What is wrong?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bUA7LjJoYk

Where are the wings?

When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide—not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.

Once again, I can't imagine someone actually saying this out of their mouths. At least, not without some sort of narcotics.

'Pull it' is not a well known demolition term. As a matter of fact, it's not a term they use in demolitions at all.

That's just one...

Since you haven't addressed my points in any of your responses, we're through here. Enjoy your blissful ignorance and substandard education.

Moderated,

-Mr Khan

My understanding of it is that it was once used because they would have to attach cables to a building to literally 'pull it' down, but the term is still used for bringing a building down regardless of method. But why would he use 'pull it' anyway? He later explained that he meant 'pull the firemen out'. Don't you find it odd that he used such an ambiguous term when those four simple words would have left no one in doubt what he meant? You really need to stop thinking that those who are investigating 911 are your typical bespectacled geek; they're Mechanics, Physicist, explosive experts and scholars. 

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_it_mean_to_pull_a_building

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJI6YvK_TK0

read and watch

GG truthers, GG. But logic, physics, science, eye witness reports, common sense, official investigations and a slew of other sources all debunk your theories that are sourcing this man

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtyKofFih8Y

LOL! why would the US government be in cahoots with the owner of a building in a consparicy and why would he be giving orders to firefighters and not demo men?

BTW - your wiki.answers link is sourcing an anonymous poster who has respond to strictly that one question, who needed a spell bot to clean up his post, and made his post on 9-11 2 years ago... meaning 0 credibility. Nice try though

Also, the video at the end has a phone call. The person for the demo company said "when you pull it down" which is exactl what you saw them doing to one of the buildings in the same video. Another thing, the caller asks what the term meant in the demo business... firemen aren't in the demo business. But keep on fighting the not so good fight.

So he uses the term 'pull it', a demolition expert uses the term 'pull it' and when asked what 'pull it' means he's told it means to demolish a building ... and you still question its validity? Basically your OP isn't a challenge, it's an open invitation for you to ignore any proof offered. What was the point of the thread? You haven't looked into it as much as you think you have.  That video gives you all the proof you need to accept that 'pull it' IS a term used in the demolition industry, but you can't accept it because it challenges your own view of events. I'm not asking you to believe that it was an inside job, I'm just putting one aspect into perspective. If you can't accept this very small piece of the puzzle then NOTHING anyone can say or prove will change your mind. A conspiricy theorist will only take the information that suits their view and won't aknowledge there are alternatives.