So who the heck ever said "Pull it" was slang for controlled demolitions?

page: 1
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Okay I gotta ask...I've seen the 9/11 conspiracy proponents say the predominant reason they believe in these "controlled demoliitons" accusations is because Silversten said "Pull it". To be precise, he said-

"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."

...and "Pull it" according to the 9/11 conspiracy proponents is supposed to be slang for bringing down a building via controlled demolitions. Now, I've looked high, low, left, and right for exactly WHERE the source is that said "Pull it" is supposed to be industry lingo for controlled demolitions, and not only can I not find one, all I see is that the conspiracy proponents are backing up the claim by referencing OTHER conspiracy proponents saying that "pull it" is lingo for explosives. This is akin to Josef Goebbels saying "don't take my word for it that the Germans are the master race. Go ask that fellow Heinrich Himmler".

In fact the only reference I can even find is that "Pull it" is lingo for literally "Pull it" as in pulling a building down with cables (yes, it's an established procedure, look it up). This is certainly demolition, but it's not a controlled demolition and it certainly has nothing to do with explosives. I think it's a given that regardless of where you stand on the 9/11 conspiracy discussion, you agree that WTC 7 wasn't pulled down with cables.

I'm not debating what else "Pull it" could mean, I'm not debating that Silverstein would have said pull THEM instead of pull IT, and I'm not debating whether Silverstein or the NYFD "pulled it". What I'm debating is where exactly the claim "Pull it" means CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS came from, vs it being slang for "toasting marshmallows over an open fire" or "a dog taking a whiz against a fire hydrant", because from what I'm seeing, it's a completely made up claim and all the conspiracy theorists are just repeating an internet meme over and over as if it were true, the same way any absurd claim becomes believable, the more people repeat it. You know Bogart NEVER actually said "Play it again, Sam", right?

So where did "Pull it" is slang for controlled demolitions come from? Please, post a reference that doesn't involve Alex Jones somehow.



+8 more 
posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Read Jim Marrs book on 9/11. Im pretty sure he goes into detail on the things that were actually said and done on that day. World trade center 7 was never struck by an airplane, keep that in mind. What was the biggest story before 9/11...Enron anyone. And guess which building housed the Enron papers...WTC7. Connect the dots.
edit on 20-3-2012 by Oannes because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
The word "pull" can be used for a lot when used in slang. It can mean to remove something. Specifically, the term "pull down" can mean to demolish a building.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   
If I wear you I would start on this site.
www.ae911truth.org...
1600 architects and engineers that stand behind 9/11 truth.
They might say something about it on youtube
www.youtube.com...:en-US
fficial&q=911+architects+and+engineers&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf. ,cf.osb&biw=1920&bih=959&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=w1

I have all ready made up my mind. I have seen the footage and knew what it was the first time I saw it. So I am not going to waist time watching these video's for you. I am sure their is some one in one of these video's that can explain it. Or maybe you can email 911 architects and engineers if its not on their site.


+31 more 
posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Consider the fact that Larry Silverstein is NOT a demolitions expert.

He is going to use jargon that was picked up when dealing with these guys, and he may not fully understand it. This would lead to using words in the improper context.

That being said, it's OBVIOUS from the context of the conversation that Silverstein was referring to bringing the building down. Whether by cables or explosions is not specified, but watching the video of WTC 7's collapse, you realize it was with explosives.

This argument is grasping at straws.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Oannes
Read Jim Marrs book on 9/11. Im pretty sure he goes into detail on the things that were actually said and done on that day. World trade center 7 was never struck by an airplane, keep that in mind. What was the biggest story before 9/11...Enron anyone. And guess which building housed the Enron papers...WTC7. Connect the dots.


No, but it WAS struck by wreckage from the north tower, and there WERE out of control fires burning inside the building,,,so the same chain of events that happened to the towers still applies.

I'm sorry but "connect the dots" and "Enron anyone" isn't a reference that shows "Pull it" is lingo for controlled demeolitions. Rather, "connect the dots" is just an admission you're intentionally inventing your own pathway between the "the building collapsed" dot and the "inside job" dot you're trying to get to by making up your own "pull it means controlled demolitions" dot. This was my assertion all along and it was the whole reason why I was asking you to show why it wasn't true.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   
all i can say is this will be just another JFK who did it and why, by the time we do figure it out, all the ones responsible will be dead or dying from old age, and the Nay Sayers will keep saying" no our gov would never do such an act"



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
It doesn't even make sense.

If they've had a great loss of life, how would causing the building to collapse via explosives help that?

Also, is the thought that Silverstein just accidently gave away the whole conspiracy for a documentary? Are we imagining he's that stupid?

"Don't say it was a CTD, don't say it was a CTD, don't say it was a CTD...OOPS!!!"

He's already said what he meant by it, it seems pretty feasible it meant "pull the firefighters out and give it up", so why jump to the ridiculous conclusion that he gave the game away using a very obscure term that, as you say, does not even mean "bring down via controlled demolition"?



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Oannes
Read Jim Marrs book on 9/11. Im pretty sure he goes into detail on the things that were actually said and done on that day. World trade center 7 was never struck by an airplane, keep that in mind. What was the biggest story before 9/11...Enron anyone. And guess which building housed the Enron papers...WTC7. Connect the dots.
edit on 20-3-2012 by Oannes because: (no reason given)


WTC also housed many records that were needed for a large scale Department of Defense investigation into where BILLIONS of dollars of defense budget had mysteriously disappeared to, and shortly after 9/11, that investigation was dropped also.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
I'm with you. Not only is "Pull It" not an industry standard phrase, but the quote of Silverstein saying it comes after the fact. If he had been recorded in real time saying 'pull it', then maybe the truther's would have a leg to stand on. But he wasn't, he was recounting what happened and more than likely paraphrased how the conversation went.

I realize that a lot of the official story doesn't add up or make sense, but it really bugs me when people point out a insignificant detail and say "Look! There's the smoking gun. It was absolutely an inside job!"


+13 more 
posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


its quite funny.. In the english language, there happens to be a word, "them". The word "them" refers to "people", typically in a group, or of relation to one another. In the english language, there also happens to be a word, "it". The word "it" is a tricky one. It almost does the same thing, but it refers to an object, or something that isn't people. For instance;. If I want to get "people" out of a building, I would say, "pull them.". If I wanted to say, get the building to, go somewhere, I would say, "pull it.". I know, when referring to multiple "it" objects, you could say, "pull them". But he didnt say "them" now, did he? So he was referring to an object.. "pull it (object)".



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


its quite funny.. In the english language, there happens to be a word, "them". The word "them" refers to "people", typically in a group, or of relation to one another. In the english language, there also happens to be a word, "it". The word "it" is a tricky one. It almost does the same thing, but it refers to an object, or something that isn't people. For instance;. If I want to get "people" out of a building, I would say, "pull them.". If I wanted to say, get the building to, go somewhere, I would say, "pull it.". I know, when referring to multiple "it" objects, you could say, "pull them". But he didnt say "them" now, did he? So he was referring to an object.. "pull it (object)".


People also misspeak, all the damn time.

Maybe because he was thinking about the building he accidently said "it" instead of "them". That's a very simple and mundane explanation, it makes sense, and it is feasible.

He may have also meant "pull it" meaning "remove the building of people". It's a single ambiguous sentence, using it as evidence of a controlled demolition is retarded.
edit on 20-3-2012 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   
I don't know who started with the misdirection about "pull it", but here are some more sensible explanations:

debunking911.com...



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by humphreysjim
It doesn't even make sense.

If they've had a great loss of life, how would causing the building to collapse via explosives help that?

Also, is the thought that Silverstein just accidently gave away the whole conspiracy for a documentary? Are we imagining he's that stupid?

"Don't say it was a CTD, don't say it was a CTD, don't say it was a CTD...OOPS!!!"

He's already said what he meant by it, it seems pretty feasible it meant "pull the firefighters out and give it up", so why jump to the ridiculous conclusion that he gave the game away using a very obscure term that, as you say, does not even mean "bring down via controlled demolition"?
it makes a lot of sense. A building on fire just falling make no sense. And Larry is that stupid, especially if he said "it" when talking about "people/firefighters". So yes. Larry is that stupid.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
Consider the fact that Larry Silverstein is NOT a demolitions expert.

He is going to use jargon that was picked up when dealing with these guys, and he may not fully understand it. This would lead to using words in the improper context.


...except for the fact that after reading his bio, he never demoloshed anything. He either built on undeveloped lots, or bought places that were already built.



That being said, it's OBVIOUS from the context of the conversation that Silverstein was referring to bringing the building down. Whether by cables or explosions is not specified, but watching the video of WTC 7's collapse, you realize it was with explosives.


All right, let's look at that claim. Silverstein said "we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is to [????]" with ???? being "Pull it". Silverstein said "Pull it" meant to "get the fire fighters out and abandon the plan to rescue the building. YOU say it means "secretly plant controlled demolitions in the building". So we have:

"We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is to get the fire fighters out and abandon the plan to rescue the building"

...OR...

"We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is to secretly plant controlled demolitions in the building"

So, you tell me which context sounds more obvious than the other, because I can see how telling the fire fighters to get out of there is in line with not wanting any more loss of life, but I don't see how secretly planting controlled demolitions would save any lives...and why the heck would they even need to keep it a secret since they did it to save lives.

FYI Gage isn't a reference either. All he's doing is repeating the same "pull it means controlled demolitions" without a reference to back the claim up the exact same way you people are.
edit on 20-3-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Myendica
 


Excellent, then we can both agree Larry is stupid enough to use "it" instead of "them", and there we have our explanation.

Case solved! And all it took was a little teamwork.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
We've had such terrible loss of life, I think the only thing we can do now is explode the f*cker and see if we can take out some more!



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by humphreysjim
It doesn't even make sense.

If they've had a great loss of life, how would causing the building to collapse via explosives help that?

Also, is the thought that Silverstein just accidently gave away the whole conspiracy for a documentary? Are we imagining he's that stupid?

"Don't say it was a CTD, don't say it was a CTD, don't say it was a CTD...OOPS!!!"

He's already said what he meant by it, it seems pretty feasible it meant "pull the firefighters out and give it up", so why jump to the ridiculous conclusion that he gave the game away using a very obscure term that, as you say, does not even mean "bring down via controlled demolition"?


Hi hump
I am not sure what you are saying doesn't make sense???
What I can find is that no firemen that I know would use the term. pull it
It would certainly confuse those he said it to. In an emergent situation this could lead to disaster. I think the guy that said it was just old and used the old terminology for building destruction that he grew up with.
The guy Larry wasn't a fireman I am sure of that.
I am not sure that helps.
ljb





new topics
top topics
 
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join