XPost: alt.conspiracy, alt.conspiracy.new-world-order, alt.curre   
   t-events.wtc.bush-knew   
   From: AdmiralPee@neveragainvolunteeryourself.com   
      
   "David Morgan (MAMS)"  wrote in a message   
      
   > "Pull" has been an industry 'jargon' term used since the days in which the   
   > outer walls were actually pulled down by rope and eventually cables.  It   
   > is   
   > a term that has stuck to the business of demolishing buildings like the   
   > term   
   > 'stinks' sticks to a pile of exposed fresh fecal material.   
      
   That is correct Dave. It doesn't involve explosives, and, as you correctly   
   state, never has. Your claim that WTC 7 was pulled is interesting, given the   
   structure was 47 stories tall, and, according to you, fell straight down   
   into its own footprint. How would a building pulled by cables fall straight   
   down rather than towards the direction it is being pulled? What demolition   
   company has ever pulled a 47 story structure?   
      
      
   >> when he heard them referring to "pulling" WTC 6 with cables.   
      
   > Bald-faced LIE.  The remnants of building 6 were brought to ground level   
   > by the use of demolition teams and explosives, as were all of the   
   > remaining   
   > portions of the WTC.   
      
   That's an extremely moronic comment give the pulling of WTC 6 was shown in   
   the same Nova special in which the Silverstein comments are made. Luis   
   Mendes makes it clear that they pulled it *rather than* using explosives, in   
   order to avoid possible damage to the slurry wall.   
      
   Do you ever make any attempt to research any of this, or are you always   
   content to simply throw out bullshit guesses and hope they stick somehow?   
      
   >> Who made the decision to "pull it"?   
      
   > According to Larry Silverstein's lie, a mutual decision between himself   
   > (as the   
   > building owner), and the NYFD.... a completely absurd claim.   
      
   Made more absurd by the fact that he says no such thing. He says he   
   suggested they pull it, and then *they* (i.e., not he) made the decision to   
   pull it. As he was speaking with an FDNY commander, logic follows he would   
   be claiming they (FDNY) made the decision.   
      
      
   >> The Fire Department?   
      
   > At best, the fire department would have been required to be on site in the   
   > event any portion of the future demolition resulted in fires.  Otherwise,   
   > the   
   > fire department has nothing to do with building demolition outside of the   
   > rare   
   > case in which, as an emergency action, walls of roofs of smaller buildings   
   > or homes must be physically destroyed in order to expedite fighting fires.   
      
   Then how did FDNY make a decision to pull building 7? How did they manage to   
   attach the cables? If they did this well in advance, how come no one noticed   
   these huge, long cables dangling from the roof? Why wasn't a demolition   
   company involved?   
      
      
   > No.  The Silverstein interview, although a botched admission, was also a   
   > lie.   
      
   It was the truth - it just had nothing to do with your fantasy of controlled   
   demolition.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)