Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

[T.A.M.]

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?

So the fact that no one in the demolition industry uses the term "pull" to indicate controlled demolition is immaterial to you?

TAM

 

[Belz...]

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.

Yes, where "pull" means "pull", not "demolish".

Ambiguous at best, in that the word "pull" could either be used as a synonym for "demolish" or in its literal sense of "cause to move by applying a tractive force".

You DO know what "tractive force" means, right ?

 

[T.A.M.]

there is NO ENTRY for "Pull it" on Dictionary.com, so really, you can infer he meant practically anything by it, or by "it".

TAM

 

[The Big Dog]

Hey thanks Swing-y. Lets use another word from that quote, “Cajole”:

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just cajole it.' And they made that decision to cajole and then we watched the building collapse."

Hey, here is another quote from that day. Let us change “pull” with “cajole” and see how that works for ya:

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they cajoled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They cajoled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski

 

[Pookster]

... 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.

Stacy refers to part of what is happening to the building, not the method of demolition. Buildings can "implode" with the wall(s) "pulling" in on themselves in a strong enough wind storm. Explosives aren't pulling the building/walls anywhere. Gravity is. Cherry picking words out of descriptions and then using them to say they're used to identify the method of demolition is innocently incorrect at best, and dishonest at worst in this case, unless can you present where "pull" is used to specifically identify a method of demolition that doesn't include using cables and such to literally pull the the building down. Can you? So far, you haven't.

 

[GStan]

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.

Pull is what gravity does to make the building fall after explosives remove the supports. Congratulations, you've cracked the case by discovering that industry professionals have used the word pull. Unfortunately, every demo professional who has been asked has confirmed that pull/pull it is not an industry synonym for demolishing a building with explosives. Thus disproving your claim of a Gravy error. Why do you want to keep arguing this stupid and pointless issue?

ETA: This is making my head "pull in on itself".
(That's the American Medical Association translation from the Greek origin cranius explodicus)

 

[metamars]

F = W +W[1+(2hk)/W]^0.5

So, you can put this in a spreadsheet and see how h effects the force. The impact load STARTS at least TWICE the weight of the body.

In the limit h -> 0, F -> 2W. But clearly, if for all time, h = 0 (i.e., static case), F should equal W, not 2W. How do you explain this discontinuity?

If we take h to be 1 mm, then, by this equation, F ~ 2W. Do you seriously believe that the towers would have collapsed after a fall of 1 mm?

 

[Lurker]

In the limit h -> 0, F -> 2W. But clearly, if for all time, h = 0 (i.e., static case), F should equal W, not 2W. How do you explain this discontinuity?

Quite simple, really. The formula is for impact. It is not for a static load. I will even quote from the textbook immediately after the formula in question

Note, in this equation, that if h=0, then F=2W. This says that when the weight is released while in contact with the spring but is not exerting any force on the spring, the largest force is double the weight.

The testbook is quite old. Anyway, the authors are:

Joseph Edward Shigley, Professor Emeritus, The University of Michigan
Charles R. Mischke, Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Iowa State University

If you want to question the formula, I suggest contacting them or any other pofessor of Mechanical Engineering. Shigley and Mischke was a very popular text for most engineering schools. There is a 3 page derivation of the formula from mechanics principles preceding it.

If we take h to be 1 mm, then, by this equation, F ~ 2W. Do you seriously believe that the towers would have collapsed after a fall of 1 mm?

Odd how that works, eh? Do you think a building designer ever thought for a moment that his building would have one floor disappear abruptly and the remaining lower structure would have to absorb the impact of the upper structure? I doubt it.

When you jump onto a scale the indicator jumps well past your weight. Does it jump 2x your weight? No. But that is because the crude data acquisition system in your scale cannot obtain the datapoints quickly enough.

 

[metamars]

Quite simple, really. The formula is for impact. It is not for a static load. I will even quote from the textbook immediately after the formula in question



The testbook is quite old. Anyway, the authors are:

Joseph Edward Shigley, Professor Emeritus, The University of Michigan
Charles R. Mischke, Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Iowa State University

If you want to question the formula, I suggest contacting them or any other pofessor of Mechanical Engineering. Shigley and Mischke was a very popular text for most engineering schools. There is a 3 page derivation of the formula from mechanics principles preceding it.

Without even looking at the derivation, I'm pretty sure I can guess an assumption that went into it, that make it irrevlevant. No, it's not simply a question of "impact" vs. "static".

Odd how that works, eh? Do you think a building designer ever thought for a moment that his building would have one floor disappear abruptly and the remaining lower structure would have to absorb the impact of the upper structure? I doubt it.

When you jump onto a scale the indicator jumps well past your weight. Does it jump 2x your weight? No. But that is because the crude data acquisition system in your scale cannot obtain the datapoints quickly enough.

You didn't answer the question clearly. Do you really think that collapse would occur if a drop from 1 mm occurred? Yes or no?

As for me, I have an electric scale, and "not acquiring datapoints quickly enough" seems wide of the mark, no?

 

[pomeroo]

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.

You are a liar. NO ONE in the demolition industry uses the phrase "pull it" to mean "blow up the building."

I have done my research. Now, let's see you produce someone in the demolition industry who accepts the falsehood peddled by the loons.

(Again, I'd appreciate it if someone will quote me so the mendacious SW can't pretend he didn't see this post.)

 

[TheRedWorm]

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.

You are a liar. NO ONE in the demolition industry uses the phrase "pull it" to mean "blow up the building."

I have done my research. Now, let's see you produce someone in the demolition industry who accepts the falsehood peddled by the loons.

(Again, I'd appreciate it if someone will quote me so the mendacious SW can't pretend he didn't see this post.)

Multi Quote is a nifty feature.

 

[Gravy]

I often wonder if Silverstein meant "pull out" - to recall the men to safety.

He did indeed, which he has made clear since. What 9/11 denialists deny more than anything is context. Silverstein: "We've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it."

Denialists want us to believe that Silverstein was saying "We've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is destroy my skyscraper with explosives. You guys aren't busy, are you? I'd appreciate it if you'd take care of that at your earliest convenience."

Which makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

And then the entire FDNY, NYPD, Port Authority Police, National Guard, and hundreds of off-duty uniformed and civilian workers on the scene complied (because we all know that in addition to being a real estate developer, Larry Silverstein owns those organizations and individuals and their unions), the FDNY sent their secret explosives demolition team to the Hushaboom explosive warehouse, risked their lives in an inferno to plant the charges in a building that they already believed was going to collapse, planted those charges so that every column would "fail simultaneously," presided over the silent detonations, and nobody involved said a mumbling word.

People who actually believe that need more help than we could ever give them here. They are desperately lost and troubled.

Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

http://911guide.googlepages.com/danielnigro

Is “Pull” used by demolitions pros to mean “demolish with explosives?”

Is “Pull” used to mean “Withdraw firefighters from danger?”

 

[beachnut]

You are a liar. NO ONE in the demolition industry uses the phrase "pull it" to mean "blow up the building."

I have done my research. Now, let's see you produce someone in the demolition industry who accepts the falsehood peddled by the loons.

Maybe Swing will get an education at the earliest opportunity so he can actually make a rational post on 9/11. So far the best he has posted can only qualify as poor researched quibbling.

 

[stilicho]

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?

Have you written about your suspicions to Westfield America's loss prevention department or Jacques Dubois of Swiss Re?

I am certain they'd be willing to pay you a lot for your proof that "pull it" meant what you pretend that you think it means.

Post your correspondence with them here. I would be interested to see how it was received.

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

Focusing, again, on the part of the quote that's relevant: This is simply the common definition of the word "pull", indicating that parts of the structure, as they fall, are exerting a tractive force on other parts of the structure in order to cause them to move in a specific direction. The same is true of the other quotes you've posted.

Let me try and give you an analogous case. Suppose I asserted that the word "collapse" meant, in demolition industry jargon, "set off explosives to bring down the building". This would be quite a damning suggestion for, for example, NIST, who claim that WTC1 and WTC2 "collapsed", because it could therefore be interpreted that NIST are claiming the Twin Towers were demolished. Your homework, if you choose to accept it, is to look through your quotes and see how many times the word "collapse" is used in a description the use of explosives to bring down a building. You'll find a lot, even in just the quotes you've posted. So is "collapse" used in the demolition industry as slang for "set off the explosives"? If so, then that suggests that "pull" isn't, because having two such terms could lead to serious confusion. If not, then all you've proved is that the words "collapse" and "pull" are used in the demolition industry with their common meanings.

You have yet to provide any evidence that the word "pull" has, in the demolition industry, the specific meaning, "set off the charges to demolish the building". Mark has provided expert evidence that it doesn't have that specific meaning. Unless you can find more than the quotes you've posted, you haven't demonstrated an error.

Dave

 

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

rodriguez refuses to come back here and prove how redibis is "right" about mark, but instead i only see redibis glorifying a " mr" rodriguez....
why is that "redibis"?

 

[Tolls]

He did indeed, which he has made clear since. What 9/11 denialists deny more than anything is context. Silverstein: "We've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it."

Denialists want us to believe that Silverstein was saying "We've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is destroy my skyscraper with explosives. You guys aren't busy, are you? I'd appreciate it if you'd take care of that at your earliest convenience."

Which makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

This is one of the few things I've actually manage to convince a truther to change their position on. I actually got him to agree that the former was the more likely explanation for his statement. I was rather chuffed with myself for that, and a little surprised.

 

[T.A.M.]

unfortunately what is "more likely" or "more probable" does not concern them. If there is even a remote chance they are right on any element of the 9/11 CTs, then they believe it is the CT that is true...paranoia!!

TAM

 

[bonavada]

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?

hey you forgot THIS (strangely) from the same source as yours.....

10.to withdraw or remove:

say no more

BV

 

[uk_dave]

hey you forgot THIS (strangely) from the same source as yours.....

10.to withdraw or remove:

say no more

BV

Is 'forgot' a polite way of saying "scrolled all the way down the webpage in a desperate search for something to do with building demolitions" ?