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

please do now twist my words for your own agenda.

the whole thread is a twisting of words to suit ....

Originally posted by ipsedixit

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.

That seems like a stretch to me. Eyewitnesses never saw bombs or heard bombs in the building. Two of them directly relating to Building 7 described the moment when the North Tower collapsed onto Building 7, saying that it was like an explosion (which, I mean, be honest here, an impact like that would sound like an explosion). But that was 7 HOURS before Building 7 began to collapse. Then, it wasn't all at once in any form of classic demolition. The interior of the eastern half of the building began collapsing, and then approximately 10 seconds later, the rest of the building came down, as if the collapsing innards had damaged the supports on the lower floors, which is what is likely.

I see no reason for it to have been demolitions, especially given the literally undeniable fact that the fire department and many of the sources from that day knew that Building 7 was in danger of collapse. There are a number of firefighter reports of them saying that they sat back for 3 hours waiting for it to go because they had been told to clear a collapse zone. Some thought it would take the rest of the night, but it started to collapse a little earlier.

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

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.

This has been covered dozens of times. Based on his account and the fact that he was nowhere near a window when he was in the building before the towers collapsed, the "bombs" he experienced 7 HOURS before the building collapsed were actually debris from the North Tower hitting the building.

I have not used any insults here either. I just get very irritated at the parrot-like repetition of these lies.

Originally posted by Danbones

please do now twist my words for your own agenda.

the whole thread is a twisting of words to suit ....

Just how am I "twisting words", exactly? I am only going by what the conspiracy people are saying in that "Pull it" is demilitions industry lingo for bringing down a building with controlled demolitions and another poster here shows from a demolitions text book that isn't true- it's pulling a building down with cables. I'm trying to explore the multiple contradictions (I.E WTC 7 wasn't pulled down with cables and the NYFD doesn't even do demolitions), because clearly the conspiracy people don't want to do it.

After all, if the conspiracy people are so adamant there is such an incredible significance with his saying pull IT instead of pull THEM then you'll likewise need to be knowledgable about the incredible significance between "blowing up a building" and "pulling it down with cables". Otherwise if you're just going to make up whatever you want that suits your purpose then you might as well just accuse Silverstein of murdring 343 firefighters with an ax.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

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.

This has been covered dozens of times. Based on his account and the fact that he was nowhere near a window when he was in the building before the towers collapsed, the "bombs" he experienced 7 HOURS before the building collapsed were actually debris from the North Tower hitting the buildi
ng.

I have not used any insults here either. I just get very irritated at the parrot-like repetition of these lies.

Hi var,
I understand about the insults. I wasn't directing that at you.
I have been censored on some posts .
What I was doing was trying to actually remind myself not to do any of that. I should put it in my signature. lol
No sense going in circles with you about Barry and Larry.
I get it perhaps one day you will also.
thanks for the reply
ljb

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

Yeah, and every single one of them...and I do mean every single one of them...are simply repeating what they heard from someone else. You can't use this as a reference any more than you can use it as a reference that Mr. Rogers was a military sniper simply "because you read it on the Internet".

I asked for an actual reference and I was given an actual reference that showed the claim is wrong. If you still insist the meaning refers to explosives then you're not anybody to be accusing others of "making up whatever stuff they want"

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Danbones

please do now twist my words for your own agenda.

the whole thread is a twisting of words to suit ....

Just how am I "twisting words", exactly? I am only going by what the conspiracy people are saying in that "Pull it" is demilitions industry lingo for bringing down a building with controlled demolitions and another poster here shows from a demolitions text book that isn't true- it's pulling a building down with cables. I'm trying to explore the multiple contradictions (I.E WTC 7 wasn't pulled down with cables and the NYFD doesn't even do demolitions), because clearly the conspiracy people don't want to do it.

After all, if the conspiracy people are so adamant there is such an incredible significance with his saying pull IT instead of pull THEM then you'll likewise need to be knowledgable about the incredible significance between "blowing up a building" and "pulling it down with cables". Otherwise if you're just going to make up whatever you want that suits your purpose then you might as well just accuse Silverstein of murdring 343 firefighters with an ax.

I did not say "You" Dave
I said

"the whole thread"

see what I mean?
.....................................................................
re the OP
"Pull" as I posted soooo many links for
is a euphamism for CONTROLLED DEMOLITION
which is one of the most important functions of cables ...
CONTROL..
its jargon and thats how jargon evolves

In extractive demolition
normally even with a ball or when they are cutting
they try for the supports at the earliest point because gravity is quik and cheap...
and cables make it fall where you want
it also earsier to take certain types of construction apart on the ground
especially if there are materials to be recycled
the use has grown with the industry as buildings and their demolition have evolved
( over a couple hundrered years )


"throw the switch" is another one for example you know it means to "close a switch"...
which you know means to "complete" a electric ciruit

As I have said I have worked in the demolition businass and the scrap business for several years.

as I instructed Britches back in the thread there are different meanings of the word "Pull" too

Originally posted by ipsedixit
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.

The only reason it's "murky" is that the conspiracy proponents are deliberately making it murky to make room for their conspiracy theories.

-The video of the collapse of WTC 7 specifically shows the penthouse collapsing into the interior of the building six seconds before the exterior collapsed...and the conspiracy theorists deliberately snip off the video of the penthouse collapse all so they can say "mysterious noises were heard six seconds before the collapse of WTC 7".

-Someone came into the command center where Cheney was and heard someoen ask him "did the orders still stand"...and the conspiracy theorists intentionally move the words around to make it sound like he was issuing a military stand down order

...and NOW, we have Silverstein telling the NYFD to pull the plug on the operation to rescue the building, and the context clearly says it was done to prevent further loss of life...and the conspiracy theorists take a reference to "pull it" being a method to demolish a building with cables and snip off the "with cables" part of the sentence, all so they can say "Silverstein said pull it and pull it is a demolitions reference".

Over and over and over, we're seeing the same pattern- the conspiracy theorists are intentionally manipulating the evidence to artifically support the claim there were controlled demolitions. The obvious question is that if you're so certain there were controlled demolitions then why are you stooping to giving us false information like this? My position is that you didn't know it was false information and you just took what you heard on the internet at face value. What's your position for this?

Originally posted by Danbones
re the OP
"Pull" as I posted soooo many links for
is a euphamism for CONTROLLED DEMOLITION
which is one of the most important functions of cables ...
CONTROL..
its jargon and thats how jargon evolves

...and I will say...AGAIN...that every single one of these "sooo many links" are just referencing what everyone ELSE is saying it means. That doesn't make it a reference. That makes it an internet meme. An actual reference was posted here showing that it ISN'T a euphamism for controlled demolitions- it's a euphamism for using cables-, and there's no way you can refute this because the entire reason this thread exists was to give your side the chance to back the claim up and not a single one of you could do it.

In extractive demolition
normally even with a ball or when they are cutting
they try for the supports at the earliest point because gravity is quik and cheap...
and cables make it fall where you want
it also earsier to take certain types of construction apart on the ground
especially if there are materials to be recycled
the use has grown with the industry as buildings and their demolition have evolved
( over a couple hundrered years )

You know as well as I do that you're making this all up on your own. You WANT "pull it" to mean "controlled demolitions" so you're willing to insist that evryone should be anal retentive one moment (I.E. Silversten would have said pull THEM instead of pull IT) and in the next moment turn around and insist on being forgiving (I.E. "Pull it" might actually mean different things to different people) just as long as it steers the wording in the direction you want it to go.

In the end, "pull it" doesn't mean "controlled demolitions". Incorporate the fact into your conspiracy theories as you see fit.

Originally posted by ipsedixit

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.

This post is the #1 reason why Truthers avoid these questions.

First of all, you are 100% wrong on the Fire Commander commenting. Chief Nigro does not recall ever speaking with Larry on 9/11 and he is fully aware of the conspiracies. (and does not believe them)

2- Silverstein said he was talking to the Fire Commander. He said "THEY" decided to pull.

""I remember getting a call from the 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 then we watched the building collapse."

You think Silverstein is suffering from a brain cramp huh? Maybe misspoke? You see where I'm going with this? His claim (factual or not) was that he was speaking with a fire commander (we do not know who this is) and that THEY meaning the FDNY made the decision to pull.

3- To suggest there were only a few flames scene will not longer be tolerated as a mistake when truthers make this statement. You have been shown not only witness statements, but video evidence of the severity of the fires. What this means is that you are purposely making misleading statements. AKA: LIES

4- Some people huh? Any evidence of this? Do you know how difficult it would have been to fly a plane into WTC-7? And why... why ..out of all the landmarks in NYC, do they choose the Solomon Building??? Oh...that's right...Enron information was in there... (the paper shredder must have been broken)

Really, go back and read your response. Can you see how ludicrous it sounds??

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
Hi var,
I understand about the insults. I wasn't directing that at you.
I have been censored on some posts .
What I was doing was trying to actually remind myself not to do any of that. I should put it in my signature. lol
No sense going in circles with you about Barry and Larry.
I get it perhaps one day you will also.
thanks for the reply
ljb

This is a kind of response that confuses me. Now, I'm assuming that English is not your first language, so I'm not holding anything against you in the realm of grammar. English is a ridiculous language.

What I'm not understanding, however, is how you seem to "get it" about 9/11 when you can't even bring up any valid points to prove me wrong. I've been researching this for a few years now, and all I've found is that the conspiracy theories are based on the imaginations of a few people perpetuated by internet followers, and that the facts (eyewitness accounts, videos, and other technical information) all seem to contradict what the "truthers" say.

I'm completely willing to believe in a conspiracy theory. There are dozens of real conspiracies going on right this moment, and there have been countless in the past. I just need to see reason and proof before I let people act as if something is absolutely true.

Exactly thickoftheshade.. She says pull it as slang describing how she brings it down. To not damage surrounding buildings.. You d the same thing with a 47 storry building in the middle of ay city, especially nyc.
. Some of you could have gwbush tell you in person that he planned it and you would still seell the os. And g.o.d.... Whats your other member name here? I cant imagine someone would star every mindless thing you spewed..

Originally posted by Myendica
Exactly thickoftheshade.. She says pull it as slang describing how she brings it down. To not damage surrounding buildings.. You d the same thing with a 47 storry building in the middle of ay city, especially nyc.

edit on 23-3-2012 by Myendica because: (no reason given)

However, she never described the act of the demolition as a pull. She didn't say, "then we pulled it," or "then I tell them to pull it." She described what they do to the building. They set up the demolition so the walls pull in the direction they want them to.

reply to post by Varemia


pull it down is pull it. Like.. You guys know how to read? What do you get out of playing ignorant? I know you arent this blind.. "you pull it down". "might as well just go ahead an pull it". They equal the same outcome. Pull something down. The whole interview was about controlld demo. So unless theres an exact technique called "pull it".. You wont accept that "pull it" means "pull that building down."? I mean.. Im just floored.. No one is ... I mean... Come on... U should be banned.. There needs be a litmus test for this forum. Fireal.. Thick of the head. I swear.. "and then it pulls in on itself.".

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by Varemia

 

pull it down is pull it. Like.. You guys know how to read? What do you get out of playing ignorant? I know you arent this blind.. "you pull it down". "might as well just go ahead an pull it". They equal the same outcome. Pull something down. The whole interview was about controlld demo. So unless theres an exact technique called "pull it".. You wont accept that "pull it" means "pull that building down."? I mean.. Im just floored.. No one is ... I mean... Come on... U should be banned.. There needs be a litmus test for this forum. Fireal.. Thick of the head. I swear.. "and then it pulls in on itself.".

edit on 23-3-2012 by Myendica because: (no reason given)

This one's a no-brainer. You're ignoring the context of the interview.

A lot of people, when they see a building implosion, expect it to go into its own basement, which is not always what the contractor wants. Sometimes the contractor wants to lay the building out like a tree. And, sometime, we need to bring down buildings that are actually touching other buildings.

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.

She's talking about very specific situations. She's NOT talking about vertical implosions, because she states, "A lot of people, when they see a building implosion, expect it to go into its own basement, which is not always what the contractor wants. Sometimes the contractor wants to lay the building out like a tree" (like, as she says, when a building is actually touching another building).

In THOSE situations you "pull it away". "Pull it" is not being used as slang here, it's being used literally. This also jibes with the actual definition of pulling a building I posted earlier.

reply to post by Varemia


The only way is to go point for point.
agree or disagree.
It is an easy process.
But even once I prove to you that what Barry Jennings said was true.And bombs or at least one big one was the begining of the end of ole 7
It wouldn't matter because this Dave wants to be about Larry.
And that cat has been wooped enough in this thread already.

Originally posted by Myendica
Exactly thickoftheshade.. She says pull it as slang describing how she brings it down. To not damage surrounding buildings.. You d the same thing with a 47 storry building in the middle of ay city, especially nyc.

edit on 23-3-2012 by Myendica because: (no reason given)

. Some of you could have gwbush tell you in person that he planned it and you would still seell the os. And g.o.d.... Whats your other member name here? I cant imagine someone would star every mindless thing you spewed..

edit on 23-3-2012 by Myendica because: (no reason given)

A) It's already been determined that "pull it" is in fact a reference to demolishing a building with cables. This isn't just a case of "someone told someone else who told someone else" that the truthers are relying on. This comes from an actual Demolitions text book defining "pull it" is to demolish a building with cables. That's "pull it", not "pulling it down", "pull the building to the left" or even pull my finger". For someone who takes others to task for not being able to search threads it would behoove you to know how to do that yourself, but as I'm simply here to find the truth behind the internet memes the conspiracy proponents rely upon as fact, here's the post that settles the question:

The post that shows why "pull it" means to pull a building down with cables


B) I only have the one member name here. I'm not a game player nor do I need to be.

C) If Bush came out and admitted he was behind it, yes, I would accept that as legitimate proof of your claims. I have said all along that Bush was an idiot and I have no innate loyalty to him. Your sad attempt at a strawman argument only makes you look bad, not me or anyone else.

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
reply to post by Varemia

 

The only way is to go point for point.
agree or disagree.
It is an easy process.
But even once I prove to you that what Barry Jennings said was true.And bombs or at least one big one was the begining of the end of ole 7
It wouldn't matter because this Dave wants to be about Larry.
And that cat has been wooped enough in this thread already.

Well of COURSE I "want to be about Larry". That's the topic of this thread, after all. Why would I want to waste my time beign dragged off into irrelevent discussions when I know full well it's just a strawman argument? You know you've lost THIS debate now that it's been proved "pull it" doesn't mean controlled demolitions so you're evading the issue and arguing about somethign else in the hopes you can win the argument by proxy.

FYI Barry Jenning's own timetable pretty much confirms the explosions he heard were from the impact from the wreckage of the north tower, so suggesting that the falling wreckage was timed to cover up a bomb going off seconds before the wreckage hit WTC 7 is absurd, even as conspiracy theories go.

It just ocurred to me that there are people in this thread, I won't name them, who believe that WTC7 did not come down as a result of a controlled demolition. That is more than I can stomach. I've seen the video. Nobody is going to bamboozle me on this. If I was American, I would be an average American, and I am not a fool. WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

Good day to you!

reply to post by GoodOlDave


dave.. If you knew beforehand, that pull it is a form of controlld demolition, then why even start the thread? You really arent as smart as I once thought you could have been. Not all controlld demos use explosives. And explosives arent always the primary controllr of the collapse. But "pull it" very much means controlled demolition. I think its time we all just abandon ATS. Its really pathetic.