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: 15
17
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou

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



More of those "hush-a-bombs". Love it!




posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Pull it?
Well when you are doing a scam on some one. One of the ways to say it is.
To pull it off.
In other words to hood wink people to the fact, that they are being robbed. And on 911, lots of people were robbed an not only of their money, but also their lives .



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Dave, end of discussion. heres the "who the heck" said it..

Interview with Stacey Loizeaux, Controlled Demolition Inc.

and I quote



NOVA: How do you do that?

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.


Notice the few "pull it" that are in there. read that interview. I encourage everyone to. explains alot.

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



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Read The Mysterious Collapse of Building 7 by David Ray Griffin. He goes into quite a lot of detail. One thing that people forget about that phone call was by the time Larry Silverstein was talking to the Fire Department Commander there WERE no Firemen in Building 7. Remember that call was late in the day after both buildings had already collapsed. They had already told the Firemen to get out of the building. So when he was talking about the building he WAS talking about just the building. It makes sense to me because after the first two buildings collapsed the only rational thing for a fire commander to do is tell everyone to get out because Building 7 may fall too (They had already lost over 300 firemen and paramedics). It became a safety issue then because no Fire Department Commander in his right mind would send more Firemen into a building that was already evacuated and on Fire after two had already collapsed. They would just let it burn. That would be the obvious thing to do.

So yes, "Pull it" meant the building. His recant after his slip up is an absurd explanation. Plus that part of the video has even been edited out of the newer versions. Go figure.
edit on 21-3-2012 by jzenman because: spelling



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
Dave, end of discussion. heres the "who the heck" said it..

Interview with Stacey Loizeaux, Controlled Demolition Inc.

and I quote



NOVA: How do you do that?

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.


Notice the few "pull it" that are in there. read that interview. I encourage everyone to. explains alot.

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


He's talking about talking down a rowhouse, a structure that is attached to another structure that needs to be saved.

So it's a pretty specific type of demolition.

Again, not a common term for "bring the building down".

This also from your link.




Depending on the height of the structure, we'll work on a couple of different floors—usually anywhere from two to six. The taller the building, the higher up we work. We only really need to work on the first two floors, because—you can make the building come down that way


So the experts would have just worked the lower floors. Doesn't that throw a monkey wrench into your arguement.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


Just a thought, but did anyone mention the missing gold from towers 1 and 2?



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Yes, one makes VERY large booms just prior to collapse.


Not necessarily. No one has ever claimed traditional explosives were used. I don't know what was used, but I do know that fire and asymmetrical damage didn't cause the collapse.

Large booms or not, it doesn't change the fact that the outer walls could not have landed on top of the rest of the collapsed building from fire and asymmetrical damage. If you don't understand that then you don't understand physics, simple as mate.

When are any of you going to actually address that, instead of trying to find irrelevant points that make no difference to the observed evidence post collapse?

Having said that, for trillionth time booms were heard, you just keep ignoring, denying or making excuses for that fact.




posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Only1King


Just a thought, but did anyone mention the missing gold from towers 1 and 2?


OMFG??? Earth to Only1King.... welcome to 2012!!!

That theory is as old as the pod planes.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by litterbaux
The more I watch video's and read this very thread the more I ask myself, who are the real people?

There is a lot of mudslinging in this thread about the use of the term "pull it". The truthers believe this was Larry's definition of a "controlled demolition". The OS'ers are saying the term didn't exist and or does not mean "controlled demolition".

Ok now that we got that out of the way.

Explain to me why he said, "we decided". Is he some sort of God or something? How does one decide a building will fall? Debris fell on a lot of buildings that morning. Why did they decide to pull down that one and not other buildings?

We decided to pull it. It wasn't physics or fires, it was US!

You guys can complain that there isn't enough evidence to go either way but if you open your eyes, ears and minds the obvious answers are right in front of your faces. You can choose to believe it or not, doesn't matter to me.


I felt the need to quote this post between all the back and forth bickering. I think rather than just focusing on the term "pull it" we should concentrate on the paragraph that it's included in to gain further insight of the meaning of the term. This is taught to 3rd graders as part of learning about reading comprehension, especially when stuck on a word that is not understood. In a sentence, read before the word and after the word and maybe the meaning will become clear. If you have a paragraph then it becomes even more clear.

Star for you, and star to danbones for quoting the whole paragraph, because those things are important and bring context to the term.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


It is impossible for a steel frame building to collapse from fire. Never has it ever happened in history reason being that it defies science. You have to understand the formula to understand free fall. Common sense should tell you alone. Now after one examines these instances of evidence it should become abundantly obvious. Silverstien made a huge profit of millions through insurance fraud. Follow the money it goes back to the vermin. He took out specific insurance months before 911 specifically on terrorism. After learning he had to spend millions on renovations to remove asbestos. Think about it.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by AGWskeptic
 


this thread is about who in the cd industry ever used "pull it" as slang for bring down the building. I proved that a prominant person in the industry, uses "pull it" as slang for cd. Dont side step with this.. Oh she (yeah, she, not he.. Stacey is female) says they would only use on first two floors. Well continue.. Or maybe go back a few paragraphs.. They use charges higher up when they wish to "pull" a building so it causes very minimal surrounding damage. I proved Dave wrong.. Dont turn this thread into "my side lost lemme deflect..". Same paragraph you quote.. I dont know how you missed it.. Silly ignorance.. "the taller the building, the higher up we work."
edit on 21-3-2012 by Myendica because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by AGWskeptic
 


this thread is about who in the cd industry ever used "pull it" as slang for bring down the building. I proved that a prominant person in the industry, uses "pull it" as slang for cd. Dont side step with this.. Oh she (yeah, she, not he.. Stacey is female) says they would only use on first two floors. Well continue.. Or maybe go back a few paragraphs.. They use charges higher up when they wish to "pull" a building so it causes very minimal surrounding damage. I proved Dave wrong.. Dont turn this thread into "my side lost lemme deflect..".


I've used the term "fecal impaction" in my nursing career, doesn't make it a common term.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   

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.


We are talking about BUILDING SEVEN. Which did NOT get HIT by a PLANE.

Please try to keep up.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   
First of all, let me say that this argument is a petty and semantic one, and not well developed.

'We decided to pull it.'

Without any context at all you can see the speaker is talking about an object, not people.

Secondly. only three buildings with steel frames have ever, in the history of ALL architecture, fallen due to fire.

The towers and WTC7.

The fact that you are even bringing this up after 11 years is highly suspect, especially when you provide such a weak and illogical argument.

What is in this for you, OP?

Were you hoping that you'd get people to realize that all the other physics defying actions would be ignored once you proved that Larry Silverstein was talking about the Fire fighters?

It's like arguing that Nero was playing a banjo, eleven years after Rome burned.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


...and you believe 3 buildings falling into their own footprint is just a coincidence? They all fell exactly the same way, not one toppled over or partially collapsed. If I give you the argument that debris from the trade towers and fires caused the destruction of building 7, the probability of a total collapse at free fall instead of a partial collapse is really an improbability.

Most judges rely on previous case studies before they decide on guilt. In this case, previous building fires on steel structures have been examined and they don't collapse. But what about the debris hitting the building? The debris hitting the building might of caused structural damage to the upper floors but not to the foundation of the building. The foundation and load bearing beams at the base would have to be extremely compromised and "kicked out" for the building to completely free fall the way it did. If it was a partial collapse, I probably would agree with you.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   
I have heard it twice from the same event. Several of us wanted to preserve a historic building owned by the city and wanted it renovated instead of demolished. In the county council meeting they discussed the budget and said that the cost would be too high and they had spoken to a contractor to get an estimate on "pulling" the building.

The 2nd event was when the demolition was about to take place. A worker for the demolition company came over and made people stand behind some barriers because some of the locals were climbing over them to get a better look. The guy asked for everyone to stand back because they were about to "pull it"

The building was demolished by modern explosives. This was the mid 90's.

Have no idea if it is common slang or if that is what Silverstein meant. But, I have heard the term twice.

Some people do hang on to old terms even though the original meanings change. People 40+ in the south often call all soft drinks Pepsi or Coke and call all decaf coffee "A Sanka". In manufacturing 100 years ago a "cloth puller" was someone that had a pitiful backbreaking job that few wanted. As time went on a cloth puller was assisted by machinery and around the 90's a "cloth puller" was someone that sat on a stool and took readings from a computer screen by a machine doing 98 percent of the orignal work. But, the job is still "cloth puller" even though the person with this job never touches fabric.
.
edit on 21/3/12 by toochaos4u because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
This Dave guy here asks for information about 911. He has a signature that would lead anybody with half a brain to assertain that he already knows who destroyed the building in question.
Then it looks he wants to brainwash and deceive folks that really want to talk about the subject.
Welcome me to MUDDY WATERVILLE.
LATER


I am wondering if English is not your first language, OR if you are really so disingenuous as to attack the OP in this manner.

His signature has nothing to do with the question he asked in this thread. You cigar sex reference, is completely off topic and you've not defined how it plays a part in this thread, so I am left wondering if it all part of your plan.

Ahh well, teaches me to get sucked into these useless threads. You see the worst of ATS here...



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica

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)


It's not. By no reputable measure do a majority of people think that Larry Silverstein was involved in a CD of the world trade centre. Assuming that the number who believe that is roughly similar to the number that believe in a controlled demolition of any kind, the numbers peaked at about 16 per cent about five years ago.

Truthers cite polls that ask much wider questions - "do you believe everything the government has told us about September 11? for example - as though that was the same as believing in things like a CD on 9/11. It is not. For example I would answer "no" to the above question and I'm in no way a Truther.

But my point was a more general one. You can only think that support for the notion that Silverstein admitted demolishing the WTC is widespread if you live in a tiny bubble and take your information from an extremely narrow field. Your conviction that support is building is typical of a cult.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou

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)


What nonsense. Even if you allow yourself a very elastic definition of "pull it" (which is slang only for a certain sort of demolition) you have to also persuade yourself that the man behind the operation inadvertently admitted to the whole thing. Why on earth would he do such a thing?

You also have to conveniently ignore several other wild improbabilities. Like how they managed to wire the building. How the firefighters said throughout the day that they thought the building would collapse - and therefore must be in on the conspiracy if you are correct.

And you have to ignore the actual insurance situation (in which Silverstein actually tried to arrange lower cover prior to the attacks) and persuade yourself that a massive multinational financial institution will happily pay out on a scam so obvious that even you, a layman, have seen through it.

Forgive me if I'm not convinced.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou
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.


Show one. You won't be able to. There are examples of 'squibs' during the collapse, but none before. And there are no examples of real CDs that have squibs occurring during the destruction.

The pattern is always the same. Loud bang, squibs, pause, collapse. None of the WTC events even looks particularly like this.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join