June 30, 2006

CDI: 'Pull It' Means 'Pull It Down'

For those who still question what Larry Silverstein meant when he said "pull it" when talking about the collapse of the WTC 7, Jeff from PumpItOut.com called demolition experts Controlled Demolition, Inc (CDI) and asked them what "pull it" means in demolition terms. This is what CDI told him:

Female receptionist: Good afternoon, Loizeaux Company.
Jeff: Um, sorry, do I -- is this Controlled Demolitions?
CDI: Yes it is.
Jeff: Ok, I was wondering if there was someone I could talk to briefly -- just ask a question I had?
CDI: Well what kind of question?
Jeff: Well I just wanted to know what a term meant in demolition terms.
CDI: Ok, what type of term?
Jeff: Well, if you were in the demolition business and you said the, the term "pull it," I was wondering what exactly that would mean?
CDI: "Pull it"?
Jeff: Yeah.
CDI: Hmm? Hold on a minute.
Jeff: Thank you.
CDI: Sir?
Jeff: Yes?
CDI: "Pull it" is when they actually pull it down.
Jeff: Oh, well thank you very much for your time.
CDI: Ok.
Jeff: Bye.
CDI: Bye.

(Remember that Controlled Demolitions, Inc was hired to help with the clean up at ground zero.)

The definition of "pull down":

pull down - To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.

pull down 1. To pull down or break up so that reconstruction is impossible: demolish, destroy, dismantle, dynamite, knock down, level, pulverize, raze, tear down, wreck

Again, here's the WTC owner Larry Silverstein's comment about the collapse of the WTC 7:

"I remember getting a call from the, uh, fire department commander, telling me that 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, is pull it.' Uh, and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

The WTC 7 imploding (notice its penthouse on the top left collapses in half and disappears into the building first):

Reporter: "...that building number 7 was going to collapse.
That appears to be what has happened now."

Hats off to Jeff from PumpItOut.com for taking the initiative to call CDI and reaffirming from the demolition experts themselves what the true meaning of the phrase "pull it" means; demolish!

See also:

WTC 7: Silverstein said "pull it"

June 21, 2006

Shanksville Crater Oddity

(Updated: 12/05/06)

United Airlines Flight 93 supposedly nosedived straight into the ground like this:

(Photo source)

and burrowed itself into the ground according to the official story and left this shallow crater which looks about 10ft deep:


Now put aside for a second that you can't see much of anything in or around the crater that looks like a giant plane had just crashed there (like the lack of a tail section sticking out of the ground) or that the 5,500 gallons of fuel still on the plane didn't scorch the long dry grass growing around right up to the rim of the crater. What else seems odd about this crater is:

Where did all the dirt go???

Flight 93 was a Boeing 757 with a 155ft long fuselage, 124ft wingspan, and should have weighed about 75 tons at least when it supposedly crashed:

The Boeing 757-200

Operating empty with P&W engines 57,840kg [57.84 tons] (127,520lb) - airliners.net

"Figure 7 shows fuel flow and fuel remaining for UAL Flight 93, calculated in the same way as just described for AAL Flight 77.

Based on ACARS transmissions to the airplane, the fuel load on takeoff was 48,700 lb. This results in about 37,500 lb. [17.01 tons / 5,500 gal*] of fuel remaining upon impact (the end of the DFDR data)." -NTSB (02/13/02) [*One pound of jet fuel = 6.84 pounds per gallon.]

757 Empty weight = 57.84 tons. Reported remaining fuel weight = 17.01 tons.

57.84 + 17.01 = 74.85 tons

The mounds of dirt seen outside the crater looks like about the same amount that would fit back into the 10 ft deep crater:



So a 155ft long plane weighing 75tons at impact nosedives at 580mph and buries itself underground, leaving a shallow 10ft deep crater, but only ejects out enough dirt to fill back in the 10ft deep crater???


Something seems to be missing here.

See also:

June 17, 2006

Flight 77's Missing Tail Section

The best smoking gun that no 757 hit the Pentagon.

(Revised 06/30/06)

This is how the official story has Flight 77 flying into the Pentagon:

Notice it's fuselage strikes between the 1st and 2nd floors and it's vertical tail (or stabilizer/rudder) extends above the 3rd floor and it's right horizontal stabilizer should have contacted the wall between the 1st and 2nd story windows:

Now here are some different accounts from witnesses as to what happened to the tail section (note that there are no witness reports of any part of the tail section flying over the building when the plane hit):

"AP reporter Dave Winslow also saw the crash. He said, "I saw the tail of a large airliner ... It ploughed right into the Pentagon." - Guardian (09/12/01)


Statement from Penny Elgas

"The plane seemed to be floating as if it were a paper glider and I watched in horror as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into the Pentagon. At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building... At that point, the wings disappeared into the Pentagon. And then I saw an explosion and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building." - Smithsonian Institute


"The World Trade Center attacks were followed by a similar attack on the Pentagon. An airliner crashed into the building, causing a major explosion and fire. Witnesses saw a tail section sticking out of the building." - 720 WGSE


"The plane exploded after it hit, the tail came off and it began burning immediately. Within five minutes, police and emergency vehicles began arriving," said Vin Narayanan, a reporter at USA TODAY.com, who was driving near the Pentagon when the plane hit." -USA Today (09/11/01)

A Boeing 757's tail section is huge and should have either left a gash in the wall if it partially entered, or left a very noticeable mark on it if it sheered off and crumpled against it before bouncing off, or from being obliterated into a million pieces from hitting the recently retrofitted wall at a blistering speed of 530 mph. However, you can clearly see that none of that happened:

Also notice there is a piece of column still hanging from the 3rd floor. Columns are usually made of long thin steel rebar incased with concrete, so this piece should have been bent back into the building in the direction the
supposed plane crashed in and not dangling as if it were attached by strings:

You can see from this early photo taken before the roof
collapsed (which was about 30 mins after the "crash" at about 9:38 am) that there is no large plane debris from a tail section or any other section from a 757:

I have yet to come across any photo or video that shows what looks like debris from a 757's tail section or any photo showing a mark on the Pentagon's facade where the vertical and/or right horizontal tail section smashed up against.

Tail sections usually survive plane crashes since they are usually the last to hit the object the plane crashes into and because it's at the rear of the plane:

If you get into a debate with someone who still believes in the official story that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, just show them that there is no evidence of a 757's tail section hitting the wall and sheering off, or obliterating against it. Also, mention that tail sections from planes do not simply disappear without a trace.

The missing tail section from Flight 77 is the best smoking gun that a Boeing 757 did not crash into the Pentagon.

See also:

June 05, 2006

Why They Didn't Use A 757 To Hit The Pentagon

(Version 1.6 - 05/16/08)

Here is why the govt perps didn't use a Boeing 757 to crash into the Pentagon:


What do you think would be the easiest part of the Pentagon to hit, the huge rooftop that looks like a giant "bull’s-eye" from the sky, or the side of the Pentagon that is only about seven stories tall? I’d say the roof.

But what if you had to hit the side of the building that is not even 2x taller than a Boeing 757 and not only that, but a certain side, certain section, and certain floor of that side?

The government conspirators needed to hit the exact section of the Pentagon that was hit and they needed to hit it low to the ground. A Boeing 757, even flown via remote control or computer guidance, would have been too risky for them to use because it is too big and cumbersome to chance its accuracy and a plane that size could cause more damage than they wanted too.

Can you imaging them trusting an empty remote controlled 110 ton Boeing to perfectly hit that small section low to the ground without overshooting high and flying over the low sitting Pentagon, or without bouncing off the lawn and breaking apart to expose that no passengers where on board and sending large pieces of the plane in who knows which direction?

If they chose to stage a large plane looking like it dive-bombed into the roof, or flew straight into the uppers floors, they wouldn't have been able to have faked this plane crash because they wouldn't have been able to manufacture a somewhat realistically sized and shaped hole in the roof, or upper floors to make most people think a 757 caused it as compared to floors on the ground and they needed to have the section they hit collapse so it would help cover up the oddly shaped hole they could only easily manufacture for the crash to help cover up the fact that no 757 crashed there.

So that is how a "Boeing 757" can "crash" directly into the first floor of the Pentagon without hitting the lawn, or obliterating any of the cable spools out in front, why no mark was left on the 3rd story wall where a 757's tail would have hit, why there wasn't as much damage to the Pentagon as one would think a 757 with 5,300 gal of fuel would cause, why the oddly shaped hole looked like the plane had flown in level instead of it hitting with its wings banking to the left as we were told, and why this aircraft made experienced air traffic controllers monitoring it think it was a "military plane" from it spiraling down and around the Pentagon dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes to specifically hit that side and 1st floor of that section instead of taking the more easier route of dive-bombing it straight down into the roof after it flew over the White House area, and why the first reports of what crashed there was a helicopter.

I really doubt Hani Hanjour could fly a 110 ton Boeing 757 like an agile jetfighter when there is no evidence he ever flew a 757 before in real life or in simulation, when one of his flight instructors said he could not fly at all and that they questioned whether his pilot's license was genuine, and when his skills were so bad that he was refused to rent a Cessna the month before the attack.

The 'Lucky' Section

It should be self evident enough that the section of the Pentagon hit was hit on purpose. The section hit was the only section in the entire Pentagon that was being retrofitted and it was being retrofitted, of all things, to help bolster it against attack. What are the odds of that? And not only that, but it was hit almost in the middle of that renovated section in which they had just installed a new sprinkler system. Hitting this section lowered the number of potential victims because this section was not yet fully repopulated and a fire truck had just been pulled out from the firehouse that was coincidentally right next the section that was hit. Another coincidence is that side was the only lawn side that didn't have a parking lot or other things built next to it that would have made it much less accessible for the rescue crews to fight the fires and rescue the injured. Another factor that was in the Pentagon's favor was hitting their own building ensured the availability of military doctors, nurses, and first aid responders for all the injured.

So think about it, the "Arab terrorists" hit the worst section for them and the best section for the Pentagon.

Motive for Hitting the 'Lucky' Section

So what was so special for our military to take the added risk of hitting that specific section at their defense headquarters when hitting the WTC would surely be enough to cause a wave of world wide indignation for their master plan?

Check out what the head of the Pentagon announced less than 24hrs before his place of work got hit:

On Sept. 10, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared war. Not on foreign terrorists, "the adversary's closer to home. It's the Pentagon bureaucracy," he said.

Rumsfeld promised change but the next day – Sept. 11-- the world changed and in the rush to fund the war on terrorism, the war on waste seems to have been forgotten.

"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted.

$2.3 trillion — that's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America. (CBS)

Now I don’t know about you, but if I had to announce a bureaucratic nightmare that I wanted to be buried as quickly as possible from the minds of the American people, what better time to announce it than the day before every American’s mind will be distracted by a most horrible event?

So now we know why Rumsfeld announced this outrageous news the day before the attacks, but they needed to do a little more than to just bury the story, they needed to bury the evidence and what better way to bury the evidence than to blow up the section that housed the paper trail and people trail who might have been able to figure out where all or some of that missing $2.3 trillion went:

- The impact area included both the Navy operations center and the office complex of the National Guard and Army Reserve. It was also the end of the fiscal year and important budget information was in the damaged area. (Arlington County After-Action Report)

- Most of those killed in the office, called Resource Services Washington, were civilian accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts. They were at their desks when American Airlines Flight 77 struck. (South Coast Today)

Now think about it, less than 24hrs after Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (who was on the safe side of the Pentagon when it was hit) announces his agency lost track of a mind-blowing $2.3 trillion dollars, the section that housed the people and paper trail that would know where all that money went was blown up in the most bizarre events in America's history.

Again, the Pentagon benefited from this section being hit.

What also adds to the interest is the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and Chief Financial Officer for the Department of Defense who is in charge of all the Pentagon's money was Dov S. Zakheim, who not only is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations as well as an ordained Orthodox Jewish rabbi and some say is a dual Israeli/American citizen, but who is also a member of the PNAC, along with Donald Rumsfeld, and was a contributing author of the PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" that essentially talked about needing a "new Pearl Harbor" to build up American's military might exactly one year before it happened.

Some of Zakheim's former jobs are interesting too. He was vice president of a defense contractor, System Planning Corp., which made remote control and flight termination products and was chief executive officer of SPC International Corp., a subsidiary specializing in political, military and economic consulting.

So that is why they hit that section of the Pentagon and why they didn't use a Boeing 757 to do it.

See also: