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.

 

Latest Polls after new NIST report

page: 4
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Beefcake
 


pull it in this situation couldn't possibly mean EVACTUATE THE AREA could it???

maybe pull it mean get the firefighters out of there, or don't even send them in.

it's so ignorant to simply say it had to be demo'd because he said pull it.

why would he just come out and say "we blew it up" or "we demolished because blah blah blah."

to cling to that, is rediculous.




posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 11:04 AM
link   
I wanted to take a moment to visit this thread briefly to thank the few who are still pursuing this facet of one of the days in history that changed our world.

It is surprising to me that the minutiae need be so hotly defended when those who are 'satisfied' can clearly not see the forest for the trees.

There is simply no reasonable mechanism whereby a politically-appointed leader would betray his benefactors by damning them in an official report. It is contrary to reason.

To have expected the NIST to 'close the book' on this event is unreasonable. They are immersed in 'theories' and 'conjecture' without physical evidence.

The evidenciary nature of the materials is the first of a very large number of discrepancies in the case. There can be NO denying that this act was criminal, and therefore No denying that the rules of evidenciary law were to have been applied. Yet, we are discussing a world-shaping event which the establishment almost flatly refused to conduct, and seven years later, they are still concocting 'explanations.'

Please, broaden your perspective, if you can't recognize the discrepancies of specific evidence, or won't; it still does not change the bigger picture, which is peppered with peculiarities, deviations form norms, and outright flagrant disregard for proper investigative practices.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by SRTkid86
 


Considering "pull it" is a common demo term we'll ignore common sense for this fact just to entertain your denial.

NIST says themselves in the new study that this kind of expanding beam causing a building to collapse is the first of its kind. Understanding that this is the first time its happened and its taken several takes by NIST to come to this conclusion how then did BBC know it was going to happen and report on it 20 minutes before it fell.

Not only did they report on it 20 minutes before but must have gotten the briefing before that so i'd say conservatively that BBC knew it was going to fall 30 minutes before it did yet it took NIST 3 years to determine why it fell.

All the deniers can talk all they want because we all know that the buildings were demo'd. All 3 of them and majority of the world knows that the official story is bogus so this damage control by NIST will backfire because it just sparks interest again in the false flag that was 9/11.

For those new to the subject of False Flags and those that have denial that a government could plan such things i will direct you to Operation Northwoods. and more specifically Section 3 of the official government document keep in mind this document is over 40 years old and they spoke of such things and planned them.




3. A "Remember the Maine" incident could be arranged in several forms: a. We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba. b. We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. We could arrange to cause such incident in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both. The presence of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack. The nearness to Havana or Santiago would add credibility especially to those people that might have heard the blast or have seen the fire. The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to "evacuate" remaining members of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.


Here is the official document Operation Northwoods and it is important because it tackles the real denial that many have about how a government could be involved in False Flags and could they be that deceptive to thier own people.
Operation Northwoods



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by SRTkid86
 


Please show me a video or an article which state's, that's the saying used in any other situation than a demolition?
When i see this Interview with a Controlled Demo Expert, who's not seen the colapse is shocked that's building 7, Then so am i.

[edit on 23-8-2008 by slylee]



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Beefcake
 


Shall we go through all the videos taken that day that have firefighters saying all afternoon that WTC7 was so badly damaged that they were sure it was going to fall too??

EVERYONE was sure it was going to come down at some point. Thats why they had the evacuation zone around it.

Or maybe we should go through all the information from demolition specialists and the terminology they use?

Or would you rather stick with your conspiracy websites instead of maybe looking for the facts??



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Is this explanation believeable? No.

Further, it is insulting to the intelligence of the average American.

Scratch that. The "average American" has fallen so far behind in intelligence that this explanation sounds plausible.

Clearly the government is counting on the population to have lost interest. After all, isnt it more important to know who will be the next American Idol?



Hildegard



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by slylee
 


so, what you are saying is that if you use the term pull it, it's EXCLUSIVELY means to blow it up?

i don't understand your reasoning here. i mean, the man said in the video that was posted on the last page, that they decided to pull it because there was already "a huge loss of life" (or something VERY similar) explain to me, why you would blow a building up to prevent more people from dying? COMMON sense would dictate that he was saying "pull it" in terms of getting people out of and away from the building because they didn't want to lose anymore life.

as far as the BBC news cast goes, you could tie it in with what im trying to say. maybe the fire dept had a reason to believe that the building was goign to come down, as a direct result of the fires. and the reporters got the message, it could be a simply "grape vine" error, where the reporter heard "it is collapsed" instead of "it's going to collapse"

this is yet another case of you guys only using PARTS of statements that fit your argument and ignoring/disregarding any of other information. because to look at this in term of being unbiased, it's obivous that the term pull it, is not exclusive to blowing things up.

also Larry Siverstein himself in the video said that the fire dept. made the call to "pull it" so now all of a sudden the NYFD has the authority to blow a privately owned building up?

do you not see the major flaw in your logic regarding the term "pull it"



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Beefcake
 


im not the one ignoring common sense, and trying to make things fit into my preconceived view of our government and the way that we do things.

i am familiar with Operation Northwoods, and also familiar with "false flag" ops that have taken place. but they have nothing to do with what we are talking about here. you are trying to say that Pull it is basically a term used EXCLUSIVELY to mean that they are going to blow a building up. care to back that up with some PROOF? oh that's right you can't prove anything about that, because you would have to be able to read minds. people use terms differently all the time. what you are doing is taking the meaning that you want, and applying it to what he said.

that would be like saying that Race car drivers often say "let rock" before they get into the car. so anyone saying "lets rock" is a race car driver, about to get into a race car.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by SRTkid86
 




An alternative interpretation of Silverstein's statement is that "pull it" refers to withdrawing firefighters from the building. However, according to FEMA's report there were no manual firefighting operations in Building 7, so there would not have been any firefighters to "pull" -- at least not from inside the building.

Link
Ive just never heard that saying used in anything else, this is not the issue what convince's me anyway, but all add's to the massive list of strange thing's on that day.

I'f you find one quote of a company saying that term i will totaly change my view on larry's comment.

[edit on 23-8-2008 by slylee]



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by slylee
 


yet another example of a truther's selective reading.

this comes from the last paragraph in your link




Web research supports the theory that Silverstein's remark was part of a calculated distraction. The pull-it remark is copied by hundreds of websites, many citing the remark from the Ground Zero worker about Building 6 as proof that to 'pull' means to demolish. However, searching sites specific to the demolition trade does not support this meaning of 'pull'. The following Google searches of the two best known controlled demolition sites in October of 2003 did not return any results indicating that pulling and demolition are synonymous.


in other words, there is not even any proof that demolition comapnies USE "pull" or "pull it" to indicate that they are taking the building down.

so where exactly are you guys getting this information from? because from everything i have read thus far, there is nothing but a few people's opinions, that indicate that "pull it" means "let's blow it up"

edit to add:
i worked in the Round Rock, Texas Volunteer fire department, and during that time i helped with more than 1 structure fire. while we never used "pull it" verbatim to get out of a total loss fire, we used terms very similar to it, i don't expect everyone to believe me or think im right here, as im not willing to provide any proof of my service there since it would require posting personal information.

[edit on 8/23/08 by SRTkid86]



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Ultima.

When was the steel removed from Ground Zero?

What was the date NIST took over the investigation?

Please answer those two questions.


Why? what would be the point?

Obviously the point you are trying to make is that NIST took over the investigation long after the steel was gone. It is a good point to defend NIST as an organization, however the most it accomplishes is saying "they did the best with what they had".

What Ultima is saying goes beyond the scope of what you are implying. Even if they did the best with what they had they still didn't have the resources needed to reach an unbiased conclusion. It is obvious that the outcome was biased, and people dont believe it according to the poles he posted.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Beefcake
 


Shall we go through all the videos taken that day that have firefighters saying all afternoon that WTC7 was so badly damaged that they were sure it was going to fall too??

EVERYONE was sure it was going to come down at some point. Thats why they had the evacuation zone around it.

Or maybe we should go through all the information from demolition specialists and the terminology they use?

Or would you rather stick with your conspiracy websites instead of maybe looking for the facts??


All of the firefighters claimed to hear explosions as well, could that be why they thought it was going to fall down? Because there were multiple explosions within the building. If need be I will post a video of an explosion within the WTC7 building.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by SRTkid86
pull it in this situation couldn't possibly mean EVACTUATE THE AREA could it???


I am afraid PULL IT did mean the building since we have the statements from the fire chiefs that the firemen were evacuated before the call was made to Silverstein.

The only reason for the fire commander to call Silverstein was to tell him they could not save the building.

The fire commander and incident command decided to PULL the building.

[edit on 23-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   


Web research supports the theory that Silverstein's remark was part of a calculated distraction. The pull-it remark is copied by hundreds of websites, many citing the remark from the Ground Zero worker about Building 6 as proof that to 'pull' means to demolish. However, searching sites specific to the demolition trade does not support this meaning of 'pull'. The following Google searches of the two best known controlled demolition sites in October of 2003 did not return any results indicating that pulling and demolition are synonymous.

Silvestein's remark was part of a calculated distraction,
citing the remark ground zero worker about building 6? Not heard this one...
And only searched two company's ?
yes it's not 100% he ment bring it down, just very strange he said that word, as i no this saying is said in the uk when an item in supermarkets needs recalling?, but any chance you can explain the molten metal for me please? One down too many to go.


[edit on 23-8-2008 by slylee]



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by SRTkid86
pull it in this situation couldn't possibly mean EVACTUATE THE AREA could it???


I am afraid PULL IT did mean the building since we have the statements from the fire chiefs that the firemen were evacuated before the call was made to Silverstein.

The only reason for the fire commander to call Silverstein was to tell him they could not save the building.

The fire commander and incident command decided to PULL the building.

[edit on 23-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]


I've seen the video with Silverstein saying, "the only thing to do now was to pull it"

But what I'm thinking is they were so stupid that they were going to admit that they had to demo the building. But then they realized, wait a sec, if we admit that, how are we going to explain how fast we got the demo in there?!

Either that or he just doesn't care and is basically admitting that they demoed the building with out saying exactly that.

[edit on 23-8-2008 by Techsnow]



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


im afraid you have provided no proof of your statements, and you are just parroting the same crap that i just tore apart in last couple of posts. whether you read what i say and actually reply to it or not, doesn't make it an less valid.

please try reading ALL of EVERYTHING that someone post, and take that into account when arguing.

what i said is that could have used the term to get people OUT OF, and AWAY FROM the building because they knew that the fire was not going to get put out, and that eventually the building was going to fall

one of the sources that somebody JUST posted on here, shows that the truther site did a search and could find NOTHING linking the term "pull it" to the demolition industry. yet you continue to sit there and make baseless, and false speculations based on psuedo-science and research.

and since the NYFD were the people to decide to "pull it" why does everyone bring up Larry Silverstein when they argue it? because it is silly to insinuate the the NYFD had ANYTHING to do with demolishing a PRIVATELY OWNED BUILDING!

[edit on 8/23/08 by SRTkid86]



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Techsnow
 


what you are convieniently IGNORING, is the fact that the NYFD are the people who made the decision to "pull it" AKA, get people out of there because that thing is going to come down sometime in the near future.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by slylee
 


well, i can only give you speculation based on my knowledge of ground zero, and i would say that the most likely explanation for molten metal would be that after the building went down, it essentially made a furnace out of the wreckage. because everyone here should be able to agree that the wreckage was not air tight, meaning wind could have whipped into and through the fire causing it to get hot enough to melt the metal

have you ever played around with fire? try lighting a BBQ pit, and waiting till the coals are hot, then close it and open the smoke stack, then take a leaf blower and put it on the bottom vent and turn it on, guarenteed you will see the temps jump easily by a few hundred degrees, given enough fuel it's easily acceptable that it can get hot enough to completely melt steel into a liquid state.... it's how blacksmiths have been doing it for a VERY LONG time.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by SRTkid86
im afraid you have provided no proof of your statements, and you are just parroting the same crap that i just tore apart in last couple of posts. whether you read what i say and actually reply to it or not, doesn't make it an less valid.


Yes i have proven my statements many times. You just do not want to admit it.

I have posted the statements from Chief Hayden and Chief Nigor that the building were evacuated before the call to Silverstein.

I have also proven that the fire chief does have the authority to demeo a buidling if they believe it will casue more damage or spread fires.

Also you do know that Silverstein had no authority over anything going on? He had no authority to tell the fire commander what to do with the firemen.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Techsnow
 


i highly doubt "all" of them claimed to hear explosions, even then. i tend to not totally believe every little detail that comes out of someone's mouth right after they were just in what could literally be termed as "hell on earth" people tend to get a little panicked in those kind of situations and can often hear, or see things that didn't REALLY happen.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join