Hardfire Visits Ground Zero

[pomeroo]

Here's the first show. I haven't watched it yet, so I don't know what's in it. The producer warned me that the video quality was not good, but let me hear from you:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=938846454505110634&ei=2M3lSMrVHpycrALHy9igCw&q=hardfire+seven+years

[Hyperviolet]

"Gage was in a debate against a debunker named Mark Roberts. Gage was handled very, very roughly. And, quite frankly, the man has never designed anything bigger than a gymnasium."

LMAO.
Blunt.

ETA: 14 minutes. Afghan pipeline.
Hilarious.

[MikeW]

Yes, I liked the shock when the guy said "there's no pipeline in Afghanistan?" :D

[Totovader]

What's interesting about these guys- and it's been a very similar experience for me talking to Twoofers- but they are completely lost without their Internet.

At the same time you can correct them on the the facts and it means absolutely nothing to them.

It's not easy being bombarded like that- especially from a bunch of angry Twoofers- most of whom think you're a government agent who is trying to cover up the murder of 3000 innocent civilians by your co-workers...

[Totovader]

double-post

[MikeW]

The guy who couldn't think of any questions beyond WTC7 (but might manage it if he "had more time") was well worth repeating, too. Like Totovader said, it's not easy coping when you're in the middle of a crowd like that - good job.

[Hyperviolet]

Did anyone else find that "Media Expert" to be rather obnoxious?
The irony is, of course, that he is completely and utterly misinformed.

Sigh.

[RedIbis]

If Ron was genuinely interested in hearing what these people had to say he wouldn't keep cutting them off each time they try to answer his ridiculous request for a narrative.

As if anyone is going to provide a complete timeline of events for the most complex day in American history in a few short minutes.

[Totovader]

If Ron was genuinely interested in hearing what these people had to say he wouldn't keep cutting them off each time they try to answer his ridiculous request for a narrative.

As if anyone is going to provide a complete timeline of events for the most complex day in American history in a few short minutes.

Take all the time you need. Post a timeline here.

[A W Smith]

but Pomeroo, Truthers have been shooting themselves in the foot in their apartments and basements for seven years now.



The heat treating screwdrivers guy was someone special. 'heat all the steel in the building for it to fail?" that takes a special kind of ignorance.

[scissorhands]

Is that Gary Tallis at around six minutes in?
He was looking very shifty, eyes everywhere.
Looking for girls in wheelchairs maybe?

[Lennart Hyland]

The heat treating screwdrivers guy was someone special. 'heat all the steel in the building for it to fail?" that takes a special kind of ignorance.

haha yeah I was just going to say that!

Great work Ronald!

[Bobert]

Ron,
I believe one day Brad Pitt will play you in the movie made about your undercover time as a government operative sent to destroy the truth movement.
Keep up the good work!

[scissorhands]

Just finished watching.
That was excellent Ron, a most enjoyable half hour.

BTW the video quality improves after the first few minutes.

[Crazytimes]

This is awesome.

"What is your scientific evidence"
"Uhh....there was a guy who worked security at LAX"

Don't they realize how moronic they are ?

[Brainster]

Like your new haircut, Ron; you look a little less Lugosi-ish.

;)

I'll put it up on the blog.

[R.Mackey]

A car that runs on water? Pedophiles? What are they talking about..?

I always come away feeling sorry for these guys. They just don't understand. That's why there's such a quality difference between those asking legitimate questions -- those actually trying to learn things -- and the run-of-the-mill Truth Movement.

[Blender Head]

A car that runs on water? Pedophiles? What are they talking about..?

I just watched that part, and got to this post, and I must say I'm incredibly confused.

[T.A.M.]

about two minutes in, the guy with the bushy hair says, about WTC 7,

"It fell straight down, like this" or something close.

My question (and I wish Ron had of asked it), is

"please demonstrate for me, based on other building collapses you have seen, how the buildings should have collapsed if through unintentional means?"

See they all whine and bitch about how it fell straight down, etc...yet not one of them has ever said,

"well if it collapsed as a result of fires alone, then it should have fallen like X, instead of like Y".

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

I am sorry, I am 5 minutes in, and I can't stand to watch any more stupidity.

Ron, were they all that uniformed? They were worse than Sarah Palin in the Couric interview.

TAM;)

[Mr.Herbert]

I loved the expression on the stoner dude when Ron told him there was no pipeline.

The poor guy looked like a booble head doll looking for suppport.

[beachnut]

Energy had to be added! I have a screw driver.

I want a new investigation. "Did you read the NIST report?" No but I have a screwdriver.

All steel had to be heated up! Did I tell you about my screwdriver?

Truthers did good talking, I would screw that part all up!

I like the water car. Using fuel cell for electricity we have been using in space since the 60s is an old, old, very old story, invented in 1839! The guy worked for the news services and he is not capable of research! Classic 9/11 truth.

Junk ideas, who needs facts!

[nicepants]

Wow...I'm only to the first truther and it's Gold already!

Surprised to see so many (more than 2) truthers in attendance.

Not surprised that they all seemed to be 12-20something young men repeating the same debunked claims over and over.

[pomeroo]

If Ron was genuinely interested in hearing what these people had to say he wouldn't keep cutting them off each time they try to answer his ridiculous request for a narrative.

As if anyone is going to provide a complete timeline of events for the most complex day in American history in a few short minutes.



Some of us noticed that they do not "try" to offer a narrative. I know that I have noticed that you tend to apply the adjective "ridiculous" to questions that expose your evil movement for the fraud that it is. Fantasists have made preposterous and pernicious charges for over six years, yet they can't begin to connect them in a coherent narrative.

I'm genuinely interested in hearing you attempt to provide a narrative for the events of 9/11/01.

Oh, that's right--you can't. You have no narrative--remember? You're still "asking questions"--questions that have been answered many, many times.

[Bobert]

If Ron was genuinely interested in hearing what these people had to say he wouldn't keep cutting them off each time they try to answer his ridiculous request for a narrative.

As if anyone is going to provide a complete timeline of events for the most complex day in American history in a few short minutes.

Well come on that first dude looked like Robert Downey Jr AND he looked baffled as to the meaning of "narrative".
It looked like he had to search his brain around the synapses that hadn't been damaged by all that weed.
I AM IRONMAN!
"I plan to since you told me about it"
ROFL!!!

[pomeroo]

I loved the expression on the stoner dude when Ron told him there was no pipeline.

The poor guy looked like a booble head doll looking for suppport.


He was my personal favorite. Someone has just told him that one of his cherished myths is simply not true. It never occurred to him that it might not be true. He clings to it the way some people refuse to throw out a dirty, battered old recliner that smells bad. The people who scream about a war for oil are the same. They've been completely exposed: gas prices topped four bucks a gallon and nobody's stealing any Iraqi oil, but they can't let go. Their entire worldview is built on this myth.

[nicepants]

Just finished watching the video. Great work, Ron! (and crew)

Are we going to see a part 2? Outtakes?

While I'm usually not interested in giving the truth movement media attention, I feel that anymore it does more harm to their "movement" than good, as people will quite easily see that most truthers are lacking in common sense and overflowing in ignorance.

[scissorhands]

Rons use of the "giving them enough rope" technique worked very well.
He exposed their insanity, by being both humorous and coolly dispassionate.
A great example of how to deal with idiots.

[pomeroo]

Just finished watching the video. Great work, Ron! (and crew)

Are we going to see a part 2? Outtakes?

While I'm usually not interested in giving the truth movement media attention, I feel that anymore it does more harm to their "movement" than good, as people will quite easily see that most truthers are lacking in common sense and overflowing in ignorance.


The crew consisted of Gary Popkin. You will see part 2 as soon as Gary finishes editing it (a outtakes show might be pretty funny). We're trying to show twoofers in action. Some of these people ranted about George Bush without ever getting around to mentioning 9/11. I don't think they merit inclusion.

[pomeroo]

Rons use of the "giving them enough rope" technique worked very well.
He exposed their insanity, by being both humorous and coolly dispassionate.
A great example of how to deal with idiots.


Many thanks! Yes, the idea was to draw them out and let them talk.

[ktesibios]

I particularly enjoyed the bald guy who kept going on about how the neo-cons staged the attacks to send a message to the rest of the world. Apparently the best way to impress the international community with how tough you are is to cut off your own (insert name of particularly sensitive body part here).

That even one-ups Monty Python's Black Knight.

[TexasJack]

Yes, I liked the shock when the guy said "there's no pipeline in Afghanistan?" :D

His expression and answer reminded me of "Spinal Tap" when the guitarist thought he had the ingenious amp that went to 11, when informed that he can just make 10 be 11 and move the numbers down, his answer: "this one goes to 11."

[Quad4_72]

I can't believe they were still saying "pull it". So insane.

[RedIbis]

Some of us noticed that they do not "try" to offer a narrative. I know that I have noticed that you tend to apply the adjective "ridiculous" to questions that expose your evil movement for the fraud that it is. Fantasists have made preposterous and pernicious charges for over six years, yet they can't begin to connect them in a coherent narrative.

I'm genuinely interested in hearing you attempt to provide a narrative for the events of 9/11/01.

Oh, that's right--you can't. You have no narrative--remember? You're still "asking questions"--questions that have been answered many, many times.

As I said earlier, if you really wanted to hear what they had to say, you wouldn't have cut them off at every opportunity. At least a few times, you forgot to put the mic back to their mouths. You might want to brush up on your interview skills before you go back out asking for this narrative.

It's a bit like walking out on the street and asking, "Can you describe D-Day from beginning to end? Go."

[pomeroo]

As I said earlier, if you really wanted to hear what they had to say, you wouldn't have cut them off at every opportunity. At least a few times, you forgot to put the mic back to their mouths. You might want to brush up on your interview skills before you go back out asking for this narrative.

It's a bit like walking out on the street and asking, "Can you describe D-Day from beginning to end? Go."



Yes, I really wanted to hear what they had to say. I learned that they, like you, had nothing to say. No conspiracy liar will ever comply with my request to provide a coherent narrative. We really do get the idea.

[Quad4_72]

As I said earlier, if you really wanted to hear what they had to say, you wouldn't have cut them off at every opportunity. At least a few times, you forgot to put the mic back to their mouths. You might want to brush up on your interview skills before you go back out asking for this narrative.

It's a bit like walking out on the street and asking, "Can you describe D-Day from beginning to end? Go."

If you don't cut a twoofer off, they will ramble for like 20 minutes moving goal post after goal post. You have to keep them focused on one point and then you can REALLY see how NUTS they are. Much like yourself ibis.

[TexasJack]

As I said earlier, if you really wanted to hear what they had to say, you wouldn't have cut them off at every opportunity. At least a few times, you forgot to put the mic back to their mouths. You might want to brush up on your interview skills before you go back out asking for this narrative.

It's a bit like walking out on the street and asking, "Can you describe D-Day from beginning to end? Go."

What, give them more time to say some more really dumb stuff? I think Ron was being charitable and did an excellent job.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Gage was handled very very roughly?

You mean you sent someone to work him over after he owned Gravy?

You evil doers!

[Homeland Insurgency]

What was the point with the story about Ron blowing his foot off?

[pomeroo]

Gage was handled very very roughly?

You mean you sent someone to work him over after he owned Gravy?

You evil doers!


Wow! The hapless charlatan Gage "owned" Gravy??? Good grief--what a blow to reason and sanity!

I'm just funnin' ya. I actually watched the debate, as did most of the people who post here. You should take a look at it for yourself. Gage got really, really crushed. The cardboard boxes were, I admit, hilarious.

[pomeroo]

What was the point with the story about Ron blowing his foot off?


I think it had something to do with your imaginary conspiracy never, ever doing anything that might possibly benefit them.

[johnny karate]

It's a bit like walking out on the street and asking, "Can you describe D-Day from beginning to end? Go."

After some major logistical errors, amphibious Allied forces managed to overcome the Germans on the Normandy beachhead. They eventually worked their way inland, joined with deployed airborne divisions, and liberated France.

Yeah, that was tough.

Maybe the part you're hung up on is describing exactly how and why you think the firefighters at WTC7 changed their minds about what they experienced. It must be tricky being stick between "cowards" and "dupes".

[Bananaman]

I thought that was perfect, Pom.

Tackling a mob of voluble people with incoherent ideas that they've gulped whole and haven't digested, but are desperate to blurt out is obviously difficult. You did bloody well.

I say that knowing that I would have ruined the whole purpose of the exercise by biffing one or two of the bounders. Especially that bald headed twerp who made my eyes cross with his rantings. He didn't say a single thing that was close to making sense. Actually he did start making sense at one point, I was going with him. He said that America had enemies, not big news admittedly, but I was willing to cut him some slack. He then ruined it by stating America's enemies are the media. At that moment I would have walked away. The sheer insularity of his bonkers view was staggering.

Anyway, well done, Pom. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Bananaman.

[Bobert]

Wow! The hapless charlatan Gage "owned" Gravy??? Good grief--what a blow to reason and sanity!

I'm just funnin' ya. I actually watched the debate, as did most of the people who post here. You should take a look at it for yourself. Gage got really, really crushed. The cardboard boxes were, I admit, hilarious.

I really do wonder if the day he did that debate and box thing if it was the result of some new med he is on?

[Whiplash]

Take all the time you need. Post a timeline here.

RedIbis, you have been back to post since this was posted by Totovader. But you ignored it.

Your post he was responding to implied that a narrative can be created, just not in a "few short minutes".

Please provide this narrative. As Toto said, take all the time you need. If you are already working on it, please accept my apologies, and I await the final result with bated breath.

If you are going to continue to ignore such requests, and just keep on JAQing off and thinking that finding some little hole here or there somehow discredits the entire "official version", then don't be suprised when people show you little respect or even respond to your posts.

[RedIbis]

Yes, I really wanted to hear what they had to say. I learned that they, like you, had nothing to say. No conspiracy liar will ever comply with my request to provide a coherent narrative. We really do get the idea.

You return to a shot at the end with the guy in the Yankees cap (one of the few who appeared to be under the age of 30) lectured him on something, then the shot cuts before he even responds. Great editing.

[pomeroo]

You return to a shot at the end with the guy in the Yankees cap (one of the few who appeared to be under the age of 30) lectured him on something, then the shot cuts before he even responds. Great editing.


I have nothing to do with the editing, as you know.

How's that narrative coming along? Still nothing?

[Bananaman]

RedIbis:
You return to a shot at the end with the guy in the Yankees cap (one of the few who appeared to be under the age of 30) lectured him on something, then the shot cuts before he even responds. Great editing.

I'm not sure Pomeroony had much to do with the editing from his initial post. But I do know that editing, although it can be angled this way and that, is a tricky thing to get exactly right. i think it's pretty fair.

Pomeroo walked into a gathering of people who had opposite and sometimes aggressively held views and did what troofers do: he asked questions. They replied. For half an hours worth on screen. And he tried to point out problems in their opinions. Bloody hell, I couldn't do that.

RedIbis, I ask you, honestly, could you walk into a room of opinionated debunkers with a microphone and do the same and come up smelling of roses, even with careful editing? (Actually that's a little ingenuous, you probably could, but it would take a hell of a lot more editing than that programme did.)

Bananaman (who knows he has wilfully opened a whole can of worms there.)

This should be fun.

[LashL]

Great editing.

The floor is yours, RedIbis, and you have no fear here of having your narrative "edited" so, please, spell it out. Take all the bandwidth you need.

[Pardalis]

I can't believe they're talking about the non-existing pipeline again.

[Pardalis]

What was the point with the story about Ron blowing his foot off?

What was the bald guy's point about the story about he useless japanese water powered car or the pedophile story?

[RedIbis]

The floor is yours, RedIbis, and you have no fear here of having your narrative "edited" so, please, spell it out. Take all the bandwidth you need.

Why are you concerned with my narrative? It's much more important that the official story is proven correct. And I don't mean proof by tweaked computer models.

[pomeroo]

Why are you concerned with my narrative? It's much more important that the official story is proven correct. And I don't mean proof by tweaked computer models.


I can state for the record that I'm not the least bit concerned with your narrative. You don't have one. Given a year--come to think of it, you've been given over six years--you couldn't begin to formulate one. No other conspiracy liar could either. You don't know a damn thing about computer models.

[Bananaman]

RedIbis:
Why are you concerned with my narrative?

Because, Red, you don't believe the official narrative. Should it be such a leap to ask for the alternative narrative?

RedIbis:
It's much more important that the official story is proven correct.

It has been. There are small details that need clarifying, as there are in all massive happenings in human history, but essentially the facts are known, and are still waiting to be ripped to shreds by the troofers.

RedIbis:
And I don't mean proof by tweaked computer models.

When you have a shred of proof that what is explained by computer modellers, from all fields of discipline is wrong, and will stand up in a court of law, then we might listen. Just one shred of proof of an inside job. Just one, that is undeniably proof of what troofers believe, then we'll all sit back agog and watch the court case.

You want to bet the media wouldn't be interested?

In the meantime we'll wait for that one shred of proof.

Bananaman.

[pomeroo]

RedIbis:


Because, Red, you don't believe the official narrative. Should it be such a leap to ask for the alternative narrative?

RedIbis:


It has been. There are small details that need clarifying, as there are in all massive happenings in human history, but essentially the facts are known, and are still waiting to be ripped to shreds by the troofers.

RedIbis:


When you have a shred of proof that what is explained by computer modellers, from all fields of discipline is wrong, is wrong and will stand up in a court of law then we might listen. Just one shred of proof of an inside job. Just one, that is undeniably proof of what troofers belive, then we'll all sit back agog and watch the court case.

You want to bet the media wouldn't be interested?

In the meantime we'll wait for that one shred of proof.

Bananaman.


And wait...and wait...and wait...and wait...

[Arus808]

wait a minute. Red Ibis is chastizing Ron about "interrupting" the troofers, when he shows in one segment that he can't even get a word in edgewise as ten of them repeat the same debunked canards from 4 years ago? Pull it? Silvestein?

wow, have i just entered a time warp?

[johnny karate]

Why are you concerned with my narrative?

At the very least you could clarify your implications of FDNY involvement. You haven't yet made it clear if you think they are cowards or dupes, only stating that that some firefighters could supply eye witness testimony that "might not support [our] side of the argument" and "describe precisely, the characteristics of controlled demo" and yet provide no explanation why all these same firefighters remain silent regarding this supposed testimony.

You're one whose quick to point out the contradictions and inconsistencies in others' theories, but seem quite comfortable with your own. Providing a narrative could perhaps address that, and at the very least allow us to understand why you are so contemptuous of the FDNY

[Pardalis]

Why are you concerned with my narrative? It's much more important that the official story is proven correct. And I don't mean proof by tweaked computer models.

Ron has raised an important point in the video.

If there is to be another investigation, wont the same experts be called in to do the same thing all over again?

Who is more qualified in your view than the people who have already worked on it?

[RKOwens4]

Ron, when I was talking to Jason Bermas about the molten metal at Ground Zero, I asked him how the eyewitnesses could have possibly known that the metal was steel and not something like aluminum, and he said that even my debunker friends have given up on it being aluminum. When I asked which ones, he said Mark Roberts and Ronald Wieck and pointed toward the end of the church (which is where you are in this video it seems... I was up and down the side of the church all day and unfortunately missed you).

I know that no one is claiming that they can prove that the molten metal was definitely aluminum instead of steel (as its composition was never tested), but is this a completely accurate representation of what you believe or was Jason just speaking out of his @$$, as usual?

[LashL]

Why are you concerned with my narrative?

I am not at all concerned with your narrative, RedIbis, as I am quite certain that you do not have one and will never present one since you appear to be wholly incapable of presenting any evidence whatsoever in support of the positions you have taken here, in support of the accusations you have made here, or in support of the views you have expressed here, with respect to the events of September 11, 2001.

That was precisely the point: neither you nor any of your fellow tinhat travellers seem to be willing or able to put forward a narrative because you know that you cannot support your claims and accusations, and you know that if you did ever present a narrative, it would be decimated by real life facts and evidence faster than you can say, "Just Asking Questions".

That you refuse to offer a coherent narrative while you simultaneously make outrageous and wholly unsupported allegations against others tells rational people all they really need to know about you and your non-existent narrative, RedIbis.

If I am wrong and you actually are the first 9/11 conspiracy fantasist to step up with a coherent narrative, well, for crying out loud, let's hear it already.

[Caustic Logic]

Good video, technically fine IMO, and some extremely interesting dialog, well handled on your end and better than expected on the other. Good tone, fertile vibe. It's interesting seeing many different types of Truthers with their own faces and voices trying to argue their points. Some of them are funny stupid, but sorta loveable. 1.3 trillion, 2.3 trillion, 1.3, 2.3... spent. Period. Good. :)The guy at 16:00 is smarter than most - it's true that the "TM" has become mostly a battle between the dumb and the dumber.

Mostly I liked where it got historical [around 8:00 and on]. I know you're busy, Ron, but I'd like to comment and see what you think, like, if I was there...

Re: Northwoods, I have to disagree with you, Ron. A wacky plan that was seriously floated is indeed evidence of a mindset that HAS appeared before. What if a plan just as loony but many times bigger and bolder was written up and pitched to the wrong administration? Not saying at all this is what happened, and in fact Northwoods-type contrivances being in our minds has screwed up the "Truth Movement" pretty bad.

Re: Gulf of Tonkin [8:53] - I did not know about LBJ's admission, but from what I see, I agree with your take here, but would add that while nothing was physically staged, these sailors made this misreading after they had been sent time and again into harm's way. I have to wonder if they felt like 'faking' the attack themselves as it were (reading the scopes wrong on purpose, RSWOP) was the easiest way to get outta there, and if so, how would they guess this? And why did it work perfectly and trigger a war despite no evidence? Good guess guys, and I can't blame them, if so...

Re: Reichstag Fire: [8:28] A crazy Dutchman did it? Sorry, there's a tiny bit of room here for contention, but the dude with the flaps is correct here. German never translates perfectly into English of course, but as historical illustration goes, the Reichstag is a sterling example of an inside job psyop campaign in real-world action.

I'm not a pro or expert, but I did write a little spiel on it, or a few, linked here (http://12-7-9-11.blogspot.com/2006/12/remember-227-reichstag-fire-masterlist.html) (pardon any dated twoofiness) - maybe informative as a starting point...
ETA: It's worse than I remember, sorry...

[DC]

when "Pull it" is not used as a demolition term, how come Danny Jovenko pointed out that Larry said "Pull it"

and when you called all those Demo corps, did you record those phone calls?

[UNLoVedRebel]

According to truthers, are there any real wars fought?

[DC]

According to truthers, are there any real wars fought?

ever heard of Afghanistan and Iraq for example?
Just take a look at the US history and its wars....

[chillzero]

Off topic bickering removed from thread. Which is a shame, because you lost some good information there, along the chain.

Please revisit your Membership Agreement, and consider how to hold a civil conversation without getting personal or off topic.

[Caustic Logic]

when "Pull it" is not used as a demolition term, how come Danny Jovenko pointed out that Larry said "Pull it"

and when you called all those Demo corps, did you record those phone calls?
Dude, "pull it" means nothing in particular, and virtually anything someone wants. Step back from the two words and look at the CONTEXT they were used in. Sorry, but this is really an old point you should clear up and move on. I say that with your best interests in mind.

According to truthers, are there any real wars fought?

Every war is real. Winners just know how to set their own timetable and maintain the initiative. Winners are the ones who start the wars more often, tho their history books tend to say the opposite. do the math. Some luck, some duplicity, some manipulation, clever posturing, some false flag stuff when necessary - It's a spectrum, and it'snot just USA either. it's planet Earth.

That and I'm a touch crazy of course. :)

[DC]

Dude, "pull it" means nothing in particular, and virtually anything someone wants. Step back from the two words and look at the CONTEXT they were used in. Sorry, but this is really an old point you should clear up and move on. I say that with your best interests in mind.



Every war is real. Winners just know how to set their own timetable and maintain the initiative. Winners are the ones who start the wars more often, tho their history books tend to say the opposite. do the math. Some luck, some duplicity, some manipulation, clever posturing, some false flag stuff when necessary - It's a spectrum, and it'snot just USA either. it's planet Earth.

That and I'm a touch crazy of course. :)

so you agree that "Pull it" can be used in the meaning of bringing down a building with explosives?

[CptColumbo]

so you agree that "Pull it" can be used in the meaning of bringing down a building with explosives?As CL wrote, out of context it can mean anything. In context it's meaning becomes more narrow.

If I were to use the word "break," to describe an action, out of context it could mean destroying something or stopping work to rest. If I say "break a shotgun" it's meaning becomes more narrow. It can still be interpreted as disabling and/or destroying to someone unfamiliar with firearms, but to those with experience it means something else.

[DC]

As CL wrote, out of context it can mean anything. In context it's meaning becomes more narrow.

If I were to use the word "break," to describe an action, out of context it could mean destroying something or stopping work to rest. If I say "break a shotgun" it's meaning becomes more narrow. It can still be interpreted as disabling and/or destroying to someone unfamiliar with firearms, but to those with experience it means something else.

Danny Jovenko is an experianced Demolition expert, he interpretted the words in the meaning of Bringing down the building.

[CptColumbo]

Danny Jovenko is an experianced Demolition expert, he interpretted the words in the meaning of Bringing down the building.
Source?

[DC]

Source?

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=sep-HDZoEBM&feature=user

[CptColumbo]

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=sep-HDZoEBM&feature=user
I assume that English is not his native language, so while he may be an expert in CD he may not have experience in English terminology. He also misquotes what Mr Silverstein says.

you hear hear him say "pull it down"...away with it.

[alex04]

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=sep-HDZoEBM&feature=user


DC, watched the relevant part of that vid.

With regards to his interpretation of what 'pull it' means - as it appears English is not his native language, clearly he's taking the term quite literally, when this may not been intended?

Perhaps 'Pull it' (or the translation) may be used in his language as a demolition term..

edit - gah, CptColumbo beat me to it

[DC]

I assume that English is not his native language, so while he may be an expert in CD he may not have experience in English terminology. He also misquotes what Mr Silverstein says.

ok lets call an US company then

http://www.pumpitout.com/phone_calls/controlled_demolitions.mp3

[CptColumbo]

ok lets call an US company then

http://www.pumpitout.com/phone_calls/controlled_demolitions.mp3
I am unable to access that link at work. If you have a link to a transcript I would be happy to read it.

[Totovader]

ok lets call an US company then

http://www.pumpitout.com/phone_calls/controlled_demolitions.mp3

Go for it. Pomeroo already has. I talked to a couple myself.

However, it's your claim- so how did you arrive at that conclusion if you didn't have any supporting evidence?

[DC]

I am unable to access that link at work. If you have a link to a transcript I would be happy to read it.

ha you are reading and posting on JREF during work?
how dear you :D

no i havent a transcribt, take a look after work then :)
the US economy needs you working, not surfing :D
j/k

[CptColumbo]

ha you are reading and posting on JREF during work?
how dear you :D

no i havent a transcribt, take a look after work then :)
the US economy needs you working, not surfing :D
j/k
It's the kind of job where they need someone at the office to handle any crisis that may come up. If none happens you have lots of free time. It's like the military or firefighting, hours of tedium broken up by moments of heart pounding action. Plus I get to investigate "haunted hotels."
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=117939&highlight=haunted+hotel

[alex04]

ok lets call an US company then

http://www.pumpitout.com/phone_calls/controlled_demolitions.mp3


That's a fair response.

And for all i know, you may be right. If i was going to make a point about this though, i'd make contact with the actual people who work with demolitions - i.e. not just the receptionist. Clearly it appears the guy has just heard what he wants to hear from the receptionist, and hung up.

This doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong.. but i think you'd really want to dig deeper if you want to claim that a comment used, was definitely intended for the destruction of the tower.

[alex04]

no i havent a transcribt, take a look after work then :)


i was too lazy to transcribe it:D there was a little bit here and there that i couldn't make out too clearly either.

[DC]

It's the kind of job where they need someone at the office to handle any crisis that may come up. If none happens you have lots of free time. It's like the military or firefighting, hours of tedium broken up by moments of heart pounding action. Plus I get to investigate "haunted hotels."
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=117939&highlight=haunted+hotel

ah ok :)

is this for a travel agency, if you dont mind asking me :)

[DC]

That's a fair response.

And for all i know, you may be right. If i was going to make a point about this though, i'd make contact with the actual people who work with demolitions - i.e. not just the receptionist. Clearly it appears the guy has just heard what he wants to hear from the receptionist, and hung up.

This doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong.. but i think you'd really want to dig deeper if you want to claim that a comment used, was definitely intended for the destruction of the tower.

thats why i would like to compare it to pomeroos calls.

[pomeroo]

Ron, when I was talking to Jason Bermas about the molten metal at Ground Zero, I asked him how the eyewitnesses could have possibly known that the metal was steel and not something like aluminum, and he said that even my debunker friends have given up on it being aluminum. When I asked which ones, he said Mark Roberts and Ronald Wieck and pointed toward the end of the church (which is where you are in this video it seems... I was up and down the side of the church all day and unfortunately missed you).

I know that no one is claiming that they can prove that the molten metal was definitely aluminum instead of steel (as its composition was never tested), but is this a completely accurate representation of what you believe or was Jason just speaking out of his @$$, as usual?


He was, typically, blowing smoke. I'm not qualified to identify the molten metal and neither is Mark. I'm satisfied that it has not been identified as steel, despite the most persistent and dishonest efforts of twoofers to distort the words of people like Mark Loizeaux.

[pomeroo]

when "Pull it" is not used as a demolition term, how come Danny Jovenko pointed out that Larry said "Pull it"

and when you called all those Demo corps, did you record those phone calls?


You really want to run through this stuff for the thousandth time? As has been established, "pull it" IS a demolition term when it refers to attaching cables to a small structure and literally pulling it off its center of gravity. It IS NOT a demolition term when it is used, as conspiracy liars use it, to mean "blow up the building." Jowenko's English is not bad, but I'm quite sure that he knows nothing about what is and is not industry jargon here in the U.S. That he mentioned Silverstein's words suggests to me that all of his knowledge of the collapse of WTC 7 comes from fantasists.

The embarrassing fraud "Swing Dangler" fled the forum after I exposed his deception with the woman at Robinette Demolition. He falsely claimed, as you may recall, that she stated that even though demolition professionals do not recognize "pull it" as slang for "use explosives to bring down the building," people outside the industry do use the expression. I called her and established that the only people who ever misuse the expression are conspiracy liars who invented the bogus spin to smear an innocent man. People outside the demolition industry, as most of us understand, do not use industry jargon.

As I explained to "Swing Dangler," I, unlike Rob Balsamo, do not record phone conversations without asking for permission. I presented a list of companies I called to confirm that no one who works in demolition swallows the fantasy movement's snake oil. You can be the first conspiracy liar to find a demolition company that contradicts my findings. It's quite simple: Google the names of a few dozen companies and start dialing. I suspect that our dear departed friend Swing Dangler made a few attempts and noticed how the wind was blowing.

[Bobert]

DC,
Instead of asking Ron if he recorded the calls why dont you simply make the calls?
If you live overseas I would be willing to pay for these phone calls.
Pretty simple to do rather then imply that Ron is lying.
Your questioning Ron about whether he recorded the calls says more about you then it does about Ron.

[pomeroo]

Dude, "pull it" means nothing in particular, and virtually anything someone wants. Step back from the two words and look at the CONTEXT they were used in. Sorry, but this is really an old point you should clear up and move on. I say that with your best interests in mind.


At the risk of revisiting the lengthy thread that is memorable for the worst beating ever adminstered to conspiracy liars (Swing Dangler and RedIbis), "pull it" has specific meanings: to a demolition professional, it means "attach cables to a small structure (e.eg a water tower) and literally pull it off its center of gravity; to a firefighter (and Silverstein WAS talking with a firefighter), it means "remove the contingent from a dangerous situation."

It does not mean "blow up the building" to anyone except conspiracy liars who fabricated the previously nonexistent connotation to slander Larry Silverstein.

[pomeroo]

DC,
Instead of asking Ron if he recorded the calls why dont you simply make the calls?
If you live overseas I would be willing to pay for these phone calls.
Pretty simple to do rather then imply that Ron is lying.
Your questioning Ron about whether he recorded the calls says more about you then it does about Ron.


Bobert, don't waste time with DC's clumsy deception. He knows perfectly well that Swing Dangler already tried his trick and got his ears pinned back. I'm the one who risks embarrassment here. I made the calls and established that the loons were lying. All any twoofer needs to do is find a demolition company--any demolition company--that buys the fantasist myth.

Find ONE demolition company that recognizes "pull it" as industry slang for "blow up the building."

It is not necessary for me to prove that I contacted thirty companies that reject the fantasist lie. The liars need to produce ONE company that supports them.

[pomeroo]

so you agree that "Pull it" can be used in the meaning of bringing down a building with explosives?

No, only you liars agree with that bogus meaning. Get it?

[AJM8125]

7 years and twoofers are still on about pull it? Apparently they've been doing some pulling of their own all this time.

[DC]

"Well, you just pull it[the building] away, you peel it off."
would not be used in reference to a Demolition with explosives?

[pomeroo]

That's a fair response.

And for all i know, you may be right. If i was going to make a point about this though, i'd make contact with the actual people who work with demolitions - i.e. not just the receptionist. Clearly it appears the guy has just heard what he wants to hear from the receptionist, and hung up.

This doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong.. but i think you'd really want to dig deeper if you want to claim that a comment used, was definitely intended for the destruction of the tower.


When I told Stacey Loizeaux that Griffin actually claimed that a receptionist (!) at Controlled Demolition Inc. "confirmed" that "pull it" has the meaning conspiracy liars apply to it, she commented, "That's just so pathetic!"

[pomeroo]

"Well, you just pull it[the building] away, you peel it off."
would not be used in reference to a Demolition with explosives?


Silverstein, as you know, was using firefighter jargon in a conversation with a firefighter. He talked about pulling "it," i.e., the contingent of rescue workers. Swing Dangler regaled us with a totally irrelevant list of expressions that contain the word "pull," and in the process established that "pull it" does not mean what you liars pretend it does.

[DC]

Silverstein, as you know, was using firefighter jargon in a conversation with a firefighter. He talked about pulling "it," i.e., the contingent of rescue workers. Swing Dangler regaled us with a totally irrelevant list of expressions that contain the word "pull," and in the process established that "pull it" does not mean what you liars pretend it does.

"Well, you just pull it[the building] away, you peel it off."
would not be used in reference to a Demolition with explosives?

[pomeroo]

That's a fair response.

And for all i know, you may be right. If i was going to make a point about this though, i'd make contact with the actual people who work with demolitions - i.e. not just the receptionist. Clearly it appears the guy has just heard what he wants to hear from the receptionist, and hung up.

This doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong.. but i think you'd really want to dig deeper if you want to claim that a comment used, was definitely intended for the destruction of the tower.


I had never before bothered to listen to this silly attempt at an ambush. Notice that the liar is told that "pull it" means "pull it down," which it does, but omits the all-important part about attaching cables. He ends the call without asking if explosives are involved. Now, why does he behave so strangely if he's merely "asking questions"? HE KNOWS THE ANSWER!
I can't repeat this often enough: this why they are called conspiracy liars. He knows that he can never find a demolition professional who will lend any support whatever to his evil movement's fabrication.

[pomeroo]

"Well, you just pull it[the building] away, you peel it off."
would not be used in reference to a Demolition with explosives?


Yes, you could use a wide variety of verbs with the prepositions "down" or "away" to suggest the use of explosives. The exact words used by Larry Silverstein referred to removing a contingent of rescue workers from a dangerously unstable building. If you liars are correct, then Lucky Larry was asking the FDNY to blow up his building. To people with triple-digit IQs, it is abundantly clear that such a request makes no sense, as the FDNY does not blow up buildings. There might even be a few members of your evil movement who are capable of comprehending, given much time and patient, sensitive instructors, this extremely obvious point.

It remains a fact that no demolition professionals use the expression "pull it" to mean "blow up the building." Neither you nor any other conspiracy liar will ever refute this assertion.

[DC]

ah ok :)

[Oliver]

Yes, you could use a wide variety of verbs with the prepositions "down" or "away" to suggest the use of explosives. The exact words used by Larry Silverstein referred to removing a contingent of rescue workers from a dangerously unstable building. If you liars are correct, then Lucky Larry was asking the FDNY to blow up his building. To people with triple-digit IQs, it is abundantly clear that such a request makes no sense, as the FDNY does not blow up buildings. There might even be a few members of your evil movement who are capable of comprehending, given much time and patient, sensitive instructors, this extremely obvious point.

It remains a fact that no demolition professionals use the expression "pull it" to mean "blow up the building." Neither you nor any other conspiracy liar will ever refute this assertion.


I really hope you're able to make another Ground Zero Visit next
year, Ron. But given the tone in your posts nowadays, I also hope
you will go down there doing some coverage, not blowing yourself
up while standing in a crowd of truthers. :p

[Hyperviolet]

I think it had something to do with your imaginary conspiracy never, ever doing anything that might possibly benefit them.

I'll play Devil's Advocate on that piece of woo:

What the truther is saying is that the New World Order want the higher gas prices.
The invasion wasn't to get a load of oil to use for the benefit of American citizens. The New World Order don't care for those folk (hey, they did 9/11 after all!).

They planned the invasion so that oil prices would, indeed, rise and sky-rocket so that those paying for gas would line the pockets of the evil N.W.O.ers and oil companies, who all support and love one another.

So, despite being nonsense, there is some strange line of logic which fits his bizarro illuminati-run worldview.

[RedIbis]

The exact words used by Larry Silverstein referred to removing a contingent of rescue workers from a dangerously unstable building. If you liars are correct, then Lucky Larry was asking the FDNY to blow up his building. To people with triple-digit IQs, it is abundantly clear that such a request makes no sense, as the FDNY does not blow up buildings.


psst... he could be telling a fibby fib.

[1337m4n]

psst... he could be telling a fibby fib.

So you have said for over a year. But you have yet to explain

1) what precisely he was lying about
2) why he was lying about it
3) what significance the alleged lie has regarding the subforum topic, 9/11 Conspiracy Theories.

[Homeland Insurgency]

I really hope you're able to make another Ground Zero Visit next
year, Ron. But given the tone in your posts nowadays, I also hope
you will go down there doing some coverage, not blowing yourself
up while standing in a crowd of truthers. :p

Well if he is going to head down there again next year I think we should all put a little collection together so that he may at least sport some new threads. Then he might not be mistaken for a homeless person and people would be more receptive.

Just a suggestion. He should also cut out the stories about shooting himself in the foot.

It might help. But probably not.

You're welcome Ron

[pomeroo]

I'll play Devil's Advocate on that piece of woo:

What the truther is saying is that the New World Order want the higher gas prices.
The invasion wasn't to get a load of oil to use for the benefit of American citizens. The New World Order don't care for those folk (hey, they did 9/11 after all!).

They planned the invasion so that oil prices would, indeed, rise and sky-rocket so that those paying for gas would line the pockets of the evil N.W.O.ers and oil companies, who all support and love one another.

So, despite being nonsense, there is some strange line of logic which fits his bizarro illuminati-run worldview.


Oh, yeah, how could I overlook that? Now all we have to do is figure out why those evil oil companies begged Bush to end the sanctions and let them ink lucrative contracts with Saddam. Some of us noticed that oil prices rose because the economies of China and India, countries with a combined population of two-and-half billion people, have been expanding explosively. The American invasion of Iraq meant next to nothing in setting OPEC's price.

[pomeroo]

Well if he is going to head down there again next year I think we should all put a little collection together so that he may at least sport some new threads. Then he might not be mistaken for a homeless person and people would be more receptive.

Just a suggestion. He should also cut out the stories about shooting himself in the foot.

It might help. But probably not.

You're welcome Ron


I dressed casually because I intended to interview drooling idiots who might get spittle on new threads. Surely you, of all people, should understand that.

Your inability to understand my comment tells us nothing we didn't already know about you. It might embarrass you (silly me--nothing could embarrass you) to know that none of your fellow liars had any trouble with it.

Have you come up with a narrative yet? Well, keep trying.

[pomeroo]

psst... he could be telling a fibby fib.


Pssst...you're still a vacuous liar. Try to express in words what Silverstein is "lying" about. Can't do it? Well, that's okay: WE KNOW YOU CAN'T. You've demonstrated far beyond the point of tedium your inability to add any substance to your falsehoods.

[pomeroo]

I really hope you're able to make another Ground Zero Visit next
year, Ron. But given the tone in your posts nowadays, I also hope
you will go down there doing some coverage, not blowing yourself
up while standing in a crowd of truthers. :p


You might try watching the video.

[alex04]

When I told Stacey Loizeaux that Griffin actually claimed that a receptionist (!) at Controlled Demolition Inc. "confirmed" that "pull it" has the meaning conspiracy liars apply to it, she commented, "That's just so pathetic!"

i have to say, it'd be a pretty random thing for a receptionist to hear - particularly as he doesn't seem to be calling with a major purpose (especially considering the type of place he's calling). Sounds like he might have been trying to complete a crossword puzzle.

Put yourself in her shoes - would sound a bit odd, if not creepy!

[pomeroo]

i have to say, it'd be a pretty random thing for a receptionist to hear - particularly as he doesn't seem to be calling with a major purpose (especially considering the type of place he's calling). Sounds like he might have been trying to complete a crossword puzzle.

Put yourself in her shoes - would sound a bit odd, if not creepy!


Well, I've spoken over the phone with Stacey Loizeaux a dozen or so times. I don't remember anyone ever answering the phone, "Hello, Loizeaux family." They say, "Hello, Controlled Demolition, Inc." Probably the conspiracy liar simply faked the call. The evil movement he serves consists of the most dishonest, unscrupulous scum on the planet, so why would they quibble about such comparatively minor fraud? On the other hand, I can't prove that a particular receptionist on a particular day didn't offer that bizarre greeting. The point is that the liar didn't get the response he wanted.

[Lennart Hyland]

When is the second show coming up?

[johnny karate]

psst... he could be telling a fibby fib.

Or there's the possibility that Silverstein somehow had his perception of his experiences of that day altered, the way you believe the FDNY did. You want to cast him in a sinister light when it could be as innocent as him being either a coward or a dupe, like you believe the FDNY to be.

[Totovader]

Red- have you had enough time to put together your timeline, or are you not capable of providing one?

[adversity1]

Red- have you had enough time to put together your timeline, or are you not capable of providing one?

Red, why is this so hard for you? :o

[Arus808]

Well one has to keep one's growing list of lies straight....

[Minadin]

Ron - I like the haircut, btw.

ETA: Also, I can't believe I haven't noticed this before - but has anyone ever told you that you sound a bit like Jay Leno?

[Minadin]

There is a conspiracy theorist at about 24:35 in the video who makes a claim that the internal core columns bore the vast majority of the weight of the floors in WTC 1 and 2, and that the exterior columns were "an adjunct to that". This is, for lack of a better term, complete horse manure.

What he's implying is that the composite floor system acted as a cantilever from the edge of the core to the exterior walls. This could not be more false.

[Crazytimes]

Wow! The hapless charlatan Gage "owned" Gravy??? Good grief--what a blow to reason and sanity!

I'm just funnin' ya. I actually watched the debate, as did most of the people who post here. You should take a look at it for yourself. Gage got really, really crushed. The cardboard boxes were, I admit, hilarious.

Do you have a link to this interview ? I would love to see it.

[Crazytimes]

The dumbest thing to me about the whole "pull it" argument other than the fact that it is NOT an industry standard term and that lie still has not died is the fact that Silverstein would NOT have the authority to make that call anyway.

[pomeroo]

Do you have a link to this interview ? I would love to see it.


Here's a link to the first debate:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3685846057748316809

Here's the second:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-459844559898426929

[Crazytimes]

Here's a link to the first debate:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3685846057748316809

Here's the second:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-459844559898426929


Thank you sir. I was just watching the discussions you had with Fetzer and Roberts yesterday. Great job.

I love how Fetzer claims a high powered laser did the damage to the towers. Truly INSANE.

[TheDaver]

If Ron was genuinely interested in hearing what these people had to say he wouldn't keep cutting them off each time they try to answer his ridiculous request for a narrative.
Wait... some of them tried?

[TheDaver]

The dumbest thing to me about the whole "pull it" argument other than the fact that it is NOT an industry standard term and that lie still has not died is the fact that Silverstein would NOT have the authority to make that call anyway.
Equally dumb is how Ron corrected the idiot in the video on that at least twice and he still kept repeating it.

[pomeroo]

Wait... some of them tried?


Alas, no--not one of them made any attempt. RedIbis is, as usual, lying.

[Crazytimes]

Thank you sir. I was just watching the discussions you had with Fetzer and Roberts yesterday. Great job.

I love how Fetzer claims a high powered laser did the damage to the towers. Truly INSANE.

Ron,

Are the other parts with the Fetzer, Roberts debate online ? I couldnt find them.

Thanks

[pomeroo]

Ron,

Are the other parts with the Fetzer, Roberts debate online ? I couldnt find them.

Thanks


Check Hardfire.net

Look for shows in 2007.

[Jonnyclueless]

So basically the reason that no truthers have ever been able to explain what happened (which is how research works) is because of Ron. Well Ron, paint me impressed. Not only is asking researchers for an explanation out of line, but you're interruptions are responsible from preventing an entire movement from presenting it's research.

[pomeroo]

So basically the reason that no truthers have ever been able to explain what happened (which is how research works) is because of Ron. Well Ron, paint me impressed. Not only is asking researchers for an explanation out of line, but you're interruptions are responsible from preventing an entire movement from presenting it's research.


Yet I can't collect a dime of the money the NWO owes me!

[adversity1]

There is a conspiracy theorist at about 24:35 in the video who makes a claim that the internal core columns bore the vast majority of the weight of the floors in WTC 1 and 2, and that the exterior columns were "an adjunct to that". This is, for lack of a better term, complete horse manure.

What he's implying is that the composite floor system acted as a cantilever from the edge of the core to the exterior walls. This could not be more false.

This seems to be a fixation of some of the truthers I'm arguing with recently. Can you go into more detail on how the exterior columns held the weight of the building? Truthers seem to be believe that the 47 core columns were solid from basement to the top of the building and that they held the majority of weight. I even had a (former) friend tell me that even if the building fell over you would still have the core columns standing there, lol.

[Minadin]

Can you go into more detail on how the exterior columns held the weight of the building?

Absolutely.

First off, you should realize that, true to form, the conspiracy theorists get a number of things wrong, right off the bat. They don't understand how a trussed floor system works, at all. A truss works because the bottom chord is in tension and the top in compression. It works very well in a composite floor system such as what we had at the WTC because the concrete deck on top and the steel trusses below work in concert. Concrete is very strong in compression but not so good in tension. However, in order for the compression forces to be on top, the truss has to be supported at both ends - otherwise it wants to deflect the other way and puts the tensile forces at the top of the composite system. Not that there's really any good way to cantilever trusses of that length even if that weren't the case, mind you.

Now, because we know that the trusses must be supported at both ends, we know that the loads must be propogated there as well. But, how much? The answer is that half of the area between the core column and the exterior wall is tributary to each. In a very simple model of a typical floor, what you have is a 208'-0" x 208'-0" footprint, giving us roughly 43,000 square feet of floor area. The core in the center is 88'-0" x 138'-0" and takes up about 12,000 square feet. Of the remaining 31,000 square feet on the outside of the core, roughly 18,000 square feet of floor is bearing vertically on the exterior columns. If you figure about 120 lbs of load per square foot, which isn't atypical, that's more than 2 million lbs. per floor.


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1253248eb978c2f33d.gif

[adversity1]

Minadin, thank you very much for that reply. I'm a complete amateur in terms of architecture, so it took me a little bit to look up the terms and understand what you're talking about, but I think I get it for the most part.

First,

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/Wtc_floor_truss_system.png/800px-Wtc_floor_truss_system.png

When you say the bottom cord is in tension in a truss system, you're talking about the bottom of each little triangle right? The concrete weighs down on the steel trusses which would push them outwards except that they are bounded by the perimeter columns.

However, in order for the compression forces to be on top, the truss has to be supported at both ends - otherwise it wants to deflect the other way and puts the tensile forces at the top of the composite system. Not that there's really any good way to cantilever trusses of that length even if that weren't the case, mind you.

You lost me here though. What do you mean by the tensilie forces going to the top of the composite system? Also, by cantilevering trusses?

Now, because we know that the trusses must be supported at both ends, we know that the loads must be propogated there as well. But, how much? The answer is that half of the area between the core column and the exterior wall is tributary to each. In a very simple model of a typical floor, what you have is a 208'-0" x 208'-0" footprint, giving us roughly 43,000 square feet of floor area. The core in the center is 88'-0" x 138'-0" and takes up about 12,000 square feet. Of the remaining 31,000 square feet on the outside of the core, roughly 18,000 square feet of floor is bearing vertically on the exterior columns. If you figure about 120 lbs of load per square foot, which isn't atypical, that's more than 2 million lbs. per floor.

I follow you here, but when you say that the weight of half the area between the core column and the exterior wall would be distributed to the exterior columns, this means that the other half would go to the 47 core columns right? So this means that the exterior columns and the 47 core columns are essentially holding the same amount of weight right?

Also, how were the core columns constructed? Were they one-floor high steel columns bolted together vertically? Or were they longer?

Sorry for the stupid questions...

[Minadin]

Minadin, thank you very much for that reply. I'm a complete amateur in terms of architecture, so it took me a little bit to look up the terms and understand what you're talking about, but I think I get it for the most part.

First,

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/Wtc_floor_truss_system.png/800px-Wtc_floor_truss_system.png

When you say the bottom cord is in tension in a truss system, you're talking about the bottom of each little triangle right? The concrete weighs down on the steel trusses which would push them outwards except that they are bounded by the perimeter columns.


You're mostly right so far. When I say the bottom chord, I mean the two little steel angle pieces you see at the bottom of those trusses that run lengthwise and span the triangles. The concrete, and other things on top of it, push down due to gravity, and since it's supported on each end and they're "fixed" vertically, the middle part deflects (bends) downward slightly. This means that the bottom part become longer than if there were no load at all, and the top part becomes slightly shorter. The forces are pulling out at the bottom and pushing in on the top. When they are pushing in, it's compression, when they're pulling out, it's tension.

You lost me here though. What do you mean by the tensilie forces going to the top of the composite system? Also, by cantilevering trusses?

A cantilever is a structural object that is only fixed on one end. The other is left dangling in space. In the case of a cantilever, if the load is universally applied over its length, it wants to bend down the most at its unsupported end. This means that the top chord of the truss is what wants to lengthen instead of the bottom one - so - the forces are reversed.

I follow you here, but when you say that the weight of half the area between the core column and the exterior wall would be distributed to the exterior columns, this means that the other half would go to the 47 core columns right? So this means that the exterior columns and the 47 core columns are essentially holding the same amount of weight right?

That would seem to follow logically, but actually, it's wrong. It's the area of half the distance, not half the area. I apologize for not stating that clearly. In the case of a donut inside a donut like we're talking about here, the outer donut is actually more area than the inner one. If you're just talking about the area between the core and the perimeter, the perimeter is taking about 60% of the load. (58%)

However, if you're talking about the entire area of each floor, the core is taking more because the part of the floor that's inside the core isn't tributary to the exterior columns at all. If you look at the whole, the core columns are taking 58% of that to the perimeter's 42%. Still, 42% is a substantial amount of the total load, and that's my main beef with calling that part of the structure "adjunct".

Also, how were the core columns constructed? Were they one-floor high steel columns bolted together vertically? Or were they longer?

I would have to look into it in the case of the Twin Towers. Sometimes there are columns which are continuous for a few storeys, and sometimes they only reach one. You may rest assured, however, that there were no 1,300+ ft long columns anywhere in the WTC - or anywhere else. The size of the structure we use is typically limited by what can be delivered by flatbed truck, rail car, or barge. Flatbed truck trailers are typically about 52' long. You can have oversized loads - they had 60' trusses in at least one direction on most WTC 1 & 2 floors - but there's no way to maneuver a quarter-mile long steel column through downtown New York. Plus, it would bend and sag all over the place at that unsupported length . . . and, of course, there's no feasible way to manufacture it either.

Sorry for the stupid questions...

Don't be - I'm glad you're interested in the responses.

[Comsat Angel]

You really want to run through this stuff for the thousandth time? As has been established, "pull it" IS a demolition term when it refers to attaching cables to a small structure and literally pulling it off its center of gravity. It IS NOT a demolition term when it is used, as conspiracy liars use it, to mean "blow up the building." Jowenko's English is not bad, but I'm quite sure that he knows nothing about what is and is not industry jargon here in the U.S. That he mentioned Silverstein's words suggests to me that all of his knowledge of the collapse of WTC 7 comes from fantasists.

The embarrassing fraud "Swing Dangler" fled the forum after I exposed his deception with the woman at Robinette Demolition. He falsely claimed, as you may recall, that she stated that even though demolition professionals do not recognize "pull it" as slang for "use explosives to bring down the building," people outside the industry do use the expression. I called her and established that the only people who ever misuse the expression are conspiracy liars who invented the bogus spin to smear an innocent man. People outside the demolition industry, as most of us understand, do not use industry jargon.

As I explained to "Swing Dangler," I, unlike Rob Balsamo, do not record phone conversations without asking for permission. I presented a list of companies I called to confirm that no one who works in demolition swallows the fantasy movement's snake oil. You can be the first conspiracy liar to find a demolition company that contradicts my findings. It's quite simple: Google the names of a few dozen companies and start dialing. I suspect that our dear departed friend Swing Dangler made a few attempts and noticed how the wind was blowing.

I was a bit curious as to why the oleaginous Swing wasn't posting any more, when he'd been a rather repellent fixture here - so I went and read that thread. You're very nearly correct - after that roasting, basting, carving and serving he got back in May, he posted only once more six weeks later. Since then - no posts. And this is from someone with a (pre-Pomeroo) average of over 70 per month ! In fact his last activity is from over 3 weeks ago. I wonder if he'll return and pretend the other thread never happened?

[RedIbis]

You really want to run through this stuff for the thousandth time? As has been established, "pull it" IS a demolition term when it refers to attaching cables to a small structure and literally pulling it off its center of gravity. It IS NOT a demolition term when it is used, as conspiracy liars use it, to mean "blow up the building." Jowenko's English is not bad, but I'm quite sure that he knows nothing about what is and is not industry jargon here in the U.S. That he mentioned Silverstein's words suggests to me that all of his knowledge of the collapse of WTC 7 comes from fantasists.

The embarrassing fraud "Swing Dangler" fled the forum after I exposed his deception with the woman at Robinette Demolition. He falsely claimed, as you may recall, that she stated that even though demolition professionals do not recognize "pull it" as slang for "use explosives to bring down the building," people outside the industry do use the expression. I called her and established that the only people who ever misuse the expression are conspiracy liars who invented the bogus spin to smear an innocent man. People outside the demolition industry, as most of us understand, do not use industry jargon.

As I explained to "Swing Dangler," I, unlike Rob Balsamo, do not record phone conversations without asking for permission. I presented a list of companies I called to confirm that no one who works in demolition swallows the fantasy movement's snake oil. You can be the first conspiracy liar to find a demolition company that contradicts my findings. It's quite simple: Google the names of a few dozen companies and start dialing. I suspect that our dear departed friend Swing Dangler made a few attempts and noticed how the wind was blowing.

Well Ron, it looks as if "pull" is a verb used to describe the CD of a building. Here's yet another example:

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/english/200109/16/eng20010916_80348.html

The 62.2-meter-high building, built in 1986, has over 100 apartments. With the inside and outside walls as thick as 20 centimeters and 30 centimeters respectively, about 510 kg of explosives were used to pull down the Y-shaped tower building.

Not with cables, but with explosives.

[dtugg]

Wow, the best proof that Red can find that "pull" is industry jargon in the United States for destroying a building with explosives is from a seven year old article from some paper in China? I am impressed.


Oh, and by the way, did they manage to do it in a few hours as the building was a raging inferno with nobody noticing?

[RedIbis]

Wow, the best proof that Red can find that "pull" is industry jargon in the United States for destroying a building with explosives is from a seven year old article from some paper in China? I am impressed.


Oh, and by the way, did they manage to do it in a few hours as the building was a raging inferno with nobody noticing?

True, it is an old article, the same week of 9/11.

[MarkyX]

True, it is an old article, the same week of 9/11.

Yes and it is an old article written by a reporter in China, not someone within a controlled demolition company.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Well Ron, it looks as if "pull" is a verb used to describe the CD of a building. Here's yet another example:

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/english/200109/16/eng20010916_80348.html
The 62.2-meter-high building, built in 1986, has over 100 apartments. With the inside and outside walls as thick as 20 centimeters and 30 centimeters respectively, about 510 kg of explosives were used to pull down the Y-shaped tower building.


Not with cables, but with explosives.

This is sad even for a truther. The truther claim is that "pull" is a demolition industry term, this is not a demolition industry publication and "pull" isn't being used to describe the entire process or even the final act of hitting the button.

[JamesB]

You do not understand the difference between "pull" and "pull down"?

If Silverstein had said "pull it down" you might have a point, but he didn't, so you don't.

[RedIbis]

Yes and it is an old article written by a reporter in China, not someone within a controlled demolition company.

Neither Larry nor whatever commander he spoke to is "someone within a controlled demolition company" either.

I was being sarcastic when I called it old since it proves the term was in current use during the week of the attacks.

[MarkyX]

Neither Larry nor whatever commander he spoke to is "someone within a controlled demolition company" either.


Thank you for admitting that your entire argument is pointless.

[RedIbis]

Thank you for admitting that your entire argument is pointless.

I suppose that would make sense if but for the fact that it is used within and without the industry. Despite Ron's ranting and raving to the contrary, the infinitive has been used to describe controlled demolition. These lists have been posted over and over, so please find them by search.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Neither Larry nor whatever commander he spoke to is "someone within a controlled demolition company" either.

Ergo, they were not using demolition industry terminology.

Ergo, the claims by you truthers that "pull" is a demo industry term is false.

Ergo, they were not discussing destroying the building.

[TexasJack]

I suppose that would make sense if but for the fact that it is used within and without the industry. Despite Ron's ranting and raving to the contrary, the infinitive has been used to describe controlled demolition. These lists have been posted over and over, so please find them by search.

You can't have it both ways, let me ask you, is "pull it" a term you would use to describe demolishing a building?

[RedIbis]

You can't have it both ways, let me ask you, is "pull it" a term you would use describe to demolish a building?

Since there are many sources within and outside of the industry that use the infinitive to pull, to describe controlled demolition, then I would say yes. It's not as uncommon as Ron would have you believe.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Despite Ron's ranting and raving to the contrary, the infinitive has been used to describe controlled demolition.

Yes, it has been used as an adjective to describe the demolition of a structure, but it is still not the technical term for the procedure.

it is used within and without the industry.

Yes... like firefighters who use that word to describe removing personnel in danger to a safe location.

[JamesB]

Why are you guys arguing this with him? The example he cited did not say "pull" it said "pull down". You could literally use just about any transitive verb with "down" to describe destroying a building... "bring down", "take down", "drive down", push down", "pull down", "walk down", "crash down", "sit down" etc. The verb itself is not what is describing the action in this case. Red knows this, he is just being dishonest. It is pointless to argue with him.

[TexasJack]

Since there are many sources within and outside of the industry that use the infinitive to pull, to describe controlled demolition, then I would say yes. It's not as uncommon as Ron would have you believe.

Come on now, you are honestly going to tell me, prior to 911, you would use the term "pull it" to demolish a building? What per cent of the people in the US would use that term? My guess would be that 99.99% would not use that term.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Since there are many sources within and outside of the industry that use the infinitive to pull, to describe controlled demolition, then I would say yes. It's not as uncommon as Ron would have you believe.

Do you understand the difference between "describing" something and the the use of a technical term to identify it?

Let me give you an example, a few years ago, I had a doctor "pull" my galbladder from my body.

"Pull" describes what he did with my gallbladder but it does not identify the procedure he performed. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the term which identifies what he did.

[RedIbis]

[QUOTE]Yes, it has been used as an adjective to describe the demolition of a structure, but it is still not the technical term for the procedure.

So?


Yes... like firefighters who use that word to describe removing personnel in danger to a safe location.

Really? I'd like to see an example of a plural antecedent referred to by a singular pronoun in that situation.

[RedIbis]

Why are you guys arguing this with him? The example he cited did not say "pull" it said "pull down". You could literally use just about any transitive verb with "down" to describe destroying a building... "bring down", "take down", "drive down", push down", "pull down", "walk down", "crash down", "sit down" etc. The verb itself is not what is describing the action in this case. Red knows this, he is just being dishonest. It is pointless to argue with him.

By this logic would firefighters actually be pulled out of the building or would they exit under their own power?

And no, your list of possible verbs were not used. The verb pull was used to describe the demo of the building.

Again, there are experts in the industry, journalists reporting controlled demolition and a real estate developer all describing the same thing.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Really? I'd like to see an example of a plural antecedent referred to by a singular pronoun in that situation.


"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 pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
- Larry Silverstein

[RedIbis]

"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 pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
- Larry Silverstein

Exactly. You can't come up with any other time it's used that way.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Exactly. You can't come up with any other time it's used that way.

You asked for a singular example, I gave you one.

Please don't cry?

[dtugg]

So Red, are the FDNY in on it too? Although he didn't use the same term as Silverstein, Daniel Nigro describes the same action that all rational people know that Silverstein meant, getting the hell out of the area because building was going to collapse. And remember that he was talking about firefighters when he said "they" made the decision to pull.

Or maybe they were just idiots that were unwilling dupes of some super villain joo?

[JamesB]

Exactly. You can't come up with any other time it's used that way.

I am tired of your pointless posts. Cut it out.

There, are you happy now?

[A W Smith]

self loathing terrorist apologist Redibis lost this argument years ago, so why are you all debating him? Just let him make a post that exposes himself as the self loathing juvenile level fool he is and let it stand.

[RedIbis]

You asked for a singular example, I gave you one.

Please don't cry?

Well that's not how I was using the word singular, but that's beside the point. You couldn't come up with one.

[TexasJack]

"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 pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
- Larry Silverstein

Let's just cut to the chase, logical, rational people are going to interpret Silverstein's "pull it" as meaning the FDNY should pull its operation to try save the building. The "they" is the fire department. There is nothing close to resembling Silverstein or the FDNY of giving a command to CD the building. Case closed.

[Jonnyclueless]

Well that's not how I was using the word singular, but that's beside the point. You couldn't come up with one.

Perhaps you could show just one example of a demolition company using the term to referred to an explosive demolition. Just one.

[chillzero]

Just when you thought all the 'pull it' threads had been neatly coralled.... along comes another stray.

[Caustic Logic]

Aargh! Look, it's possible for someone to use "pull it" with a building. It's not normal, but sure, it can happen. This debate over terminology is stupid because no matter who has used what words and so on, only one context matters, and that's Silverstein's statement.

"we've had such a terrible loss of life" is the reasoning
he's talking to the fire commander
fire personnel were among those with the greatest loss of life
they were still inside WTC7 at this time, while everyone else was gone
they were trying to fight a fire, which couldn't be contained
The commander/FDNY/whoever exactly make a decision to pull something.

Hmmm... prevent loss of life... pull... a demolition would not save any lives once the building was evacuated, and would in fact kill the firefighters unless they were first, erm, pulled out.

YES, Silverstein phrased himself strangely, so that grammatically he seems to say pull the building, but this makes no sense. Informationally, he said something else that does make sense.

So, intrepid Truthers, go find us someone else somewhere using the word "pull" in reference to a building demolition with bombs. That'll prove... something.

[Caustic Logic]

By this logic would firefighters actually be pulled out of the building or would they exit under their own power?

Well duh, they were pulled out with cables. Didn't you see where they showed with tower 6 what pull means?

ETA: I get what you mean with singular Red. Pull IT. That is a stumper, eh? He didn't say "them." So he must've been admitting to the demo order on TV huh? Couldn't IT be the effort to stop the fire? Nah, that's just absurd.

[Mince]

Just when you thought all the 'pull it' threads had been neatly coralled.... along comes another stray.

What's funny is people debating the meaning of what someone else said. Instead of asking the source, they waste bandwidth with speculation and apparent mind reading. What ridiculous and arrogant presumption it is to profess to know what Silverstein meant by the words "pull it." Trutherism at is finest.

"There's been such terrible loss of life..." How is demolishing the building going to prevent further loss of life? If anything, it would add to it. This is the part of the quotation that truthers always ignore; and, of course, it immediately preceded "pull it."

Maybe there were no firefighters in the building but maybe Silverstein thought there were. Or maybe he meant to pull the firefighting operation.

It's so stupid and unproductive to debate what someone said when he is still alive and you can ask him. A novel concept truthers, I know.

If you don't believe his explanation, please prove he is lying or STFU. It's such ambiguity as this that truthers thrive on and use for the platform of their sad little "movement", though it hasn't "moved" beyond the internet, unless you include a few dozen people appearing once a year at ground zero to join Uncle Alex in the zombie-like chant "9/11 was an inside job."

[cyclonic]

Alex jones keeps the "pull it" myth alive with this new video, truthers confronting a BBC team and ron at ground zero, posted on infowars.


giXFIS6bNEI

http://www.infowars.com/?p=5142

[RedIbis]

So, intrepid Truthers, go find us someone else somewhere using the word "pull" in reference to a building demolition with bombs. That'll prove... something.

Will it really? Because it's been done.

Jack [Loizeaux] brought a basic knowledge of construction, engineering, and physics to his new science of implosion. More important, though, he brought the fascination and conviction of a true believer. Long before anyone else, he had faith in the power of explosives to help gravity do what it wants to do anyway: pull things down." -University of Georgia

[MarkyX]

Help gravity do what it wants to do anyway: pull things down.

Thank you for proving again that you have no argument.

[bynmdsue]

So Silverstein was on the phone with...gravity?

That's the only way RI's argument seems to work.

[Totovader]

Red has had a long time to come up with his complete timeline, but it appears that he's just inserted another red herring instead.

Red, are you going to provide your complete timeline, or not?

[Lennart Hyland]

I dont understand whats so bothering about BBC cutting Larrys statement? In what way does it completely change the meaning of it?

[Confuseling]

I'm going to say again that it makes absolutely no difference whether Silverstein meant "Pull the building down". The decision to pull down a building that has just had a substantial chunk of skyscraper land on it is a perfectly rational one, and one consistent with the objective of saving lives - the decision to pull out the firefighters implicitly contains the decision to later pull down the remains of the building; the fact that it fell down of its own accord instead is immaterial.

I don't know who made the decision, or indeed what was to be be decided upon, or what the decision was. I don't know what Silverstein meant. This is utterly, soul crushingly pointless. You are all banned from the interwebs for a period of one week - go outside.

:mad:

[RedIbis]

Red has had a long time to come up with his complete timeline, but it appears that he's just inserted another red herring instead.

Red, are you going to provide your complete timeline, or not?

Now that's the snapper calling the herring red.

[Totovader]

Now that's the snapper calling the herring red.

That's not an answer to my question. Are you going to now dodge the question again for another 5 pages?

Your complaint about not giving enough face time for people to present a complete timeline involving this impossibly vast conspiracy theory is obviously invalid. You've had plenty of time and you have simply dodged the question over and over. You can't present a timeline- no conspiracist can- because the story makes absolutely no sense at all.

You were given "the floor", you had your opportunity. You squandered it on a red herring you knew everyone would follow. This is your MO- and if anyone ever doubts it they can come back to this thread and see what you do when you're given an opportunity to make your case.

[RedIbis]

That's not an answer to my question. Are you going to now dodge the question again for another 5 pages?

Your complaint about not giving enough face time for people to present a complete timeline involving this impossibly vast conspiracy theory is obviously invalid. You've had plenty of time and you have simply dodged the question over and over. You can't present a timeline- no conspiracist can- because the story makes absolutely no sense at all.

You were given "the floor", you had your opportunity. You squandered it on a red herring you knew everyone would follow. This is your MO- and if anyone ever doubts it they can come back to this thread and see what you do when you're given an opportunity to make your case.

To borrow the most beloved accusation in this forum, you are a liar. I was not the one who brought pull it into this discussion, I responded to Ron with a specific example where the verb pull was used to describe CD. If you want to whine about derailing the discussion, start with him. Or start with yourself since your requests for a timeline are in fact a red herring, a silly one at that.

[Totovader]

If Ron was genuinely interested in hearing what these people had to say he wouldn't keep cutting them off each time they try to answer his ridiculous request for a narrative.

As if anyone is going to provide a complete timeline of events for the most complex day in American history in a few short minutes.

As I said before- and as at least 4 other people pointed out- you have had every opportunity to provide your timeline of the events, and have been unable to do so.

Your claim that Ron started the "pull it" red herring is a lie- and even if it was true, that doesn't excuse the fact that you have been dodging this question all along.

You can call me an ice cream cone for all I care- it doesn't change the fact that no conspiracist- yourself included- has been able to- nor would be able to- offer a complete coherent narrative. Period.

[Jonnyclueless]

To borrow the most beloved accusation in this forum, you are a liar. I was not the one who brought pull it into this discussion, I responded to Ron with a specific example where the verb pull was used to describe CD. If you want to whine about derailing the discussion, start with him. Or start with yourself since your requests for a timeline are in fact a red herring, a silly one at that.

No, hou were asked to present an example of A DEMOLITION COMPANY using the term pull it to refer to sing explosives to demolish a building. instead you presented an article from a China news page. That article was not written by a demolition company. I am sure you can find 100s or crackpots also using the term pull it to refer to a controlled demolition. That doesn't show that it's a term used by demolition companies.

[CptColumbo]

No, hou were asked to present an example of A DEMOLITION COMPANY using the term pull it to refer to sing explosives to demolish a building. instead you presented an article from a China news page. That article was not written by a demolition company. I am sure you can find 100s or crackpots also using the term pull it to refer to a controlled demolition. That doesn't show that it's a term used by demolition companies.However, wouldn't the context of the conversation mean that it would need to be a term used by firefighters?

[Jonnyclueless]

However, wouldn't the context of the conversation mean that it would need to be a term used by firefighters?

Not when you add in the nincompoopery factor.

[johnny karate]

So Silverstein was on the phone with...gravity?

That's the only way RI's argument seems to work.

My thought exactly. Classic.

[CptColumbo]

So Silverstein was on the phone with...gravity?

That's the only way RI's argument seems to work.
Silverstein: Hey Gravity, whatcha doin'?

Gravity: Workin'.

Silverstein: Don't you get a day off?

Gravity: Nope. If I did all the Yo-Yoes would stop working.

Silverstein: What do you mean "Yo-Yoes?"

Gravity: I really gotta go.
<click>

[pomeroo]

So?




Really? I'd like to see an example of a plural antecedent referred to by a singular pronoun in that situation.


When does lying become pathological? The singular pronoun "it" refers, as you know, to the CONTINGENT of rescue workers. You know this because it has been explained to you, oh, a thousand or so times. When you used to try this rather silly deception, people were embarrassed for you. Now, they shake their heads and wonder what is wrong with you. Could you explain the problem?

[pomeroo]

Aargh! Look, it's possible for someone to use "pull it" with a building. It's not normal, but sure, it can happen. This debate over terminology is stupid because no matter who has used what words and so on, only one context matters, and that's Silverstein's statement.

"we've had such a terrible loss of life" is the reasoning
he's talking to the fire commander
fire personnel were among those with the greatest loss of life
they were still inside WTC7 at this time, while everyone else was gone
they were trying to fight a fire, which couldn't be contained
The commander/FDNY/whoever exactly make a decision to pull something.

Hmmm... prevent loss of life... pull... a demolition would not save any lives once the building was evacuated, and would in fact kill the firefighters unless they were first, erm, pulled out.

YES, Silverstein phrased himself strangely, so that grammatically he seems to say pull the building, but this makes no sense. Informationally, he said something else that does make sense.

So, intrepid Truthers, go find us someone else somewhere using the word "pull" in reference to a building demolition with bombs. That'll prove... something.


You are encouraging the increasingly deranged RedIbis to continue his bizarre and thoroughly exploded deception. My purpose in contacting over two dozen demolition companies was to establish that no one who works in the industry recognizes "pull it" as slang for "blow up the building." It turns out that no one does.

We have established that firefighters use the expression "pull it" rather broadly. It can mean "remove personnel from an dangerous environment" or simply "stop operations." Larry Silverstein was conversing with a representative of the FDNY. He employed an expression that would be readily understood by a firefighter.

Note carefully the point that RedIbis, in Christophera fashion, cannot process, or, granting him his sanity, refuses to process: NOBODY--not the fire chief, not Larry Silverstein--is talking about demolition. The subject does not figure in the conversation. Silverstein is not asking the FDNY to blow up his building, as the request would be mad. The fire chief thinks that he is conveying the department's decision to stop rescue operations. He doesn't dream that he is saying anything about demolishing the building. The FDNY is not in that line of work.

Most importantly, please understand that RedIbis is well aware of these facts.

[RedIbis]

Ron is employing proof by bolded text.

[pomeroo]

Will it really? Because it's been done.

Jack [Loizeaux] brought a basic knowledge of construction, engineering, and physics to his new science of implosion. More important, though, he brought the fascination and conviction of a true believer. Long before anyone else, he had faith in the power of explosives to help gravity do what it wants to do anyway: pull things down." -University of Georgia


The ridiculous fraud Swing Dangler used to present lists of expressions coupling the phrase "pull it" with a preposition. He never succeeded in showing that anyone who works in demolition ever used "pull it" to mean "blow up the building." When cornered, which is quite often, you are reduced to his failed approach. Let us acknowledge that neither you nor any other liar can find examples of the phrase "pull it" being used by a real demolition professional as your evil movement dishonestly pretends it is used.

[pomeroo]

Ron is employing proof.



UPDATE: Although the tactic of altering a post is used frequently, it is against the rules. Nobody else is ever called on it, but that doesn't mean I won't be. I'll try a different approach.

As extracting a substantive response from RedIbis is famously difficult, I will offer him a multiple-choice question. Which of the following assertions do you disagree with:

a) the assertion that "pull it" is not recognized as industry jargon by demolition professionals;

b) the assertion that FDNY does not blow up buildings;

c) the assertion that "pull it" is firefighter lingo;

d) the assertion that neither Silverstein nor the fire chief were talking about demolition.

e) the assertion that the "it" in "the smartest thing to do would be to pull it" is the contingent of firefighters/rescue workers.


I share the exasperation of other rationalists here. There must be something that you actually believe--something beyond your habitual word games.

[RedIbis]

The ridiculous fraud Swing Dangler used to present lists of expressions coupling the phrase "pull it" with a preposition. He never succeeded in showing that anyone who works in demolition ever used "pull it" to mean "blow up the building." When cornered, which is quite often, you are reduced to his failed approach. Let us acknowledge that neither you nor any other liar can find examples of the phrase "pull it" being used by a real demolition professional as your evil movement dishonestly pretends it is used.

I don't think the preposition takes precedence over the verb, especially as the purpose of demolition is not to blow things up, as you suggest, but to pull things down.

But you already knew that.

[A W Smith]

Illinois Firefighters Pull Woman From Blaze (http://cms.firehouse.com/web/online/News/Illinois-Firefighters-Pull-Woman-From-Blaze/46$61049)

Firefighters pull unconscious boy from burning building (http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2008/03/firefighters_pull_unconscious.html)

Haverhill firefighters pull man from Merrimack River (http://www.eagletribune.com/punewshh/local_story_275230448.html)

2 Firefighters, Persevering, Pull Owner From Rubble (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/11/nyregion/11rescue.html)

Firefighters pull deer from icy Huron River (http://blog.mlive.com/annarbornews/2008/01/firefighters_pull_deer_from_ic.html)

News, Firefighters pull cat's head from jar (http://www.city-data.com/forum/cats/394595-news-firefighters-pull-cats-head-jar.html).

Firefighters pull chained man out of burning house (http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/04/firefighters-pu.html)

New Orleans firefighters pull man out of car after 10 minutes under water (http://www.wwltv.com/topstories/stories/wwl050808tpmetrycab.dfd927e2.html)

I can go on and on, But the most difficult pull of all would be to pull the head of a self loathing trolling truther out of its own ass.

[RedIbis]

Illinois Firefighters Pull Woman From Blaze (http://cms.firehouse.com/web/online/News/Illinois-Firefighters-Pull-Woman-From-Blaze/46$61049)

Firefighters pull unconscious boy from burning building (http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2008/03/firefighters_pull_unconscious.html)

Haverhill firefighters pull man from Merrimack River (http://www.eagletribune.com/punewshh/local_story_275230448.html)

2 Firefighters, Persevering, Pull Owner From Rubble (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/11/nyregion/11rescue.html)

Firefighters pull deer from icy Huron River (http://blog.mlive.com/annarbornews/2008/01/firefighters_pull_deer_from_ic.html)

News, Firefighters pull cat's head from jar (http://www.city-data.com/forum/cats/394595-news-firefighters-pull-cats-head-jar.html).

Firefighters pull chained man out of burning house (http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/04/firefighters-pu.html)

New Orleans firefighters pull man out of car after 10 minutes under water (http://www.wwltv.com/topstories/stories/wwl050808tpmetrycab.dfd927e2.html)

I can go on and on, But the most difficult pull of all would be to pull the head of a self loathing trolling truther out of its own ass.

And in none of those instances are we talking about a group of firefighters vacating a bldg. But don't let that get in the way.

[pomeroo]

And in none of those instances are we talking about a group of firefighters vacating a bldg. But don't let that get in the way.


Okay, we have established that the verb "to pull' exists in the English language and that headline writers are capable of using it correctly. Now, if you have not lost your mind, you must be attempting to make some sort of point. What can it be?

The argument is that firefighters talk about "pulling" when they mean stopping operations or removing personnel from a dangerous environment. Is there any reason to believe that they don't actually do so, in the face of numerous examples showing them doing just that?

The second argument is that demolition professionals do not recognize "pull it" as industry jargon for "blow up the building." I have contacted over two dozen demolition companies; you, by contrast, refuse to make a single phone call. Do you dispute my conclusion, and if so, why are you unwilling to make any effort to refute it?

[A W Smith]

And in none of those instances are we talking about a group of firefighters vacating a bldg. But don't let that get in the way.


Firefighters pull back in San Diego County (http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2003/10/28/news/breaking/0_10_28_035_52_00.txt)

Roof collapse forces pullback from apartment fire (http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080921/LOCAL/809210384)

Crews pull back from fire in Arizona (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_/ai_n11399982)

I could go on and on Redibis, Butt just how much anal ease is it gonna take?

[pomeroo]

I don't think the preposition takes precedence over the verb, especially as the purpose of demolition is not to blow things up, as you suggest, but to pull things down.

But you already knew that.


You were beaten to a pulp the last few times you attempted this extremely silly deception. You can't play these childish games without knowing much more about grammar than you do. Please stop this nonsense. NOBODY who works in demolition recognizes "pull it" to mean "bring down with explosives"--nobody! We've been over this countless times. The phrase, as has been drummed into your ears repeatedly, refers to attaching cables to a relatively small structure. You are well aware of these facts.

The fire chief informed Silverstein that operations were being halted. Silverstein agreed with the wisdom of that decision, saying that in view of the great loss of life, getting the men out of harm's way was the smartest thing to do. Nobody--absolutely nobody!--was talking about demolition. The concept is not present in the conversation between Silverstein and the fire chief.

Really, you must quit.

[Dave Rogers]

Ron is employing proof by bolded text.

That's a bit naughty, Ron, doesn't Christopher7 have a patent on it?

Dave

[pomeroo]

That's a bit naughty, Ron, doesn't Christopher7 have a patent on it?

Dave


Well, I'm upset with him. I wanted to visit 18th century London and have some fun with Boswell and Dr. Johnson. I applied for a patent on my time machine, only to find out that Christopher7 beat me to it.

[pomeroo]

I have been asked about the second 'Hardfire' taped at Ground Zero. Uh, there ain't gonna be a second show. There were problems with the camera and the bottom line is that we don't have a half-hour of material left. We have a few loons ranting about George Bush, but they don't add much.

I am truly sorry. Looking at the bright side, the liars can always pretend that we found that elusive twoofer who can destroy all the mainstream arguments and establish definitively that the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy perpetrated the evil deed. Naturally, we'd have to suppress that! I confess that I offered the guy ten bucks not to take his blockbuster evidence to a real news outlet. Given a choice between everlasting fame and my ten bucks, he predictably snapped up the latter.

[Jonnyclueless]

And in none of those instances are we talking about a group of firefighters vacating a bldg. But don't let that get in the way.

Still waiting for you to provide an example of a demolition company using the term "pull it" to refer to a controlled demolition using explosives.

[Caustic Logic]

You are encouraging the increasingly deranged RedIbis to continue his bizarre and thoroughly exploded deception.

I certainly didn't mean to. Hey, Red Ibis, it was a sarcastic challenge, to make a point. You didn't see that?

Most importantly, please understand that RedIbis is well aware of these facts.

Perhaps that's why he won't address the informational context, instead focusing on the violations of grammar, after this whole issue, as odd as it seems at first glance, has been thoroughly debunked and totally obvious for like five years now.

My purpose in contacting over two dozen demolition companies was to establish that no one who works in the industry recognizes "pull it" as slang for "blow up the building." It turns out that no one does.

And my point, as limited in value as it is, is this: on the off-chance anyone can ever find a case of industry professional who has used the term, in slang or otherwise, to refer to just what they think happened at tower 7, it still has no bearing on the context of the term's usage by Mr. S. on 9/11 (or in his memory of that discussion, anyway). Which was clearly about pulling the plug on an operation and/or pulling out the people doing it.

That's the last time I want to type anything on the subject, man... time has no effect here.

[Caustic Logic]

I confess that I offered the guy ten bucks not to take his blockbuster evidence to a real news outlet. Given a choice between everlasting fame and my ten bucks, he predictably snapped up the latter.

Did you seriously do this to someone? That'd be hillarious.

[RKOwens4]

Ron, you mention in the video that Ace Baker was wearing a Godzilla puppet on his head. This is from some video I shot talking to the guy in the "TV Fakery" shirt, where a guy with some kind of green monster on his head is also seen. Was this Ace Baker? I didn't recognize him on the day but I guess he could have shaved his Kenny G hair.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3050/2935180719_082aafe60d_o.jpg

Also, is the guy in the TV fakery shirt Nico Haupt, the guy who almost got his ass kicked by Luke Rudowski of all people? It was hilarious talking to him about no-planery and hearing him go on about fly-bys. Also notice his stupid paper mask with cut-out eye holes. You can't make this stuff up!

[Walter Ego]

Ron, you mention in the video that Ace Baker was wearing a Godzilla puppet on his head. This is from some video I shot talking to the guy in the "TV Fakery" shirt, where a guy with some kind of green monster on his head is also seen. Was this Ace Baker? I didn't recognize him on the day but I guess he could have shaved his Kenny G hair.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3050/2935180719_082aafe60d_o.jpg

Also, is the guy in the TV fakery shirt Nico Haupt, the guy who almost got his ass kicked by Luke Rudowski of all people? It was hilarious talking to him about no-planery and hearing him go on about fly-bys. Also notice his stupid paper mask with cut-out eye holes. You can't make this stuff up!

Is any of the video you shot going to end up on YouTube?

[RKOwens4]

Is any of the video you shot going to end up on YouTube?

Yeah, pretty much everything that I shot will be up on YouTube as soon as I finish editing it all together. It'll be kind of like Mark Roberts's hilarious "The Ground Zeros" video, with actual video along with written text and pictures added here and there where needed. I'm about halfway done, but it's taking a lot longer than I'd thought. I'd planned on it being about 20 minutes long, then about 30 minutes long, now it looks like it'll be about 60 minutes long.

That's what happens when you spend way too much time talking to these people, you end up with a huge amount of video that takes forever to edit together. Eh, Ron?

[Walter Ego]

Yeah, pretty much everything that I shot will be up on YouTube as soon as I finish editing it all together. It'll be kind of like Mark Roberts's hilarious "The Ground Zeros" video, with actual video along with written text and pictures added here and there where needed. I'm about halfway done, but it's taking a lot longer than I'd thought. I'd planned on it being about 20 minutes long, then about 30 minutes long, now it looks like it'll be about 60 minutes long.


You might want to think of uploading the complete video to Google which allows for longer videos. They have a neat little uploader utility that makes the job fairly painless. PM me if you need more information.