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

Originally posted by Myendica
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.

Your attempts at feigned indignation isn't fooling anyone. I said right up front that my position is that Silverstein wasn't referencing demolitions in any way, shape or form and that the conspiracy proponents are simply repeating an internet meme that "pull it is lingo for controlled demolitions", which is the entire reason why I asked the crowd to either confirm or deny the claim. Now that it's been irrefutably proven "pull it" does NOT mean controlled demolitions I then asked how the conspiracy proponents would alter their viewpoint accordingly. Your simply pretending the last 24 pages don't exist and attempting to start the "pull it is lingo for controlled demolitions" all over again takes "being a damned phony" to a whole new level. Pulling a building down with cables isn't controlled demolitions. Controlled demolitions has always referred to here as being the use of explosives and if you're attempting to change the definition now to suit your purposes, you'd be lying.

It's now irrefutably been shown that "pull it" means pulling down a building with cables...and since WTC 7 wasn't pulled down with cables, it means that wasn't what Silverstein was referring to, and the fact conforms with Silverstein's concern for the loss of life and it conforms to the NYFD not having anything to do with controlled demolitions Arguing against this is now officially pointless so go ahead and implement the fact into your conspiracy propaganda as you see fit, because how you cope with a truth you have difficulties reconciling with is no concern of mine.

Originally posted by Myendica
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.

So you have nothing left to offer but an ad hom red-herring? If you read the OP it's easy to infer what Dave meant by "controlled demolition", especially when he said, " . . . all I see is that the conspiracy proponents are backing up the claim by referencing OTHER conspiracy proponents saying that "pull it" is lingo for explosives."

I agree that a "pull" is a kind of controlled demolition, but this is a pointless and rather desperate attack.

Originally posted by Oannes
Read Jim Marrs book on 9/11. Im pretty sure he goes into detail on the things that were actually said and done on that day. World trade center 7 was never struck by an airplane, keep that in mind. What was the biggest story before 9/11...Enron anyone. And guess which building housed the Enron papers...WTC7. Connect the dots.

edit on 20-3-2012 by Oannes because: (no reason given)

d this has exactly....................... what, to do with what the OPS asked?

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
Consider the fact that Larry Silverstein is NOT a demolitions expert.

He is going to use jargon that was picked up when dealing with these guys, and he may not fully understand it. This would lead to using words in the improper context.

That being said, it's OBVIOUS from the context of the conversation that Silverstein was referring to bringing the building down. Whether by cables or explosions is not specified, but watching the video of WTC 7's collapse, you realize it was with explosives.

This argument is grasping at straws.

Since when does the NYFD do impromptu controlled demolitions with explosives? Who was Larry talking with again?

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

its quite funny.. In the english language, there happens to be a word, "them". The word "them" refers to "people", typically in a group, or of relation to one another. In the english language, there also happens to be a word, "it". The word "it" is a tricky one. It almost does the same thing, but it refers to an object, or something that isn't people. For instance;. If I want to get "people" out of a building, I would say, "pull them.". If I wanted to say, get the building to, go somewhere, I would say, "pull it.". I know, when referring to multiple "it" objects, you could say, "pull them". But he didnt say "them" now, did he? So he was referring to an object.. "pull it (object)".

"Pull it" can also reference the rescue operation, can it not? Pull what? It. The rescue operation.

reply to post by lunarasparagus


Just because it was used in that context in that interview it doesn't mean the term is only used for that specific method.

The point was to show that the term 'pull' IS used in the demolition industry. Sorry there isn't an example that exactly fits the context of what Larry said, but that is asking for an impossibility.

You have to accept that some terms are used in a generic sense, especially by older people who were around when the term was used in it's original context.

We have established that the term is used by the industry, and it makes more sense in context of what Larry said to mean demolition, not removing the fire team from the building.

Where is the evidence the term 'pull it' is used to mean to remove the fire team?

All I could find is this...

sites.google.com...

But none of those examples are in context. None of them say 'pull it' in regards to the fire fighters. 'Pull back, 'pull out', 'pulled off', etc., is not the same as 'pull it'.

You only have to use Google...

www.google.com...

So the question should be is it a group of fire-fighters, or is it WTC7?

The answer is in what he 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."

What, after the fire crews left, at the same time, the building waited until they left, pulling out the fire crews made the building collapse? Sorry but it doesn't make sense that he was talking about the fire crews. Larry is a smart educated guy, he knows the demolition business, he made his fortune from it.

He was talking about WTC7, not the fire crews.

What the truthes ignore, is that pull is a very common firefighting term.

Since he was talking to a firefighter, about a fire, and responding to the chiefs concern about pulling the firefighters out since the building was going to collapse, I'd say that's where the word came from.

Simplest answer truthers.

Originally posted by Varemia
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.

No, thats not what happened. They were told to pull it. They then asked a demolition buddy what that meant, and he said it meant blow up the building. So that is what they did.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by Varemia
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.

No, thats not what happened. They were told to pull it. They then asked a demolition buddy what that meant, and he said it meant blow up the building. So that is what they did.

Careful. People here may not know what sarcasm is.

Larry meant pull it as in to pull it down, or pull the building down, like how they pulled building 6 down. To pull an old building down is quite a common phase I'd heard it long before 9/11.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by lunarasparagus

 

We have established that the term is used by the industry, and it makes more sense in context of what Larry said to mean demolition, not removing the fire team from the building.

Where is the evidence the term 'pull it' is used to mean to remove the fire team?

We've established that "pulling" or to "pull" a building is used in the industry, but not "pull it" specifically. In the same way, "pull" as used to pull firefighters out of an operation or an effort has been demonstrated as common, so why do you require evidence for "pull it" specifically as a term to remove the fire team? It depends on what is being referred to. If you were speaking of pulling an entire operation, you would say "pull it".

Also--you want specific evidence for "pull it" as used to remove the fire team, but he used "pull" twice. The second time he said, "THEY made the decision to PULL", not the decision to "pull it".

So the question should be is it a group of fire-fighters, or is it WTC7?

The answer is in what he 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."

If by saying "pull it" Silverstein was talking about WTC7, then why was his preface to that statement about the loss of life already suffered? What makes more sense if your concern is for the safety of the firemen--to "pull" the building down in an already very hazardous area--or--to "pull" the firefighters out of there? After aborting the effort to save the building, they were left to watch it collapse (he does not say it collapsed immediately, there's no specification of time).

And don't forget, he said THEY, the firefighters made the decision to pull. It makes no sense that the firefighters would be the ones ordering and/or orchestrating a controlled demo of an already burning building.

Fire Chief Daniel Nigro: "The biggest decision we had to make on the first day was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story building heavily involved in fire. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt. I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone. It was a critical decision; we could not lose any more firefighters. It took a lot of time to pull everyone out, given the emotionalism of the day, communications difficulties, and the collapse terrain." (Daniel Nigro, "Report from the Chief of Department," Fire Engineering, 9/2002)

Originally posted by Clunky

That's weird cause here's a video of a firefighter telling the other firefighters that there's a bomb in the building and to clear out.



www.youtube.com...

Sorry chief, but that video is not about WTC7. Seems to me a truther is out to deceive you. That was in reference to the bomb scare at Stuevesant High School where the NYFD and NYPD among others were stationed as a command post. For some reason, truthers bring up this video as "proof!!!!" of explosives bringing down WTC7. But its not. Its a bomb scare at the high school.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


luke redowski (of 'we are change' fame) is 100% controlled opposition, disinformation agent
and complete fraud.
See Here!

redowski confronted silverstein at a press conference over his 'pull it' comment,
and ended up being ejected after causing a 'scene'.
Now, if redowski and silverstein are on the same side (which they are), the only
reason for this confrontation is that the perpetrators wanted this issue advertised
(as they wanted it advertised with silverstein's original faux-pas).

They will layer and encourage each and every conspiracy, as long as people are
kept clear of the reality that they faked 9/11, along with the faking of nearly 3000 victims.
This was the job of the 'truth movement'.

That 9/11 was completely faked is not idle speculation (safe and by-the-book demolition
jobs disguised as dastardly terrorists attacks).
It has been proven!
www.cluesforum.info

IT IS NOW CLEAR TO ALL THAT MEDIA FAKERY PLAYED AN ENORMOUS
ROLE IN THE WHOLE 9/11 PRESENTATION. THE CONTINUING SILENCE
BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF 'THE TRUTH MOVEMENT' SCREAMS OUT
'RED FLAG' AND IS INCONTROVERTIBLE IN INDICATING THEIR COMPLICITY
IN THE FRAUD.

DO YOU SEE HOW THEY PROMOTE TERROR UPON TERROR UPON
MORE TERROR, WHEN THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT THERE WAS
NO TERROR AT ALL.

DO YOU SEE NOW?
DO YOU SEE?

(Not you goodolddave. you purposely keep your eyes in your pockets.
But your name will be found on a list somewhere).

Originally posted by GoodOlDave


-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".

...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".

Dear old d
This nonsense is getting stale.
You ask a question of the members here.
Many, many folks that I find sincere in there replies to you
and yourr band of so called OSers.

They are trying to find out why the Government of The USA is and was so totally,
negligent, ignorant and without remorse, REMORSE, REMORSE.

Have you heard at any memorial,or press release for 911 victims or any AMERICAN that TOOK and TAKES the BRUNT of it?
An apology for thier dumb puck handleing of any of the MONUMENTALlY, TREMENDOUSLY STUPID, INEPT WORTHLESS< MISSHANDELING of the DEATH and DESTRUCTION they LET happen that day?
You know what I have heard?

EXCUSES, EXCUSES just like the ones you TRY to make for LARRY the BENEFACTOR.
SHAME, SHAME, SHAME

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

They are trying to find out why the Government of The USA is and was so totally,
negligent, ignorant and without remorse, REMORSE, REMORSE.

Have you heard at any memorial,or press release for 911 victims or any AMERICAN that TOOK and TAKES the BRUNT of it?
An apology for thier dumb puck handleing of any of the MONUMENTALlY, TREMENDOUSLY STUPID, INEPT WORTHLESS< MISSHANDELING of the DEATH and DESTRUCTION they LET happen that day?
You know what I have heard?

They didn't apologise because there were no real victims!
That is why you do not see thousands upon thousands of victim family members
storming the capital, howling for blood and stringing cheney, rumsfeld, bush etc.
to the nearest lamp-post. Imagine all those mothers (especially!), fathers, wives,
children, brothers, sisters, friends on discovering the now oh so obvious 9/11
conspiracy. There would literally be war!
But all we see are the same few victim family faces flying the same flag for the last 10 years!
(who, even yet, persist in sporting the same proven photoshopped photographs of their lost
loved ones on their chests!).

These people are actors and are role playing!
There were no real victims of 9/11, most being computer generated entities with no basis
in reality. If you are not aware of the completely faked nature of much of the 9/11 presentation,
then you are ignorant of a great truth, and are angry in the dark.
Take the time, and be angry in the light. It is worth it!
www.cluesforum.info
www.septemberclues.info

Look around at the world now. 9/11 is where it began. And they faked it all!
That is the best they could do!

goodolddave is just obviously being goodolddave.

reply to post by pshea38


That's completely off-topic, but also, it's completely ridiculous. How is it even financially possible to fake something like that, let alone trick everyone in New York into believing it? Wouldn't it be a million times cheaper and easier to just fly some real planes into buildings filled with people?

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by pshea38

 

That's completely off-topic, but also, it's completely ridiculous. How is it even financially possible to fake something like that, let alone trick everyone in New York into believing it? Wouldn't it be a million times cheaper and easier to just fly some real planes into buildings filled with people?

Financially possible? Do you recall the night before 9/11, that rumsfeld announced
2.3 trillion dollars? Alot of money has been made from oil and opium since 9/11.
Dont't forget the insurance settlements and fake victim compensation funds and
memorial funds.
Television and actor/fake testimony convinces.
No victims for the reasons given above.
Why kill 3000 countrymen and women for real when you can fake it, and achieve
the same outcome? It is infinitely easier to get people on board a mass-hoax over
a mass-murder.
I think you are feigning valerie, and not being genuine.

Listen valerie. You pride yourself in preaching about the importance of research.
Please take some time to go thru the links provided and get back
to me after a few weeks. You'd think you'd have made the time before now!

This is compelling evidence and you are missing it, intentionally or otherwise.

Originally posted by jimnuggits
First of all, let me say that this argument is a petty and semantic one, and not well developed.

'We decided to pull it.'

Without any context at all you can see the speaker is talking about an object, not people.

Secondly. only three buildings with steel frames have ever, in the history of ALL architecture, fallen due to fire.

The towers and WTC7.

The fact that you are even bringing this up after 11 years is highly suspect, especially when you provide such a weak and illogical argument.

What is in this for you, OP?

Were you hoping that you'd get people to realize that all the other physics defying actions would be ignored once you proved that Larry Silverstein was talking about the Fire fighters?

It's like arguing that Nero was playing a banjo, eleven years after Rome burned.

I have observed these serial debunkers for years. I am convinced that they simply throw # at the wall to see what sticks, note what sticks and what slides off, and refine their debunkery over time by testing it out here and on other conspiracy type forums.

Clearly the moderators have no issue with them, and despite the fact that they are extremely rude they never seem to get banned for either being insulting, or disruptive, which leads me to suspect an ulterior motive for ATS's existence.

Nobody can convince me that 911 was NOT an inside job!
I can't convince anyone that 911 WAS an inside job!
It's a waste of time, so what's the point?

The path to the truth is a lonely journey.

I find it appalling that people on both sides of the fence can confess to know the truth without looking at ALL the facts from, before, during, and after September 11th 2001.

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.
Winston Churchill

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou

Originally posted by jimnuggits
First of all, let me say that this argument is a petty and semantic one, and not well developed.

'We decided to pull it.'

Without any context at all you can see the speaker is talking about an object, not people.

Secondly. only three buildings with steel frames have ever, in the history of ALL architecture, fallen due to fire.

The towers and WTC7.

The fact that you are even bringing this up after 11 years is highly suspect, especially when you provide such a weak and illogical argument.

What is in this for you, OP?

Were you hoping that you'd get people to realize that all the other physics defying actions would be ignored once you proved that Larry Silverstein was talking about the Fire fighters?

It's like arguing that Nero was playing a banjo, eleven years after Rome burned.

I have observed these serial debunkers for years. I am convinced that they simply throw # at the wall to see what sticks, note what sticks and what slides off, and refine their debunkery over time by testing it out here and on other conspiracy type forums.

Clearly the moderators have no issue with them, and despite the fact that they are extremely rude they never seem to get banned for either being insulting, or disruptive, which leads me to suspect an ulterior motive for ATS's existence.

I pointed that same thought out in the early pages, no one seems to care so, have fun...