last edited:
Swing Dangler
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2007
- Messages
- 1,050
LOl
pull down
1. To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.
Source: dictionary.com
n. Pull
10. To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.
As I said, it can be accomplished with explosives as the numerous examples show or with cables.
N'uff said.
Ready for the next error?
pull down
1. To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.
Source: dictionary.com
n. Pull
10. To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.
As I said, it can be accomplished with explosives as the numerous examples show or with cables.
N'uff said.
Ready for the next error?
Last edited:
Your MEGO factor is diminishing to milliseconds. Can't you find some blondes?
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
You're obviously missing the point. Check the thread title. The question is not whether they were told to wear respirators, but whether they were told that the air was safe.
Picture the scene.
Boss man: "The air at Ground Zero is completely safe. You must wear this respirator at all times when you're working there."
Rescue Worker: "Why do I have to wear a respirator if the air is safe?"
Boss man: "Errrrr..... Just do it, OK?"
Did it go something like that?
Dave
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Nobody is disputing that the term "pull down" means "demolish". Show me a single example of the word "pull" by itself, i.e. without the word "down", meaning "to demolish with explosives", or move on.
Dave
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
GStan
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
- Messages
- 1,350
Mark's assertion was clear as to use by demolition industry professionals, not dictionary.com.
Actually, I'm still waiting for the first error.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Me three!
Hey Swing when you pull out into the street does your car explode? Just asking questions.
You liar! I contacted fourteen demolition companies in four different states in preparation for the interview that Griffin fled. NOBODY in the demolition industry has heard "pull it" used to mean "blow up the building"--NOBODY!
NOBODY thinks it is industry slang.
You have been caught lying--again!--in your bogus definitions. The Encarta Webster's Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition, offers twenty (20) definitions of "pull," used as a verb. NONE refers to the demolition industry.
The phrase "pull down" is defined as "demolish something, especially a building." Yes, demolition professionals will talk about attaching cables and pulling down a SMALL structure, but as you have been told repeatedly, the technique cannot be used on a 47-story skyscraper.
(In addition to being one of most dishonest conspiracy liars at large, Swingie is one of the most cowardly. His repeated drubbings at my hands have compelled him to ignore me when I expose his mendacity. Would someone please copy this message so that the ignorant fraud can't pretend that he never saw it?)
Last edited:
GStan
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
- Messages
- 1,350
with pleasure
AZCat
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 1,672
Originally Posted by [B said:Swing Dangler][/b]
pull down
1. To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.
Source: dictionary.com
n. Pull
10. To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.
As I said, it can be accomplished with explosives as the numerous examples show or with cables.
N'uff said.
Ready for the next error?
Ask and ye shall receive.
Dangit, GStan beat me to it.
Last edited:
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
Swing:
"The infamous “Pull” error can be found in Mark's WTC7."
Have you just posted a serious of quotes suggesting that the demolition industry uses the word pull? They also use the words "push," "exit," "watercooler" and "the," among thousands of others. I am astonished that you continue to insist on being so disingenuous, so much so that each post reeks of desperation.
To make the point simple for you: Gravy was referring to the term “pull” as a term of art. Not one of your litany of examples can it be said that the term “pull” is being used as a term of art.
What is more important is that there is no question that Silverstein and the NYFD were using the term “pulled” in the context of the retreat from the zone of danger. Even assuming that the demolition industry uses that term as a term of art (a claim you have utterly failed to prove), your burden is proving that the FDNY personnel were using it as a term of art. How can you quote from Dictionary.com awhile at the same time ignoring the entry for “pulled back.” Oh never mind, I know why, it is inconvenient to the Truth.
"The infamous “Pull” error can be found in Mark's WTC7."
Have you just posted a serious of quotes suggesting that the demolition industry uses the word pull? They also use the words "push," "exit," "watercooler" and "the," among thousands of others. I am astonished that you continue to insist on being so disingenuous, so much so that each post reeks of desperation.
To make the point simple for you: Gravy was referring to the term “pull” as a term of art. Not one of your litany of examples can it be said that the term “pull” is being used as a term of art.
What is more important is that there is no question that Silverstein and the NYFD were using the term “pulled” in the context of the retreat from the zone of danger. Even assuming that the demolition industry uses that term as a term of art (a claim you have utterly failed to prove), your burden is proving that the FDNY personnel were using it as a term of art. How can you quote from Dictionary.com awhile at the same time ignoring the entry for “pulled back.” Oh never mind, I know why, it is inconvenient to the Truth.
Hyperviolet
Damnum Fatale
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2007
- Messages
- 989
In addition, why would Silverstein, a businessman, be speaking in obscure technical jargon (so obscure that no experts recognise it)?
Is it more likely Silverstein meant:
"There was such terrible loss of life, the decision was made to pull people out of the area, to avoid further loss"
Or:
"There was such terrible loss of life, we decided to blow up a building"
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
I have to admit, I'm confused by this entire thread. Gravy has compiled information to counter claims made by the conspiracy theorists. He has taken this compiled information and added to it his conclusions and comments. If errors are found in his work it does nothing to weaken the conclusions put forth by NIST, the 9/11 Commissions, et al. Furthermore, if there are errors found in his work it does nothing to strengthen the claims of the conspiracy theorists.
There are two ways which the conclusions of NIST, et al, can be overturned:
1) In the same manner as Newtonian physics were replaced by Einstein's work
2) In the same manner as Ptomely's model of the solar system was replaced by Copernicus'
In both cases, the replacing theory better explained the observed evidence and made better testable predictions. That the conspiracy theorists are focusing on Gravy's work, rather than putting together something that could challenge NIST/FEMA/etc speaks volumes as to the lack of substence of their claims.
Rather than playing in to the nitpicking, cherry-picking, and god-of-the-gaps(ing) of the conspiracy theory crowd; we should be encouraging, nay requireing, them to focus on putting together a meaningful theory with which to present to the world.
There are two ways which the conclusions of NIST, et al, can be overturned:
1) In the same manner as Newtonian physics were replaced by Einstein's work
2) In the same manner as Ptomely's model of the solar system was replaced by Copernicus'
In both cases, the replacing theory better explained the observed evidence and made better testable predictions. That the conspiracy theorists are focusing on Gravy's work, rather than putting together something that could challenge NIST/FEMA/etc speaks volumes as to the lack of substence of their claims.
Rather than playing in to the nitpicking, cherry-picking, and god-of-the-gaps(ing) of the conspiracy theory crowd; we should be encouraging, nay requireing, them to focus on putting together a meaningful theory with which to present to the world.
Pookster
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,786
In all of those quotes, "pull" wasn't used to identify the method of a strictly explosive demolition (demolition using only explosives - no cables for pulling). From scanning through the bolded parts, I see the word "pull" used in describing certain aspects of what's occurring during an explosive demolition, not as a term for the method of demolition occurring. In none of those quotes did "pull" mean "demolish with explosives". The one quote after the "Demolition of Dangerous Building" label where "pull" was used did, in fact, refer to pulling the building down with cables, even though explosives were used to assist in the overall demolition. Without the specific reference to using cables, no one used "pull" in your quotes to refer to the method of a demolition using only explosives with the term "pull". I saw no cables used on WTC 7 on 9/11. No one has been quoted as describing such either.
How can explosives "pull" anything down? Explosives can cause a building to be in a condition that allows gravity to pull it down. The word was used in those kinds of descriptions that you quoted. The only context where I've seen "pull" used as the method of demolition is when cables are tied to walls/floors and used to literally pull the building down. I imagine in some "pull" demolitions, there were probably people describing how the sound of the building falling might have sounded like "explosives" or like a "bomb" went off. It certainly doesn't mean that the term "explosives" now means to demolish a building using cables.
Do you have any quotes where "pull" is used to describe the method where explosives are exclusively used to demolish a building? Thanks.
Swing Dangler
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2007
- Messages
- 1,050
Thank you for focusing on the relevant quotes. I agree with much of your assessment which shows that the term "pull" is used within the context of gravity, cables, and explosives. With that said, I want to focus on quote in particular along with its context since you are at least open to this source.
From Implosion World:
DID YOU KNOW that only a small percentage of explosive demolition jobs are true 'building implosions'?
Webster’s Dictionary defines implosion as "a violent collapse inward". In the demolition industry, a blaster is usually trying to pull a structure away from adjacent exposures and towards an area large enough to contain the debris.
Therefore, the only time a building is truly 'imploded' is when exposures (other structures or areas of concern) completely surround it. When this situation exists, the blaster has no choice; he must make the building collapse in on itself. This is by far the trickiest type of explosive demolition project, and there are only a handful of blasting companies in the world that possess enough experience—and insurance—to perform these true building implosions.
On the same page we find this image using explosives.
In this context, the blaster above is trying to pull a structure in on itself, in this case, using explosives which can be found in the remaining passage.
In the above quote Stacy refers to IT as a building being "pulled" in on top of itself. In this the case the "pull" part is referring to the small explosions causing the building to collapse in on it self. Hence "pull" another case where "pull" refers to the act of imploding a building using small explosions.
There is no need to litter the thread at this point with Larry Silverstein or my thoughts on his comment. This is in reference to the term pull and how it is used in the industry.