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.

 

Pull IT

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 05:50 PM
link   
The term "it" referes to everything. The entire effort. not jsut people, but the whole effort. That means firefighting, rescue, everything. It's jsut a slang term not meant to have any deep thought put into it. And the "they" he referred to was the firefighters.

The alternative suggestion is a demolition term.

A term that means to attach large cables to the top of the building and pull it down to the side. So if you want to argue over the semantics of the word "it" why don't you argue over why there were no large cables attached to the building and why it was not pulled down to the side?

Because that just wouldn't make for an exciting sensational conspiracy....




posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 05:58 PM
link   
It doesn't make sense to me that Silverstein would freely admit to a controlled demolition, but it's just bizarre that he would say they pulled it and then it fell, as if there was almost no time between the two events.

It reminds me of someone who is trying so hard not to say something that it pops right out without their realizing it. It happens to people who aren't practiced liars.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 06:10 PM
link   
While assisting in the Rita clean-up, in Alabama, one of our chip sites had a fire. The responding fire-fighters did an awesome job, eventually isolating the fire to one pile, about a quarter acre square.
Three that morning, the Chief said, pull it, break it down.

Now, did that refer to a building ? Explosives ? No. It referred to his team and their equipment.

To take such a lame shot, as to try to interpret jargon, and use it to further an already dead argument is quite sad.

To the fire dept. of Foley, Alabama...Great Job !!! Hope ya'll have many more meals at that Chinese restaraunt, after church. (I'm the Goth mechanic)

Godspeed,
Lex



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Why would you pull the fire fighters from the building?

Silverstein said that one of the reasons to "pull it" was to "avoid further loss of life". Did he know the building was coming down?

I doubt it's the NYFD's policy to pull out of a building unless the fire is completely out of control and there's no way to put it out and human life is in danger.

It's pretty obvious that the fires in WTC 7 weren't anything out of the ordinary. I'm sure the NYFD has dealt with bigger fires than the ones on WTC 7, so who in their right mind would want their own building to burn? Besides people trying to collect insurance money?

Now, if you admit that WTC 7 didn't come down due to fire, then you have to be admit that it came down in a controlled demolition.

And if you do that, then acknowledge that who ever brought it down didn't plant the charges on 9/11!



It takes several weeks or months to prepare a building for implosion. All items of value, such as copper wiring, are stripped from a building.

from Controlled Demolition in Wikipedia.

The charges had to have been placed there way before 9/11, and therefor obviously that someone had prior knowledge to what was going to happen on that day.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 07:05 PM
link   


A term that means to attach large cables to the top of the building and pull it down to the side.


It only means using cables when talking about a non-implosion demolition. For an implosion, it means using gravity to pull a structure down by destroying its support structure.



Implosion is a process where a small amount of explosives is used to disrupt selected supports in a building. This allows gravity to pull the structure down in a controlled manner.

source

How does fire and damage to one side of a building cause it to implode exactly like a controlled implosion?



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 07:16 PM
link   
There was no way to truly fight the fire at WTC 7. When the other towers came down they ruptured a water main in the area, so the internal sprinklers, and the hydrants around it had little or no water pressure. So there was no point in sending firefighters into the building anymore.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 07:24 PM
link   
To me this is the part of his statement seals it...

'...And we watched the building collapse.'

That is the conclusion to his whole statement, whether he said 'IT' or not, from that last conclusion of his statement it's obvious he was talking about the building not the people inside it.

If he was refering to the fire crews he should have said, 'And we watched the fire crews pull out', then it would make sense, but he didn't he said we watched the building collapse.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
There was no way to truly fight the fire at WTC 7. When the other towers came down they ruptured a water main in the area, so the internal sprinklers, and the hydrants around it had little or no water pressure. So there was no point in sending firefighters into the building anymore.

I'm sorry.. no point in sending fire fighters to save the building and the contents of where the SEC, CIA, IRS, and the Secret Service were housed?

Surely authorities would have done anything humanly possible to put out the fire.

And please, dont insult my intelligence saying there was no water pressure. How do fire fighters fight fires in, lets say, a forest? They cross fingers and hope there's a lake near by?



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
There was no way to truly fight the fire at WTC 7. When the other towers came down they ruptured a water main in the area, so the internal sprinklers, and the hydrants around it had little or no water pressure. So there was no point in sending firefighters into the building anymore.


Source this information, please?

From what I can recall, I believe the FEMA report clearly refutes the water pressure issue - but I could be wrong and would like to be wrong.

However, there are three main points surrounding building 7 on 9|11|01:

1.) No manual firefighting operations the entire day
2.) "Safety zone" around the building
3.) Silverstein's "pull-it" comment

Like I've stated in all my posts, timestamps on these three keypoints could very well re-open the investigation regarding WTC 7.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by danx
I'm sorry.. no point in sending fire fighters to save the building and the contents of where the SEC, CIA, IRS, and the Secret Service were housed?

Surely authorities would have done anything humanly possible to put out the fire.

And please, dont insult my intelligence saying there was no water pressure. How do fire fighters fight fires in, lets say, a forest? They cross fingers and hope there's a lake near by?


They have these things called Tanker Trucks that carry their own water supplies. They take those with them.

Tell me how they were supposed to fight the fire and save the building if there was no water pressure. They don't have lots of tanker trucks in the city because they don't NEED them. They usually have enough water pressure to fight building fires.


We went one block north over to Greenwich and then headed south. There was an engine company there, right at the corner. It was right underneath building 7 and it was still burning at the time. They had a hose in operation, but you could tell there was no pressure. It was barely making it across the street. Building 6 was fully involved and it was hitting the sidewalk across the street. I told the guys to wait up.



But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we?re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn?t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn?t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I?m standing next to said, that building doesn?t look straight. So I?m standing there. I?m looking at the building. It didn?t look right, but, well, we?ll go in, we?ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody?s going into 7, there?s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

www.firehouse.com...


Many fires in the area went unchecked because utility power for electrical pumps, and water pressure for fire engines had either diminished or been lost.

www.counterpunch.org...




[edit on 1/14/2007 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Upon my review of this discussion three things have come to mind:

1.) Semantics

2.) Semantics

3.) Semantics

The term "pull it" has a variety of meanings in the English language.

Also, I saw Mr. Silverstein on the History channel talking about this incident. Please, somebody kindly explain to me why this man, who obviously would have had to have intimate knowledge of the so called "conspiracy" if it were true to make the statement in question, would get on national TV and blow the lid on the "conspiracy" if he was involved. There was no conspiracy and the buildings were not brought down by controlled demolition. The term "pull it" was simply referring to the operation, effort, or whatever you want to call it, by the firefighters. In other words, pull the firefighters before more life is lost. It is that simple people.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
The term "it" referes to everything. The entire effort. not jsut people, but the whole effort. That means firefighting, rescue, everything. It's jsut a slang term not meant to have any deep thought put into it. And the "they" he referred to was the firefighters.

The alternative suggestion is a demolition term.

A term that means to attach large cables to the top of the building and pull it down to the side. So if you want to argue over the semantics of the word "it" why don't you argue over why there were no large cables attached to the building and why it was not pulled down to the side?

Because that just wouldn't make for an exciting sensational conspiracy....


For once Snoopy, I have to agree with you on this point 100%. IT can refer to the effort and not the people. As I've said before, I think he was lying in the first place about the call. Why would the fire chief call Larry to begin with before the building came down? Yes, a courtesy call after the building went down. Think about it, the newly apointed chief (if we are talking about Negro here) in the middle of the biggest attack EVER in the history of the U.S. is going to call Silverstein to ask him what should be done to assure the safety of his own men and the safety of the civilians (some that might be even trapped around the collapse zone)? I really don't think so but that is just my opinion.

That being said, I still believe there's something fishy by the way the building came down.

On the conspiracy side. What if Larry was lying when he said he got a call from the fire chief? What if he got a call from someone else? That's just a what if, I don't believe that yet and there's no proof, so people please don't ask me to prove that or anything. Thanks.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 09:46 PM
link   
I don't understand why anyone would focus on this as proof of demolition, go to scientific analysis if you really want to get this going and proving the conspiracy, like others have.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by MooneyBravo
Please, somebody kindly explain to me why this man, who obviously would have had to have intimate knowledge of the so called "conspiracy" if it were true to make the statement in question, would get on national TV and blow the lid on the "conspiracy" if he was involved. There was no conspiracy and the buildings were not brought down by controlled demolition.


Just because this statement by Silerstein doesn't prove anything, you can't automatically just say "There was no conspiracy and the buildings were not brought down by controlled demolition. " That's a big leap in my mind.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 10:02 PM
link   
In case anyone is really interested, the phrase 'Whom is it?', spoken when someone knocks on the door, is a shortened version of 'Whom is it, knocking on my door?' Or something similar. It is the lack of a dual-gender pronoun in the English language that implements the usage of 'it'.

Think of it this way- I tell you that my broker called, and told me some great insider information(the legal kind). You respond by saying "What did he/she/they/ say? See? No dual-gender pronoun. No, tri-gender pronouns niether.

I'm not a language specialist, so I could be wrong. Interesting nonetheless.

IMO, the fire commander was telling Mr. Silverstein about a 'unit' or 'squad' or 'group' of firefolk that was in the building. The fire commander most likely used the word 'it' first. Probably something like "I got my last unit in bldg 7, but I don't see keeping them in there is going to do any good. I might just pull it." Then larry responds with his quote. "Yeah, theres been so much yada yada......."

When your asked to explain a certain situation, most folks tend to stick to the topic mostly, and leave out irrelevant stuff. Larry's conclusion of "..and then we wathed it collapsed." or w/e, was a mental jump, to answer the question posed him in the interview. The interviewer didn't ask to hear about his wife's phone call between his conversation with the fire commander and the collapse of building, nor his trip to the restroom, nor what he ate at the cafeteria, nor the web-sites he perused on his laptop. Does that help explain his comments some? I hope so.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
To me this is the part of his statement seals it...

'...And we watched the building collapse.'

That is the conclusion to his whole statement, whether he said 'IT' or not, from that last conclusion of his statement it's obvious he was talking about the building not the people inside it.


I disagree. If we're going to play the 'what the words suggest game', then Larry would have to have said 'then we watched it collapse' to fit with the controlled demo theory. Why would he changed go from saying 'it', to using 'the building' in the same sentence. For example;

This sentence would not make sense: 'He grabbed his coat, then Mark ran out the door.' - If Mark were the person grabbing his coat, then it would say 'Mark grabbed his coat...', but the way it is worded shows that the sentence is discussing two different entities/people.

I have always believe that when Larry said 'pull it' he was referring to the singular firefighting effort going on at WTC 7.

[edit on 14-1-2007 by CaptainLazy]



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 10:26 PM
link   


Just because this statement by Silerstein doesn't prove anything, you can't automatically just say "There was no conspiracy and the buildings were not brought down by controlled demolition. " That's a big leap in my mind.


Ok, I'll give you that one for free. However, my qualification as a structural engineer and backround in chemistry does allow me to state faithfully that it was not a controlled demo. Even the Loizeaux family has said that the WTC was not a controlled demo.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by MooneyBravo
Ok, I'll give you that one for free. However, my qualification as a structural engineer and background in chemistry does allow me to state faithfully that it was not a controlled demo. Even the Loizeaux family has said that the WTC was not a controlled demo.


You're right it didn't look like a conventional controlled demo, cause it wasn't. Any professional would say that because it's true. But it doesn't mean the buildings were NOT brought down with explosives.

As an engineer how do you explain the South Tower? The top started to topple to the side of the planes impact. How did this topple suddenly have the energy to crush the rest of the undamaged building in a vertical manner?

Isn't it true that a body in motion will stay in motion unless acted on by another force? Why didn't the top continue on it's path and fall off the side of the building as would be expected? When it started toppling it already lost any energy to crush vertically, if the building underneath didn't have the strength to hold the top then it wouldn't have started to topple in the first place. How do you explain that?

How do you explain complete vertical collapse, with huge pieces of steel facade being ejected horizontally up to 600 ft? How does gravity do that?

How does the top have the energy to crush stronger undamaged lower floors, when the concrete is turned to dust and the steel is ejected horizontally? What is doing the crushing?

Pls explain this without any quotes or BS science from any government or big corporation source, I've seen them all already. I want your personal expertise to explain, thanx.

Have you seen a pic of a pancake collapse? You see floors still intact, lying on top of each other, not turned into dust.



[edit on 14/1/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by MooneyBravo
Ok, I'll give you that one for free. However, my qualification as a structural engineer and backround in chemistry does allow me to state faithfully that it was not a controlled demo. Even the Loizeaux family has said that the WTC was not a controlled demo.


Cool. Another structural engineer. Can't wait to debate with you. Have you done any structural calcs. yet? I'd love to see what you've come up with. Thanks in advance.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 11:27 PM
link   


Cool. Another structural engineer. Can't wait to debate with you. Have you done any structural calcs. yet? I'd love to see what you've come up with. Thanks in advance.


Umm...ok...

Are you an engineer? I've been reading your posts for quite some and you exhibit nothing that is indicative of knowledge of engineering. Are you going to tell me that your understanding of the collapse rivals mine or any other engineer that that disagrees with controlled demo theory? What the hell did I spend nearly 7 years studying for if you know as much as I and the thousands of engineers across the country that have looked into these events due to professional curiosity. I suppose I should perform computational dynamics analysis and have you review it for your "professional" opinion. Better yet, since my family owns an engineering firm, we could send all of our work to you so you can review it and correct all of our mistakes...since we know nothing more (or perhaps less) than you.

You believe in 911 conspiracy theories, including controlled demo, simply because you want to and by golly you will not stand to allow professional opinion or facts that do not agree with your preconceived notions to get in the way of your ill logic.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join