` (Next day, March 23rd) I've finally gotten started, but I tell you, there's a conspiracy against me writing this! Over the past two days, there have been people interrupting me every time I set aside time to sit down at the computer! (How do they know?) In fact, most recently I have turned on the computer and was in the act of logging into Blogger when there was another knock at my door! That time I finally shooed them away after ten minutes because I wasn't about to be cheated by visitors out of getting started for the third time in eight hours!
` Finally - after technical difficulties have repeatedly erased parts of my progress - I have gotten most of the stuff all the way down to examining the two disparate usages of the word 'pull': You, anonymous commenter, may be especially interested to know in advance that, while 'pull' is used by firefighters and the like it means to 'withdraw and give up', demolition crews use 'pull' to mean literally pulling the building down with cables - not explosives! I have also found a more expanded clip from the PBS documentary that undisputably demonstrates that this is what was meant in your citation!
` As with any conspiracy theory, I think I should make it clear that this latching onto small details and then taking them out of context in order to fit them into the desired point of view is right up there among the most often-used tactics in making an argument. Tomorrow, I shall point the rest of them out!
` It's the next morning and I'm about... oh my God! Another knock at the door! Right now! I'm not making this up!!
` EGADS!!!! Our guest has just spilled a really nasty chemical (don't bother guessing) all over my power supply! I'm not joking at all! I've finally got it dry, but it smells so bad now I have to wear a mask! I say - I've either got to get some walls in this place or send some German Shepherds out to answer the door!
` After a little more progress just before noon, I must report that this is the seventh knock at the door today (I'm not kidding!), and our ploy of pretending to not be home is not working, so Lou is going outside to see what is going on. (The Person At The Door is claiming that his lungs are infested with insects. I'm not kidding about that, either! Good God, the things that go on around here! This is why we're moving!)
` ...Finally! It's finished! Well, for the most part. (I've hit my Prescribed Deadline.) As you can see, I've gone through much turmoil to produce this post, so if you, the commenter, should want to leave another comment for me, I will expect that you read the entire thing before doing so:
` First, let's break your comment down into more manageable chunks:
` Any demolitions expert will tell you that free-falling a building from top-down will not work; that is why they must always do it from the bottom up. It's like this; the first floor is blown out so that it no longer provides any support, the building falls a tiny bit and then the same thing happens to second floor, then the third... that way the building will 'pancake' and won't tip over.
` Neither of the WTC towers collapsed like this - towers 1 and 2 were weakened gradually, the warped steel beams slowly disarticulating and protruding from the outer walls like broken guitar strings, until finally the tops of the buildings collapsed onto the impact points, tilting slightly, the slamming of this great weight thus triggering the nearly disarticulated sections to completely fall apart.
` As far as this video goes, the captions are utterly nonsensical! It even says that pieces of a building cannot crash through the floors below it faster than they fall through air, and of course it didn't have to; the gutted south side of WTC 7 was a gaping hole of fire and smoke already weakened by heat and debris that had been thrown from the toppling remains of WTC 1. It didn't need much coaxing.
` Unsurprisingly, this video does not contain any good footage of the utterly destroyed south side - the side that conspiracy theorists don't show very good pictures of, and I discovered, one actually tried to pass off pictures of its north side as the south side!
` There is far more information about the matter in this in-depth analysis of the WTC collapses as viewed by actual demolitions experts. It explains many things:
` The fact that the failure point of the buildings (as I explained a little above) is clearly at the points of the most damage. (Watch those WTC videos carefully!) The buildings also do not fall into their own footprint - they follow the path of least resistance, and there was a lot of it! (Please read!) As the buildings began to fall, debris was thrown out to the sides because the floors above were crushing them flat - quite unlike what happens when there are squibs used.
` Because of this, concrete and air was blowing all the walls and windows out as they were crushed under the incredible weight; the sides of the building were the path of least resistance for this amount of pressure. In other words, these 'explosions' were not due to explosives (it was quite what one would expect from such a collapse), and the seismic readings taken at the site confirm this.
` As for the assumption that steel buildings do not collapse due to fire, this is ridiculous, because it happens all the time! In fact, the WTC buildings that fell were dealt a different-yet-tremendous amount of damage, which is why they fell in their own specific ways.
` There is no confirmed molten steel (or thermite, for that matter) found at Ground Zero, nor cut beams or any other evidence of any kind of explosives being involved. As for the supposed covering up of such evidence, the whereabouts of the debris is clearly documented and the time frame in which they were shipped to China is perfectly typical of any other case.
` As far as your next claim goes about the meanings of the term 'pull it', let's get one thing perfectly straight - according to, once again, this article:
'We have never, ever heard the term "pull it" being used to refer to explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers. etc.) to "pull" the frame of the structure onto its side for further dismantlement.'` Not only this, but the PBS special that you claim is proof of this term relating to explosives also demonstrates that pulling a building over with cables is in fact what they were doing! So, where does this leave Larry Silverstein (who has no authority over the building being destroyed)? As you said:
` You may have already heard that firefighters (as well as police and military) use the term 'pull' to indicate that they are withdrawing or giving up. (As in 'pulling your men'.) So, to anyone who knows that, they merely see that Silverstein is describing how the fire is getting worse and worse, and then they decided to give up on the building because it was a hopeless case so they stood back and watched it fall.
` As I've said, your interpretation of this video clip is way off!
` If you had actually taken the time to watch the PBS special, you would have seen the next scene, which completely blows this assertion to bits. This is, conspicuously edited out of Conspiracy Believer versions of the video because after Luis Menendez from the Department of Design and Construction is shown describing how concerned he is about where Building 6 will fall, we see the same guy whose voice can be heard saying 'we're about to pull building six' in your clip, and he is describing how they are attaching cables to it and are planning to pull it down with heavy machinery in a specific direction!
-later segment of same PBS special unwittingly confirms that "pull" is a term used for demolishing a building as a contractor uses the same term to describe demolishing Building 6 weeks after attack. The official explanation for the collapse of Building 7 was that fire and debris damage from the towers weakened the building's structure. The admission that Building 7 was demolished proves that the building's collapse was prepared BEFORE 9/11 since it would have been impossible for a demolition team to place demolition charges all throughout the building in a matter of a few hours, especially in a building with an ongoing fire and damage from debris.
` So, it's safe to say you can't deny that unless you're very creative. This whole 'pull' thing based on a TV documentary is through-and-through a gross misinterpretation of two video clips taken out of context!
` In reply to that... as there is presently another knock at the door, I think it would save me a lot of time if I just cited this annotated version of the same video, as all the appropriate discrepancies between what the 'official story' is and what conspiracy theorists have said it is - among other things - has already been made clear with no effort on my behalf.
` It's my compromise between figuring stuff out for myself, giving myself three-day deadlines and having a really unpredictable guest rate in a one-room apartment (thankfully, our visitor this time was only needing to get into his apartment through our window). All I have to say is that the video you cite is very cleverly edited, however no amount of clever editing can change reality.
` For example, unlike the message implied by the documentary, you can hear for yourself that the WTC building experts do not actually say that there is any discrepancy between what really did happen and what they expected to happen with a Boeing 767 charging into the buildings at a high speed (and not a smaller plane flying 'slow and low', regardless of fuel content): If you listen carefully you will hear that their comments are merely cleverly-chosen selections from the documentary interviews construed in such a way that it sounds as if they think the idea of these planes felling the buildings doesn't make sense.
` (Of course, they don't believe that at all - some were in fact surprised that the buildings kept standing as long as they did.. This sneaky manipulation of an innocent interview reminds me of what happened to poor David Albert in a very different kind of documentary.)
` Same with the 'two isolated pockets of fire' thing... yes, on the 78th floor, there was not much in the way of fires. However, think about it; who is gullible enough to think that the fires were isolated to one story of the building while they are watching fire and smoke pouring out of several floors? It is the 83rd floor that the fires were worst. Again, snatching in on an isolated detail to color the whole picture!
` It's just so ludicrous, I find it odd how anyone could not catch these tactics which are obviously used to distort information in one's favor. As I only have five more minutes until my Prescribed Deadline (a previous engagement, actually) is in effect, I'm afraid I don't have any time to go over these last two links at all.
` I may, however, eventually do just that if you, nameless commenter, have read this entire article and have something to say about what I've written in response. If I then reply to your remaining two items, I will probably also suggest that you, um, I don't know, read the entire article by the very director of actual experienced demolitions experts involved on the site. You know... just to tide you over until I'm done with that response!
` ...And if you will please refrain from sending eccentric individuals to my door all hours of the day, I would appreciate it! ;) ...Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints!! Another knock! Seriously!!! (I guess I wasn't in time with that!) And people wonder why I like spending so much time by myself....
` Note: March 24, 11:24 A.M. - I sincerely apologize for the fact that my comments have been disabled this entire time; I have no recollection of how this has happened, and it has never happened in any blog post I've ever written before:
` At first I thought there was something wrong with my internet browser, so I switched browsers, but that didn't work, so I changed the comment settings on the entire blog and then changed them back. That didn't work.
` I puzzled about this for a bit, and over the fact that this post was the only one with disabled comments. Then, I dimly remembered that in each post there are individual comment settings (which I've never used before), so I went to 'Edit Post' and sure enough they were turned off. I am not aware of messing with these things, so I think that perhaps, because my computer was screwing up a lot while I was writing this post, that the settings got changed somehow.
` So, if the person I am responding to has tried to comment and found that they couldn't, now they can know why!