Pull it

​

Came to another gunfight with a toothpick LOL



but but but but hats, it also means to:

DESTROY

BRING DOWN

DEMOLISH


NO QUALIFIERS
NO MODIFIERS

REQUIRED.

Look at the clauses that are underlined like these words.



where do you or anyone else get off ADDINIG qualifiers that are not even in a "real" dictionary?


Oh and I did take note how everyone ran with my post when the real FACTS were presented. It tells a HUGE story about the word "purpose". If you know what I mean! LOL


Oh and btw it does not need to have any label what so ever as an "industry term", its comman language!



PULL IT!
PULL IT NOW!



BBWWHAHAHAHA!

 

It's irrelevant what's in the definition,and you're taking liberties with the definitions, by the way.



The term 'pull' is not used when explosively demolishing a building......period

 

Would you look at that. It's a page from the 1828 edition of the Webster's unabridged. Someone had to do a lot of digging to find that, didn't they?

I wonder how many uses of words we could find in the 1828 edition that are no longer used.

Oh here's a good one.

Smart.

According to this dictionary, Silverstein was saying the most painful thing to do would be to pull it.

http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?action=search&word=smart&resource=Webster's&quicksearch=on

After all, an old fashioned guy like Silverstein and his trusty 1828 era word usage wouldn't use the word in a more contemporary fashion if he was using an obscure 1828 connotation of the word pull, would he?

Or does pull have a more contemporary connotation that means demolish? Maybe the truthers just can't afford new dictionaries? What does the new Webster's stay about the word?

Oh my. By 1913 it's already gone.

http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster's&word=pull&use1913=on&use1828=on

It doesn't look good for the truthers, does it?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pull

Ooops. It's not in the modern one either.

So much for real dictionaries.

 

I am hoping you will read swindlerswines mind for us and tell us that he "really didnt mean it that way" LMAO

Or better yet show us that the dictionary was wrong in 1828 and how the "new" version is more correct.

I cant wait to hear this!

Oh and by the way that comes from and etymological diction from london. top shelf and that particular websters the 1828 btw was excellent dictionary (while old man webster was still alive) and produced before people starting become willfully stupid.

You know those are dictionaries that thoroughly examine a word, its origin and its usages.

Not this unabridged pocket trash you are all using today.

Like it or not and I know how painful it is for you, it is in the dictionary PERIODand taint nuttin you can say short of red herrings to dispute it.

But I am all ears none the less LMAO

 

The "pull it" ABC's of the demolition of WTC7 on 9/11 (for those whose google isn't working or finger is hurting).
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/silverstein_pullit.html

 

"Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue expert, Kevin McPadden: "We started asking questions, everybody started asking questions, and the next thing you know there was a Red Cross representative pacing back and forth in front of the crowd holding his hand over the radio - I couldn't hear what it was saying but it was like pulsed - whatever the speech was on there it was pulsed - and that means to me most likely it was a countdown." ... In a taped interview with us after the event, McPadden made it clear that he and onlookers clearly heard "three, two, one" from the radio before the building collapsed. [Prison Planet]"

So he didn't hear it, but it pulsed. He admitted he didn't hear it but decided that since it pulsed, it was a countdown. Then later he tells PrisonPlanet that he clearly heard what he said he couldn't hear before.

Yeah, that's definitely a reliable source there.

 

why would anyone care, swine boy admitted to pulling it. what more does anyone need but the arrest warrant.

jennings tripped over dead bodies, too bad though that he suddenly came down with a bad case of dead, like most others who were credible witnesses that could hurt the official lie

 

Now the 'truthers' are trying to implicate the Red Cross as well as the FDNY?

 

Cite the source where Jennings 'tripped over dead bodies'.

 

Actually he didn't but it would be of no use to explain the grammar again. OR the fact that there were no cables attached to Building 7 so the other building example is worthless.

As for "why would anyone care", that's an asinine comment to make if you are truly seeking the truth. Not just the "truth" that fits your preconceived notions.

Well, hell, if that's the case, what are they waiting for? Does it take 10 years to get an arrest warrant issued in New York for crying out loud?? Paper work must be really backed up.

 

And while they're at it,why didn't the several insurance companies that paid off on Silversteins losses bring charges of fraud against him if he was involved in the 'plot'?


Were they 'in on it' as well?

 

It is. You should have posted the whole thing instead of just taking the quotes out of context. That's called quote mining and is a common deceitful tactic of the truthers.

For instance where she said

SL: Well, you just pull it away, you peel it off. If you have room in the opposite direction, you just let the building sort of melt down in that direction and it will pull itself completely away from the building. It can be done.

She was responding to a particular question about a situation that did not apply to WTC 7.

SL: Sometimes the contractor wants to lay the building out like a tree. And, sometime, we need to bring down buildings that are actually touching other buildings.

NOVA: How do you do that?

SL: Well, you just pull it away, you peel it off. If you have room in the opposite direction, you just let the building sort of melt down in that direction and it will pull itself completely away from the building. It can be done.

And in this quote she is talking about making a building go a certain way as well.

SL: Oh sure. I mean you really don't ever lose it. Your perspective changes. When I first started traveling with my Dad at fifteen, sixteen years old, I used to be awestruck. But you sort of go from that awestruck feeling to where you understand how the structure is coming down and you're watching for certain things—counting the delays or waiting for a part of the building to kick out or waiting for it to pull forward. So it does change, but it's always a rush."


But what really must of annoyed you was all of this stuff that you left out.

NOVA: Can you describe the prep work that goes into dropping a building.

SL: Well, it depends on the structure, obviously. We've had chimneys prepared in half a day and we've had buildings that take three months. Generally we don't do the preparation work. We are usually an implosion subcontractor, meaning that there is a main demolition contractor on site, who's been contracted by the property owner or the developer, and they then subcontract the implosion to us. We will then ask them to perform preparatory operations, including non-load bearing partition removal—meaning, the dry wall that separates the rooms. It's not carrying the weight of the building. It's just there as a divider. But what happens—you know, if you have a case of beer—all the little cardboard reinforcements inside? If you have all those little cardboard reinforcements, then you can jump up and down on the case. But if you take them out, the case will crush under your weight. Those little partitions actually add up and act as stiffeners. So that's one of the first things we strip out. The second thing we do is drilling.


Anyone notice any of this prep work going on in WTC7 or 1 and 2 for that matter? Kind of ruins the whole controlled demo theory.

 

So you agree "pull it" is a demo term, just not with explosives?

Building owners are always involved when one of their buildings get pulled.

We never said the FDNY were. We do you keep propagating that lie?

Space beams???

 

I'm awaiting a call back.

She was the receptionist and if you bothered to read what I wrote, I said if you'd listen to the tape, she excuses herself to go ask someone, then comes back to tell Jeff that it's a demo term.

So what did that guy mean when he said "pull Building 6" right before they demolished it?

 

Irrelevant....the claim by truthers always has been that 'pull' meant explosive demolition....trying to wriggle out of that won't work.


And again, why would a businessman with no demolition experience,use a 'demolition term'?

 

the jennings interview

 

He is too well connected, they will never get an arrest warrant.

Preconceived? I am not the one who is trying to turn grammar or physics into an abortion.

you talk about preconceived notions?

whil you toss out the dictionary to put up the pretense that the pull means strictly with cables when the dictionary clearly states it means to destroy or demolish.

Yeh you got a really strong case. ZERO

Maybe you just have an incredibly short memory:

​

 

He never states that he tripped over dead bodies in his interviews.

 

sounded like dead bodies to me.

I hear Jennings was rewarded by accidental unexplained death syndrome. That happens a lot in the land of the fantasy, erm I mean freeeeeeeeee

not that it matters too much since we are talking about how the swinester pulled it.

 

Certainly, don't let a little thing like fact get in your way.

 

Would that be your 1828 dictionary?

You mean before people started inventing things like telephones, automobiles, computers and um . . . well, the science of controlled demolition of high rise buildings?

Yes, because today's dictionary is silly and irrelevant and has no place in a discussion of what words mean.

Your attempts to justify your point of view get funnier all the time.

 

and your cherry picking changes the definition of pull how?

"Not this unabridged pocket trash you are all using today."
That was a typo should have read abridged, was interupted and could not get back to it on time to edit.


regardless of how you "WISH" it was defined;

PULL = DEMOLISH
PULL = DESTROY
PULL = SUBVERT
PULL = IRRADICATE
PULL = EXTIRPATE
PULL = BRING DOWN


Bringing down with chains is a SUBSET of "ONE" of the definitions that CAN BE appropriately stated as "PULL".

That is cherry picking and intellectually dishonest as pretty much is everything else regarding the official fantasy of 911.

 

Is it your contention that WTC7 was brought down with chains?

 

That's funny. You go all the way back to 1828 to find a dictionary that contains the definition you are seeking and you accuse others of cherry picking and intellectuall dishonesty? Hilarious.

Let's look at a more modern dictionary, shall we?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pull

Hmm, I don't see anything about demolish in there. I did find this interesting though.

Seems consistent with remove the firefighting effort. (I know you won't like that. )

See, when we're talking about things that people have said in the year 2000 and beyond, it is helpful to use a current dictionary.

Going back 182 years to find a definition that fits your argument is, well, intellectually dishonest.

Wouldn't you agree?

 

Major fail.

On the contrary its the way linguistics and etymology is done LMAO

Nice try though,

May want to find a more inclusive dictionary like mine, yours leaves too much out.

Look sort of foolish though.