So who the heck ever said "Pull it" was slang for controlled demolitions?

reply to post by Danbones


Hello DANBONEZ

Who gives a flying Norseman
Your numbers just don't add up.
Do some research and show us your PHD in MATH.

reply to post by ANOK

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

Because there was no force to move it laterally.
It can’t fall sideways so it falls straight down. Try it with dominos.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

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

...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?

Not much humility here . Never the less a glimmer of truth and a ray of hope.
Would you like to admit that what you censored was exactly what you accused truthers of doing????? Actually way worse. Remember what you censored will never leave Vegas unless you do not agree that you posted really bad things towords truthers.

reply to post by samkent


Was it stinky???
Most all you say about this pull it stuff is.
Was there any of that going on???

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.

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)

a) I shouldn't really need to spell this out to you but sounds like bombs are no proof of actual bombs. Nobody saw a bomb and not a vestige of physical evidence has been found. And then there are reports of explosions at random times and way preceding collapses which is totally different from a cd.

b) The allegation was that the buildings fell in their own footprint. That is self-evidently not the case because not only was the whole WTC site decimated but adjacent off-site buildings were destroyed or seriously damaged eg. Marriot Hotel, Fiterman Hall, Verizon Building & others.

c) The buildings did not fall at free fall speed. Even truthers don't try and push that now. :-

www.youtube.com...

If you can prove they did, lets hear it.

reply to post by Alfie1


Hi Alf

Du de who needs utube for this arguement.
A real man would say the math is like this,
blab blabllaaa so it was that much slower than free fall.

Look. Am I holding up one or two fingers????

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
reply to post by Danbones

 

Hello DANBONEZ

Who gives a flying Norseman
Your numbers just don't add up.
Do some research and show us your PHD in MATH.

step away from the the pipe there buddy
It may have a crack in it
and demonstrate where Im wrong
as you so never do

and if you have a viking problem that would be on topic in a viking thread
(trolling me here makes you appear obsessively unstable)
this thread appears to be about Christians and Jews dropping some buildings on Christians and falsly blaming Muslims
with no real evidence...but many dead bodies...and ultimately much conqured lands and forced conversions...
not much changes through time eh

Originally posted by Varemia

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.

Funny how if you don't buy the OS
which has been shown to be feeble by its own commissioners...you get labeled a truther
that says much about the OS...
speculation is not a lie or the truth
but to call a lier a truther would be an oxymoron

fuuny its unsloved
I guess thats why the investigators say they were obstructed and not funded and lied to by the perpeterators of the OS...who obviously AREN'T TRUTHERS

Originally posted by Danbones

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
reply to post by Danbones

 

Hello DANBONEZ

Who gives a flying Norseman
Your numbers just don't add up.
Do some research and show us your PHD in MATH.

step away from the the pipe there buddy
It may have a crack in it
and demonstrate where Im wrong
as you so never do

and if you have a viking problem that would be on topic in a viking thread

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

Hi dan,
And exactally what pipe would that be?
Do you have a source???
Would that be, The your thread died pipe.???
And now your here seeking retrobution like an exciled Norseman
Get back on topic and Pull IT
Your math has nothing to do with How Larry gave the orders to a high level New York City fireman.
Please please stay close to the point of the post.
Btw did anyone hand you an empty paper tube and you misstaked it with a relay wand?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Hi ole dave
Howz it goin 4 ya??
Did ya lernt anytin about your subject???
I hope my ontributions meet the standards of the
Very high quality ATS website???
But I almost forgot,
Who said PULLit and why?

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

Originally posted by Danbones

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
reply to post by Danbones

 

Hello DANBONEZ

Who gives a flying Norseman
Your numbers just don't add up.
Do some research and show us your PHD in MATH.

step away from the the pipe there buddy
It may have a crack in it
and demonstrate where Im wrong
as you so never do

and if you have a viking problem that would be on topic in a viking thread

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

Hi dan,
And exactally what pipe would that be?
Do you have a source???
Would that be, The your thread died pipe.???
And now your here seeking retrobution like an exciled Norseman
Get back on topic and Pull IT
Your math has nothing to do with How Larry gave the orders to a high level New York City fireman.
Please please stay close to the point of the post.
Btw did anyone hand you an empty paper tube and you misstaked it with a relay wand?

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

references I sure do:
any one of your posts

in your case "pulling" it is a phrase thAT has nothing to do with buildings
If there was a problem with my math you would have shown your work by now
whats long and hard on a xian?
grade two
where they teach you when doing math critiques to show your work

reply to post by Danbones


Hi dan
What do you say?
You and I go find a thread about nursery rymes
authored by Albert Eienstine.
You handle the rymes I will do the Math dude.
Before you know it the whole puzzele of Who Said or Pulled What
could be laid before the members in a reasonable fastion.
Mystic crystal revolation , mind full of constipation la la

Originally posted by Danbones

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

Originally posted by Danbones

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
reply to post by Danbones

 

Hello DANBONEZ

Who gives a flying Norseman
Your numbers just don't add up.
Do some research and show us your PHD in MATH.

step away from the the pipe there buddy
It may have a crack in it
and demonstrate where Im wrong
as you so never do

and if you have a viking problem that would be on topic in a viking thread

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

Hi dan,
And exactally what pipe would that be?
Do you have a source???
Would that be, The your thread died pipe.???
And now your here seeking retrobution like an exciled Norseman
Get back on topic and Pull IT
Your math has nothing to do with How Larry gave the orders to a high level New York City fireman.
Please please stay close to the point of the post.
Btw did anyone hand you an empty paper tube and you misstaked it with a relay wand?

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

references I sure do:
any one of your posts

in your case "pulling" it is a phrase thAT has nothing to do with buildings
If there was a problem with my math you would have shown your work by now
whats long and hard on a xian?
grade two
where they teach you when doing math critiques to show your work

I do not have to show the math brother, I never presented any.
Stop making this personal.
You got a bone, DanBONE take it up with the referees.
BTW if you show ANY Math and I mean any
Fact It Will Not Be YOURS

reply to post by ANOK

Originally posted by ANOK
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.

No. That is just a definition that you made up. Nor have you demonstrated that any of the buildings that collapsed on 9/11 meet that definition with any rigor whatsoever. The meaning of "in", I hope, we don't have to debate. A building's footprint is the surface area it occupies at the ground floor. Very clearly, it is beyond debate that none of the buildings that fell on 9/11 did so within their own footprint.

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

That is simply a grievous error. I have already answered this fallacious allegation on more than one occaision, and once in this thread already. There is no way for the buildings to collapse without a substantial part of the perimeter walls winding up on top. If it falls to one side, the opposite side will wind up on top,, etc.

Please go ahead and describe any collapse sequence AT ALL that will result in a rubble pile without exterior walls dominating the top of the rubble pile.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by ANOK

 

Originally posted by ANOK
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.
[/quoteOh did you mean the guy that rigged theexplosives???

No. That is just a definition that you made up. Nor have you demonstrated that any of the buildings that collapsed on 9/11 meet that definition with any rigor whatsoever. The meaning of "in", I hope, we don't have to debate. A building's footprint is the surface area it occupies at the ground floor. Very clearly, it is beyond debate that none of the buildings that fell on 9/11 did so within their own footprint.

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

That is simply a grievous error. I have already answered this fallacious allegation on more than one occaision, and once in this thread already. There is no way for the buildings to collapse without a substantial part of the perimeter walls winding up on top. If it falls to one side, the opposite side will wind up on top,, etc.

Please go ahead and describe any collapse sequence AT ALL that will result in a rubble pile without exterior walls dominating the top of the rubble pile.

I will tell you what son, once you tell us the meaning of RIGOR we can address your hypostasis. Untill then who the heck would even know what the heck you are bableing on about.
Where the sams hell did you get that from some damn fool website or fradulant report???
edit
Oh maybe that's the guy that snuck in with the eplosives. So then larry had something to PULl IT with???

edit on 22-3-2012 by longjohnbritches because: for the real reason

Hi GoodOlDave.

I thought this thread was some kind of prurient joke on your part as I lazily looked around in online dictionaries for "pull it". I couldn't find a construction/demolition related meaning for the phrase. Erection/demolition, yes, but I'm sure you meant something else.

Anyhow, I got out my old copy of Webster's Third International Dictionary, (famous among linguists for daringly including words that people actually use in speech as well as ones they don't use).

On page 1839:

pull down vt 1 a : DEMOLISH, DESTROY < the wreckers pulled the building down >.

This meaning is I think, but can't document, the origin of the phrase "pull it", meaning to demolish a building. It would be short for "pull it down", and was probably in use in the demolition industry even after the use of explosives became common to demolish, destroy or "pull" buildings.

There is a definite dictionary connection between the word "pull" and the words "demolish" and "destroy" with regard to the task of the destruction of a building. Furthermore, the word is used in the quoted definition in connection with the industrial demolition of a building,

The only other single word with a similar use used in the demolition industry that I can think of is "implode".

I know you have expressly forbidden referencing anything to do with Alex Jones in this thread, but the following is from one of the Prison Planet forums:

Posted by pjcz

forum.prisonplanet.com...

Well, I did some very basic Google searching and on the website for Controlled Demolition, Inc. (www.controlled-demolition.com...) I found evidence that DOES link the terms "pull" and "pulled" to controlled, explosive demolition.

At this link (www.controlled-demolition.com...) the company describes:

"Utilizing a total of 137 pounds of linear shaped charges and 50 lbs of dynamite “kicker charges”, CDI worked in only the partial basement to the west, the Lobby Level and 4th floor of the structure. Placed in over 400 locations, the shaped charges were sequentially initiated over a period of 5.4 seconds, working from southwest to northeast through the structure. Following the seemingly endless 2.6 second natural pause in the non-electric initiation system, the structural charges detonated on cue, allowing the southwest wing of the structure to fail first, creating the desired lateral “pull” on the north and east curtain walls."

At this link (www.controlled-demolition.com...) the company describes:

"Approximately 2,700 lb. of explosives were placed in 2,918 holes on six levels of the structure. CDI’s delayed detonation of charges, the product of 50 years of explosives demolition experience, pulled the massive warehouse structure away from a U.S. Post Office facility only 18 -ft away without damage."

Also, here is a PBS/Nova interview of Stacey Loizeaux, who at the time was 26 years old and had worked for Controlled Demolition, Inc. since the age of 15.
Link: (www.pbs.org...)

Quote:
"NOVA: A common misconception is that you blow buildings up. That's not really the case, is it?

Stacy Loizeaux: No. The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion." There are a series of small explosions, but the building itself isn't erupting outward. It's actually being pulled in on top of itself. What we're really doing is removing specific support columns within the structure and then cajoling the building in one direction or another, or straight down."

At this link: (www.seattlepi.com...) Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc., says this of the Seattle Kingdome demolition back in 2000:

"The roof did its job, the gravity engine worked. It provided the energy we needed to pull the columns inward."

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

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

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
That is just a definition that you made up.

I have actually been experiencing this in another form of argument. I have been trying to explain evolution to a alien depositist fellow in another thread, and he keeps on using definitions within evolution and science that simply do not exist or are completely and demonstrably wrong. Yet, no matter how many times I correct it or link to credible proof that he is wrong, he keeps using his personal definition to "prove" his points.

This is why I think people are so stuck on the "pull it" thing. They have already defined it, and refuse to change or even consider another possibility. I mean, you'd think it would be possible to admit a secondary possibility, but with so many here, there is NO other possibility available. The only thing they think is 'physically possible' is a controlled demolition. It's downright delusional, as anyone who is unbiased would see that yes, a controlled demolition is a 'possible' explanation, but it is more likely that within the context, Silverstein was referring to the firefighters' attempts to put out the fire. They had been at it for hours, and Silverstein said he didn't want to see any more loss of life, so he stopped their effort to save the building in case it collapsed, which it did a few hours later. They stepped back and watched it fall, just like he said.

All it takes is a little application of emotionless logic, but many here lack that ability.

reply to post by ipsedixit


Bada bing bada bang.
Another bomb droped on the toilet of the OSers.
Stay in there guys
Some one grab the handle and Pull It
No not you Larry you are on our side ain' ya

"This is why I think people are so stuck on the "pull it" thing. They have already defined it, and refuse to change or even consider another possibility.
All it takes is a little application of emotionless logic, but many here lack that ability.


Hi whats SyHoIuLLr name
Who are you talking about specifically?
Osers have emotionless thinking not logic.
Are you talking about folks that have sons
and daughters caught up in the WARS??
Shouldn't they come here with a scrap of emotion???