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.
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.
Originally posted by hooper
Originally posted by Myendica
. 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.
Originally posted by AGWskeptic
reply to post by milominderbinder
Who said the steel melted?
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.
Originally posted by hooper
Originally posted by Myendica
. 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.
Originally posted by AGWskeptic
reply to post by milominderbinder
Who said the steel melted?
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.
Originally posted by Myendica
look at you. Using official story in "s.. Like you question it.. There was melted steel though.
Originally posted by hooper
Originally posted by Myendica
. 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.
Originally posted by AGWskeptic
reply to post by milominderbinder
Who said the steel melted?
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by MastaShake
reply to post by GoodOlDave
since when do people refer to fire fighters as "it".
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.
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.
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.
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.
look at you. Using official story in "s.. Like you question it.. There was melted steel though.
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.