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: 11
17
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
So if I understand the Truthers correctly, the government planted explosives inside the Twin Towers and WTC 7 because their plan from the beginning was to demolish these buildings. And instead of having one person responsible for detonating the explosives, they decided to let Silverstein have the authority to give the order to the Fire Department Commander?
This makes no sense and only brings up dozens of more questions:
Why would Silverstein give the order?
Why would the Commander get the order?
Did the Commander push the button, or relay the order to a 3rd person?
Why involve so many people, when one person sitting at a desk could have detonated the explosives in all 3 buildings?


If one were to believe every Truther explanation, the planning and execution of something the size of 9/11 would have taken thousands of people. You have people giving orders to demolish buildings, people pushing the detonator, people making fake phones calls to passengers' family, someone else writing the script for the fake phone call, people planting explosives, carpenters fixing where the explosives were hidden, people digging holes and planting evidence in a field, someone who prematurely released the report that WTC 7 had fallen, someone who launched a missle at the Pentagon, the list goes on and on. Yet no credible 'insider' has come forward.




posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder

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?


That is what is being debated but it has not been demonstrated so far that "pull it " is an industry term for controlled demolition.

All you have offered is an assertion that it is.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder

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?


Hi milo,
You understand this stuff real good. The first guy on the thread not so good.
Not to mention all that assbestus the builders put on those beams.
the best ljb



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by canselmi
So if I understand the Truthers correctly, the government planted explosives inside the Twin Towers and WTC 7 because their plan from the beginning was to demolish these buildings. And instead of having one person responsible for detonating the explosives, they decided to let Silverstein have the authority to give the order to the Fire Department Commander?
This makes no sense and only brings up dozens of more questions:
Why would Silverstein give the order?
Why would the Commander get the order?
Did the Commander push the button, or relay the order to a 3rd person?
Why involve so many people, when one person sitting at a desk could have detonated the explosives in all 3 buildings?


If one were to believe every Truther explanation, the planning and execution of something the size of 9/11 would have taken thousands of people. You have people giving orders to demolish buildings, people pushing the detonator, people making fake phones calls to passengers' family, someone else writing the script for the fake phone call, people planting explosives, carpenters fixing where the explosives were hidden, people digging holes and planting evidence in a field, someone who prematurely released the report that WTC 7 had fallen, someone who launched a missle at the Pentagon, the list goes on and on. Yet no credible 'insider' has come forward.


Thats pretty much the size of it but you are a blind sheeple for not lapping it all up.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by canselmi
So if I understand the Truthers correctly, the government planted explosives inside the Twin Towers and WTC 7 because their plan from the beginning was to demolish these buildings. And instead of having one person responsible for detonating the explosives, they decided to let Silverstein have the authority to give the order to the Fire Department Commander?
This makes no sense and only brings up dozens of more questions:
Why would Silverstein give the order?
Why would the Commander get the order?
Did the Commander push the button, or relay the order to a 3rd person?
Why involve so many people, when one person sitting at a desk could have detonated the explosives in all 3 buildings?

You have people giving orders to demolish buildings, people pushing the detonator,


Hi cancel,
I took the liberty of removing the off topic (parts that are not about Pull IT)
to be able to agree with what you are saying here.
You should stick to what you say in the begining because that is very plausible.
Your last sentence most likley comes from the made for tv drama.
nice to see your post, ljb



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder


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?


Can you point out to me please where NIST concluded molten steel was a factor in the collapses of WTC 1,2&7 ?Thanks.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1



That is what is being debated but it has not been demonstrated so far that "pull it " is an industry term for controlled demolition.

All you have offered is an assertion that it is.


Hi alf,
I don't know if you were on the thread early on so I will give you the reason why
Larry S. would use the term Pull IT when he wanted the building demolished.
When he was a kid learning about demolishing buildings the term to bring one down was pull it.
No rocket science here pal.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

Originally posted by Alfie1



That is what is being debated but it has not been demonstrated so far that "pull it " is an industry term for controlled demolition.

All you have offered is an assertion that it is.


Hi alf,
I don't know if you were on the thread early on so I will give you the reason why
Larry S. would use the term Pull IT when he wanted the building demolished.
When he was a kid learning about demolishing buildings the term to bring one down was pull it.
No rocket science here pal.


OK, so if Larry Silverstein meant controlled demolition when he suggested "pull it" are you suggesting FDNY colluded with him and carried it out ?



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   
I just spoke with a fire chief about 3 mins ago.. He said you cant use the term "pull" at all.. If you want to evacuate firefighters, you use the term, "evacuate". And he also said its the counties call. The chief calls the county, the county sends out a tone, and tells firefighters to evacuate.. He said the counties decide the terminology. So dave.. Call manhtten and ask them their evacuation codes.. And "slang".



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
It doesn't matter what "pull it meant" for all I know he could have been having one of his buddies jerk him off and said "pull it".


The fact remains that only 3 steel structures have ever been taken down by fire and they all happened on the same day? How does that happen? Simple... Fires were not the cause of the buildings collapsing.

So why bother asking what the building owner even said,.. it doesn't matter because all evidence points to a controlled demolition.

If fires were the to blame, there is no way that fires could have reached the temperatures necessary to melt steel and the heat generated would not keep the rubble at WTC 7 over 1000ºFerenheit 5 days after the collapse.
911research.wtc7.net...

Who cares about words when there is physical evidence to the contrary?



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

Originally posted by Alfie1



That is what is being debated but it has not been demonstrated so far that "pull it " is an industry term for controlled demolition.

All you have offered is an assertion that it is.


Hi alf,
I don't know if you were on the thread early on so I will give you the reason why
Larry S. would use the term Pull IT when he wanted the building demolished.
When he was a kid learning about demolishing buildings the term to bring one down was pull it.
No rocket science here pal.


OK, so if Larry Silverstein meant controlled demolition when he suggested "pull it" are you suggesting FDNY colluded with him and carried it out ?


Hi alf
I am suggesting that the words pull it would have been ones Larry grew up with.
You do agree don't you?



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by JizzyMcButter
 


ha.. He wasnt even the buildings owner.. He was a lease holder. So once again.. He had no business having that discussion with the chief.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


Who said the steel melted?

It was weakened to the point of structural failure.

If you want proof that gasoline alone will bring down a steel and concrete structure just look at the two highway overpasses that collapsed from pump gas fires, jet A burns hotter than pump gas. Plus you had chemicals in every janitors closet, furniture, carpet, paper, plastic, etc...

That's why the smoke was so black, there was a lot of nasty stuff burning.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Hmm, 9 flags, therefore either someone has multiple identities on the site or there are 9 terrorist supporters on this board.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

Originally posted by Alfie1



That is what is being debated but it has not been demonstrated so far that "pull it " is an industry term for controlled demolition.

All you have offered is an assertion that it is.


Hi alf,
I don't know if you were on the thread early on so I will give you the reason why
Larry S. would use the term Pull IT when he wanted the building demolished.
When he was a kid learning about demolishing buildings the term to bring one down was pull it.
No rocket science here pal.


OK, so if Larry Silverstein meant controlled demolition when he suggested "pull it" are you suggesting FDNY colluded with him and carried it out ?


Hi alf
I am suggesting that the words pull it would have been ones Larry grew up with.
You do agree don't you?


I have no idea what Larry grew up with but I was asking you what was the interaction with the Fire Chief? Larry said that FDNY made the decision to " pull ". So are they in cahoots ?



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


Who said the steel melted?

. Yeah.. Who did say the steel melted? Besides the firefighters, police and clean up crew.. And the images and video and left over evidence... Who really said the steel melted? Alot of people.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by JizzyMcButter
It doesn't matter what "pull it meant" for all I know he could have been having one of his buddies jerk him off and said "pull it".


The fact remains that only 3 steel structures have ever been taken down by fire and they all happened on the same day? How does that happen? Simple... Fires were not the cause of the buildings collapsing.

So why bother asking what the building owner even said,.. it doesn't matter because all evidence points to a controlled demolition.

If fires were the to blame, there is no way that fires could have reached the temperatures necessary to melt steel and the heat generated would not keep the rubble at WTC 7 over 1000ºFerenheit 5 days after the collapse.
911research.wtc7.net...

Who cares about words when there is physical evidence to the contrary?


Holw can you describe WTC 9/11 without mentioning the Towers were both hit by fully fueled airliners at about 500 mph and that the other building was clobbered by falling debris.

Bit like saying Wild Bill Hickock oddly fell dead while playing poker without mentioning he was shot in the back .



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


No I am saying there was no in on it because they were speaking about the fire fighting efforts inside the building.
Silverstein picked up the term from the Fire Commander in the context of their conversation. In other words the reason he said "It" instead of "them" is because of the way the fire commander asked him the question.

FC "the operation is dangerous right now should we proceed or pull it?"
Silverstein" to many lives have already been lost lets pull it"

The "IT" is the operation and he only said that because the FC asked him in that context.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


Who said the steel melted?

. Yeah.. Who did say the steel melted? Besides the firefighters, police and clean up crew.. And the images and video and left over evidence... Who really said the steel melted? Alot of people.


I think he is refering to the common misconception that the "official story" dictates that the reason the buildings collapsed is because the fire melted the steel in the structure. Which is, of course, a conspiracist favorite strawman.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


why did 7 fall straight down when it had little structural damage.. And 4,5 and 6 were still standing even though it rained steel on them and put holes through them top down? You ask me.. Thats thhe obvious evidence 7 was cd.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join