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

reply to post by GoodOlDave


I wonder about who first used the term. Given that this industry is so small, I think it is hard to find information about what their lingo is.

But do you ever wonder about how the passport of the first hijacker found did not have a proper chain of custody?

The first passport was actually found by a man (because this man said so) who then gave it to an NYPD officer. The "man" left before the police officer could obtain his identity.

I find it very interesting that nobody seems to notice this little flaw in the chain of custody of this crucial piece of evidence.

I mean, if I had some random guy's passport in my pocket, then gave it to the police and told them I just found it a few blocks from WTC, and then I walked away, today any man of my choosing would have been that first hijacker. You could do it too!

-rrr


Oh yeah, I suppose you want a citation www.9-11commission.gov...

page 40

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
Except for the fact that:
1) Silverstein said "THEY (the fire fighters) made the decision to pull". The firefighters decided to demo the building?

You're not even paying attention to what he said.

He said 'they made the decision to pull'. He didn't day who 'they' were exactly.

So what? It doesn't change the meaning of the term. Pull is a term used in demo's.

"They made the decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse" He didn't say and we watched the fire crews pull out of the building. They pulled the building, and watched it collapse.

This is not rocket science buddy.

2) It makes no friggin' sense that he would admit to this in a documentary if it was some part of criminal plot.

He obvioulsy didn't realise what he was admitting to? Didn't realise it would get scrutinized? I can't explain Larry's motives, only what he said.

But again why are you so focused on this? Is this about 911, or covering Larry's ass? What Larry said has nothing to do with the physical evidence of controlled demolition, it's all in the post collapse pics, which you obviously don't have the experience to understand.

I could have only meant one thing, bring the Building down. The Fireman had been vacated 6 hrs earlier.

I don't believe The Towers or WTC7 was brought down in a Traditional Controlled Demolition, considering the bastards that brought them down have all the money in the World and Military Technology at their disposal.

They made sure they came down, all they way down. Not by Jet Fuel...lol.

Originally posted by ANOK

He said 'they made the decision to pull'. He didn't day who 'they' were exactly.

Come on now--and I'M the one who's reaching?
"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 THE DECISION TO PULL and we watched the building collapse."

But again why are you so focused on this? Is this about 911, or covering Larry's ass? What Larry said has nothing to do with the physical evidence of controlled demolition, it's all in the post collapse pics, which you obviously don't have the experience to understand.

Why focused on this? Perhaps you didn't read the title of this thread--or perhaps you lack the experience to know when you're deviating from a topic. This isn't about post collapse pics.

reply to post by EddieCusak


i86.photobucket.com...

i86.photobucket.com...

That's WTC 7, and as you can see it is both on fire and damaged.

Or are you going to say Silverstein bought smoke machines?

reply to post by AGWskeptic


So what are you saying? Asymmetrical damage and sporadic fires can cause the same result as a controlled demolition?

Can any of you explain how the outer walls can end up on top of the rest of the collapsed building from a natural collapse? How is it physically possible to mimic an implosion style demolition from fires and damage?

If you can't see my point from these pics, then you have no idea what you're looking at. May as well show you a plate of spaghetti.

reply to post by lunarasparagus


Watch this and notice the language used by the second guy interviewed (not related to 911)...



And this one...

You know. You damned fooled OS fairy tale believers are bettr off trying to debunk that Larry ever had this conversation with the fire chief.. Then trying to prove he meant anything other than demo the building.

Originally posted by ANOK


So what are you saying? Asymmetrical damage and sporadic fires can cause the same result as a controlled demolition?

Not exactly the same. But similar enough so that someone with absolutely no experience in the subject and a gigantic axe to grind can convince themselves that they are looking at a demolition.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

your signature says it all.. You still looking for those documents? How bout that computer? You know.. When you have doubt about something, and your signature hints that you do.. You should continue to investigate untill you can put all thoughts to rest.

Originally posted by Myendica
You know. You damned fooled OS fairy tale believers are bettr off trying to debunk that Larry ever had this conversation with the fire chief.. Then trying to prove he meant anything other than demo the building.

Let's assume he did mean that the building was CD'd. You think he just came out and admitted it? Was the script that they were just going to tell people? And then he got a call which said, "um, Larry, we're not letting on about the CD of building seven", and he had to quickly backpedal? Or did he just accidentally admit it because he's an incredibly stupid evil genius?

None of that makes the least bit of sense. The far simpler explanation is that he meant pull out the fire teams. But then you know that.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by AGWskeptic

 

So what are you saying? Asymmetrical damage and sporadic fires can cause the same result as a controlled demolition?

Can any of you explain how the outer walls can end up on top of the rest of the collapsed building from a natural collapse? How is it physically possible to mimic an implosion style demolition from fires and damage?

If you can't see my point from these pics, then you have no idea what you're looking at. May as well show you a plate of spaghetti.

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

Unlike 1 and 2, bldg 7 was primarily supported from the internal structure, which is how it came down, inside first shell last.

Watch the videos of the collapse, you can clearly see the mechanical penthouse on the roof fall before the outer framework does.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Not exactly the same. But similar enough so that someone with absolutely no experience in the subject and a gigantic axe to grind can convince themselves that they are looking at a demolition.

But there is no similar enough.

You folks don't seem to understand, the difference between a controlled implosion demolition and a natural collapse is like night and day. They can not be mistaken.

The outer walls can not be on top of the rest of the collapsed building from a natural collapse. Only implosion style demolitions can achieve this.

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

your signature says it all.. You still looking for those documents? How bout that computer? You know.. When you have doubt about something, and your signature hints that you do.. You should continue to investigate untill you can put all thoughts to rest.

Why? I have several doubts about 9/11 but I don't really care that much. The world moves on, stuff happens. I'm not American, so the deficincies of the US government are only of mild interest to me.

By the way, I think you've misunderstood my signature.

Originally posted by Myendica
You know. You damned fooled OS fairy tale believers are bettr off trying to debunk that Larry ever had this conversation with the fire chief.. Then trying to prove he meant anything other than demo the building.

I have noticed one thing, you truthers sure do like putting words in other peoples mouths.

You think you know what goes on inside his head, that you know the true meaning of what he was saying?


If you want to know what's for dinner, do you ask mom, or go on the net?

reply to post by ANOK


I think you missed a critical part of my post - "absolutely no experience".

You keep insisting, and the world keeps turning. No one of any consequence - and that includes people who actually know what they're talking about - agrees with you. And since you make no effort to explain why you cleave so strongly to your belief it's very likely to stay that way.

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
Unlike 1 and 2, bldg 7 was primarily supported from the internal structure, which is how it came down, inside first shell last.

Watch the videos of the collapse, you can clearly see the mechanical penthouse on the roof fall before the outer framework does.

No, the outer walls would not wait for the inner building to collapse before folding inwards.

The walls would be forced outwards by the internals pushing them as it collapses.

In an implosion demolition the timing has to be perfect for the inner structure to allow a space for the outer walls to be pulled into. It also has to be a vertical collapse. OSer's claimed it leaned, but post collapse pics disprove this claim. This can't happen from a gradual collapse from fire and asymmetrical structural damage.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


honestly.. Who knows why larry said it.. But to say he meant people, and said a word meaning object.. Either means, yes he is stupid, and so stupid he would let the truth slip.. Or hes very obnoxious and evil person for considering people to be objects. Since a truther, even though I am not one, cannot pick and choose.. I suppose you damned fool os fairytale believer gets to choose.. Right? Thats how this works? You get to pick and choose facets of an arguement..?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by ANOK

 

I think you missed a critical part of my post - "absolutely no experience".

You keep insisting, and the world keeps turning. No one of any consequence - and that includes people who actually know what they're talking about - agrees with you. And since you make no effort to explain why you cleave so strongly to your belief it's very likely to stay that way.

What am I not explaining? Where is your rebuttal to what I have said? Obviously you don't have one. You keep denying and the world keeps turning, what was the point of this reply?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


What is your hypotheses as to the meaning of "pull it" in this context?

You seem to want to line up and knock down the widely accepted theory that Larry Silverstein mean to destroy the building, however you have no reasonable counter-example of different uses of the term "pull it."

Looking at your post history you are very interested in trying to discredit people and ideas, but you never really proffer an explanation of your own. This is extremely suspicious behavior.