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: 14
17
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK


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?


You can't explain why a collapse like that undergone by Building Seven cannot in some ways resemble a CD. You say you've explained it, but in fact your 'explanation' amounts to an assertion that it isn't possible.

Furthermore you continually claim that all the outer walls landed on the debris pile and that all the debris is within the footprint. This is not proved either by your pictures or any other empirical evidence.

The reason I pointed out that your ideas lack any currency is for two reasons. First, if it was as simple as you claim, one might expect there to be more discussion of this 'obvious impossibility' - certainly amongst those with experience. As it is, any support for your position remains effectively null. Perhaps you can explain that, but I doubt it.

Second, I find it enlightening that you think our positions are in some way analagous. That this issue is still somehow "in play". Even if - against all reasonable logic - you are correct it remains the case that my point of view is hands down the most popular. That you can't appreciate that I suppose goes some way towards explaining your inability to correctly evaluate evidence.




posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou
the widely accepted theory that Larry Silverstein mean to destroy the building


See this is the kind of thing I mean. It is by no means "widely accepted" that Larry Silverstein meant this. Only someone who gets their information from a microscopically tiny spectrum of media could believe such a thing.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou
the widely accepted theory that Larry Silverstein mean to destroy the building


See this is the kind of thing I mean. It is by no means "widely accepted" that Larry Silverstein meant this. Only someone who gets their information from a microscopically tiny spectrum of media could believe such a thing.
oh quit fooling yourself. It is building. Get over it. and by "get over it" I really mean, "get over people"
edit on 21-3-2012 by Myendica because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
something tells me you weren't really looking very hard


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

edit on 21-3-2012 by Danbones because: big bold and underlined

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

Something tells me you didn't read very hard. Really. I addressed this in my post. Look at the word after pull. The word is "down." Did Silverstein say WTC7 should be pulled down? No, he said something should be "pulled," full stop. You might not be a native speaker of the American vernacular, so perhaps you don't know that the modifier "down" is integral to the phrase "pull down." If you remove the word "down," you no longer have a phrase that expresses the idea of demolishing something--except perhaps in the case of pulling a structure with cables. You simply can't go around removing words from phrases and telling people that the residual word means what the phrase meant.

(And that's not even getting into the distinction between pulling something down and imploding it. Said distinction may be illusory, but it doesn't really matter, because we still don't see "pull it" being synonymous with "demolish it" for any method of demolition.)



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou
the widely accepted theory that Larry Silverstein mean to destroy the building


See this is the kind of thing I mean. It is by no means "widely accepted" that Larry Silverstein meant this. Only someone who gets their information from a microscopically tiny spectrum of media could believe such a thing.


But that's just it. Most people out there have no knowledge of who Larry Silverstein even is, let alone that he stood to profit massively from insurance claims if his buildings went down, nor that they were in danger of being condemned because of asbestos.

There are no serious researchers of 9/11 who have not been labeled as conspiracy nuts by the mainstream media and other ridiculous mouthpieces that are in the public eye, so despite the mounds of good solid information regarding the context and obvious meaning of "pull it" people like you are still trotting out ridiculous theories and non-sequiters about what the REAL meaning of an otherwise strikingly obvious phrase could be. Get over it.

Here's the full quote: "And I remember getting a call from the, um, fire department commander tellin' me that they were not sure that they would be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is PULL it. Uhhhhh, and they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse."

I'm not sure if you have actually seen Mr. Silverstein saying all this, but within the context of the situation there is only one way in which any reasonable person could interpret these comments. He is clearly admitting that he and the fire department gave the order to pull the building down using controlled demolition. Looking at the collapse of all three buildings on that day, it is quite clear that they were taken out using controlled demolition. If you don't believe that this is what really happened, you need to carefully review the facts. However, I believe that, after reviewing the OP's post history briefly, that he and a few supporters of his are interested in trying to stifle debate and ridicule people, with rather ridiculous assertions, rather than anything else.
edit on 21-3-2012 by HattoriHanzou because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   
I didn't read the entire thread but historically fire departments had "hook & ladder" companies. The "hook" was meant to pull down chimneys or walls which might endanger other buildings if they collapsed during a fire.

Also, before mechanical pumps there was very little water and lots of wooden combustible structures in cities. Part of fire fighting involved pulling down structures to create fire breaks. Early demolition done with a hook and a team of horses pulling down buildings.

So if you take Lucky Larry's quote within that context you can see how many people would think it reasonable to assume by "pull it" he meant demolish the building in order to protect life and the surrounding property.

Maybe he meant his finger I don't know.

"And I remember getting a call from the, um, fire department commander tellin' me that they were not sure that they would be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is PULL it. Uhhhhh, and they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse."
edit on 21-3-2012 by Leo Strauss because: classified



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
Hi fur
You do realize that this is a moot quest you have undertaken ?
Larry speak would have developed in the 20th century.
ljb

I'm not sure what "Larry speak" is, but I assure you, my literature search covered a wide variety of 20th century materials. Google Groups goes back to the early 80s, although early Usenet was mostly technical discussion. Google Books has hundreds of millions of books from the entire 20th century. The academic databases I consulted have material as old as 1944 (maybe older), although in my experience coverage doesn't really pick up until later in the century. There are a couple other places I could check, especially if I went to the library, but I don't think that would be productive. Given the extent of the corpus and the date range, I think I would've found evidence that demolition workers active in 2001 used the word "pull" in the manner alleged, if any such evidence existed.

The search of the 20th century was intended to be as exhaustive as possible in a short time, but it really wasn't necessary. If "pull it" was, as alleged, well-known demolition jargon, this fact would have been remarked upon in 2002, immediately after Silverstein made the infamous quote. As far as I can tell, it was not. There are no cases of "pull it = demolition" to be found before 2004, not in books, not in journals, not on Usenet, not even in the conspiracy theorist discourse. It seems obvious to me that the origin of the meme may be found ca. 2003-2004, most likely in the conspiracy theorist subculture.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Any building falling down will resemble a controlled demolition.

I saw some hookers on the side of the road the other day that resembled ladies, but they weren't.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
Hi fur
You do realize that this is a moot quest you have undertaken ?
Larry speak would have developed in the 20th century.
ljb

I'm not sure what "Larry speak" is, but I assure you, my literature search covered a wide variety of 20th century materials. Google Groups goes back to the early 80s, although early Usenet was mostly technical discussion. Google Books has hundreds of millions of books from the entire 20th century. The academic databases I consulted have material as old as 1944 (maybe older), although in my experience coverage doesn't really pick up until later in the century. There are a couple other places I could check, especially if I went to the library, but I don't think that would be productive. Given the extent of the corpus and the date range, I think I would've found evidence that demolition workers active in 2001 used the word "pull" in the manner alleged, if any such evidence existed.

The search of the 20th century was intended to be as exhaustive as possible in a short time, but it really wasn't necessary. If "pull it" was, as alleged, well-known demolition jargon, this fact would have been remarked upon in 2002, immediately after Silverstein made the infamous quote. As far as I can tell, it was not. There are no cases of "pull it = demolition" to be found before 2004, not in books, not in journals, not on Usenet, not even in the conspiracy theorist discourse. It seems obvious to me that the origin of the meme may be found ca. 2003-2004, most likely in the conspiracy theorist subculture.


Clearly you didn't use a very effective phrase in your searches, because this phrase:

firefighting hook pull

gives many hits on Google Books detailing that the hook is used to demolish parts of buildings. It is standard firefighting terminology. That search yields over seven thousand five hundred results, all of which discuss using hooks to pull down structures. It is unfortunate for you that your search methodology did not lead you to this enormous cache of material. It's OK though, I am here to help. If you need any more help just holler, I'll be here to catch you when you stumble.

Clearly in this context there is no "hook" big enough to take the building down, hence the use of pre-placed demolition charges.
edit on 21-3-2012 by HattoriHanzou because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Any building falling down will resemble a controlled demolition.

I saw some hookers on the side of the road the other day that resembled ladies, but they weren't.


That's not true. Take the WTC buildings, which had much heavier damage on one side than the other. As many professional engineers have pointed out, that would cause the top to fall over and snap off, if the building was left to collapse naturally.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by 4hero
 


Sigh.. And yet there were no visible or audible explosions, at least not
after the initial impacts, and the OS does explain why they fell the way they did.



There are plenty of videos that have explosions going on in the background.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I NEVER reply or comment on anything on this website, but I must make an exception with this thread. This is a message to the OP. You are either a complete absolute 100% card-carrying stupid idiot, or a government shill, to pose the question "So who the heck ever said Pull It was slang for controlled demo?" I don't think I or anyone else needs to prove anything else or state anything further. Every single English speaking person on this planet knows, and knew, what Larry Silverstein meant by his comment. No one should have to prove to YOU, you #ing idiot, if "pull it" means demo a building. The #ING CONTEXT of what was being discussed dictates the meaning of what was said.

OP, you know what Pull It means, just like the rest of humanity. Don't make yourself look like a complete douchebag on the internet. What the hell is wrong with humanity? Are people really this stupid, or are they out to stir the pot? Which is it? Either way, they end up looking like brainless lifeless pond scum.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Any building falling down will resemble a controlled demolition.

I saw some hookers on the side of the road the other day that resembled ladies, but they weren't.


That's not true. Take the WTC buildings, which had much heavier damage on one side than the other. As many professional engineers have pointed out, that would cause the top to fall over and snap off, if the building was left to collapse naturally.


I didn't say they were exact copies, I said they resemble each other, which was the assertion I was responding to.

First of all, none of the 3 fell "neatly into their own footprints", not even close. You can see the top falling at and angle on tower 1, but once the upper floor collapse met resistance it evened out and just pancaked it's way down. But that still wasn't neatly in it's own footprint.

Take 1/2"X1/2" slats of wood and build a little tower.

Place a 45 pound weight gently on the top, it will hold it.

Then try dropping it from a few inches above, you'll see what I mean. You can even weaken one of the upper corners. It will flatten out.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Myendica
 



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.


You are wrong (as usual)....

In case of WTC 7 was the owner of the building, the others on the site were leased from the Port Authority


7 World Trade Center is a building in New York City located across from the World Trade Center site in Lower Manhattan. It is the second building to bear that name and address in that location. The original structure was completed in 1987 and was destroyed in the September 11 attacks. The current 7 World Trade Center opened in 2006 on part of the site of the old 7 World Trade Center. Both buildings were developed by Larry Silverstein, who holds a ground lease for the site from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by samuraistuart
 


applause! Applause! Exactly! So few spoken words, yet all so true! Everything about that was beautiful. You made my age old point, that curse words are supposed to be used in the english language, for the exact moment you wish you curse someones actions or ignorance. And your common sense is brilliant. You sir/mam/"it".. Deserve an abundance of stars for your savvy. Applause!



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 




Originally posted by ANOK
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?


Anok, with a building as tall as the three that fell on 9/11, there is really no other possibility. If it tips over to one side like a falling tree, the sides wind up on top. if the top collapses and takes out the floors and then the sides fall, then the sides will wind up on top. If it were a controlled demolition, the sides would wind up on top. The only possible things that can wind up on top are the roof and the sides. The towers were approximately 90% sides and 10% top (guesstimating here, but you get the point).

I don't think there's any plausible way for the towers to collapse that doesn't conclude with perimeter walls on the top of the rubble. now of course, not all of the perimeter walls should wind up on top of the rubble, but that doesn't distinguish collapse from a controlled demo either.


Originally posted by ANOK
How is it physically possible to mimic an implosion style demolition from fires and damage?

Since that did not happen, I see little need to explain it.

reply to post by ANOK
 


Originally posted by ANOK
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.


You're quite mistaken about that.

There's a reason that nearly all controlled demolitions first damage the internal structure. The falling walls and columns pull on the perimeter structure via the floors, limiting the damage done from debris falling outward.

It's true that proper timing is needed to minimize damage. But a primary part of that timing is that the interior structure is destroyed first.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

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.


Yes, one makes VERY large booms just prior to collapse.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by AGWskeptic
 


There are many videos that show the cutting charges actually blowing out the sides of the buildings an instant BEFORE the collapse starts.

I'm sure you know this already, though. It's OK - you go on and "believe" whatever you wish.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 


Actually the explosions are not necessarily very large in a controlled demolition. Usually the noise of the collapsing building is much louder.

However, there are both seismic and audio recordings, as well as eyewitness testimony from both cops and firefighters, of "huge" explosions at the WTC that day. This is undeniable.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou


Actually the explosions are not necessarily very large in a controlled demolition. Usually the noise of the collapsing building is much louder.

.


Oh? Can you please point one out for me?

Also...we know that there were explosions reported. Explosions to not always = explosives. Oh... and please, can you provide evidence of a controlled demolition that sets off explosives an hour or so prior to collapse?



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join