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.

 

...They did this by a controlled pull demolition...

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...
A 7/11 demolition.

That comment was under this video, and it instantly made me think of Larry Silversteins comment, to pull it.

Compared to this semi-failed demolition, the 9/11 guys were real pro's.




posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


The remaining section of exterior wall of South Tower was "pulled" - wire cables were attached to the piece and tension applied until the section came down

This is what "pull" means in a demolition sense using wire cables to pull
a building down



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 04:06 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Even though that is the origin of the term it is also used as a common term for any demolition. Especially by those who have been in the industry for awhile. Often obsolete terms are used in a general sense in a lot if industries.

It's obvious what Silverstein meant in the context of his statement.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by thedman
 


Even though that is the origin of the term it is also used as a common term for any demolition. Especially by those who have been in the industry for awhile. Often obsolete terms are used in a general sense in a lot if industries.

It's obvious what Silverstein meant in the context of his statement.

I've seen that claim before, yet noone has bothered to back it up with a source so far. Colour me surprised...


I agree it's obvious what Silverstein meant in the context of his statement though, he was referring to the withdrawal of firefighters from the immediate area. A decision that was made by the FDNY Chief on the scene.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 04:34 AM
link   
LOL don't you think people would have noticed cables attached to the building to "pull" it down.... The building colapsed on itself via explosive charges set. Atleast that is what it appeared.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by roboe
 


"PULL IT" verses pull them, which one did he say?

Since when have you heard "IT" refer to a bunch of firefighters on 9/11 in context like that? I haven't.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


PULL or PULL IT in Firefighting speak comes from the days before radios
were in use

These days almost everyone on the fireground and inside the building
has a radio

Before that as a means to signal interior crews that should evacuate
people would literally yank or "pull" the hoses to tell crew to leave

When chief decided to evacuate or "pull" the interior crews they would
actually pull on the hoses to tell them to haul ass out...

Still valid today - it lost told to find hose hose and follow it back out. Know that one end is connected to one of them big red trucks

Taught to follow hose by recognizing couplings - section with the lugs on it is way out.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 





PULL or PULL IT in Firefighting speak comes from the days before radios were in use


So was Larry a firefighter 40 years ago?

That he would know the old lingo like that?



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33

So was Larry a firefighter 40 years ago?

That he would know the old lingo like that?


No, but he specifically says in the quote that he received a call from firefighter command, and it was THEY who made the decision to pull it, not him. It's obvious the term originated with them, not Silverstein. I can definitely see how a firefighter officer in the NYFD would know firefighter lingo of 40 years ago, seeing that it probably took him that long to work his way up the ranks. Can't you?

"Pull it" meant to pull the firefighter operation, and there's no other way to interpret it. Otherwise, you're accusing the NYFD of planting controlled demolitions and being involved in a coverup of the murder of 3000 people (including 343 of their brother firefighters). Don't even go there.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   
"Pull it" meant to pull the firefighter operation, and there's no other way to interpret it."

Of course they pulled the firefighter operations because they knew without a doubt that a 47 story steel framed building was in imminent danger of collapsing symmetrically at near free fall speed from a couple of isolated fires to one side of the building. You see, this kind of collapse from a few isolated fires in a huge skyscraper happens every day and is a common occurrence.

By the way, what kind of firefighter operations were going on at Building 7, if any? What exactly was the priority at the time? Was it more important for the firefighters to put out some isolated fires at Building 7, than it was to search for and rescue survivors of the collapsed two towers? Sure it was.

"Otherwise, you're accusing the NYFD of planting controlled demolitions and being involved in a coverup of the murder of 3000 people (including 343 of their brother firefighters)."

I see you enjoy drawing conclusions for other people and filling their mouths with words. Hey, whatever gets you off.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   
What he above said. My brother would have seen them planting the explosives if these buildings were "pulled". He is quite observant.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 


" a couple of isolated fires " : are you kidding ? How come the whole of the south side of WTC 7 was wreathed in smoke ?

www.youtube.com...

Until truthers can begin to be honest about what happened how can they hope to approach the "truth" ?



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 


" a couple of isolated fires " : are you kidding ? How come the whole of the south side of WTC 7 was wreathed in smoke ?

www.youtube.com...


Because that is not smoke coming from WTC 7, but dust from the towers collapse?

(large pics)









Now for the one showing building 7. Note the same smoke/dust as the other pics, clearly showing this was not smoke from WTC7.



But regardless do you see any fire? Where is the fire? WTC 7 did not collapse from smoke.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
Of course they pulled the firefighter operations because they knew without a doubt that a 47 story steel framed building was in imminent danger of collapsing symmetrically at near free fall speed from a couple of isolated fires to one side of the building. You see, this kind of collapse from a few isolated fires in a huge skyscraper happens every day and is a common occurrence.


I've seen many a time when the truthers turned a blind eye toward any evidence that shows their conspiracy claims to be false, but this is the first time I've seen anyone turn a blind eye toward their OWN claims. Silversten said in his quote that firefighter command said they could no longer contain the fires, and the whole "pull it" decision was made becuase there was already such a huge loss of life.


By the way, what kind of firefighter operations were going on at Building 7, if any? What exactly was the priority at the time? Was it more important for the firefighters to put out some isolated fires at Building 7, than it was to search for and rescue survivors of the collapsed two towers? Sure it was.


The priority was and alwys is the preservation of human life above all else. You're conveniently ignoring your own conspiracy stories again- Barry Jennings was trapped in WTC 7 and he was rescued by fire fighters.


I see you enjoy drawing conclusions for other people and filling their mouths with words. Hey, whatever gets you off.


No, I'm just pointing out the dirty laundry the truthers don't want other to notice. Silverstein specifically said THEY made the decision to "pull", as in the NYFD. I am going by the NYPD wanting to "get people out of a dangerous area". You're the one who insists the NYPD wanted to "plant secret controlled demolitions" If you don't like people pointing out your falsehoods, then don't post falsehoods. It ain't a trick question.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Try looking at this video from Steve Spak , the only known video of the south side of WTC 7

www.911myths.com...

Notice the smoke PUSHING OUT FROM THE BUILDING

Also notice the numerous floors on fire



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I think firefighters are 100% victims in this, so you don't go there either.

Whatever, I have decided not to discuss this with the trusters anymore, it's a pointless exercise in futility.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33

I think firefighters are 100% victims in this, so you don't go there either.

Whatever, I have decided not to discuss this with the trusters anymore, it's a pointless exercise in futility.


Well, then you should be fine, as I'm not a truster.

You conspiracy people keep telling us to listen to you so I've been listening to you, and you're clearly attempting to link Silverstein to a secret controlled demolitions job through the NYFD. How do you expect to drag Silverstein's name through the gutter for your conspiracy agenda without likewise dragging firefighters along with him?

I'm sorry, but "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" didn't work with Dorothy and it's not going to work with me.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by roboe

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by thedman
 


Even though that is the origin of the term it is also used as a common term for any demolition. Especially by those who have been in the industry for awhile. Often obsolete terms are used in a general sense in a lot if industries.

It's obvious what Silverstein meant in the context of his statement.

I've seen that claim before, yet noone has bothered to back it up with a source so far. Colour me surprised...


I agree it's obvious what Silverstein meant in the context of his statement though, he was referring to the withdrawal of firefighters from the immediate area. A decision that was made by the FDNY Chief on the scene.



Silverstein Asked Insurance Co to Allow Controlled Demolition of WTC7

911blogger.com...



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doctor Smith

Originally posted by roboe

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by thedman
 


Even though that is the origin of the term it is also used as a common term for any demolition. Especially by those who have been in the industry for awhile. Often obsolete terms are used in a general sense in a lot if industries.

It's obvious what Silverstein meant in the context of his statement.

I've seen that claim before, yet noone has bothered to back it up with a source so far. Colour me surprised...


I agree it's obvious what Silverstein meant in the context of his statement though, he was referring to the withdrawal of firefighters from the immediate area. A decision that was made by the FDNY Chief on the scene.



Silverstein Asked Insurance Co to Allow Controlled Demolition of WTC7

911blogger.com...


No, a Faux News reporter says he heard someone say, that he heard someone say that Silverstein had asked the insurance company.

That's beyond even hearsay.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Silversten said in his quote that firefighter command said they could no longer contain the fires, and the whole "pull it" decision was made becuase there was already such a huge loss of life.

Here is Silversten's entire quote: "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 we watched the building collapse."

I don't really see how anyone can misinterpret that. If we was referring to the firefighters and not the building as he subsequently claims then he has a nary understanding of English lexicography because he uses 'pull it' in the wrong context. He should really have said we made the decision to 'pull them out'. I guess he could have been referring to the firefighters but the fact that WTC7 looks identical to a controlled demolition doesn't help his case.

[edit on 17-7-2010 by Nathan-D]




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join