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: 24
17
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 06:11 AM
link   
If the second sentence "And they made that decision to PULL and then we watched the building collapse" should be read as "And they made that decision to IMPLODE and then we watched the building collapse." Then I don;'t see how truthers can avoid the obvious conclusion that FDNY were fully involved and complicit.

I don't see anyone suggesting that teams went into WTC 7 that afternoon to set charges and ,bearing in mind the conditions in the building and the very short time opportunity, that would clearly be ridiculous and it goes without saying that there is not a shred of evidence for it.

The only other cd option is that WTC 7 had already been pre-rigged and, if the second sentence does refer to implosion, then obviously FDNY knew that and knew how to initiate the collapse without further discussion.

Most truthers alleging cd of WTC 7 also seem to be alleging cd of the Towers. So if FDNY were fully up to speed with the preperations for cd of WTC 7 why wouldn't they know about the Towers too ?

In a nutshell, truthers seem to be suggesting that FDNY lost 342 men playing at fighting fires when they knew all along that WTC 1,2&7 had been pre-rigged for cd. A theory up there with the mini-nukes, hologram planes and fake victims I would suggest.




posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by samuraistuart
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


OP, you know what Pull It means, just like the rest of humanity. Don't make yourself look like a complete douchebag on the internet. What the hell is wrong with humanity? Are people really this stupid, or are they out to stir the pot? Which is it? Either way, they end up looking like brainless lifeless pond scum.


Hear! Hear!..

But ya know, its a daily occurrence to see this type of BS from the OP flood every 911 forum, ya know, like it might be by design and not just a lack of intelligence or poor research by some.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by cartenz
 


So pointing out that some truthers make up completely different definitions for "pull it" and use it to forward their agenda makes you a douchbag? And the people who make up this crap (and are effectively lying) are ok in your book?

It seems that this is what the truth movement is all about. Any fantasy or lie that supports your self imagined truth is good. Anyone opposing it is bad.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Again I refer to this fox news article where the reporter says controlled demolition was an option on building 7.

Which testimony's are the OSers gonna believe?




A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy. While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was. Read more: www.foxnews.com...



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by pshea38

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.
edit on 23-3-2012 by pshea38 because: (no reason given)

Hi again ps

Well if you factor in Operation Northwoods and the fact David Copperfield (he made the Statue of Liberty disappear) (right in front of all those New Yorrkas) into the pot there may be some truth to it.
Hmmmm now that I think of it I used to view the Twin Towers from that very spot Hmmm. Hmmm VELLY interesting



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by mayabong
Again I refer to this fox news article where the reporter says controlled demolition was an option on building 7.

Which testimony's are the OSers gonna believe?




A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy. While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was. Read more: www.foxnews.com...


Controlled demolition would only have been an option if WTC 7 had been pre-rigged for it.

The writer clearly doesn't believe it was a controlled demolition. He was there and says " There were no explosives; I would have heard them."



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by mayabong
Again I refer to this fox news article where the reporter says controlled demolition was an option on building 7.

Which testimony's are the OSers gonna believe?




A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy. While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was. Read more: www.foxnews.com...


Controlled demolition would only have been an option if WTC 7 had been pre-rigged for it.

The writer clearly doesn't believe it was a controlled demolition. He was there and says " There were no explosives; I would have heard them."


He says that controlled demolition was an option.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by mayabong


He says that controlled demolition was an option.


It is not clear what you are saying from those few words. Do you think it was prepared for cd but collapsed before it could be implemented or what ?



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was. Read more: www.foxnews.com...

Hi alf
Here is all one needs to know about this guy.
One he testifies to how fast it fell. A few seconds. This is true, near free fall I would say.

The validity of the noise part defies all REASON and logic.
Even if his head was up his behind he would hear a sh@# load of noise.
pun maybe. But the fact is he's a hack.
ljb



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was. Read more: www.foxnews.com...

Hi alf
Here is all one needs to know about this guy.
One he testifies to how fast it fell. A few seconds. This is true, near free fall I would say.

The validity of the noise part defies all REASON and logic.
Even if his head was up his behind he would hear a sh@# load of noise.
pun maybe. But the fact is he's a hack.
ljb


Well the man was there. He says "There were no explosives ; I would have heard them." That ties in with the video/audio evidence too.

Any reason you don't believe it apart from you not wanting to believe it ?



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
If you're going to time the collapse of WTC 7 do it with the tape that shows the roof penthouse collapsing a second before the outer shell started coming down. That building came down from the inside first.

But not due to CD, it was a very different bldg from 1 and 2, different support style.

When you start the clock when you first see the roof structures coming down the speed is spot on, not fee fall,



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


Buildings rigged with explosives make loud sounds. The amount required for WTC7 would have been quite noticeable, and you would have heard the blasts prior to any movement of the penthouse. Many have tried to ignore that fact and try to come up with ridiculous ideas to cover for it, by items that go against physics, amounting to "silenced" high power explosives. LaBTop tried to invent a magical device that behaves like a cutter charge to slice through steel, but is is somehow some sort of a made up new "secret" explosive "thermobaric" or as he calls it "barometric" bombs, which originated from the mind of a seriously mentally disturbed person, upon whom all of this comes from, and yet no real proof of it exists, except for his word, and his fellow lackys. But to date, as far I have always understood it and many rational thinkers as well, the powerful an explosive, the louder the blast.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
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!


This was ipsedixit's response after being showed how ludicrous his answers were. I do give him credit however, for attempting to answer the questions Truthers typically avoid. I will post them once again just in case you missed them:

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, 24 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma


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"?



Are you for real?
"Truthers" don't get sucked into this pathetic #!



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
I trimmed this up a bit.
This time I will quote what he said about the NOISE
Actually the lack of it.

He said this
" Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, NOT A SINGLE SOUND emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. IN FACT, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that IN Fact I was stunned by how quiet it was."

Read more: www.foxnews.com...

They could hear the collapse in Jersey for cripesake.
The guy is a bald face liar.

To boot he just got done telling some fairytale about how it could not be CD

That's like saying if he wasn't looking at the great big monster building at the time he would think that it is still standing tall.

So you see this dude has no cred, case over. next wittness
thank you ljb
One other possibilityThe guy is DEAF and he reads lips.
edit on 24-3-2012 by longjohnbritches because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReconX

Originally posted by Six Sigma


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"?



Are you for real?
"Truthers" don't get sucked into this pathetic #!


So you can't answer the questions ? If that is the case you would have been better off not to get involved rather than appear to be dodging them.

I am particularly interested in an answer to number 4. WTC 7 is often described by truthers as a "smoking gun" and perhaps it is in a way but a way totally different from what they think. They often say " it wasn't hit by a plane " and that is quite right so how was a cd of WTC 7 to be covered and disguised as the alleged cd's of the Towers were covered and disguised by having planes flown into them. It was only by chance that WTC 7 was damaged by falling debris from the North Tower and fires were started. If that chance happening hadn't occured what was the original plan. Just to blow up WTC 7 willy nilly in broad daylight ? How can anyone believe that ?
edit on 24-3-2012 by Alfie1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Dear Dave ,

It took me a while to get it but now I do.

Now this is from the OP

To be precise, he said-

"I remember getting a call from the, er, 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 we watched the building collapse."
SO
If they made a decision to pull it and a building goes down as they watch
why weren't the fireman killed???



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
If you're going to time the collapse of WTC 7 do it with the tape that shows the roof penthouse collapsing a second before the outer shell started coming down. That building came down from the inside first.


Actually that is the first classic sign of an implosion demolition.

The center of the building is always collapsed first creating a space for the outer walls to be 'pulled' in on top of the rest of the collapsed building, putting it mostly in it's own footprint.


Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.

Blasters approach each project a little differently, but the basic idea is to think of the building as a collection of separate towers. The blasters set the explosives so that each "tower" falls toward the center of the building, in roughly the same way that they would set the explosives to topple a single structure to the side. When the explosives are detonated in the right order, the toppling towers crash against each other, and all of the rubble collects at the center of the building. Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.

science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/building-implosion.htm

Also NIST admitted to free-fall...



edit on 3/24/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by mayabong
 

He says that controlled demolition was an option.


He ALSO says-

A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy.
While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was.

The myth that Building 7 was blown up by the U.S. government is false – and so is the broader theory that our government was somehow involved in the 9/11 attacks. I know this because I was one of the few reporters who investigated 9/11 conspiracy theories and urban legends on location in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy.


The argument that "controlled demolitions was an option" is equally a deliberately false misinterpration as claiming "pull it is lingo for controlled demolitions" becuase even though he said it was an option, the very same witness who was physically there is saying categorily there were no controlled demolitions. There's no way you can't know this becuase this is coming from your own source. You went through the guy's testimony and deliverately overlooked all the "there were n demolitions" statements to quote "CD was an option" out of context.

Every conspiracy mongor in the world is relying on that one individual collapse video while this guy was watching it from a ring side seat. I will rely on his take on things rather than yours, specificlly becuase you ARE misquoting what the guy said...or am I incorrect?



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
 

SO
If they made a decision to pull it and a building goes down as they watch
why weren't the fireman killed???


Because when the north tower was hit an order was given to evacuate WTC 7, so it was almost entirely evacuated by the time the north tower collapsed, and completely evacuated by the time WTC 7 building collapsed seven hours later.




top topics



 
17
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join