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: 20
17
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
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???
edit on 22-3-2012 by longjohnbritches because: so jerks won't know I can't spell


Emotion clouds judgement. I'm not saying you should be happy or apathetic about loved ones, but you shouldn't let it get in the way of logical thought process. It makes conclusions being drawn extremely biased, and it's very easy to only see what you want to see.
edit on 22-3-2012 by Varemia because: fixed the quote




posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:04 PM
link   
[snip]
In my opinion, it would be indicative of controlled demolition if:

1. There were bangs just prior to the collapse.
2. The building fell all at once after said bangs.
3. There was any evidence of demolitions in the rubble.
4. The buildings had no risk factors for a collapse.

An example is with the North Tower after the South Tower had collapsed. In one video, some of the firefighters evacuating people are telling them that they need to get out because they saw the North tower's upper section leaning. Shortly after, the North Tower began to collapse. This is not indicative of controlled demolition to me.

With Building 7, half of the interior clearly started to collapse before the rest of the building did. This was not simultaneous detonation of supports by any means. There were fires and damage for up to 7 hours on top of that. Silverstein had the authority to tell the firefighters to let the building he was leasing go, because he didn't think it was worth the potential further loss of life. Somehow this idea of the meaning of "pull it" is just super outlandish to you.
edit on 23/3/12 by masqua because: Removed ill-mannered quote



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
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.



rigor is kind of like salt, in argument, it makes everything more savoury


I just meant that I want a serious argument and some reasoning, rather than mere assertions, maybe with some diagrams, who knows.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

In my opinion, it would be indicative of controlled demolition if:

1. There were bangs just prior to the collapse.
2. The building fell all at once after said bangs.
3. There was any evidence of demolitions in the rubble.
4. The buildings had no risk factors for a collapse.



Are you kidding me? Seriously?

1. There were bangs just prior to the collapse.

There were. By the way, the working theory (unless there's a better one) is that nanothermite was used to WEAKEN the steel structure (of WTC 1 and 2) before hand, then strategically placed charges were used to get the inertia moving. Once the building was in motion, the weakened structure gave way floor after floor. WTC 7 wasn't struck by a plane and had little structural damage, and the fires were small and scattered.


2. The building fell all at once after said bangs.

Um... they DID fall all at once. Also see explanation above.


3. There was any evidence of demolitions in the rubble.

Nanothermite residue? Iron spheres? Helloooo?


4. The buildings had no risk factors for a collapse.

They were concrete and steel.. NO STEEL/CONCRETE STRUCTURE HAS EVER COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE IN THE HISTORY OF THE PLANET. Even raging infernos much larger.


WRONG.
WRONG.
WRONG.
WRONG.

Look on the bright side - you're batting 1000.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 

Here's a definition that I found for "pulling" a building from:
"Demolition: Practices, Technology, and Management" by Richard J. Diven, Mark Shaurette (2010):


Chapter 3, "Modern Demolition Practices", page 17:



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 01:51 AM
link   
[snip]

If the best response you can muster is an ad hom it doesn't say much for the strength of your arguments and your confidence in them. If you can't argue your corner perhaps the corner is not worth trying to hold.
edit on 23/3/12 by masqua because: removed ill-mannered quote



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by Varemia

In my opinion, it would be indicative of controlled demolition if:

1. There were bangs just prior to the collapse.
2. The building fell all at once after said bangs.
3. There was any evidence of demolitions in the rubble.
4. The buildings had no risk factors for a collapse.



Are you kidding me? Seriously?

1. There were bangs just prior to the collapse.

There were. By the way, the working theory (unless there's a better one) is that nanothermite was used to WEAKEN the steel structure (of WTC 1 and 2) before hand, then strategically placed charges were used to get the inertia moving. Once the building was in motion, the weakened structure gave way floor after floor. WTC 7 wasn't struck by a plane and had little structural damage, and the fires were small and scattered.


2. The building fell all at once after said bangs.

Um... they DID fall all at once. Also see explanation above.


3. There was any evidence of demolitions in the rubble.

Nanothermite residue? Iron spheres? Helloooo?


4. The buildings had no risk factors for a collapse.

They were concrete and steel.. NO STEEL/CONCRETE STRUCTURE HAS EVER COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE IN THE HISTORY OF THE PLANET. Even raging infernos much larger.


WRONG.
WRONG.
WRONG.
WRONG.

Look on the bright side - you're batting 1000.


You need to demonstrate that there were bangs just prior to collapse, can you do that ? This video was taken in the North Tower lobby just before and during the collapse of the South Tower. The situation is tense but relatively quiet and you can hear ordinary conversation. Then you begin to hear the rumble which gets louder and louder but, please note, no preceding bangs :-

www.youtube.com...

You assert that thermite was found at the WTC site so I wonder if you have read this ATS thread "Finally there is an independent investigation, and not a word about it on ATS." Basically, Dr James Millette of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences has carried out a study on WTC dust samples and found no trace of thermite.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 02:53 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


A truther making an argument from authority is rather hilarious, given the enormous pile of authority he has to ignore in combination with the very flimsy reputation of the authority he argues from.

It all comes down to believe. Anything that contradict this believe is seen as a thread and wrong by definition. The people who come with this contradiction are ignorant or stupid.

This behavior is in the nature humans. I think everyone suffers from this. Most people in the form of religion, and atheists will find their personal believes they wont allow being attacked. I will have them too but I guess they are your blind spot by definition else it would not make sense to keep believing in.

Anyway, by pointing out the fallacies I guess it can help to prevent other people getting sucked into this false believe.
edit on 23-3-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches


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


I've been in the philosophy department at a university. I suppose they taught logic there. Other than that I'm not sure what a "school of reason" is.

I've seen accounts of blasts but nothing that persuades me conclusively of a demolition. I imagine that large buildings make very loud noises when they are hit by planes, suffering catastrophic fire and damage. Indeed the Architecture School of Delft exhibited explosions before it collapsed, and I doubt the NWO blew that up.

What I pointed out was the contention, made heavily by much of the "Truth Movement" that debris was ejected hundreds of feet from the towers. This means, axiomatically, that the towers did not land in their footprint. And a very brief examination of their collapse will show you they didn't come down at anything like freefall speed. Look at the blast wave which in both cases travels faster. Are you saying it can move faster than freefall?



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 06:13 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.


She says you pull one tower away from another structure. She's describing a specific event, not a slang term for demolitions in general.

It's a bit like me trying to tell you that because the Vikings is the name of a football team all American football teams are called Vikings. In fact it's worse than that, because she is not even using the term as slang, but rather as a description of a process.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Juanxlink

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?


Have a look at what he said and then consider who is retarded. He specifically did not mention fake killing. You introduced that, either because you're stupid or trying to mislead.

Northwoods did not envisage killing US citizens. If you can prove that it did I suppose you might move one tiny step away from the "colossal hypocrite" box that you've wandered into.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 06:21 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


Wrong. Do your research. It envisaged hijacking planes but never mentioned killing US civilians. In fact the only people it talked specifically about attacking on US soil were Cuban refugees and it carefully mentioned only going as far as wounding them.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 06:29 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.


Look up contingent possibilities. You will be surprised at how probability works. If I go into your house and punch you in the face, then I punch your wife and then your dad you don't say, "wow, we ALL got punched in the face on the same day. What a coincidence!"



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM


Are you kidding me? Seriously?

1. There were bangs just prior to the collapse.


Please provide evidence for this.


There were. By the way, the working theory (unless there's a better one) is that nanothermite was used to WEAKEN the steel structure (of WTC 1 and 2) before hand,


A recent independent study proved this wrong! I think you should brush up on your research.


then strategically placed charges were used to get the inertia moving.


Were these those new secret silent bombs?


WTC 7 wasn't struck by a plane and had little structural damage, and the fires were small and scattered.


small and scattered? I suggest you watch this: (most truthers shy away from this video of WTC 7)







Um... they DID fall all at once. Also see explanation above.


All at once? So, "POOF" and they were all gone?




Nanothermite residue? Iron spheres? Helloooo?


Again, this was proven FALSE.





They were concrete and steel.. NO STEEL/CONCRETE STRUCTURE HAS EVER COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE IN THE HISTORY OF THE PLANET. Even raging infernos much larger.



WOW... really? Are you suggesting the steel was imbedded in concrete?



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 06:42 AM
link   
well my eyes nearly pooped out of my head when I saw in a demoliton manual (AU) the twin towers..

'the perfect demo' -> how to do the perfect demo! omg I was like wowow........

wtf is it being used as an 'example'????

thats the day my eyes were opened..

edit on 23/3/2012 by Thurisaz because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 



That video of WT7 on fire just highlights the fact that there is no way fire brought that down! Yes there was a fire, but it certainly was not buring hot enough to melt the steel supporting the building! You can see it's oxygen starved on the right-hand side. The fire is barely raging and is contained to certain areas.

If anything you video just shows how unlikely it is for fire to have brought the building down. Especially seeing as fire alone has never brought a building like this down before. Fires have raged harder and longer in other buildings and they still stood. It defies logic!

I used to believe the OS, then after weighing up all the evidence it became very obvious that it is not possible for a fire to have brought it down. People like myself who disbelieve the OS are considered freaks for not believing the OS, this is what they want, they want us to feel ridiculed, they want a divide between those that believe and those that don't, it's all part of the plan!

Some people support the OS because they are about one-upmanship, and will argue all day long, even though the obvious facts are laid out before them, and even when presented with evidence that should help them realise they have been duped, they will still demand more proof. How much proof do they need? I personally think they either argue for arguments sake, or they are being paid to try and ridicule people who don't believe the OS.

The attitude and manner of the OS believers is generally hostile, and their views are fixed, and nothing would change that view, truth or no truth. So this will continually go round in circles, even though there is so much data to indicate the OS is not true. But they don't care for truth, they are not looking for the real truth, they are just here to argue and divide, and that is the way it'll always be.

They are basically deliberately trying to ruin the REAL truth, at every opportunity.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 




3. There was any evidence of demolitions in the rubble.

Nanothermite residue? Iron spheres? Helloooo?


4. The buildings had no risk factors for a collapse.

They were concrete and steel.. NO STEEL/CONCRETE STRUCTURE HAS EVER COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE IN THE HISTORY OF THE PLANET. Even raging infernos much larger.


WRONG.
WRONG.
WRONG.
WRONG.

You need to update your database.

About a month ago a second analysis of the dust showed NO nanothermite.
A couple of days ago, on this site, a link was posted to show a college building (steel and concrete) in europe collapsing after burning for 5 hours.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


About that building, (from a dutch article translated to english):


Explosie
Ooggetuigen melden dat rond 13.30 uur aan de linkerkant van het gebouw een explosie plaatsvond waar diverse ramen sneuvelden. Bij het gedeelte dat tot op dat moment nog redelijk intact was, trok de brandweer zich snel terug.



Explosion
Eyewitnesses reported that around 13.30 an explosion on the left side of the building occurred that took out several windows. The fire men quickly decided to pull it from an area that appeared to be reasonable intact.


www.nu.nl...

Although the "pull it" part is of course a bit of a joke, still, the direct translation of "trok" is "pulled". (trok terug = pulled back). Google translates it as "pulled itself".

Point being, what? Explosion? Must be CD! This is of course a painful thing for truthers. A building both collapsed from fire and a pretty large explosion took place.
edit on 23-3-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
17
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join