What Did He Really Say? - a survey

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 11 2005 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sauron
here is a slowed down version, and for the last time he says pull it

Slowed down of pull it



Thanks. He clearly just says pull, not pull it.




[edit on 11-5-2005 by HowardRoark]




posted on May, 11 2005 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Yep, unless he was talking about a "young hen suitable for frying", my vote goes for "pull it".

Or pullet. Whatever. Definitely not one-syllable "pull".

[edit on 5/11/2005 by eaglewingz]



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 11:19 PM
link   
I think he said pull out!

ever think of that?



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 11:20 PM
link   
I have to admit that i'm hearing "pullit".

But if pull is a term used by swat, police, FD, etc....as a command to pull out, why does pullit have to mean demo? If asked what they were doing why wouldn't the FD say yeah we decided to pull it?

As anyone even explained why the FD would be in charge of a massive conspiracy like the intentional demolition of a building(in which they had allready lost 300 men)....don't seem to covert to me



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 11:29 PM
link   
I am going to freak you all out by transcribing what I heard.

"I remember getting a call from the, eh, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull, eh*1, and they made that decision to pull and eh*2, then we watched the building collapse."

Lots of "eh"s and pauses. Something that can't really be transcribed well.

*1 A cluck or inhaled and low "yes" which could be mistaken for "it"

*2 Another low and quick yes, combined with "then" resembles "instead"

Sort of blows all that conspiracy side of things out of the water?

And yes, someone please answer the other poster's question about the Fire Dept. being able to authorize demolishing buildings. Regardless of the fact that such demolitions take time and planning and I don't imagine it would be too safe lugging explosives around a collapsing building.



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 11:49 PM
link   
OK my turn, In a few of Alex Jones video's mainly to point out his new one Martial law, It is in fact that Silverstein states Pull It.

70.84.33.210...

Within the 1st 5 mins it goes thru what happened with WTC 7

Now dont get me wrong, Alex jones has never ever ever ever that i have known him or listened to him on his station has ever been wrong on anything, if he has PLEASE like i said the 2 other threads. PROVE IT!!!!

Also isnt it funny as I stated in a past thread that a few other buildings that were directly affected when the towers came down DID in fact get renovated and not demolished??

WTC 7 was nowhere near the towers inpact zone for anything. I dont even understand why there was a fire there in the 1st place.

I also dont understand why nobody knew about this fire untill after the building fell. and Yes I watched much of the news that day, so i have a fairly good memory of what was and wasnt said.

[edit on 5/12/2005 by ThichHeaded]



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 12:12 AM
link   
"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

Didn't rewrite everyting he said, but he says then, definately not instead.



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Just wanted to clarify my vote since the thread seems more about the meaning of the words he used.


I heard him say "pull it", but I don't vote for it meaning to pull the building down. In context, you could say "pull it" as in "pull the attempt."

To me, this makes more sense than his second "pull" (no "it") meaning to pull the building down. He should say "pull it" twice if he meant the building, as pull in that sense needs a subject to act on.



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 01:11 AM
link   
Roark didn't you get enough whoopin on this thread?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Didn't you say he said pull IT on that thread somewhere? How many wtc threads do you need to start up to reassure yourself that your governement would never lie to you about perfect footprint collapses, norad, and oil fires melting structural steel?



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 01:21 AM
link   
I defineatly hear "pull it" and "then"...

But who cares anymore, there are so many other missing and unexplained problems with the whole official 9-11 story it's a joke...

The only people still claiming it went down as they say are those who don't or can't get past their conditioning. You know the one ingrained in us since birth
"Don't question authority, it's always right."


I can't believe how low you will go Howard to try to convince everyone of a lie so you feel better about being duped.
Are you buddies with Mr.Silverstein or just wish you were?



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 09:33 AM
link   
I honestly can not see how anyone can liten to that, including the slowed down version and state that he said "pull it."

Especially the slowed down version. all you hear is "Pull."

I supose that that recording is a Rorschach test of a sort.

People hear what they want to hear. But even a careful listening of that recording will not add words that are not there.



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by 00PS
I think he said pull out!

ever think of that?



A good point. Given how several people insist that there is an extra word in there, how can they be 100% sure that they are not hearing "out" and not "it?"



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
I defineatly hear "pull it" and "then"...

But who cares anymore, there are so many other missing and unexplained problems with the whole official 9-11 story it's a joke...

The only people still claiming it went down as they say are those who don't or can't get past their conditioning. You know the one ingrained in us since birth
"Don't question authority, it's always right."


I can't believe how low you will go Howard to try to convince everyone of a lie so you feel better about being duped.
Are you buddies with Mr.Silverstein or just wish you were?


How low do you have to go to stoop to insults in every post you make?



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 01:52 PM
link   
I have a video file of that interview - not only does he definitely say "pull it", but you can also tell by the way he mouths the words that it's "pull it" as well. Watch how his mouth moves. It's not just "pullll" or "pull out" it is definitely "pull it"


However, that doesn't necessarily mean "pull it down" - it could still have the same meaning as just "pull".

I'm 100% sure he says "pull it" but I'm 50/50 on what that might actually mean


[edit on 12-5-2005 by Curio]



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 03:11 PM
link   
For the 38th time, yes the term pull was used. However, since none of you except me has ever worked with the FDNY, I'll clarify YET AGAIN what all your "website" sources are ignoring. When a building is burning at an intensity where it is unsafe for firefighters to enter it, and it is impractical to attempt to put it out from outside as well, a decision has to be made. The risks facing the firefighters on scene are weighed against the risks of letting the building burn itself out. Being that no one was stuck in the building caught on fire, and the danger level was to the point where firefighters would have been roasted alive by entering, the decision was made to PULL all personnel out of the building, stand down, and let the fire burn out.

I don't really care what any web guru has to say about this. I was wearing a FDNY radio, and I was within a few blocks of the building throughout the time. I was not inside, but in the adjacent area.

Frankly your efforts at determining what the landlord said are irrelevant. He is not FDNY personnel, he does not give orders to anyone wearing an FDNY uniform, and if it makes you happy to think he does, god bless, you must have a lot of time on your hands.

I can confirm for you firsthand that an order was given over the FDNY frequency to get the hell out of there and let nature take its course. No order was ever given over that radio to demolish anything. Period. Being that all of you are analyzing a civilian's chatter, and not the firsthand radio transmissions you understand that you're debating hearsay don't you?

Ever see the movie Ladder 49? Remember when Jack was stuck in that building? Remember how they cleared everyone else the hell out of there because of the strength of the fire in a massive building and no one could get to him? Right, that's what the pull order was meant to say. But you don't believe it exists do you.

Perhaps the firefighters should not have been given the pull order and should have been allowed to proceed into a barbecue to die simply to keep some of you happy that Silverstein didn't knock down a building, but allowed Firemen to die instead.

You're quoting this guy like he means anything. Maybe it's because you're not involved in emergency services. Rudy Giuliani was god in 2001. He appointed his buddies to the top posts of FDNY and NYPD remember? No civilian, no matter who he is was giving any orders, nor was any civilian having input on any orders. Rudy set up a system in which his boys called the shots and everyone else was a bystander. Analyze Larry all you want, you're wasting your own time.

Think about the context for god's sake: "'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull". That does sound rather like my definition doesn't it? Where the hell does demo come into that equation. It doesn't.

[edit on 5-12-2005 by Djarums]



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Why did you have a radio? are you FEMA

Are you saying that the firefighters who where really there and not blocks away are liars, they seen it and heard it explosions going off floor by floor.



[edit on 12/5/2005 by Sauron]



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums
Think about the context for god's sake: "'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull". That does sound rather like my definition doesn't it? Where the hell does demo come into that equation. It doesn't.

[edit on 5-12-2005 by Djarums]


Ahh No he clearly states PULL IT cause ironically right after he states they they go into what pull it actually means in that documentary.

But then again who tf knows how it was done considering some of us have seen it..

So in that case I would think he ment as stated as a demolition style term to pull it.

Also why tf would they care, the place was cleared out of all civilans anyway.. the place could have burned for months before an actual civi would have gotten hurt.

[edit on 5/12/2005 by ThichHeaded]



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   

they seen it and heard it explosions going off floor by floor.


Interesting, because in no building collapse that I have ever gone to has anyone ever been able to determine from outside where explosions were going off. Additionally a controlled demolition does not need, nor have, explosions on every floor. Not even close, in fact.

Also, at that point in time all personnel were a safe distance away. That was the point of the pull order. To get everyone out of there, so frankly, none of them were quite as close as you'd think based on these "testimonies".


Ahh No he clearly states PULL IT cause ironically right after he states they they go into what pull it actually means in that documentary.


Who went into what it means? Because as someone with that training, I can personally tell you that a pull order would mean GET OUT. Not "set off the hidden dynamite," or whatever the hell certain people enjoy believing.

I'm sorry to sound harsh but when conducting an "investigation" of an incident like this it sometimes helps to discuss it with people who have an intimate knowledge of the topic, the terms, the procedures. Not just op/ed authors.

[edit on 5-12-2005 by Djarums]



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums

Who went into what it means? Because as someone with that training, I can personally tell you that a pull order would mean GET OUT. Not "set off the hidden dynamite," or whatever the hell certain people enjoy believing.

I'm sorry to sound harsh but when conducting an "investigation" of an incident like this it sometimes helps to discuss it with people who have an intimate knowledge of the topic, the terms, the procedures. Not just op/ed authors.

[edit on 5-12-2005 by Djarums]


The Documentary on PBS they showed with Silverstien talking about what happened to WTC 7, I have been trying to get it on a p2p or bit torrent but to no aval.. But i have been trying for like 10 months or something, that is also ironically the only show that PBS dont have for sale on thier site or anywhere for that matter.

Oh the documentary is called America Rebuilds.



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 04:48 PM
link   

I'm sorry to sound harsh but when conducting an "investigation" of an incident like this it sometimes helps to discuss it with people who have an intimate knowledge of the topic, the terms, the procedures. Not just op/ed authors.


Ya isn't it true during investgations they usually let investgators examine the scene and whatnot to determine what happened???

From what I understand that no investgators were allowed to conduct a full head on investigation on the WTC or they would be thrown in jail or something to that effect.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join