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: 17
17
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

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.

Hi trick,
nice trick

Have you ever been inside a school of reason or deduction or truth for that matter?
You must have seen or read about the bomb blast accounts in all three buildings that day??????
They explain the debris.
The Towers at the WTC fell into thier foundations including bld number 7
At and to show how ignorant you are about the physical world, they
fell AT FREE FALL SPEED. How??? you may ask The ONLY way DEMOLITION




posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


Wow, you make three points and manage to get all three wrong :-

a) Loud bangs do not automatically equate to "bomb blasts".

b) WTC 1,2&7 did not fall in their own footprints. Have a look at the collateral damage.

c) WTC 1,2&7 did not fall at freefall speed. Please show me proof they did.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier
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.


A) it's ridiculous to say something can't ever happen because it never happened before. Before the Titanic incident no large steel ship was ever sunk by a chunk of frozen water before. Are you saying the Titanic was never sunk? Good grief, you can't use THAT as an excuse.

B) If this "pull it is lingo for controlled demolitions" bit given to you as evidence is shown to be manufactured to falsely embellish such claims...and by the ongoing conversations here you can see that it it was...you need to ask yourself is any of the OTHER evidence given to you has likewise been manufactured to falsely embellish such claims. Did it ever occur to you that when you proudly present "facts" like "Silverstein made millions in insurance" as some kind of de facto evidence the rest of us might be rolling our eyes because the claim has already been debunked fifty times before you came along?



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


But the Titanic was an obvious conspiracy. Have you not seen this ?


www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


dave.. You may wat to go back 2 pages and read the interview where a demo expert uses the term "pull it" it her description of types of demolitions. Of course youll look over it.. Cause this thread wasnt bout you wanting to know the truth, rather to distract and bait. Like you always do. Always baiting. Your like a master at baiting.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 





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.


Excellant point!
The insurance company was fighting the point of whether it was one accident or two.
At stake was double the payout.
Silverstein claimed it was two since two planes hit two buildings. The insurance claimed it was one since it was a coordinated attack by one group.

So if Silverstein let it slip that it was CD then the insurance company would have said since you blew it up yourself there will be NO PAYOUT!



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


Wow, you make three points and manage to get all three wrong :-

a) Loud bangs do not automatically equate to "bomb blasts".

b) WTC 1,2&7 did not fall in their own footprints. Have a look at the collateral damage.

c) WTC 1,2&7 did not fall at freefall speed. Please show me proof they did.



I think we're getting to the heart of the discussion right there. It's becomong more and more obvious that this whole conspiracy bit is nothing but a Rorschach test, where someone sees "eyewitnesses heard explosions" and ignore legitimate reasons for explosions like overheated electrical transformers or pressurized pipes and gravitate intentionally toward "bombs", to the point where they don't even visually see"witnesses heard explosions" anymore but "witnesses heard bombs".

So it's readily becoming apparent that Silverstein's "Pull it" wasn't any actual reference to controlled demolitions. It spontaneously became a reference to controlled demolitions because the conspiracy theorists want there to be a conspiracy so strongly that they don't see "pull it" anymore, but an order to blow up a building. So far, the leading claim seems to be "well, okay, it's not demolitions lingo, so that only means Silverstein must have meant to pull the building down and he just used demolitions to do it" which is just making excuses for why they don't want to admit they're seeing things that really aren't there.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


That's a bad analogy because for it to be true that would mean 3 like-sized titanics would have had to sunk that day. There are plenty of examples of "firsts" that happened that day just like there are plenty of coincidences which people seem to overlook.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


Wow, you make three points and manage to get all three wrong :-

a) Loud bangs do not automatically equate to "bomb blasts".

b) WTC 1,2&7 did not fall in their own footprints. Have a look at the collateral damage.

c) WTC 1,2&7 did not fall at freefall speed. Please show me proof they did.



Wow.

This post displays such monumental ignorance, I don't even think I am going to waste my time.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 
Kudos, Dave. You've managed to divert people for 17 pages, and anyone who's read them knows by now that the last thing you want to know is the truth. Let me re-phrase that, the last thing you want people to know is the truth, because the people you front for know the truth, and if that becomes public, then your reason for being here is gone. Your charade grows more tiresome with each passing day.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


Wow, you make three points and manage to get all three wrong :-

a) Loud bangs do not automatically equate to "bomb blasts".

b) WTC 1,2&7 did not fall in their own footprints. Have a look at the collateral damage.

c) WTC 1,2&7 did not fall at freefall speed. Please show me proof they did.



Wow.

This post displays such monumental ignorance, I don't even think I am going to waste my time.


What does that mean ? You want to protest because it assaults your beliefs but you can't actually come up with anything ? Why respond at all ?



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches


Hi trick,
nice trick

Have you ever been inside a school of reason or deduction or truth for that matter?
You must have seen or read about the bomb blast accounts in all three buildings that day??????
They explain the debris.
The Towers at the WTC fell into thier foundations including bld number 7
At and to show how ignorant you are about the physical world, they
fell AT FREE FALL SPEED. How??? you may ask The ONLY way DEMOLITION

Well ok,
but I made 4 statements.
Glad to see you do not contest # 1
Barry Jennings heard the bomb blasts You would deny that? duh
To quantify your other tricky answers
99 percent fell into the basements, You prove they didn't
Damn near free free fall speed, You prove they didn't



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by samuraistuart
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.


Ah yes, yet another character who has such a strong emotional attachment to these conspiracy theories that any criticism against their beliefs is perceived as a personal attack against themselves. You have to know it's mindless zealots dedicated to stamping out all dissenting opinions exactly like you which is the entire reason why the truther movement has become such a laughingstock. People can't even simply pay their respects for the victims of 9/11 without one of these ignorant people showing up to rape it like a five dollar whore-



So I won't lower myself and stoop to name calling like a ten year old, 'cause I know you truthers are your own worst enemy in the "make you look like an idiot" department. Most people already know someone would need to be one hell of a gullible person to even believe the New York Fire Department a) would secretly rig buildings and deliberately murder 343 of their brother firefighters and b) is even involved in rigging buildings with demolitions to begin with, entirely because "they read it on the internet somewhere".

I don't hold you responsible for your piss-poor bad manners. I blame the snake oil peddlers and con artists behind those damned fool conspiracy web sites shoveling out this rubbish to instigate this fake public unrest and make a fast buck off it. It's the blind devotion exactly like this that makes me say that sooner or later, some innocent bystander is going to get killed over this horse [censored].



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 
Kudos, Dave. You've managed to divert people for 17 pages, and anyone who's read them knows by now that the last thing you want to know is the truth. Let me re-phrase that, the last thing you want people to know is the truth, because the people you front for know the truth, and if that becomes public, then your reason for being here is gone. Your charade grows more tiresome with each passing day.



What is actually very tiresome are your interminable adhoms with no attempt to constructively take part in debate. No wonder your point score is MINUS 5112.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


That's a bad analogy because for it to be true that would mean 3 like-sized titanics would have had to sunk that day. There are plenty of examples of "firsts" that happened that day just like there are plenty of coincidences which people seem to overlook.


What does that prove? It's the first time large planes like that were used as impact weapons and it's the first time buildings with that particular type of design suffered that kind of damage. The only "coincidences" are those which are being manufactured by the same people who manufactured this "pull it means controlled demolitions" claim, so you need to ask yourself just how legitimate these "coincidences" actually are.

This is neither here nor there since the original question was for proof that "pull it" was industry lingo for controlled dmeolitions" like I've been repeatedly told, and all I've seen so far is 10,000 ways to waffle and backtrack away from the statement.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


dave.. You may wat to go back 2 pages and read the interview where a demo expert uses the term "pull it" it her description of types of demolitions. Of course youll look over it.. Cause this thread wasnt bout you wanting to know the truth, rather to distract and bait. Like you always do. Always baiting. Your like a master at baiting.


Would you mind terribly posting it again? I'm looking through all these pages and all I see is a video of a demolitions technician saying he tried to pull a building in a specific direction that someone tried to pass off as being "pull it is lingo for demolitions". This is bait and switch, in case you weren't aware.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
 

What is actually very tiresome are your interminable adhoms with no attempt to constructively take part in debate. No wonder your point score is MINUS 5112.


LOL you beat me to it, Alfie. All the guy does is follow people around and say "you're a poopy-head" without ever offering any actual constructive comments on the topic that he's posting in. There are people who are able to increase the credibility of an agenda's reputation, and there are people who behave so immature that they make everyone they associate with look ridiculous by association. Guess which one Dillweed is.

At this point I don't even listen to that ten year old any more.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave



killed over this horse [censored].


This right here shows that there ain't much good in ole dave.
It was a two faced reply that I guess he was smart enough
No tricky enough to censor himself before the world could see.
If you are even close to being honest you will address this post with
the humility you should.
ATS deserves better
ljb



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
This right here shows that there ain't much good in ole dave.
It was a two faced reply that I guess he was smart enough
No tricky enough to censor himself before the world could see.
If you are even close to being honest you will address this post with
the humility you should.
ATS deserves better
ljb


What am I supposed to be addressing? I signed off last night and signed back on to discover there's seventeen pages now, so if you posted a question I didn't see it. The last I know is that you were trying to say the preoccupation over the Monica Lewinsky scandal led to the 9/11 attack. Regardless of whether it did or didn't it has nothing to do with the claim that "pull it" is supposed to be controlled demolitions lingo.

...and yes I censor myself. I know that if I don't the ATS moderators will probably yank the post. It's their board, not mine. What does THAT have to do with the question I asked?



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


seriously dave? You start a thread asking a less important, yet somewhat reasonable question. You bash and bash and bash.. Bait and bait. Someone provides you a link to an interview with an expert in the industry, with it written for you.. And you cannot find it? Its your thread! Be thorough! Mods can help you with navigating your own thread, im sure. Honestly, they should post it under your op. And this thread should be closed.. So.. Goodbye.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join