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: 12
17
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 02:50 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.

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 ?

Hi alf thanks for the reply,
My assertation is that Larry grew up when the words pull it were used to demolish buildings. You know the time frame fits,stop spinng already.
He's a bulding kind of guy you know. He has some construction going at the WTC.
People go there and BOO him.
Anything else in your post would just be speculation.




posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

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.


The official story does not say that the steel melted.

You should really read the report first, then come back and post.

Edit, misread your post, sorry.
edit on 21-3-2012 by AGWskeptic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

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.
look at you. Using official story in "s.. Like you question it.. There was melted steel though.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica

Originally posted by hooper

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.
look at you. Using official story in "s.. Like you question it.. There was melted steel though.


There was melted aluminum, there was no melted steel.

Airplanes are made of aluminum, lots of it, and it has a much lower melting point than steel.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I don't know really, I think we all have to agree it was a little weird.
I would like to see some really good pictures of building seven to see how damaged it was, but i just can't fathom a building like that collapsing from fire the same day it started burning.

He said that the fireman said we can't control the fire not.. hey this building is gonna collapse.
I don't know really I do think it is very fishy, but i just don't know.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by AGWskeptic
 


dude.. Fireal? There was definately melted steel. There were steel beams with the ends hardened after having been melted. Theres was "a foundry of lava in the basement". There was swiss cheesed steel.. All indications of melted steel. Dont be this ignorant.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
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.


If I remember correctly, the other buildings were reinforced after the '93 bombing, and they were much shorter in height compared to WTC 7. Are you going to deny the structural damage to the building now? I can bring up the firefighters eyewitness accounts again, which are very clear on the amount of fire and damage.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by AGWskeptic
 


dude.. Fireal? There was definately melted steel. There were steel beams with the ends hardened after having been melted. Theres was "a foundry of lava in the basement". There was swiss cheesed steel.. All indications of melted steel. Dont be this ignorant.


Proof? I've seen a lot of these pictures and most of them are just truther interpretations. The real world is not the same as the truther world.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


as opposed to 7 that was renovated year before.. Billions spent of a bomb proof floor and siding.. To house the alphabet agencies? Because that sounds pretty reinforced. Billions of dollars on bomb proofing? Yeah.. So bogus answer. 4 5 and 6 didnt fall because there was no need for them to. The damage = a totalled building. Whereas 7, the damage didnt = totalled.. So needed to come down by other means.. CD



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


as much as I would love to.. Im not your dad. Im not your mentor.. Im not your friend. So do some work yourself. It takes 5 minutes to find images of steel that had signs of melting. Dont be so useless. Dont be so worthless. Dont keep hating "truthers". Whomever they may be. Dont be ignorant and naive. Search. Search. Search. Learn to accomplish things for yourself. PrOOF.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


since when do people refer to fire fighters as "it".



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by MastaShake
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


since when do people refer to fire fighters as "it".


If someone was referring to an operation, an organized effort (in this case to save WTC7) he might just possibly say "pull it", pull the whole operation, abort the effort.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by Varemia
 


as much as I would love to.. Im not your dad. Im not your mentor.. Im not your friend. So do some work yourself. It takes 5 minutes to find images of steel that had signs of melting. Dont be so useless. Dont be so worthless. Dont keep hating "truthers". Whomever they may be. Dont be ignorant and naive. Search. Search. Search. Learn to accomplish things for yourself. PrOOF.


I've seen plenty. I've done the research dozens of time. I never seem to see what the truthers see.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Wow! id it really that difficult to see....Pull It....as in pull the trigger on a device...sounds pretty clear cut to me.
I think your reading way to much into this.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by AGWskeptic
 


dude.. Fireal? There was definately melted steel. There were steel beams with the ends hardened after having been melted. Theres was "a foundry of lava in the basement". There was swiss cheesed steel.. All indications of melted steel. Dont be this ignorant.


I have not read or heard any experts say there was molten steel under the rubble, only truthers.

Have you ever been around molten steel?

I grew up around the foundry business, my grandfather owned 3 foundries in Milwaukee. When they pour into the molds there is splatter, and that splatter hardens within seconds of being removed from the heat source. One of the foundries he started is Wisconsin Centrifugal. I used to go there all the time growing up because it was so cool.

If you poured molten steel onto the ground it would form a hard outer shell pretty quickly, dump water on it, from say, a firehose, it will harden even faster.

We made a bunch of playing card carts out of aluminum as a family project when I was 13. They played a lot of cards and he made a mold of the plastic card tray they used and we put little wheels under them so they could be passed around the table easier.

So I've poured molten aluminum myself, and I've watched molten steel be poured more times than I can count.

No way these "pools of molten steel" existed. If they did they would not still be hot enough to be molten so many hours after the collapse.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by AGWskeptic
 


dude, I'm afraid it is you who needs to do a bit of research. those fires could have burned from now until doomsday and they would still NEVER have gotten hot enough to melt ALL the steel, ALL at once. That's right. All the steel girders from the first floor to the 47th floor needed to melt at excatly the same rate to allow for the complete lack of 'staggering' in the building's fall. when the truth is NOTHING in that building could possibly have burned hot enough to melt even an inch of its steel. Weaken it, sure, but melt it in to liquid so that it offers no resistance. NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS. Science tells us that.

As for your wild assertion that that one of the towers actually landed on building 7, show us the proof... the only footage I've ever seen of building 7 collapsing shows ZERO sign of any external damage caused by a skyscraper falling on top of it... this is because NO skyscraper did fall on top of it because they too collapsed vertically into their own footprint without any resistance... because of fires that can't melt steel... starting to see a pattern?

Please THINK.. thinking can be so important


edit on 21-3-2012 by EddieCusak because: spelling correction

edit on 21-3-2012 by EddieCusak because: spelling correction

edit on 21-3-2012 by EddieCusak because: to make a further point



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
If someone was referring to an operation, an organized effort (in this case to save WTC7) he might just possibly say "pull it", pull the whole operation, abort the effort.


C'mon you are all so desperate to dismiss this as nothing.

How does this make a difference either way?

The evidence of controlled demolition is in post collapse pics, not what Larry said.

And knowing that makes 'pull it', as referring to the fire fighters, even more ridiculous.

'Pull' is a demo term, post collapse pics show evidence of implosion demolition. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to add 2+2.




Stacy Loizeaux: No. The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion." There are a series of small explosions, but the building itself isn't erupting outward. It's actually being pulled in on top of itself. What we're really doing is removing specific support columns within the structure and then cajoling the building in one direction or another, or straight down...
...SL: Well, you just pull it away, you peel it off. If you have room in the opposite direction, you just let the building sort of melt down in that direction and it will pull itself completely away from the building. It can be done...
...SL: Oh sure. I mean you really don't ever lose it. Your perspective changes. When I first started traveling with my Dad at fifteen, sixteen years old, I used to be awestruck. But you sort of go from that awestruck feeling to where you understand how the structure is coming down and you're watching for certain things—counting the delays or waiting for a part of the building to kick out or waiting for it to pull forward. So it does change, but it's always a rush.

www.pbs.org...

'Pull it', 'pulled, 'pulled down', are all terms used by demolition companies.


edit on 3/21/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Myendica
 



look at you. Using official story in "s.. Like you question it.. There was melted steel though.

Nope, no questions here. Pretty simple actually. You really don't have any questions either. At least none of any import or the answer to which would change the real story.

Oh, and I am sure there was plenty of material at the site in various stages of solid and liquid and anywhere in between. Was it steel? Since no one actually took samples we can never know for sure.

Back to the official story - in the case of the NIST report and the world trade center there was never a claim by anyone at the NIST that the steel structures of the building melted contributing to the collapse. Thats just nonsense that silly truthers like to spout to try and sound like they're on to something.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
If someone was referring to an operation, an organized effort (in this case to save WTC7) he might just possibly say "pull it", pull the whole operation, abort the effort.


C'mon you are all so desperate to dismiss this as nothing.

How does this make a difference either way?

The evidence of controlled demolition is in post collapse pics, not what Larry said.

And knowing that makes 'pull it', as referring to the fire fighters, even more ridiculous.


Except for the fact that:
1) Silverstein said "THEY (the fire fighters) made the decision to pull". The firefighters decided to demo the building?
2) It makes no friggin' sense that he would admit to this in a documentary if it was some part of criminal plot.




posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by EddieCusak
 


You have to be kidding me. You think that building 7 melted from the inside out, and that's what caused it to collapse?



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join