'Pull It'

[JAStewart]

CT'ers, as you know, often use the Larry Silverstein interview where he says 'Pull it' as evidence that WTC7 was rigged. This point was made on the Loose Change forums:

OCTs (skeptics) say that the word "pull" when used in demo terms is slang for only meaning pulling a building down with cables.

So what's the demo slang for using explosives to demolish a building? Don't tell me there isn't one!

So I decided to find out what the demo slag was for using explosives. Something that KT didn't seem capable of. I sent out a few emails:

Hey I had a question regarding demolition Jargon - I understand "pull it" means to literally pull down the building with cables, but what is term for when a building is demolished by explosives?

Thank you, James.

Here is the first, hasty reply:

“Implosion”

Sent to me by Stacey Loizeaux <ssl-at-controlled-demolition.com>

I just thought i'd share this with you all, cheers.

[Loss Leader]

I think they say, "Make rocket go, now."

[Oliver]

Listen to the firefighters at WTC7...
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi

[uruk]

Does "pull it" have the same meaning to a firefighter than it does to a demolition tech?

[bjb]

OCTs (skeptics) say that the word "pull" when used in demo terms is slang for only meaning pulling a building down with cables.

Once again, Killtown is using a strawman arguement. Skeptics don't recognize the word 'pull' as having been used in terms of demolition. The word was used in relation to the firefighting team that had been fighting the fire at WTC 7.

The use of the word 'pull' in the demolition world is irrelevant. Killtown might as well as what the word 'pull' means in skeet shooting!

[Loss Leader]

How about this: Did Silverstein ever say "pull it" to anyone? All we know is that he told a reporter that he had agreed with the FDNY to "pull it." We don't even know if he said those words to the FDNY.

I'm given to understand that the concept of "pulling" has to do with aborting a military operation. To "pull" a mission is to end it prematurely. So, Sileverstein was properly employing a bit of miltary jargon left over from his youth during WWII.

[Gravy]

CT'ers, as you know, often use the Larry Silverstein interview where he says 'Pull it' as evidence that WTC7 was rigged. This point was made on the Loose Change forums:

So I decided to find out what the demo slag was for using explosives. Something that KT didn't seem capable of. I sent out a few emails:

Here is the first, hasty reply:

“Implosion”

Sent to me by Stacey Loizeaux <ssl-at-controlled-demolition.com>

I just thought i'd share this with you all, cheers.Good to know they're keeping a sense of humor at CDI!

JA, I devote a section of my WTC 7 paper to this issue (summary: "Pull it" is not a term that's ever used for explosive demolitions.) http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

[jhunter1163]

The use of the word 'pull' in the demolition world is irrelevant. Killtown might as well as what the word 'pull' means in skeet shooting!

My little brother once showed my dad a box of skeet loads (which had a picture of a bird on it, which my little brother assumed to be a skeet) and told my dad that he was going to go hunt skeet.

My dad said "OK son.. remember the skeet call, it's "Pull! Pull! Pull!" They'll come over like they were shot out of a cannon or something."

I wonder if the CT call is "Pull it! Pull it! Pull it!"

[pgwenthold]

Has anyone ever asked Silverstein what he meant when he said "pull it"?

[Spins]

Has anyone ever asked Silverstein what he meant when he said "pull it"?

Allegation: 9/11 Revealed suggests that the 47-story World Trade Center 7 building, which collapsed at 5:20 pm on September 11, was intentionally demolished. The primary piece of evidence for this is a comment that Mr. Larry Silverstein, who owned the World Trade Center complex, made on the September 2002 television documentary American Rebuilds. Mr. Silverstein said:

I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, "We've had such terrible loss of life that the smartest thing to do is just pull it." And they made that decision to pull it and we watched the [World Trade Center 7] building collapse.

9/11 Revealed and other conspiracy theorists put forward the notion that Mr. Silverstein's suggestion to "pull it" is slang for intentionally demolishing the WTC 7 building.


Facts: On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement on this issue:Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, "I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it." Mr. McQuillan has stated that by "it," Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology has stated unequivocally, "NIST has seen so evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition," in its Collapse of WTC 7 (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/archives.htm) report (p. 6). NIST's working hypothesis for the collapse of WTC 7 is that it was caused by the collapse of a critical column due to "fire and/or debris induced structural damage." There was substantial damage to WTC 7 when the nearby WTC 1 tower collapsed and fires began shortly afterwards. Also, WTC 7 was a very unusual building because it was built over an existing Con-Edison power generation substation, which contained two large 6,000 gallon fuel tanks for the emergency generation of power. The fuel from these tanks could have contributed to the intense heat that apparently weakened the supporting columns in WTC 7.

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html

[stateofgrace]

I really don't see the big deal over this remark at all, it is abundantly clear he is talking about the fire fighting operation.

Admittedly it was said in a kind of off hand way but it in no way implicates him in this ridiculous plot.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Has anyone ever asked Silverstein what he meant when he said "pull it"?

Yep:

On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement on this issue:

Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html

[personable]

It seems to me that any instruction to a fire chief, including "pull it" would have its meaning restricted to the limitation of the fire department's capabilities.

Removing his firefighters from a building is one of them. Is covert controlled demolition within the fire department's remit?

Bear in mind that firefighters are really not the most educated of people and such people do not tend to keep secrets very well. If they had been used to employ these tactics on this building I imagine there would be numerous credible testimonies as to what type and size of devices were used and I don't believe there has been.

[HeyLeroy]

It seems to me that any instruction to a fire chief, including "pull it" would have its meaning restricted to the limitation of the fire department's capabilities.

Removing his firefighters from a building is one of them. Is covert controlled demolition within the fire department's remit?

Bear in mind that firefighters are really not the most educated of people and such people do not tend to keep secrets very well. If they had been used to employ these tactics on this building I imagine there would be numerous credible testimonies as to what type and size of devices were used and I don't believe there has been.

I dunno where you live, but here, a firefighter is required to have a college degree.

[Alt+F4]

I dunno where you live, but here, a firefighter is required to have a college degree.

To be a FDNY fire fighter you only need 15 college credits or military experience. With that said, education has little to do with intelligence or the ability to keep a secret.

[R.Mackey]

So I decided to find out what the demo slag was for using explosives. Something that KT didn't seem capable of. I sent out a few emails:

Here is the first, hasty reply:

“Implosion”

Sent to me by Stacey Loizeaux <ssl-at-controlled-demolition.com>

I just thought i'd share this with you all, cheers.
Since pretty much all 9/11 Deniers repeat themselves with the constancy of the Northern Star, I may as well warn you... "Implosion" is another word they get excited about with respect to WTC 7, because the FEMA Report (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf) uses it to describe the building collapse:

The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the facade was pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and implosion.

The NIST Preliminary (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf) does not use the word "implosion," but instead discusses "disproportionate global collapse."

The Troothers will have you believe that, since FEMA used the word "implosion," they implicitly agree that explosives were used. I tried to disabuse Killtown of this precise notion during his brief reign of error over here, but I'm sure he's retreated back into his cruel fantasies since then.

[Alt+F4]

The CTers favorite 9/11 “mystery” is the collapse of WTC 7, but it’s really the dumbest, most complicating idea they could come up with.

This is how it must of played out in August, 2001:

Silverstein: The WTC will be destroyed on September 11, 2001 and I need your help with something.
Mysterious Fire Commander: The WTC is going to be destroyed! I have to inform the proper authorities and stop this!
Silverstein: Did I mention your assistance will make you a very, very wealthy man?
Mysterious Fire Commander: I’ve devoted my career to public service and an attack on the WTC could possibly kill my fellow fire fighter friends, who on many occasions risked their own lives for mine. However, if your talking at least seven figures Larry, I’m in.
Silverstein: Good. What I need is for you and a few of your buddies to do is pull off a controlled demolition of WTC 7.
Mysterious Fire Commander: Controlled demolition? We’re fire fighters, not demolition experts.
Silverstein: Come on, you must know some people.
Mysterious Fire Commander: Well there is this guy in my poker game. He works for the most well known demolition company in the U.S. but rigging a job that big is gonna take a lot of people. How do we keep them all quite?
Silverstein: EVERYONE is willing to commit mass murder if they get paid well enough and it's a well known fact that fire fighters and demolition experts have no morals or principles anyway.
Mysterious Fire Commander: Ok, so we’ll pull it as soon as WTC 1 & 2 fall.
Silverstein: No, no, no. You have to wait for my ok. We may have to wait for several hours after the initial attack.
Mysterious Fire Commander: Why? Won’t that raise suspicion?
Silverstein: I didn’t get to be one of the largest real estate developers ever by listening to morons like you. After the initial attack I have to consult with my small army of accountants and insurance experts and see exactly how much I’ll profit if we destroy the building. It’s all about the numbers.
Mysterious Fire Commander: Wow Larry. Only you could pull off such a complicated plan and afford to pay hundreds of heartless, evil minions millions in bribes. If you ever need more help in your plan to take over the world don’t forget your friends at the FDNY!

[ponderingturtle]

Does "pull it" have the same meaning to a firefighter than it does to a demolition tech?

Is pull it, what he said or just what they want to hear when he said pull out? Very very close in terms of phonems, and easy to hear what you want to with a bit of background noise.

[Bell]

http://www.citynoise.org/upload/6516.jpg

[roger]

Let's think about it, change the wording to the possible meanings for "pull it", and see which sentence makes sense:

"We've had such terrible loss of life that the smartest thing to do is just evacuate it."

"We've had such terrible loss of life that the smartest thing to do is just blow it up to smithereens."


The first sentence makes sense. People have died fighting fires, so pull the firefighters out, and let nature take it's course. The people are more importnat than saving the building.

The second version makes no sense at all. How is blowing up a building a response to a statement of a lot of people dying. "What the hell are you talking about" is what anyone would say if they heard the second sentence. The second half of the phrase is a non sequitor.

[Gravy]

It seems to me that any instruction to a fire chief, including "pull it" would have its meaning restricted to the limitation of the fire department's capabilities.

Removing his firefighters from a building is one of them. Is covert controlled demolition within the fire department's remit?

Bear in mind that firefighters are really not the most educated of people and such people do not tend to keep secrets very well. If they had been used to employ these tactics on this building I imagine there would be numerous credible testimonies as to what type and size of devices were used and I don't believe there has been.
Hi, personable. Welcome to the forums.

A couple of points about your post

1) It's important to remember that Silverstein wasn't instructing the FDNY to do anything, nor did he have any authority over anything the FDNY did.

2) The FDNY people I know are very intelligent and highly trained. Firefighters here have to potentially deal with a mind-boggling array of hazards. I've read several comments from fire safety experts, and spoken to firefighters from elsewhere, who say that the FDNY is the best-trained in the world, but I have no way to gauge that. That said, you are absolutely right about the impossiblilty of keeping such a conspiracy quiet, especially when it would involve asking the firefighters to stop rescue operations in order to participate in a crime!

[Unfit4Command]

The whole idea that some CTs like using about how "pull it" somehow means to demolish a building with explosives is one of the most annoying theories I hear. Whenever I hear someone try to make that point I want to kick them in the face, then repeatedly kick them while they're lying on the ground, then knee drop their face, then pick them up and crack their ribs on my knee. jk.

But lately I've really been starting to realize that 90% of the people who believe the "pull it" thing are EXTREMELY un-educated on the subject, much like 90% of the whole Truth Movement. ugh, I wish people would do research on both sides before deciding which to believe.

[njslim]

PULL or PULL IT is common term among fire service. Have often heard
it over radio on fire ground here in New Jersey. It means conditions are
critical and time to get your men out to regroup and fight fire from
outside using master streams. It does not mean BLOW UP THE BUILDING!
Really get annoyed by gross stupidity

[pgwenthold]

I really don't see the big deal over this remark at all, it is abundantly clear he is talking about the fire fighting operation.



No, you are correct. This is really not a big deal at all. But for some reason, CT loons think it is.

They keep going on with this "pull it" meaning he wanted it destroyed. But we don't have to speculate.

We have this

On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement on this issue:

.
.
.

As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.]


That's it. It is done with. He has clarified exactly what he meant when he said "pull it." We don't have to discuss whether it is a fireman term or any such crap, or whether anyone knows how it is used in a CD. According to his spokesman, when Silverstein said that they decided to "pull it," he was refering to the firefighters inside.

Of course, CT morons will claim that he is lying, but what else can you do? It can't be any clearer.

[hellaeon]

I'm given to understand that the concept of "pulling" has to do with aborting a military operation. To "pull" a mission is to end it prematurely. So, Sileverstein was properly employing a bit of miltary jargon left over from his youth during WWII.

boom ching! I applaud you sir!

[hellaeon]

The whole idea that some CTs like using about how "pull it" somehow means to demolish a building with explosives is one of the most annoying theories I hear. Whenever I hear someone try to make that point I want to kick them in the face, then repeatedly kick them while they're lying on the ground, then knee drop their face, then pick them up and crack their ribs on my knee. jk.

But lately I've really been starting to realize that 90% of the people who believe the "pull it" thing are EXTREMELY un-educated on the subject, much like 90% of the whole Truth Movement. ugh, I wish people would do research on both sides before deciding which to believe.

Belief is what is applied to the CT. Facts and knowledge is applied as best as possible for the official story so there is no need to believe something.

:)

[Loss Leader]

boom ching! I applaud you sir!

Thanks, I'm here all week.

[Hamradioguy]

Does "pull it" have the same meaning to a firefighter than it does to a demolition tech?

The only thing close in firefighting is:
1. "Pull your men out." (i.e evacuate the building.)
2. "Pull the hook" (Go to the nearest alarm box-see Bell's photo
previously posted- and pull the handle....we need more
firefighters ASAP.) This term is regional I believe.

I've never heard the term "Pull it" used in demolition work.

BTW, I have 40 years firefighting experience including Chief of two different departments, and almost as many years working a bit with explosives- Have VT Explosives license number 008......

[gumboot]

One thing I find funny...

Why is it so obvious to CTers that a business man, talking to a fireman about fire-fighting operations, would use demolitions jargon.

That's illogical.

If a dentist is talking to an electrician about the wiring for his office, does he use astronaught slang?

When a postman is talking to a doctor about his medical treatment, do they use film industry slang?

So retarded, it's not funny.

-Gumboot

[Loss Leader]

If a dentist is talking to an electrician about the wiring for his office, does he use astronaut slang?


Electrician, Dentist.
Go, Dentist.
Electrician, we have reached LEO.
Very good, Dentist. You are go for MICO.
Copy, go for MICO. MICO in 3, 2 1 ... No joy. Electrician, we are no joy for MICO!
Dentist, we read you as no joy for MICO.
[unintelligible]
Dentist, UHF comm check.
(pause)
Dentist, UHF comm check.
(long pause)
Lock the doors.

[personable]

To be a FDNY fire fighter you only need 15 college credits or military experience. With that said, education has little to do with intelligence or the ability to keep a secret.

Interesting. Here in the UK, to become a firefighter you need nothing more than two arms, two legs and be able to explain why you want to join the fire brigade more than any of the other jobs that involve flashing blue lights and uniforms. But of course FDNY is the relevant example here, so 15 college credits is the level we're speaking about.

I don't think its quite correct to say education has little standing as far as intelligence or 'secret keeping' is concerned; there is a correlation. When one has invested a great deal of time and effort into his profession and is rewarded duly, he tends to understand the whys and the wherefores involved in any 'secret keeping'. People who are in the type of jobs you just 'walk into' have very little to lose and tend to have less scruples about betraying their employer. Look at disgruntled employees as a whole as an example - they generally tend to be from the lower spectrum of the workforce.

This is why I believe if the fire service were involved in a controlled demolition that we would be more likely to hear first from the blue collar firemen rather than say a fire chief. Since I'm quite sure we would have heard by now and we have not, then I believe there is no truth in this part of the CT.

[personable]

Whenever I hear someone try to make that point I want to kick them in the face...etc...


What does that tell you about your own argument?

[stateofgrace]

Interesting. Here in the UK, to become a firefighter you need nothing more than two arms, two legs and be able to explain why you want to join the fire brigade more than any of the other jobs that involve flashing blue lights and uniforms.

Really?

That's news to me. Are you implying the UK fire service is populated with below average intelligent people?

Have you ever tried to get into the fire service in the UK? Do you speak through personnel experience?

I think my mate who tried unsuccessfully on a number of times to get into the fire service may have some what differing views to you.

Please be very careful when you categorise entire professions this may, some people may take offence.

[firecoins]

To be a FDNY fire fighter you only need 15 college credits or military experience. With that said, education has little to do with intelligence or the ability to keep a secret.

http://nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/community/ff_eligibility_requirements_080106.shtml (http://nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/community/ff_eligibility_requirements_080106.shtml)

To be hired as a New York City Firefighter, you must:

Pass both the written and physical exams;
Pass a medical exam and background investigation;
Be at least 21 years of age;
Be a U.S. citizen;
Have at least 15 college semester credits earned as a result of satisfactory completion of course work at a college or university accredited by an accrediting body recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education and the Council for Higher Education or full time military service with an honorable discharge; or 6 months of full time, satisfactory paid work experience;
Hold a motor vehicle driver's license valid in New York State;
Be a resident of one of the five boroughs of New York City, or live in Nassau, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Suffolk or Westchester County;
Be a Certified First Responder with Defibrillation (CFR-D)*.

[maccy]

Interesting. Here in the UK, to become a firefighter you need nothing more than two arms, two legs and be able to explain why you want to join the fire brigade more than any of the other jobs that involve flashing blue lights and uniforms.

I think the London Fire Brigade would disagree with you on that:

Do you see yourself sliding down a pole and jumping onto a gleaming red fire engine? Then screaming off into the night, lights flashing and sirens blaring?
Think again. Nowadays there's more to being a professional firefighter than wearing a uniform and racing around. The emphasis for us is on preventing fires. This means firefighters helping to educate the community about the importance of fire safety.
Have a look at our questions (http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/recruitment/for_you.asp), designed to help you assess whether you're cut out to be a firefighter.
Clearly, it's still crucial to fight fires when they occur - and in fact, the London Fire Brigade is now better trained and better equipped than ever for this necessity.
We also get involved with serious emergency scenes. Road, rail and air traffic accidents call for our attendance, along with chemical spillages and floods - or rescue work where people are trapped in lifts or tunnels.
If you pass the necessary tests, you can look forward to a career that gives you the chance to form incredibly strong bonds with the rest of your team and touch the lives of many ordinary people


http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/recruitment/become_firefighter.asp

Being a firefighter seems an attractive job to many. We receive thousands of enquiries about it each year. In our selection process, we aim to avoid recruiting people only for them to discover after a short time that it is not what they expected.
Certain qualities needed to make an effective firefighter are not always immediately obvious.



http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/recruitment/for_you.asp

Also, details of the selection process:

http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/recruitment/general_fitness.asp

[gfunkusarelius]

how do they address the question that, if they (LC'ers) believe "pull it" means to blow up the building, why did he admit to it publicly in a recorded interview? are they saying he didn't realize he should be hiding that vital part of the conspiracy? do they just hope no one asks that question? i don't see how anyone can even take it seriously for a second.

[bjb]

Electrician, Dentist.
Go, Dentist.
Electrician, we have reached LEO.
Very good, Dentist. You are go for MICO.
Copy, go for MICO. MICO in 3, 2 1 ... No joy. Electrician, we are no joy for MICO!
Dentist, we read you as no joy for MICO.
[unintelligible]
Dentist, UHF comm check.
(pause)
Dentist, UHF comm check.
(long pause)
Lock the doors.

This is what happens when people try to use lingo intended for use by rocket scientists. The correct acronym is MECO, which stands for Main Engine CutOff.

[personable]

Really?

That's news to me. Are you implying the UK fire service is populated with below average intelligent people?

Have you ever tried to get into the fire service in the UK? Do you speak through personnel experience?

I think my mate who tried unsuccessfully on a number of times to get into the fire service may have some what differing views to you.

Please be very careful when you categorise entire professions this may, some people may take offence.


Perhaps my choice of words was a little flippant, and for that and that only, I will retract. It was not my intention to tar all firefighters as being sub-intellectual.

The point I was making however, still stands. The links you and the other chap have provided for fire service in the UK clearly show you do not need any academic qualifications to apply; you only need to pass their standard tests, which I think speak for themselves ie extract information from a training manual and apply it to a situation. Hardly rocket science.

Compare that to say a politician, an engineer, doctor, lawyer etc and what you have is plainly a very blue collar occupation and that is the point I am making - blue collar workers are less likely than white collar workers to keep hushed about something untoward and so if blue collar workers were involved in this type of "cover up" I would expect it to be spilled all over the media by now.

[pgwenthold]

This is what happens when people try to use lingo intended for use by rocket scientists. The correct acronym is MECO, which stands for Main Engine CutOff.

I have to say, perhaps the only thing funnier than Loss Leader's post ("Lock the doors") was your response.

Classic. Absolutely classic.

[maccy]

Compare that to say a politician, an engineer, doctor, lawyer etc and what you have is plainly a very blue collar occupation and that is the point I am making - blue collar workers are less likely than white collar workers to keep hushed about something untoward and so if blue collar workers were involved in this type of "cover up" I would expect it to be spilled all over the media by now.

Nevertheless a fireman needs to show aptitude and complete training before embarking on the career. Are you implying that all academics would automatically be able to do this? Why are you implying that an academic skill-set necessarily leads to higher ethical standards than a practical one? Are you saying that people with degrees are better than people without degrees?

Please back up assertions with evidence

Especially, please provide evidence that blue-collar workers are worse at keeping secrets than white collar ones.

Some examples of academically qualified people who have not kept secrets:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_Spies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Five

also, the idea the politicians are good at keeping secrets is laughable.

[Loss Leader]

This is what happens when people try to use lingo intended for use by rocket scientists. The correct acronym is MECO, which stands for Main Engine CutOff.

Darn it to heck!

I knew I had misspelled MECO but I got all caught up in finding real NASA transcripts that I forgot to go back and fix it.

[Loss Leader]

I have to say, perhaps the only thing funnier than Loss Leader's post ("Lock the doors") was your response.

Classic. Absolutely classic.


"Lock the doors," is real astronaut talk - or, at least, real Mission Control talk. It means to secure all records and data in the building during an emergency.

P.S. If you liked the post, please consider doing me the favor of hitting the Nominate button.

[Bill Thompson]

I was hired by the MIB to make sure several towers fell at the same time as the jets hit. Another aircraft was supposed to hit the other building. I am supprised that people still think that the aircrafts alone caused the buildings to fall like they did even today because the whole operation was botched.

Phillip Carr was the head of the oversight group for the top-secret MIB group in charge of placing the explosive charges within the floor boards and the overheads of each of the buildings. But he was held up in a meeting with the ETI's at Dreamland the night before so maybe there was come confusion as to if he had completed planting the charges or not.

So that is why there was such a delay. When it was determined that the charges werek, in fact, there, that is when the order to "pull it" came down.

Of course, I am kidding about this entire post.

[pgwenthold]

"Lock the doors," is real astronaut talk - or, at least, real Mission Control talk. It means to secure all records and data in the building during an emergency.


Oh, I realize that. I just think it is hoot to think of it in a conversation between a dentist and an electrician.

[Alt+F4]

Why are you implying that an academic skill-set necessarily leads to higher ethical standards than a practical one? Are you saying that people with degrees are better than people without degrees?

I'm a professional person with a Master's Degree and I wouldn't hestitate for a SECOND to rat out my bosses if I had knowledge of illegal behavior on their behalf. Oh wait, I already did that (perverted Assistant Principal + 14 year old girl).

People either have moral and ethics or they don't. Their profession or pay is irrevelant.

[personable]

Nevertheless a fireman needs to show aptitude and complete training before embarking on the career. Are you implying that all academics would automatically be able to do this? Why are you implying that an academic skill-set necessarily leads to higher ethical standards than a practical one? Are you saying that people with degrees are better than people without degrees?


Why are you building a strawman?

I never claimed academics could automatically trump the blue collar worker in anything he turned his hand to, I never said anything of that nature. What I did say is that I believe blue collar workers are more likely to or are quicker to betray than white collar and the reasons I think that are that the white collar will have more understanding of the principles of such action, have invested more time into his career than one who has 'walked into' his job, and is rewarded more handsomely.

Please back up assertions with evidence

Especially, please provide evidence that blue-collar workers are worse at keeping secrets than white collar ones.

Some examples of academically qualified people who have not kept secrets:

>links removed as I cannot post them<

also, the idea the politicians are good at keeping secrets is laughable.


Well, I see lots of instances where as an example, disgruntled call centre employees deride and betray their employers on forums. I don't see middle management doing this type of thing too often. I could round them up and see if I can get more links than you, though I really don't see that would aide this discussion or benefit the topic at all. To be honest it seems like silly nonsense for you to demand evidence of my opinion when the reasons given for my thinking are not being disputed, only my conclusion.

With regard to politicians, if I extend that and say that if you find their idea of them keeping secrets amusing, then would you say that they are honest all the time? Of course not - so what went wrong with that logical extension? Well, for a start I should point out that trying to keep a secret and slipping up is not the same thing as deciding to reveal one.

Moving back on topic, if you had to guess, which one of two groups would be most likely to leak information about their organization that could endanger that organization to the media first, out of a group of lawyers and another of cleaners, which would you bet on?

[personable]

People either have moral and ethics or they don't. Their profession or pay is irrevelant.

I think that morals and ethics are not as absolute as we would like them to be, especially malleable when money and career is involved.

[mcMike]

Gravy, I know you can't include videos in your excellent wtc7-document but how about link to them?

These are (propably old) but pearls in any way you look at them.

"Pull it" WTC6 with cables
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBDcXm7bc24

"Keep your eye on that building. It's coming down". Also the falling debris, fires and pre-collapse sounds can be heard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr5TxKTMRx0

"What we've been fearing all afternoon is apparently happening". MSMBC reporter anticipates the collapse on news-video-clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9TL_PEMkdM