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.

 

USINFO.STATE.GOV .. This site sure straightened ME out

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 04:02 PM
link   
This whole page makes for fun reading in it's attempt to dismantle the entire 9/11 Truth movement, but paragraph four has me sore from laughing. While referring to the book "9/11 Revealed" by Rowan and Henshall:

"The book suggests that the 47-story World Trade Center 7 building, which also collapsed on September 11, was intentionally demolished, citing a comment by the property owner that he had decided to “pull it.” The property owner was referring to pulling a contingent of firefighters out of the building in order to save lives because it appeared unstable."

There's more .. check out the whole biscuit here:
usinfo.state.gov...




posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Wasn't that pull it comment made before the attacks anyway?
I can't remember correctly.
Anyway since when do people refer to firefighters as 'it'



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   
He meant it as the building, as in pull it (the building), but as he was talking to the fire chief one can use that to understand the context of the statement.

"There are firefighters in the building"

"Pull it"

NOT

"Explosives ready sir"

"Pull it"

The most amusing thing about the idea of it meaning anything else is the implication that this incredible Illuminati/etc guy managed to pull off this crime, cover everything up yet slip up on camera without realising, then not get all the footage and record of it destroyed.

He has released a statement saying this is what he meant, funnily enough the original demand was for him to say what he meant if not that, of course as soon as he did he is suddenly lying... One feels the goalposts keep moving...



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Those comments were made by Larry Silverstein in a documentary about
9/11 and WTC 7's collapse.

And yes, WHO exactly is he supposed to be calling "IT".
And what part of "IT" is getting "PULLED" ?

It's beyond stupid.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   
The rather simple and likely answer is in my reply above sir.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
The rather simple and likely answer is in my reply above sir.


Pull it'

is known slang in the demo industry for pull down a building via a demo...

it seems clear to me what Silverstein was saying... a man that made many millions working in the property industry likely knows what the term refers too. I'm willing to bet that many firemen know what the slang term 'pull it' means too.

Of course if you went to a dance club it might mean something else?


[edit on 12-4-2006 by denythestatusquo]



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Yeah it's pretty hard to give it some other meaning. It's true it is a term used to describe buildings being demolished. I even knew that before checking up on it, it's pretty common knowledge.
I rarely call something dumb, but trying to say he was referring to firefighters is... dumb.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 06:24 PM
link   
When talking about a team or company of firefighters, one could say "pull it" as in pull the team, group, unit, company, etc.

Seriously, it two words used out of context. It's NOT the smoking gun of demolitions and cover-ups.

It's only a straw and it's not smoking.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 06:28 PM
link   


"There are firefighters in the building"

"Pull it"

NOT

"Explosives ready sir"

"Pull it"


WRONG

Rudolph Giuliani said that morning everyone was evacuated from building 7 because they got a warning the towers were going to collapse.
Even officialy sources ADMIT there was no fire fighting inside WTC 7.

If there was no fire fighting, why would there be fire fighters?



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 09:59 PM
link   
It dosent matter who said what. Fire or no fire, the building should not have fallen the way it did.

The building was destroied in a matter of seconds due to fires? Even if it should have fallen, it wouldnt have fallen like that.

So why is everyone talking about what somone said and ignoring this?



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo

Pull it'

is known slang in the demo industry for pull down a building via a demo...


It is also a term used by fire fighters to indicate thatthey are pullingback, out of a fire.


Who was he talking to, a demo foreman, or the fire chief?



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 12:00 AM
link   
If you believe the official version of 9/11 then you believe that a person can fall through 110 layers of concrete at the same speed as he falls through the air. Person A and B are identical. A falls at the 110'th floor level to the side of the building. B falls through all 110 floors, breaking each floor 1 at a time losing energy each time. B also manages to pulverize all the concrete while falling through the building. A and B hit the bottom at the exact same time. Explain how this is possible. In the case of Tower 7, B reaches the bottom before A, explain how this too is possible.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
It is also a term used by fire fighters to indicate thatthey are pullingback, out of a fire.


Yup, "pull it" has already been beat to death....it is in FACT a term used by fire fighters to indicate that they're pulling back, pulling out, grab all the gear, get all the hoses and let's get the hell outta dodge.




www.firefightersforums.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">ww w.firefightersforums.com
posted by: OudeVanDagen

ShadowXIX: "Pull It" to many firefighters, especially to those oldtimers like me that served long before portable radios became popular and affordable, can also mean to cease all interior operations. Years ago, before SCBAs, mask cans made interior operations possible, but when those inside operations had to be abandoned in favor of an exterior attack the commaders would order the men on the outside to pull - and pull hard - on the interior hose line. This was a signal (as were long air horn blasts and whistles) to get out asap. Pulling on that interior line to signal the interior crews to stop and get out asap led to the term "Pull It" and it is still used by many today.


EDIT: lol...I see that ShadowXIX started the thread on what "pull it" means



EDIT: That was an 'old timer' that said "pull it" in WTC audio clip

[edit on 13/4/2006 by SportyMB]



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tasketo
It dosent matter who said what. Fire or no fire, the building should not have fallen the way it did.

The building was destroied in a matter of seconds due to fires? Even if it should have fallen, it wouldnt have fallen like that.

So why is everyone talking about what somone said and ignoring this?



Hey I'm with you man... this eternal splitting of hairs on ever increasing technicalities is all just a tactic to keep from admitting that the official 911 was a lie and to keep everyone from the real truth in my opinion.

If I was going to tell the fire fighters to get out would I not say the following especially if I was a New Yorker: Get them the $%# outta there!! Even Hollywood would write it that way I believe... in fact they have before

but we have people here waxing euphimistically... like this was Shakespeare in High Park or something.

then there is the fire in WTC 7 that has been beaten to death with posts talking about it... still they maintain that the building fell on it's own due to fire, what fire? and why so fast the collapse as you point out? ...okay ...sure whatever the naysayers say.

I'm still surprised that no other buildings in the area outside of the WTC were severly damaged and condemned as a result of what happened. Logic tells us that it should be that way but it wasn't.

Meanwhile we play these games while Nero watches and plays the fiddle, the brotherhood must be pleased at this performance, so far at least.

The problem with all this is that if nobody from the inside steps forward to spill the beans it will never satisfy the nay sayers whatever analysis is done because they will forever find tactics to muddle the debate in order to cause even 1% uncertainty which they can prey on to convince the fearfull that everything is okay with the world.

It is our experts against their experts and our experts arn't being paid to do this either.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 01:20 AM
link   
Well, every single shred of evidence that refutes "9/11 Revealed"'s claims would not be considered evidence in a court of law, hypothetically if someone was to sue the US for 9/11, why? Because it's the US government going "This doesn't mean this because OUR studies show..." "This didn't happen because OUR studies say.." "This didn't happen because we said so"

After a while you're so busy with statistical numbers and all that special jazz that already is produced by the decievers themselves, you don't notice the last part, which is "because we said so.".

Sooner or later if you speak about a 9/11 conspiracy, you'll get arrested. However if you look up the official definition of "Conspiracy", the official version IS a conspiracy.

But here's something for you to goto bed at night with: What's more likely, that ~17 men throughout Berlin and the Middle East outwitted the strongest country, economically/militarily/etc., or etc. I think the best thing to bring up right now is Contact, specifically Occam's Razor.

en.wikipedia.org...'s_Razor



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 02:10 AM
link   
Occam's Razor is useless.

Although I don't know what actually happened on 9/11, I DO know that to argue that the controlled demolition theory and all that it assumes and implies is somehow simpler than the al-queda hijacking theory and all that it assumes and implies, is silly.

Neither one is simple, and whichever theory you already subscribe to is going to seem like the simplest.

It's like using the phrase "Prove to me that it didn't happen that way" and then acting like you've won an argument.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

It is also a term used by fire fighters to indicate thatthey are pullingback, out of a fire.

Who was he talking to, a demo foreman, or the fire chief?



Keep telling yourself that. That PBS video was about the WTC buildings FALLING DOWN or did you not hear the WTC 6 "pull" comment?

If it was a military operation (ya know, with a code name and all), then I could see were someone could use the term "pull it", but I doubt the fireman fighting the WTC 7 fire were part of some specific "operation" other than fighting a fire.

Also, how could the "its" (the firefighters) be pulled out/back/whatever when they never even went in the building to fight the fire in the first place???



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by quango

It's like using the phrase "Prove to me that it didn't happen that way" and then acting like you've won an argument.



I have, many have actually. They failed to prove to ANYONE that it DIDN'T happen that way.

If they're SO sure that we're wrong, why not conduct chemical searches? SURELY if it was enough gasoline to make the whole building collapse, there would be traces still. There are at the twin towers, why not WTC7?

[edit on 13-4-2006 by Vinci]



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 02:33 AM
link   
Occam's Razor's not useless. A building falls down symmetrically, two theories compete. One assumes all columns were simultaneously cut by charges, a common practice, while the other proposes fire achieved that very same feat, somehow. The latter is vastly more improbable than the former, thus OR says the former prevails.

On another note, don't bother arguing with the naysayers. They'll argue that if the pope "pulled out" at a catholic boys school, he actually meant "pull out the bibles". Forget 'em.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 02:53 AM
link   
Ok. Try this one:

A building appears to fall symmetrically, two theories compete.

One assumes that damage from the collapse of a massive nearby building, coupled with fires burning in key places, caused an improbable total collapse.

The other assumes that charges are planted throughout the building in the days prior, then used to bring the building down at a random time in the late afternoon, with no attempt to make it not look like a controlled demo, plus the inclusion of a motive for the guilty and the need for total secrecy by all involved.

Which is simpler?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join