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: 16
17
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by WeRpeons
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


...and you believe 3 buildings falling into their own footprint is just a coincidence?


The towers fell into their footprints?

You'd better tell about four fifths of the Truth Movement. They're busy talking about "debris being blown out 400 feet" and so on. Richard Gage is particularly insistent that this proves the CD.




posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK


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?


I addressed this earlier and you seem to have ignored me.

You continue to assert that

- the outer walls cannot fall on the debris pile in anything except a cd
- that they fell in totality on the debris pile.

You provide no evidence for either of these assertions. And given that you have no idea how the explosives were kept largely quiet, how many of the "explosives" were heard hours before, and why the firefighters continue to lie about the collapse, I'm not surprised that your argument is finding it tough to persuade all but the most dogmatic.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 03:57 AM
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.


She doesn't do that in the interview, even once.

I actually think that pull it is slang for a CD, but that's not corroborated by your link.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


I don't know how it collapsed,dude, I just know how it DIDN'T collapse. by burning office furniture and skyscrapers falling on top of it... If I was to guess how it did collapse, based on what I saw in recorded footage, then I would say it was brought down in a controlled demolition using traditional thermite explosives on the supporting girders of least 75% of its floors... You will now, no doubt, ask how they got the explosives in there, and I don't know that either, again I can only start guessing. What many people have is questions, my friend, not answers. But if it's the idea that the US government would be so psychopathic as to kill its own citizens in a false flag attack, to further a sociopolitical agenda, that you are struggling with, then I would familiarise yourself with Operation Northwoods.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Unknown Soldier
 


No steel frame building collapse from fire ....?

What do we have here....?

A building (Delft University School of Architecture) on fire Collapsing from the fire

www.liveleak.com...

As for Silverstein

Reason purchased insurance was that people fronting the money for WTC (you dont think that he had a couple
of billion in his pocket) demanded he purchase the insurance. No Insurance No Money

Silverstein actually wanted to BUY LESS insurance , Kinda of funny way to make money, underinsuring
your buildings

Wanted to buy only 1 billion per billion, banks demanded 5 billion. settled on 3.55 billion per building



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by EddieCusak
But if it's the idea that the US government would be so psychopathic as to kill its own citizens in a false flag attack, to further a sociopolitical agenda, that you are struggling with, then I would familiarise yourself with Operation Northwoods.

en.wikipedia.org...


I don't doubt that the American government is absolutely packed full of the most dreadful sort of people. But operation Northwoods didn't envisage the killing of US citizens. And it never happened.

So it's not really the best example to illustrate your claim.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 05:34 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


you are jokin right? She doesnt come out and say.. "hey, pull it is industry terms means bring a building down.." no.. Instead she uses "pull it.." to describe how they would bring a building down to minimize damage to surrounding buildings. Case closed. "pull it" is used in the cd industry. Daves theory here is bunk. Its ok.. Doesnt matter what crazy old larry meant.. The question was.. "who the heck ever said "pull it" is industry term for controlled demolition?". I answered that. So anything else is pointless in this thread. Accept that.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Good footage, but if you are offering this as evidence as to what happened to building 7 then we need a bit more information please. Did this building totally collapse at the same rate of freefall? was it built with same integrity as building 7? What I can see is that it was clearly burning much harder and for much longer. As far as I can see there as no smoke coming from building 7 at all. It is impossible to see from this footage whether the whole building came down or only the burning floors. but its good footage and good place to start. But, God, I hope you coincidence theorists are right, it would be such a relief to believe that the 9/11 commission's explanation of the events that day were the whole truth, I just don't believe it yet. convince me.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by EddieCusak
But if it's the idea that the US government would be so psychopathic as to kill its own citizens in a false flag attack, to further a sociopolitical agenda, that you are struggling with, then I would familiarise yourself with Operation Northwoods.

en.wikipedia.org...


I don't doubt that the American government is absolutely packed full of the most dreadful sort of people. But operation Northwoods didn't envisage the killing of US citizens. And it never happened.

So it's not really the best example to illustrate your claim.


Ignorant comment of the month...
So northwoods did not intended on killing or faking the kills of US citizens? why is this retarded ignorant allowed to post here?



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by EddieCusak
reply to post by Varemia
 


I don't know how it collapsed,dude, I just know how it DIDN'T collapse. by burning office furniture and skyscrapers falling on top of it... If I was to guess how it did collapse, based on what I saw in recorded footage, then I would say it was brought down in a controlled demolition using traditional thermite explosives on the supporting girders of least 75% of its floors...


There is no such thing as "traditional thermite explosives" in relation to cd's . Can you refer me to any cd carried out with thermite ?

And then we have the recent study by Dr James Millette which found no thermite in WTC samples :-

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 05:43 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


It envisaged a plan to bring down US airlines. Who was going to be on those planes? Chimpanzees? And it never happened because Kennedy vetoed it, but if it reached his desk, we can only assume that the CIA sat a drafted this plan with every intention of doing it. Times change.. as do presidents.


edit on 22-3-2012 by EddieCusak because: spelling correction



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by EddieCusak
reply to post by thedman
 


Good footage, but if you are offering this as evidence as to what happened to building 7 then we need a bit more information please. Did this building totally collapse at the same rate of freefall? was it built with same integrity as building 7? What I can see is that it was clearly burning much harder and for much longer. As far as I can see there as no smoke coming from building 7 at all. It is impossible to see from this footage whether the whole building came down or only the burning floors. but its good footage and good place to start. But, God, I hope you coincidence theorists are right, it would be such a relief to believe that the 9/11 commission's explanation of the events that day were the whole truth, I just don't believe it yet. convince me.


If you haven't seen " smoke coming from building 7 at all ". You must have been exclusively looking at conspiracy sites which only show the north facade (in the pursuit of truth of course )

You can see in this clip that the whole south side was pouring smoke from top to bottom :-

www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 05:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


No I can't. and I am not a demolition expert so I don't know and care a flying fig what they use. You are just doing what all beligerent antagonists do, just setting up and shooting down straw man arguments... so let me repeat jusy so you are clear... I DO NOT KNOW HOW BUILDING 7 CAME DOWN... there shall I say it again? I DO NOT KNOW HOW BUILDING 7 CAME DOWN. so any guess I offer as to how it did could easliy be questioned because, yes that's right, I DO NOT KNOW... but I don't believe it came down in the way it did from burning office furniture. Why are you stuggling with this?



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


thank you. Now I have seen it. there is clearly smoke and fire coming from a building I am being told is building 7, but I will believe that because I imagined there probably was in this and other buildings to be fair... Do I believe this fire could cause the building to collapse at free fall speed into its own foot print 25 minutes after the BBC reported it had collapsed... NO.
edit on 22-3-2012 by EddieCusak because: spelling correction



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by EddieCusak
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


It envisaged a plan to bring down US airlines. Who was going to be on those planes? Chimpanzees? And it never happened because Kennedy vetoed it, but if it reached his desk, we can only assume that the CIA sat a drafted this plan with every intention of doing it. Times change.. as do presidents.


edit on 22-3-2012 by EddieCusak because: spelling correction


No it didn't. The plan envisaged SIMULATING a plane crash.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Unknown Soldier
 


No steel frame building collapse from fire ....?

What do we have here....?

A building (Delft University School of Architecture) on fire Collapsing from the fire

www.liveleak.com...


Excellant post.

8:15-8:30 Smell from coffee machine. Plug is pulled. No smoke from machine.
9:10 Smoke from machine. “Fire balls” (likely burning cups) observed coming out of machine.
9:16 Fire Department called.
9:32 Fire fighter reports medium fire. Almost no water pressure.
9:33 Same FF changed it to a large fire and retreats. Also Flashover.
11:30 Floors 6-11 on fire.
12:15 All fire fighters now outside of the building. Fire spread into Center section.
16:40 Collapse occurs.

Sound familiar?
All from typical office contents.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   
" 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 that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

Those who are advocating that "pull" and "pull it" must mean controlled demolition don't seem to be facing up to the logical consequences of what they are saying.

We know that "pull" and "pull it" can't refer to literally pulling the building with cables because we know that would have been insane at that stage with such a huge building and in that condition. We also know that obviously there was no attempt to do any such thing.

So, if "pull" and "pull it" means cd it must mean explosive cd. But, as with cables, it would have been a suicidal mission to go into that building at that stage when it was burning on multiple floors, leaning and creaking and the whole idea of rigging such a huge building for cd in a very short time frame is just ludicrous.

So, what we are left with is that WTC 7 had already been pre-prepared for explosive cd. So when Larry Silverstein says " And they made that decision to pull" he must mean that FDNY were already fully aware that WTC 7 was pre-rigged and that they knew just what to do to initiate the collapse.

Therefore, a belief that "pull" and "pull it" means cd also means that, on a day when FDNY lost over 300 men, they were fully complicit in cd themselves. I don't buy that.

Nor do I buy the idea that he would accidentaly let it slip out on tv nor that the insurance company which had to pay out $861 million would have ignored it.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   
The phrase originated when one day I asked a friend to Pull my finger and then kaboom



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


you are jokin right? She doesnt come out and say.. "hey, pull it is industry terms means bring a building down.." no.. Instead she uses "pull it.." to describe how they would bring a building down to minimize damage to surrounding buildings. Case closed. "pull it" is used in the cd industry. Daves theory here is bunk. Its ok.. Doesnt matter what crazy old larry meant.. The question was.. "who the heck ever said "pull it" is industry term for controlled demolition?". I answered that. So anything else is pointless in this thread. Accept that.


sorry but I'm immune to bait and switch. I'm going by the conspiracy proponents' own words that "pull it" is industry lingo for controlled demolitions, as in a word that on face value means one thing but has a different meaning to others. "Cougar" means completely different things to a zookeeper and a barhopper, "Acid" means completely different things to a chemist and a drug addict, and "Dough" means completely different things to a baker and a bank robber. I've been told that "pull it" means to make a building go BOOM. This person isn't using "pull it" as slang to describe makign a building go BOOM. She's using "pull it" to describe the physics of getting something to fall in the direction she wants it to go once the building goes BOOM, the same way farmers use "pull it" to describe how a horse should move a plow. I notice you aren't saying "pull it" is farmer's lingo, which by your own context is equally correct.

Let's face it, the conspiracy perople have been caught making things up, and now that they've been called out on it they're changing their story because they're too much in love with these "Silverstein was in on it" theories. You're acting like a woman who mentally invents her own excuses for why lipstick would legitimately be on her husband's collar because she doesn't want to face the fact her spouse is lying to her. This ain't your spouse, it's an internet meme you got off some web site.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by EddieCusak
reply to post by Alfie1
 


thank you. Now I have seen it. there is clearly smoke and fire coming from a building I am being told is building 7, but I will believe that because I imagined there probably was in this and other buildings to be fair... Do I believe this fire could cause the building to collapse at free fall speed into its own foot print 25 minutes after the BBC reported it had collapsed... NO.
edit on 22-3-2012 by EddieCusak because: spelling correction


You are obviously willing to look at stuff so I would suggest to you that WTC 7 did not fall at freefall speed, nor did it fall in its own footprint.

Conspiracy sites invariably just show the last few seconds of collapse after the whole facade gives way. However, if you look at video which shows the whole collapse starting with the falling in of the east penthouse you will find that the total collapse time is at least 13-14 seconds, way more than freefall.

So far as falling in its own footprint, have a look at the damage inflicted by the falling WTC 7, e.g. the Verizon building.

BBC was not the only news medium to make a cock-up that day. What is the alternative ? They were given a script by the perps and got ahead of themselves ? Isn't that insane ?




top topics



 
17
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join