It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Another look at "Pull It"

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith



Also, since when does a Fire Commander need permission from a Landlord to pull his troops out?


Pull it!




posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 03:10 AM
link   
Since when does a landlord discuss demolishing a building in suspicious circumstances with a fire commander? HELLO? McFly....MCFLY! .


* Silverstein fluffs up by talking about demolishing the building to the Fire Chief who, funnily enough, didn't find this suspicious.

* Silverstein fluffs up again by then promptly telling everyone about it on TV some time later



Still I guess you guys don't mind leading people down the garden path as long as the honourable outcome is reached in the end. The end justifies the means and all that... funny.... sounds familiar..

ay comrades?

[edit on 15-1-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 09:32 AM
link   
I'd say that he meaned to say "then we made that decision, to pull the rescue operation back" or something like that.. I still don't know why they would have to demolish that building to save human lives? Area had been evacuated.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Since when does a landlord discuss demolishing a building in suspicious circumstances with a fire commander?


When they are in on it. Now, would you be so kind as to go back and answer my question that you side-stepped?



* Silverstein fluffs up by talking about demolishing the building to the Fire Chief who, funnily enough, didn't find this suspicious.


Who says that Fire Chief wasn't in on it too?



* Silverstein fluffs up again by then promptly telling everyone about it on TV some time later


I don't know why that is so funny? YOU are the one telling me he fluffed up his grammar so bad by referring to a group of people as "it" -- quite a Freudian slip there, huh?-- yet can't fathom he could fluff up so bad to accidently tell the TRUTH (which is an easier response for one to do than to remember the lie) while being interviewed?

Laugh all you want, but the jokes on you pal.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by msdos464
I'd say that he meaned to say "then we made that decision, to pull the rescue operation back" or something like that..


Why would a Fire Chief ask a landloard for that permission?



I still don't know why they would have to demolish that building to save human lives? Area had been evacuated.


Because it was demolished for corrupt reasons.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Killtown

Originally posted by msdos464
I'd say that he meaned to say "then we made that decision, to pull the rescue operation back" or something like that..


Why would a Fire Chief ask a landloard for that permission?


Because he probably made the suggestion at an earlier stage than they would have during a more 'normal' incident.

I like the idea the Fire Department was in on it though, man you're paranoid... I hope for both your and their sake none of them see that.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   
A typical 9/11 thread,(a bad grammer jibe is getting boring)
someone beating up alternative opinion, how long can we allow this,
ppl its simple dont be put off posting your comments, this is a conspiracy site, plz dont feel like u daren't post,

What you see is an order to demolish WTC 7 100%,
the fire department were taking orders, these ppl dont obey the laws that we do, so yes the landlord gave the order and got is insurance payout, simply becouse they can do anything they want, like murder thousands of innocent ppl.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 04:55 PM
link   
I dunno what Agentsmiths's trying to do, but he should do a better job.


In one post, he cites info saying that the firefighters stopped fighting the fire late in the day, then 180s and cites other info saying that they stopped earlier in the morning.


Riddle me this, Agent: what holds more weight, Silverstein's half-baked clarification or the fact that "pull it" means demolish a building. Did you listen to that clip of the construction worker? Since you probably didn't
, this is what he says...

"Gettin' ready to pull building 6."

Later in the documentary, they go on to explain building demolition. Now why would he say that before they demolished building 6? Um, maybe because "pull it" means demolish a building!

Bigger question: why would Larry Silverstein say they decided to "pull it," and they then watched the building collapse? See preceding paragraph.


Try again, homey...




posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
I dunno what Agentsmiths's trying to do, but he should do a better job.


In one post, he cites info saying that the firefighters stopped fighting the fire late in the day, then 180s and cites other info saying that they stopped earlier in the morning.



Where did I say they stopped earlyin the morning? I've looked but can't see it...



Riddle me this, Agent: what holds more weight, Silverstein's half-baked clarification or the fact that "pull it" means demolish a building. Did you listen to that clip of the construction worker? Since you probably didn't
, this is what he says...

"Gettin' ready to pull building 6."


Note it is the construction worker saying it, not Silverstein. Would you show two tapes, one of your Gran saying "I feel Gay" and a homosexual saying 'I feel Gay' and say they automatically mean the same thing?



Later in the documentary, they go on to explain building demolition. Now why would he say that before they demolished building 6? Um, maybe because "pull it" means demolish a building!


See above, context and all that.. What's the English syllabus like these days?



Bigger question: why would Larry Silverstein say they decided to "pull it," and they then watched the building collapse? See preceding paragraph.


Because they pulled the guys out, and then later watched the building collapse. No-one is disputing it collapsed....

I've referred to groups of people as an 'it' before, and I've heard others doing it to. When you manage resources it is normal I think, even if it seems coldhearted.



Try again, homey...



Err.. whassup.... man......
"cHeck iT oUt, yeah..."..

[edit on 17-1-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmithBecause he probably made the suggestion at an earlier stage than they would have during a more 'normal' incident.


Why would that make any difference? Why would a Fire Chief need to call a landlord to get suggestions about what to do about a building? It makes no sense for a Fire Chief to call unless it was for they final authorization to PULL the building. That is the ONLY logically reason the F/C would call the landlord, to get the final go-ahead order.




I like the idea the Fire Department was in on it though, man you're paranoid... I hope for both your and their sake none of them see that.


Who said the entire FD was involved?



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Man, you're a liar.

I'd say you missed what you typed, but I found it in 30 seconds. So, it was not a mistake, but a lie.

Here...

Originally posted by AgentSmith



Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
ex]

Contradicts here...

[edit on 13-1-2006 by AgentSmith]


Originally posted by AgentSmith
Elsewhere in the report it says:


5.23[...]the development of the fires was not significantly impeded by the firefighters because manual firefighting efforts were stopped fairly early in the day.

www.fema.gov...


[edit on 14-1-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

I've referred to groups of people as an 'it' before, and I've heard others doing it to. When you manage resources it is normal I think, even if it seems coldhearted.


Yeeeeeeeeeeah right! So you and Silverstein are the only two people in the world (along with your "imaginary friends") who accidentally used "it" to describe a group? I love you paid gov't saboteurs!

.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 07:26 PM
link   
if not anyone agrees that "pull it" referred to the term "pull down" which is a demolition term for demolishing the building check it on my little friend:
Dictionary.com and check "pull down" and compare that to "pull out", that's a big miss-statement then.

Why can't we all accept the government WAS largely if not completely behind 9/11 for financial reasons (War is BIG Business, history proved this in the last century).

I don't think it's that far-fetched, we don't live in some utopia with robots for politicians (even though dubya looks like one lol), they are living beings with their own agenda's and more than willing to abuse their power.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Killtown
Yeeeeeeeeeeah right! So you and Silverstein are the only two people in the world (along with your "imaginary friends") who accidentally used "it" to describe a group? I love you paid gov't saboteurs!


I have plenty of friends thanks, I mix with some pretty respectable people, something you probably wouldn't understand as anyone with any sense or above the age of 12 would not be inclined to engage you in conversation.
Gubmint saboteur? I love you paranoid wackos, you put the whole conspiracy scene to shame, it's because of people like you that the majority of the public won't take it seriously. Using 'it' is not an accident, it's just the way some people choose to refer to things, even if it is a unit comprised of people, it's just a manner of speaking. Whether it's ethically right or not to refer to people using a term usually reserved for inanimate objects is another debate

He may have been referring to the building as the it, but still in the context of pulling the people out which makes equal sense, though I doubt you will see it because you can't see past your fixated ideas.
You have to look at what was said and the circumstances and think about it logically. It can indeed be interpreted in different ways, but you have to think to yourself..

1) The building may have collapsed in the way described, and even if it was demolished they would not admit that.

2) The fire chief would have to be in on it to, or not think it unusual for Silverstein to talk about it inappropiately.

3) Sliverstein would have to be dumb enough to admit it on a recorded TV program and not realise to have it retracted.

He also talks about the 'terrible loss of life', so they are obivously talking about it in the context of taking action in order to save people. Demolishing the building is irrelevant to this and just does not make sense.

Considering you are accusing these people of pulling off one of the biggest crimes in history, they seem pretty incompetent.

In the quotes it does not talk about morning or afternoon, the fire in the building did not start till fairly late, so the fact that they stopped firefighting in there 'early in the day' could still make it afternoon. If you want to take up the bad english in the articles, I suggest you take it up with the authors. A bit of common sense looking at the timelines would make it pretty obvious..


Maybe something else that should occur to you, which you don't seem to have considered, is that they may have very well brought down the building delibrately, but this apparant 'slip up' means what they say it means, and is not a clue. More of a red herring if anything.

[edit on 18-1-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
I have plenty of friends thanks, I mix with some pretty respectable people, something you probably wouldn't understand as anyone with any sense or above the age of 12 would not be inclined to engage you in conversation.
[edit on 18-1-2006 by AgentSmith]


I dont think there's any need for that,



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by iamian
I dont think there's any need for that,


Sorry Mr new Moderator, but there wasn't any need for


Originally posted by Killtown
Yeeeeeeeeeeah right! So you and Silverstein are the only two people in the world (along with your "imaginary friends") who accidentally used "it" to describe a group? I love you paid gov't saboteurs!


either, but I guess the same way you filter out anything that doesn't support your theory, you also filtered out his insults..
I don't find it acceptable that the various people I know being referred to as 'imaginary' and being accused of being on some sort of corrupt payroll just because I don't agree with some of this crap.
Don't give if you can't take....

[edit on 18-1-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 07:25 AM
link   
Point taken agentsmith,

but most of your post end up this way why??



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Sorry, over the last 3 years or so I've ended up with a bit of a chip on my shoulder as I am constantly accused of being some sort of paid off scum just because I have learnt to take a step back and try and look at things from various angles.
When I started off I wholeheartedly supported every conspiracy theory going and would refuse to listen to anything that opposed them. Anyone that tried to convince me otherwise was just a sheep or working for 'the man' as far as I was concerned, but over the years I've learnt that it's not the case and things are more complicated than that in a lot of ways and simpler in others.
That's one of the reasons I get so annoyed with some people because I can remember being the same way myself once..
Sometimes it's useful to argue the opposing point anyway just to ensure a balance -ie playing devil's advocate. If it isn't done then the research group essentially brainwashes itself as no opposing view is presented.
Sadly what started out as noble intentions often becomes full of spite due to the stress of the whole thing and the ignorant attitudes one has to put up with sometimes.

[edit on 18-1-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 07:40 AM
link   
He obviously decided to have the biulding demolished when he said pull it...

There is now enough info for the clear minded to see this amidst the haze of confusion.

If you dont see this you are suffering from "mental stress" or are furthering an agenda.

End of story.

No point in arguing...

Those that are meant to see what is really going on, will.
But it wastes time when arguing with people who CANNOT be open minded.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Yes you do seem to have have put yourself into a position of a hate figure
on the 9/11 topics, unjust i know but it is a difficult subject and tempers may flare from time to time, but you seem to have reason more than most,
i was just wondering if you were personally affected by the events on 9/11? (lost a loved one or friend)

me personally i cant accept any nuts and bolt theory, maybe this is wrong,
but my whole being cant accept what i saw that day, and yes you can comply a mass of data with an admirable conviction, but i just feel something so wrong as happened, i dont know maybe i'm a fool, only time will tell Agentsmith,

all the best




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join