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.

 

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

page: 10
17
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4hero


Erm, sorry to disappoint you dear chap, but you are completely wrong. Maybe a few people just regurgitate what they read, but personally, I used my eyes and ears to work it out. Explosions and falling into own footprint in the way all 3 buildings did is enough to figure out it was a controlled demolition. One does not need other people to present their views for me to come to that conclusion. I'm sure you have watched the videos, it's blatantly obvious.



NIST employed more PhD's than you can shake a stick at on their investigations into the collapses of WTC 1,2 &7.

What a waste of time and money when they could have come straight to you for your assessment based on watching youtube clips.




posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by bhornbuckle75
 

I'm not making any argument for anything. The OP simply was asking if there was any legitimate evidence that Demolition experts used the word "pull" in reference to controlled demolitions. About 5 minutes of searching on Youtube, and I found evidence of just that.....I'm always happy to help!


That doesn't address the question and you know it. I didn't ask if demolitions people ever simply used the word "pull". Of COURSE they use the word pull. I'll even wager demolitions people even use the words "beer", "taxes", and "chewing gum". That doesn't mean "beer", "taxes" and "chewing gum" are demolitions lingo simply becuase demolitions people use it any more than someone saying "pull my finger" means someone is asking you to blow up their hand.

I ASKED for someone to show how "pull" was industry lingo for controlled demolitions, and when I say lingo I'm using the definition the conspiracy people are using in that it has an alternative meaning to the word. All you've done is to show someone using the word in the exact same context of the actual meaning to the word.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by 4hero


Erm, sorry to disappoint you dear chap, but you are completely wrong. Maybe a few people just regurgitate what they read, but personally, I used my eyes and ears to work it out. Explosions and falling into own footprint in the way all 3 buildings did is enough to figure out it was a controlled demolition. One does not need other people to present their views for me to come to that conclusion. I'm sure you have watched the videos, it's blatantly obvious.



NIST employed more PhD's than you can shake a stick at on their investigations into the collapses of WTC 1,2 &7.

What a waste of time and money when they could have come straight to you for your assessment based on watching youtube clips.


Dude, stop being so naive. Water does not run uphill. Buildings do not collapse spontaneously at freefall velocity (this has been proven). They don't collapse because of a few random office fires. You do not need a PhD to know that these things are indisputable.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

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"?


Silverstein would have said something like "pull THEM" or "get them out" or "evacuate", something that makes more sense in the context of people vacating a building. "Pull it" is most definitely not a term you'd use for that scenario. It is a CD term, and has been confirmed as such by demolitions experts. If Silverstein says otherwise, he is just doing damage control because of his careless talk.


Who are the demolitions experts who confirm that "pull it" means explosive cd in their jargon ?

It is apparent from the reported conversation that Silverstein suggested the "pull it" but FDNY actually carried it out. Are you saying that FDNY were in on it and carried out the cd. Had FDNY already rigged the building ?


I recall seeing a documentary where a demo expert confirmed that they commonly use the term "pull it" to refer to a demolition event. It's been a while so I don't remember the program, but I am sure of the quote.

I doubt FDNY had any involvement other than being informed that they should get the hell out. It's likely that it was rigged weeks or months in advance by a crew masquerading as some sort of maintenance detail. It was obviously a covert operation and would have been carried out as such. 57-story buildings just don't fall down at freefall velocity

.
edit on 21-3-2012 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)


So we go from demolition experts confirming to one guy you don't really remember.

If you are going with the idea that this telephone conversation was about explosive demolition and that that is what "pull it " means then how can you avoid FDNY being implicated. ? Or are saying "pull it" is unclear and ambiguous and FDNY would have thought he meant to get well back ?



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

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"?


Silverstein would have said something like "pull THEM" or "get them out" or "evacuate", something that makes more sense in the context of people vacating a building. "Pull it" is most definitely not a term you'd use for that scenario. It is a CD term, and has been confirmed as such by demolitions experts. If Silverstein says otherwise, he is just doing damage control because of his careless talk.


Who are the demolitions experts who confirm that "pull it" means explosive cd in their jargon ?

It is apparent from the reported conversation that Silverstein suggested the "pull it" but FDNY actually carried it out. Are you saying that FDNY were in on it and carried out the cd. Had FDNY already rigged the building ?


I recall seeing a documentary where a demo expert confirmed that they commonly use the term "pull it" to refer to a demolition event. It's been a while so I don't remember the program, but I am sure of the quote.

I doubt FDNY had any involvement other than being informed that they should get the hell out. It's likely that it was rigged weeks or months in advance by a crew masquerading as some sort of maintenance detail. It was obviously a covert operation and would have been carried out as such. 57-story buildings just don't fall down at freefall velocity

.
edit on 21-3-2012 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)


So we go from demolition experts confirming to one guy you don't really remember.

If you are going with the idea that this telephone conversation was about explosive demolition and that that is what "pull it " means then how can you avoid FDNY being implicated. ? Or are saying "pull it" is unclear and ambiguous and FDNY would have thought he meant to get well back ?


Look, nothing is going to change your mind because you apparently lack the common sense and intellect to realize what happened with WTC7. You are going to swallow the official bullsh!t story no matter what kind of proof anyone offers up, no matter how scientifically accurate. You are going to fight me and everyone else because you can't believe for a second that your own government would do something like this.

Wake the hell up, my friend. They would, and they have.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by 4hero


Erm, sorry to disappoint you dear chap, but you are completely wrong. Maybe a few people just regurgitate what they read, but personally, I used my eyes and ears to work it out. Explosions and falling into own footprint in the way all 3 buildings did is enough to figure out it was a controlled demolition. One does not need other people to present their views for me to come to that conclusion. I'm sure you have watched the videos, it's blatantly obvious.



NIST employed more PhD's than you can shake a stick at on their investigations into the collapses of WTC 1,2 &7.

What a waste of time and money when they could have come straight to you for your assessment based on watching youtube clips.


Dude, stop being so naive. Water does not run uphill. Buildings do not collapse spontaneously at freefall velocity (this has been proven). They don't collapse because of a few random office fires. You do not need a PhD to know that these things are indisputable.


If it is all so blatantly obvious to any layman how come the American Society of Civil Engineers, nor any other professional society of engineers in the world, isn't shrieking to high heaven about it ?



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by anakark
 


Conjecture. Your points are invalid.


Your misguided opinion is less valid.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by 4hero


Erm, sorry to disappoint you dear chap, but you are completely wrong. Maybe a few people just regurgitate what they read, but personally, I used my eyes and ears to work it out. Explosions and falling into own footprint in the way all 3 buildings did is enough to figure out it was a controlled demolition. One does not need other people to present their views for me to come to that conclusion. I'm sure you have watched the videos, it's blatantly obvious.



NIST employed more PhD's than you can shake a stick at on their investigations into the collapses of WTC 1,2 &7.

What a waste of time and money when they could have come straight to you for your assessment based on watching youtube clips.


Dude, stop being so naive. Water does not run uphill. Buildings do not collapse spontaneously at freefall velocity (this has been proven). They don't collapse because of a few random office fires. You do not need a PhD to know that these things are indisputable.


If it is all so blatantly obvious to any layman how come the American Society of Civil Engineers, nor any other professional society of engineers in the world, isn't shrieking to high heaven about it ?


Uh, because it would be professional suicide? How many of these firms bid on government contracts? Most of them, probably.

I like how you forget about the A&Es for 9/11 truth. They are screaming, but you choose not to hear them because it invalidates your point.


edit on 21-3-2012 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

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"?


Silverstein would have said something like "pull THEM" or "get them out" or "evacuate", something that makes more sense in the context of people vacating a building. "Pull it" is most definitely not a term you'd use for that scenario. It is a CD term, and has been confirmed as such by demolitions experts. If Silverstein says otherwise, he is just doing damage control because of his careless talk.


Who are the demolitions experts who confirm that "pull it" means explosive cd in their jargon ?

It is apparent from the reported conversation that Silverstein suggested the "pull it" but FDNY actually carried it out. Are you saying that FDNY were in on it and carried out the cd. Had FDNY already rigged the building ?


I recall seeing a documentary where a demo expert confirmed that they commonly use the term "pull it" to refer to a demolition event. It's been a while so I don't remember the program, but I am sure of the quote.

I doubt FDNY had any involvement other than being informed that they should get the hell out. It's likely that it was rigged weeks or months in advance by a crew masquerading as some sort of maintenance detail. It was obviously a covert operation and would have been carried out as such. 57-story buildings just don't fall down at freefall velocity

.
edit on 21-3-2012 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)


So we go from demolition experts confirming to one guy you don't really remember.

If you are going with the idea that this telephone conversation was about explosive demolition and that that is what "pull it " means then how can you avoid FDNY being implicated. ? Or are saying "pull it" is unclear and ambiguous and FDNY would have thought he meant to get well back ?


Look, nothing is going to change your mind because you apparently lack the common sense and intellect to realize what happened with WTC7. You are going to swallow the official bullsh!t story no matter what kind of proof anyone offers up, no matter how scientifically accurate. You are going to fight me and everyone else because you can't believe for a second that your own government would do something like this.

Wake the hell up, my friend. They would, and they have.


Do your ad homs answer my questions or have you bailed out on the debate ?



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
I am just baffled at the amount of attention this ridiculous quote still gets. The regurgitation of this and the other stupid theories make my head spin.

For those interested (and I apologize if this information is already in this thread) the following are a few quotes from those at ground zero, more specifically at WTC 7 on 9/11. Please pay close attention to the words I placed an emphasis on.


I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone. It was a critical decision; we could not lose any more firefighters. It took a lot of time to pull everyone out, given the emotionalism of the day, communications difficulties, and the collapse terrain."


FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro, "Report from the Chief of Department," Fire Engineering, 9/2002)


I do remember us being pulled off the pile. ...We were down by the pile to search or looking around. 7 World Trade Center was roaring. I remember being pulled off the pile like just before. It wasn't just before. It was probably an hour before 7 came down.


–Firefighter Kevin Howe


We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out.....We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then.


–Deputy Chief Peter Hayden 




There was a big discussion going on at that point about pulling all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center. Chief Nigro didn't feel it was worth taking the slightest chance of somebody else getting injured. So at that point we made a decision to take all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center because there was a potential for collapse.


–Capt. Chris Boyle


Someone gave a Mayday. I guess it was someone trapped under one of the pedestrian bridges. We started to go under there to look. One of the Chiefs pulled us out of there. He said don't go under there. ..We searched that building and then we started making another move in and we got pulled out again, because I guess the Chiefs were getting more in control of the situation. They pulled everybody out of there. ...that was probably like four or five o'clock before we stopped.


–Firefighter Todd Fredrickson


When the third building came down that's where we were (Stuyvesant High School). We were actually -- they pulled us all back. Actually they pulled us all the way back that far at the point because they didn't want any -- they didn't want us anywhere near it. Everyone was just running around. When the third building came down, we were on that corner in front of the school, and everybody just stood back.

They pulled us all back at that time, almost an hour before it, because they were sure -- they knew it was going to come down, but they weren't sure. So they pulled everyone back, and everybody stood there and we actually just waited and waited until it went down, because it was unsafe. They wouldn't let anyone next to I guess the two piles, we would call them, where one and two was. We stood back. We waited.


–EMT Joseph Fortis


Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street.


–Firefighter Richard Banaciski


So... Do you get it?
edit on 21-3-2012 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by 4hero


Erm, sorry to disappoint you dear chap, but you are completely wrong. Maybe a few people just regurgitate what they read, but personally, I used my eyes and ears to work it out. Explosions and falling into own footprint in the way all 3 buildings did is enough to figure out it was a controlled demolition. One does not need other people to present their views for me to come to that conclusion. I'm sure you have watched the videos, it's blatantly obvious.



NIST employed more PhD's than you can shake a stick at on their investigations into the collapses of WTC 1,2 &7.

What a waste of time and money when they could have come straight to you for your assessment based on watching youtube clips.


Dude, stop being so naive. Water does not run uphill. Buildings do not collapse spontaneously at freefall velocity (this has been proven). They don't collapse because of a few random office fires. You do not need a PhD to know that these things are indisputable.


If it is all so blatantly obvious to any layman how come the American Society of Civil Engineers, nor any other professional society of engineers in the world, isn't shrieking to high heaven about it ?


Uh, because it would be professional suicide? How many of these firms bid on government contracts? Most of them, probably.

I like how you forget about the A&Es for 9/11 truth. They are screaming, but you choose not to hear them because it invalidates your point.


edit on 21-3-2012 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)


Why would the American Society of Civil Engineers be cowed by the present US administration ? We are more than a decade down the road. And why should professional bodies of engineers throughout the rest of the world be silent. Some of them in countries not particularly friendly to the US

Mentioning AE 9/11 t in relation to the American Society of Civil Engineers has to be a joke. ASCE has about 140,000 members compared with the 1600 rag tag collection of electrical engineers, kitchen fitters, landscape gardeners etc



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by 4hero


Erm, sorry to disappoint you dear chap, but you are completely wrong. Maybe a few people just regurgitate what they read, but personally, I used my eyes and ears to work it out. Explosions and falling into own footprint in the way all 3 buildings did is enough to figure out it was a controlled demolition. One does not need other people to present their views for me to come to that conclusion. I'm sure you have watched the videos, it's blatantly obvious.



NIST employed more PhD's than you can shake a stick at on their investigations into the collapses of WTC 1,2 &7.

What a waste of time and money when they could have come straight to you for your assessment based on watching youtube clips.


Dude, stop being so naive. Water does not run uphill. Buildings do not collapse spontaneously at freefall velocity (this has been proven). They don't collapse because of a few random office fires. You do not need a PhD to know that these things are indisputable.


A few random office fires?

Did you miss the part about planes loaded with 100,000 pounds of jet fuel crashing into them at 500 mph?

Maybe you do need a PHD.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
I distinctly remember hearing a recording of the conversation in question between Silverstein and the Fire Commander.
This was very shortly after the attack. I seem to recall it being the following day and the call was played on the news while they recaped the collapse of WTC7.
At that time no one made any connection with demolitions so playing the call was not out of the ordinary.
I recall the Fire Commander saying something about they had teams in the building and they thought the fire was out of control. He may have said something to the effect of how much danger was involved. I recall the Commander then said something like "we can continue the operation or we can pull it" and then Silverstein said his qoute about how much life had been lost already and he thought it would be best to pull it.

I have looked for a clip of this online but I know for a fact I saw this on the coverage very soon after the attack. I am wondering if anyone else recalls seeing this as it happened. Its why I have never believed the "truthers" on this matter. When I first heard the truthers present this line of arguement I distinctly recalled this conversation and then later saw Silverstein on TV recalling the same conversation.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Dragoon01
 

Regardless of semantics, the building was destroyed by a controlled demolition. Good luck.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Dragoon01
 


I remember it.

There was also concern because WTC had an emergency generator that ran on fuel oil, and the tank was full. There was an emergency management group that rented an office there and the fuel tank was for them.

I also remember reading about what a unique design bldg 7 was. It wasn't built anything like bldgs 1 and 2.

There is a great video that shows the collapse occuring from the inside first, you can see roof structures fall right before the outer shell came down.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

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


Nobody ever said it was "slang" to my knowledge.

It is an industry term used throughout the entire English speaking world when referencing a controlled demolition or giving the order to do so.

Sort of like how E.R. Dr's say "clear" before hitting the patient with the paddles or the way police officers say "officer down" on the radio instead of saying "Bob just got shot in the stomach".

It's hardly debatable.

Have you ever been around construction or demolition projects? Even a little bit?



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 





Uh, because it would be professional suicide? How many of these firms bid on government contracts? Most of them, probably.

Why would it professional suicide?
Most buildings are not built with government funds. ie the WTC buildings.
Personally I would choose a firm that stood up to the government and proved them wrong with experts that had balls.

Going with the flow doesn't get you noticed. Have you ever noticed how the current crowd says you cannot build it any bigger. But then some other company says yes your can. And they do it.

You can't really be saying that all the experts in all the revelant fields are afraid of being blacklisted are you?
Why would experts on the other side of the planet be affraid of publishing against the chicken US experts?

You need to prove that all the experts on the planet are in on it.
Heck even the chosen 1600 on ae911 haven't said they recieved threat letters or visits from men in black. Does that mean the MIB visited all the experts in India but missed a few in the US?



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by AGWskeptic

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by 4hero


Erm, sorry to disappoint you dear chap, but you are completely wrong. Maybe a few people just regurgitate what they read, but personally, I used my eyes and ears to work it out. Explosions and falling into own footprint in the way all 3 buildings did is enough to figure out it was a controlled demolition. One does not need other people to present their views for me to come to that conclusion. I'm sure you have watched the videos, it's blatantly obvious.



NIST employed more PhD's than you can shake a stick at on their investigations into the collapses of WTC 1,2 &7.

What a waste of time and money when they could have come straight to you for your assessment based on watching youtube clips.


Dude, stop being so naive. Water does not run uphill. Buildings do not collapse spontaneously at freefall velocity (this has been proven). They don't collapse because of a few random office fires. You do not need a PhD to know that these things are indisputable.


A few random office fires?

Did you miss the part about planes loaded with 100,000 pounds of jet fuel crashing into them at 500 mph?

Maybe you do need a PHD.


Actually...you are probably the one that should go back to school. Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. The airline industry noticed that the engines all last longer that way.

Think about it for a while. Think about how thin those blades on a turbine are in comparison to hardened steel I-beams.

It would stand to reason not to use fuel that burns so hot it could liquify the engine mid-flight under the right conditions, wouldn't it?



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dragoon01
I distinctly remember hearing a recording of the conversation in question between Silverstein and the Fire Commander.
This was very shortly after the attack. I seem to recall it being the following day and the call was played on the news while they recaped the collapse of WTC7.
At that time no one made any connection with demolitions so playing the call was not out of the ordinary.
I recall the Fire Commander saying something about they had teams in the building and they thought the fire was out of control. He may have said something to the effect of how much danger was involved. I recall the Commander then said something like "we can continue the operation or we can pull it" and then Silverstein said his qoute about how much life had been lost already and he thought it would be best to pull it.

ljb
I have looked for a clip of this online but I know for a fact I saw this on the coverage very soon after the attack. I am wondering if anyone else recalls seeing this as it happened. Its why I have never believed the "truthers" on this matter. When I first heard the truthers present this line of arguement I distinctly recalled this conversation and then later saw Silverstein on TV recalling the same conversation.



Hi drag,

Not quite clear here
Are you saying they were both in on it or just the Larry guy?
(his ears must be ringing)
Or was it just a solo fraudian slip like Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld did claiming a missile did all the damage at the Pentagon in Washington?

edit on 21-3-2012 by longjohnbritches because: jumped in the middle of drags statement- fixed it



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


There is no true source. It's a passed on term. You won't find it in a text book. And yes It does mean a controled demo. I don't care how that douche bag used the term or what he ment. All I'm saying is yes it's a term used by demo experts. Not all of them. Just some of them. That's it that's all.

Peace




top topics



 
17
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join