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: 18
17
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

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


I have just looked back at your original post and I only see 3 points you raised. Barry Jennings is new.

What Barry Jennings heard and felt was the debris falling from the North Tower collapse at 10.28 which damaged and set on fire WTC 7. Michael Hess was with him and confirms that. If Barry Jennings was hearing a bomb what the hell was that doing going off 7 hours before WTC 7 collapsed ?

With the WTC buildings your "99 per cent fell into the basements " is obvious nonsense . Debris from the Towers not only fatally damaged WTC buildings 3,4,5 6 & 7 but nearby structures like the Marriot Hotel and WTC 7 in its turn ruined the Fiterman Hall beyond recovery and severly damaged the Verizon building.

I notice that you have now revised " freefall" to "damn near free fall speed " but that still doesn't wash. Have a look at this :-

www.youtube.com...




posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
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.
Bravo. Let this (fill in the blank) start another waste of space thread. He's not interested in anything even remotely close to truth.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
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.


You're reaching hard to say that it is demolitions lingo to implode a building by using "pull." I just read that interview you hold so dear to your fantasy, and she does not use pull in that fashion! She says that the building pulls itself in the direction its going, based on the proper demolition. She doesn't say they pulled the building.

Maybe I'm just less biased, but you seem to be seeing things that aren't there.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 01:25 PM
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.


Ignorance that bangs during a fire an hour before the building collapsed might possibly not be detonations of controlled demolitions? There were no bangs before the collapse. None at all. Watch the videos if you don't believe me.

The buildings didn't fall in their footprints, unless you count the entire trade center complex as a footprint. Have you even seen the damage to almost every single building in the vicinity? That is decidedly NOT the footprint.

They didn't fall at freefall speed. That's a fact. Even some of the die-hard conspiracy people admit that. They wittily change their rhetoric to "near-free-fall," because they know that if they say free-fall they'll be proven wrong.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
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.


Excuse me???? I just went back SEVEN pages and the only thing I saw from you that remotely resembles what you're claiming you said is this...

"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."


Now I know full well you're not attempting to claim someone saying "pulling itself away" is the same thing as "Pull it is industry lingo for controlled demolitions" 'cause you'd be lying through your teeth if you were. The latter according to you people is supposed to have the additional meaning of "making something go BOOM", and the former is simply describing a physical action of what occurred. I am only quoting you people when you say it's supposed to be actual slang for controlled demolitions, after all. Does that mean "peel it off" and "melt down" are slang for controlled demolitions as well just because this person used those words to describe the process too?

SO, if you actually have some other link to someone specifically saying "pull it is lingo for controlled demolitions" that I haven't seen then please post it, becuase what you posted isn't lingo. Otherwise, you might as well stay away because you've been just caught trying to pull a bait and switch to avoid having to admit you're simply repeating an internet meme with this whole "Silverstein said pull it" baloney.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by bekod
all i can say is this will be just another JFK who did it and why, by the time we do figure it out, all the ones responsible will be dead or dying from old age, and the Nay Sayers will keep saying" no our gov would never do such an act"


Bit off topic but still. What you wrote is what I consider the responsibillity of the people of the USA. If no action is taken to have a thorough independent investigation no one but the people are to blame for their get-away. Again they are being punked by probably and most likely the same crowd who did JFK.

What will it take..? JFK, his brother, Martin Luther King...who else..? "They can kill anyone or any number of people because they know the people just stand there watching like mentally retarded idiots waiting for someone else to take action. These people have protected themselves by creating legislation...made themselves untouchable....able to hide behind the law. Each time when this topic comes up I feel a powerless frustration.


About Silverstein...and his "pull it"....

Silversten said "Pull it". To be precise, he said-

"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."

Must a building with an uncontrollable fire be pulled? Is it always the smartest thing to do with a building consumed by fire. A building with other buildings near and maybe with people in it? I don't know, but what I do know is the absurt reason for pulling it....because they had such terrible loss of life..

Doesn't make sense...although I do not know the man personally, I just do not like the man...his appearance gives me a natural aversion.






edit on 22/3/2012 by zatara because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Okay truthers.. please answer these questions:

1. Who was he talking to?
2. If it was in fact the FDNY, how does the fire department CD a skyscraper?
3. When they made the decision to pull (and your taking Larry's word on this) How can you CD a building burning out of control?
4. NOW...If these bombs were pre-planted, how did the perps know that WTC 7 was going to be damaged enough to start the fires that would give them an excuse to "pull"?



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Riposte

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
...and "Pull it" according to the 9/11 conspiracy proponents is supposed to be slang for bringing down a building via controlled demolitions.


Haha ok. But I guess you just accept Larry's explanation that "pull it" is slang for telling everyone to get out of the building.

Gee, I wonder where THAT slang term came from. Because I certainly have never heard it used like that before.


God Ol Dave isn't a truther
by definaition
That means if he wants to he can just make stuff up
there is a link to a google search which turned up over 50,000 examples back there on the thread that says how the term pull has been used and since when

edit on 22-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
God Ol Dave isn't a truther
by definaition
That means if he wants to he can just make stuff up
there is a link to a google search which turned up over 50,000 examples back there on the thread that says how the term pull has been used and since when

edit on 22-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)


No it doesn't. Being a truther does not make you invulnerable to bias and lying. The opposite also is not a binding contract.

The thing is, whenever I google something about this, I get 50,000 results of speculation by truthers and other people. A point is not made valid simply by being repeatedly speculated on by some thousands of truthers. It just makes it repeatedly wrong (or still unsolved).

It's like that whole 10% brain myth. It's perpetuated CONSTANTLY, and that one is demonstrably false.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 


How about you answer the question that really matters?

How did WTC 7 land mostly in it's own footprint from a natural collapse from fire and asymmetrical damage?

(and please don't try to claim it didn't, post collapse pics prove it did. If you can't see that then you do not know what you're looking at)

How they did that, and who did that, I have no idea, if I did I would tell you. It's not necessary to know how it was done to know how it wasn't done. Sorry but known physics contradicts the OS. Regardless of what Larry said, it doesn't change the physics. The debate does not hinge on what Larry said.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Did you watch the videos, or read the text, were demo professionals used the term 'pull'?

You all just ignore what you don't like. You are completely unreasonable in this debate.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by Varemia
 


Did you watch the videos, or read the text, were demo professionals used the term 'pull'?

You all just ignore what you don't like. You are completely unreasonable in this debate.


So, if "pull" or "pull it" mean cd do you agree that FDNY must be fully implicated ?



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



and please don't try to claim it didn't....

They didn't. The building was all over the place.

post collapse pics prove it did.

No they don't. They only prove the one thing that everyone agrees to - the building definitely fell - down. Which is direct evidence of - gravity.

If you can't see that then you do not know what you're looking at....

Or, possibly, you don't know what you're looking at. Or you know what you see, you just don't understand it. Either way, you're pretty much alone here.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 03:44 PM
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.



Well the, maybe I will respond:

a) Numerous witnesses - including many FIREMEN and COPS who would know a little bit about bombs - described the blasts as BOMB blasts or being like bombs going off. All liars, right? DId you know that many police departments have a bomb squad? I'm sure they do NO training.

b) The actually did. They fell straight the f**k down. Watch the videos again The collateral damage was done by debris flying off in all directions as the BULK of the buildings were falling straight the f**k down into their own foundations.

c) Yes they did. Numerous architects/engineers have posted numerous videos and explanations comparing their analyses to the acceleration and velocity of gravity, and have concluded as much. Google it. There is proof all over the place.

Basically you're someone who can't believe that someone would pre-plan such an event, so you just bash everyone you don't agree with and make up reasons to try to make yourself sound reasonable. Your assertions can be easily refuted a thousand times over.


edit on 22-3-2012 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


I hope you can see Mt. Taylor in the morning light.
Thanks for presenting a voice of reason here.
I was going to quote you but didn't

OSers
They are like cuppie dolls you laugh at. At the fair.
edit on 22-3-2012 by longjohnbritches because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-3-2012 by longjohnbritches because: censored my wayword words



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK
 



and please don't try to claim it didn't....

They didn't. The building was all over the place.

post collapse pics prove it did.

No they don't. They only prove the one thing that everyone agrees to - the building definitely fell - down. Which is direct evidence of - gravity.

If you can't see that then you do not know what you're looking at....

Or, possibly, you don't know what you're looking at. Or you know what you see, you just don't understand it. Either way, you're pretty much alone here.


Hi hoop

Would you please show a citation.
Where do you get all your ignorant ideas from???
Some damn fool website or some damn fool report.
Have you ever been inside the doors of a school of higher education.
Any school?



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


you are a moron. I will take the point deduction for this. Idc. You are retarded. She said "pull it down" "pull it" is "pull it". U are stupid. Go collect ur paycheck from the dod tard..


Well there you go OSers
Give us Liberty and stop giving our friends and family more death.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


I can see them all sitting on eachothers lap in the can.
What do we do now. Call the referees. Ask our bosses,
find more spin quick.
Who's got the paper?



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Hooper you obviously have no idea what 'in it's own footprint' means.

If the outer walls stay mostly inside it's own footprint, then that is the definition of in its own footprint.

How many times do you have to look at this pic before you get it?....



For the outer walls to fall inwards like that takes controlled implosion demolition, period.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join