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: 21
17
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4hero
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.


What about this oxygen starved fire (you can tell from the black smoke right)? You mostly see smoke and some very small flames. The firemen are even spraying water on it so it can't be very hot.

www.liveleak.com...

What do you think made that building collapse?



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!


"Unlikely" sounds better than "no way". Does the collapse in that video I posted also defy logic? Or maybe your logic is flawed?




posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


You can debate the meaning and context of the phrase "pull it" all you like,
Fact is explosives were used to demolish WT 7 into its own footprint.
There are videos on youtube where you can hear the "cracks" and see the flashes of the explosives detonating.
The central columns were blown first causing the "penthouse" to drop and then you can see the classic controlled collapse at close to free fall speed of gravity.
BBC News announced its collapse LIVE ON AIR a full 20 odd minutes before it actually happened.

PEACE,
RK.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rigel Kent
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


You can debate the meaning and context of the phrase "pull it" all you like,
Fact is explosives were used to demolish WT 7 into its own footprint.
There are videos on youtube where you can hear the "cracks" and see the flashes of the explosives detonating.
The central columns were blown first causing the "penthouse" to drop and then you can see the classic controlled collapse at close to free fall speed of gravity.
BBC News announced its collapse LIVE ON AIR a full 20 odd minutes before it actually happened.

PEACE,
RK.


I'm not going to waste my time going over those internet myths all over again because a simple search will show how they've all been debunked a dozen times over. All I'm looking for in this thread is an answer to the question of how "pull it" is supposed to be lingo for controlled demolitions. I've asked this probably a dozen times already and all I'm getting so far is explanations for why you WANT it to mean "controlled demolitions".



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
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):


HURRAH!!! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!


I asked how "Pull it" was lingo for demolitions and thanks to the astute research of Lunarasparagus he found it. "Pull it" is in fact a demolitions term...FOR PULLING DOWN A BUILDING WITH CABLES! There it is, in black and white. So, either...

A) all this "pull it is lingo for controlled demolitions" bit is a false internet meme and what Silverstein said had nothing to do with demolishing the building at all because WTC 7 wasn't pulled down by cables...

OR

B) Silverstein ordered the Fire Department to pull the building down with cables and the fire department turned aroung and secretly planted demolitions charges on their own (which of course ignores the fact that the fire department doesn't even demolish buildings)

OR, the even more ridiculous...

C) WTC 7 really WAS pulled down by cables and the video, "eyewitnesses heard explosions", Richard Gage's travelling circus, etc, are all disinformation invented by armies of secret agents to cover up the fact the building was really pulled down with cables.

I will leave it up to the conspiracy proponents to determine which scenario they want to pursue at this point. Good eyes, Lunarasparagus. You get a star for your efforts.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

Dave could you please give us a hint as to what sort of evidence would satisfy you. Do you want to be shown an entry in a "Dictionary of Slang in the Demolition Industry"? I don't think therre is such a dictionary.

Do you want a video of someone saying "They're getting ready to "pull it", and by that I mean Implode the building with explosives."?

Even if we found such a video, you might say, "Well, that's just a TV announcer misusing the language."

Larry Silverstein say "Maybe the smartest thing would be to pull it." "It", the building, not "them", the firemen. Also, "pull" (it, it down) is transitive indicating action upon something. Silverstein didn't say, "Maybe the smartest thing would be to let it (drop)."

Dave, is english your native language?



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

Dave could you please give us a hint as to what sort of evidence would satisfy you. Do you want to be shown an entry in a "Dictionary of Slang in the Demolition Industry"? I don't think therre is such a dictionary.

Do you want a video of someone saying "They're getting ready to "pull it", and by that I mean Implode the building with explosives."?

Even if we found such a video, you might say, "Well, that's just a TV announcer misusing the language."

Larry Silverstein say "Maybe the smartest thing would be to pull it." "It", the building, not "them", the firemen. Also, "pull" (it, it down) is transitive indicating action upon something. Silverstein didn't say, "Maybe the smartest thing would be to let it (drop)."

Dave, is english your native language?


I can pull the same argument against yourself. Would any evidence that proves "pull it" to be used in another context ever really be proof to you?



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

Dave could you please give us a hint as to what sort of evidence would satisfy you. Do you want to be shown an entry in a "Dictionary of Slang in the Demolition Industry"? I don't think therre is such a dictionary.


I don't know if such a dictionary exists, but that would constitute as proof, yes. BUT there is an entry in a demolitions text book which irrefutably shows that it is in fact a demolitions term...BY PULLING IT DOWN WITH CABLES. Here's the reference Lunarasparagus posted which settles the question once and for all-

Textbook discussion of "pulling" a structure

...which proves once and for all that this was NOT what Silverstein was referring to because it's obvious the building wasn't pulledddown with cables. Now, it's a free country, so you're at liberty to alter your conspiracy theories and accuse Silverstein of orderign the New York fire Department to pull down the building with cables and the New York fire Department turned around and made their own decision to secretly plant explosives. The fact is, it's finally been proven beyond a doubt that "pull it" is NOT lingo for controlled demolitions.



Dave, is english your native language?


Yes it is, and what's more, I can read. The question now is, can you?



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
I can pull the same argument against yourself. Would any evidence that proves "pull it" to be used in another context ever really be proof to you?


We know "pull it" is used in other contexts. But Silverstein supplies the context in which he is using the term, that is, in connection with building 7's demise. He is talking about "it", not "them" and talking about doing something, "pull", to "it", building 7.

There is no confusion here at all.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

Well, we are making some progress.

At least you admit that Silverstein did suggest that the smartest thing would be to destroy the building, and, I would add, he either didn't know the correct term to couch his thinking in or, as you say, wasn't up to speed on current demolition techniques.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4hero
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!


Wait, what? Who ever said that melting steel was the cause of the collapse?



You can see it's oxygen starved on the right-hand side. The fire is barely raging and is contained to certain areas.


Another graduate of 9/11 Mysteries .... Genius!
What you didn't realize was that those fires were on the NORTH side of WTC-7. The south side is where the vast majority of the damage and fires occurred. The video was to show you how engulfed the building was.


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!


PLB showed you a video above. I hope you can comment on that.


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!


"Plan?" ... see I don't think you're a freak. You are just misinformed. But, when you make statements like the government has a plan to divide people re: 9/11; well, that makes you appear paranoid and or delusional.


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.


Again, paid to ridicule? (delusional) No, most debunkers are trying to show facts and keep some from attempting to re-write history.


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.


You made a generalized statement here. Hostile is not a typical behavior of debunkers. Sometimes, there is frustration when truthers are shown time and time again, the errors they are making yet the continue to ignore the facts when presented.



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.


More paranoia.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
At least you admit that Silverstein did suggest that the smartest thing would be to destroy the building, a


Would you mind answering these questions for me? I presented them several days ago in this thread and not a single truther has responded.

Thank you!



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, 23 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   
They already had the Towers collapse killing 300 firefighters - now they were in another badly damaged, burning building whose floors were beginning to visibly sag.

Of course the prudent decision was to pull it (the mission) - before any more firefighters were killed.



This doesn't need explaining - it is completely obvious, except to people that are determined to see a conspiracy no matter what commonsense and facts dictate.

And this is why 'truthers' are a laughing stock ...................even though there was a real conspiracy to look the other way whilst 19 Saudis did it - it will never be unravelled because 'truthers' are being used like hapless tools to make it look beyond the bounds of sanity.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit

Originally posted by Varemia
I can pull the same argument against yourself. Would any evidence that proves "pull it" to be used in another context ever really be proof to you?


We know "pull it" is used in other contexts. But Silverstein supplies the context in which he is using the term, that is, in connection with building 7's demise. He is talking about "it", not "them" and talking about doing something, "pull", to "it", building 7.

There is no confusion here at all.


Except there seems to be. Within the context, he says that there had been enough loss of life, so it was necessary to "pull it", which can refer to pulling the operation. He then said that they made the decision to "pull" and they stepped back and watched, note "watched" the building fall. He doesn't say they made it fall.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
1. Who was he talking to?


Who is who talking to?


He's talking to a PBS interviewer.

He's talking to one of the FDNY chiefs. I think the name is actually mentioned in the original PBS video. To my knowledge, that person has never commented about this conversation with Silverstein.


2. If it was in fact the FDNY, how does the fire department CD a skyscraper?


They don't. It would have to be done by a company with the proper certifications and permits. I think Silverstein is having something of a brain cramp in front of the cameras, which he tries to recover from.


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?


This is a common misunderstanding among people who believe the so-called "official story". There were a few fires burning in the building but not a general conflagration. Things appeared to be much worse than they were because smoke from the fews fires in the building must have migrated through the ventilation system so that it seemed to be gushing from everywhere, but there were few flames seen.


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"?


Some people believe that the flight that was brought down in Pennsylvania was meant for building 7. WTC7 would have been damaged in a manner similar to the towers, if Flt. 93 had arrived in Manhattan.

The fires in the building are suspicious anyway. What would have ignited them. Were other buildings in Manhattan, that were not part of the WTC set on fire by debris? I'm just asking. I'm not aware of any that were.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
This is a common misunderstanding among people who believe the so-called "official story". There were a few fires burning in the building but not a general conflagration. Things appeared to be much worse than they were because smoke from the fews fires in the building must have migrated through the ventilation system so that it seemed to be gushing from everywhere, but there were few flames seen.


How exactly are you sure of this? Eyewitnesses said they saw fires burning on upwards of 20 floors of damaged building.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
They already had the Towers collapse killing 300 firefighters - now they were in another badly damaged, burning building whose floors were beginning to visibly sag.

Of course the prudent decision was to pull it (the mission) - before any more firefighters were killed.



This doesn't need explaining - it is completely obvious, except to people that are determined to see a conspiracy no matter what commonsense and facts dictate.

And this is why 'truthers' are a laughing stock ...................even though there was a real conspiracy to look the other way whilst 19 Saudis did it - it will never be unravelled because 'truthers' are being used like hapless tools to make it look beyond the bounds of sanity.


Hi johnny b good
Please would ya.
This seems like just a big rant about truthers.
And in a very ill mannered way (hint moderators)
And a baseless poke at the The Saudi's. A strong US ally.
You should address this post to olddave from the fact that it does not need explaining. Duh Why then did he start the thread I ask you?
ljb



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
How exactly are you sure of this? Eyewitnesses said they saw fires burning on upwards of 20 floors of damaged building.


Just briefly, this is a murky area. Eyewitnesses have testified to bombs going off in the building also. I think WTC7, like the twin towers was subjected to an ongoing explosive demolition process that culminated in the classic drop into it's own foot print in the late afternoon.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
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.


Sources, please.

Europe has different building codes than the US.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

Well, we are making some progress.

At least you admit that Silverstein did suggest that the smartest thing would be to destroy the building, and, I would add, he either didn't know the correct term to couch his thinking in or, as you say, wasn't up to speed on current demolition techniques.



I am doing no such thing so please do not twist my words for your own agenda. I'm simply stating what the actual research shows, and the research shows that either...

A) Silverstein wasn't referencing deolitions whatsoever and he was referring to cancelling the operation to save the building and/or pulling the fire fighters out. This conforms with the context of his statement that he was concerned about the loss of life up until that point

...OR...

B) Silverstein ordered the fire department to pull down the building with cables, and the fire department turned around and planted those secret demolitions on their own accord. This necessarily accuses the fire department of murdering 343 of their brother fire fighters and it deliberately ignores the fact that fire departments aren't involed with demolitions of any sort.

I personally opt for "Silverstein wasn't talking about demolitions at all" while I know the conspiracy people are so adamant there's a conspiracy afoot that they don't particularly care how convoluted their conspiracy claims get, with "lasers from outer space", "hologram planes", and now, "the NYFD secretly blew up WTC 7 and covered up the murder of 343 firefighters" claims, so "Silverstein ordered the NYFD to pull the building down with cables and the NYFD blew it up on their own" makes as much sense as any of the rest of their claims.

So, you will need to choose which scenario best fits your own ideology. I myself am simply setting the facts straight in areas that have been overlooked and/or taken for granted.
edit on 23-3-2012 by GoodOlDave because: Corrected misspellings to placate the grammar Nazis



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by ipsedixit
This is a common misunderstanding among people who believe the so-called "official story". There were a few fires burning in the building but not a general conflagration. Things appeared to be much worse than they were because smoke from the fews fires in the building must have migrated through the ventilation system so that it seemed to be gushing from everywhere, but there were few flames seen.


How exactly are you sure of this? Eyewitnesses said they saw fires burning on upwards of 20 floors of damaged building.


Hi var
I am pretty sure this has been covered throughly back in the thread.
Find the posts that document Barry Jennings accounts of bombs going off in Building Number Seven.
That explains how there was inital weakening to the internal structure and some fire but not much because he was still in there climbing around in all that mess without breathng equipment.
These bomb blasts would pave the way for the final blow to the tower, administered by Larry.
You see it is not hard to understand.
Notice how I managed to say that with out insults.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join