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: 26
17
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


You know there is a huge difference in thinking a building is going to collapse, and one that falls mostly in its own footprint mimicking an implosion demolition exactly.

So sorry all that text proves nothing at all.

The thing you all keep ignoring, that you keep hand waving away, is the fact that WTC7 landed mostly in its own footprint. That is what the discussion of WTC7's collapse should focus on, not what Larry or the fire fighters said.
What people say can be interpenetrated in different ways, as this thread shows.

But you can't argue that the post collapse pics of WTC 7 show outer walls folded in on top of the rest of the collapsed building, there are plenty of pics that show this. That is only achieved with implosion style demolition. You can argue till you're blue in your face that that is not true, I don't care, you're not here to have a reasonable discussion and except facts as facts.




posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 


no m8....that is in a normal demolition....guess what...where windows are removed...furniture taken out.....the building completely emptied of flying debris....where the sound can travel.....but was this the case...simply no...the explosions would have been muffled.....simple as.

i love how people talk about normal CD......this was not a normal cd now was it.....so when a person looks at it so blindly....why not ask yourself a few questions....and think...IF it was a CD....was it a normal CD.....guess what....IT wasn't.....the buildings were a sealed buildings....and they were steel.....as far as the term pull it.....that can be argued till the cows come home....what can't be argued....3 steel structures came down on one day .....where one of them was not even hit by a plane....wtc 4,5,6, were all much more severely damaged and guess what they did not come down.

surprise.


edit on 023131p://f16Sunday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


You know there is a huge difference in thinking a building is going to collapse, and one that falls mostly in its own footprint mimicking an implosion demolition exactly.

So sorry all that text proves nothing at all.

The thing you all keep ignoring, that you keep hand waving away, is the fact that WTC7 landed mostly in its own footprint. That is what the discussion of WTC7's collapse should focus on, not what Larry or the fire fighters said.
What people say can be interpenetrated in different ways, as this thread shows.

But you can't argue that the post collapse pics of WTC 7 show outer walls folded in on top of the rest of the collapsed building, there are plenty of pics that show this. That is only achieved with implosion style demolition. You can argue till you're blue in your face that that is not true, I don't care, you're not here to have a reasonable discussion and except facts as facts.

Where in that post did I say I was trying to prove anything? I was replying to a question about who said what and when. I found that info at 9/11 blogger: HERE. I thought all the witness accounts were interesting, so I posted them. I'm sure people will read into them as they're inclined.

If all the discussion about Larry irritates you, perhaps this thread is not one for your concern.
edit on 25-3-2012 by lunarasparagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   
Wow already 26 sites.

Pull it is slang. You will find demolition people who use the therm in the context of setting off a demolition and you will find people who use it in a different context. Do firefighters use the therm too, as in pulling it (an ongoing operation)? When did this interview take place?


CRAIG BARTMER NYPD: "I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'... It was at that moment... I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself... Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the #'s hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they're saying... Nothing to account for what we saw...


This would be a far more interesting account, seen as there is no guessworking of context in the words used.
edit on 25-3-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
Exactly thickoftheshade..


I see what you did there. Hilarious!



She says pull it as slang describing how she brings it down.


Wrong. It's not slang. She's using it to describe the action of separating the two building sin a very specific kind of demolition.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Evacuation
Building 7 was supposedly evacuated around 9 AM. The area around the building was evacuated in the hour before the collapse. Photographer Tom Franklin, who took the famous photograph of firemen raising the American flag, said:

Firemen evacuated the area as they prepared for the collapse of Building Seven. 1
There are no photographs that show large fires in Building 7. Tom Franklin did not take any photos of the building before heeding firemen's orders to evacuate the area. Had there been large fires, one would expect that the professional photographer would have documented them.

911research.wtc7.net...

funny they knew the building was going to collapse?
and the firemen did the evac...after the chief and silverstien agreed to pull the building



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


It's not in any way odd. Read the testimony of chiefs Hayden and Nigro, among others. You'll see that they describe in some detail the physical evidence the building exhibited that made them believe it was going to collapse.

They were right, and they remain unsurprised by the building's fall. This says two things tome

- Truthers think they know better than experienced firefighters
- Truthers'logic dictates that FDNy must be implicated in the demolition.

Do you really believe that they were - and are - in on the conspiracy?



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   
ah yes
we will just ignore the squib vids too
www.youtube.com...
edit on 25-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)


who am i gonna believe?
your silly snide desperate insinuations
or my lying eyes?
edit on 25-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by Six Sigma
 


no m8....that is in a normal demolition....guess what...where windows are removed...furniture taken out.....the building completely emptied of flying debris....where the sound can travel.....but was this the case...simply no...the explosions would have been muffled.....simple as.


Muffled explosions! So, no more Hush-A-Bombs. We know have muffled explosions. Priceless!


i love how people talk about normal CD......this was not a normal cd now was it.....so when a person looks at it so blindly....why not ask yourself a few questions....and think...IF it was a CD....was it a normal CD.....guess what....IT wasn't.....the buildings were a sealed buildings....and they were steel.....


SEALED? There was a gaping gash and holes ripped thought it from a 110 story skyscraper collapsing on it.


as far as the term pull it.....that can be argued till the cows come home....


Agreed..and IMO quite irrelevant.



what can't be argued....3 steel structures came down on one day ....


You're good!


.where one of them was not even hit by a plane....


You're on a roll!


wtc 4,5,6, were all much more severely damaged and guess what they did not come down.


oh.... Sorry Charlie, you were getting there...and then you laid a goose egg.

4 - damaged beyond repair and had to be demolished.
5- WTC 5 was the least damaged building of the WTC complex and did in fact have partial collapses of floors. What was left standing, was demolished.
6 - What was left of this (the smallest in the complex) was "pulled" down with cables.

So, in reality, none of the buildings you mentioned remain standing.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Are you replying to me? Am I to take it that you have no answer?



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


It is funny how the argument progresses.

Truther: Building 7 was CD!
Skeptic: Why do you think that?
Truther: It looks exactly like it.
Skeptic: But it doesn't look like it at all. For instance, the penthouse started to collapse several seconds before the rest. Oh and there were no bangs and flashes.
Truther: Ha but it wasn't anything like a normal CD, so no wonder it doesn't look like it at all. It is a special type of CD, one we never seen before.
Skeptic: Huh? Can you repeat again why you think it was CD to start with?
Truther: .......
edit on 25-3-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


that would be your style of illogic and again you would be wrong
the vid spoke for you



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


And how do you know its not just as result of the internal collapse that happened before the outside of the building came down? Or even just the windows breaking as result of deformation of the wall? What makes your opinion that what we see are explosives going off worth anything?



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


that would be your style of illogic and again you would be wrong
the vid spoke for you


My "style of illogic"? Please.





- Truthers think they know better than experienced firefighters
- Truthers' logic dictates that FDNY must be implicated in the demolition.

Do you really believe that they were - and are - in on the conspiracy?


What's illogical about that? Both fire chiefs say they thought the building would fall and they remain unsurprised that it did. For you to be correct they must, logically, be in on it. Are you saying they are?



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
Wow already 26 sites.

Pull it is slang. You will find demolition people who use the therm in the context of setting off a demolition and you will find people who use it in a different context. Do firefighters use the therm too, as in pulling it (an ongoing operation)? When did this interview take place?


CRAIG BARTMER NYPD: "I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'... It was at that moment... I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself... Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the #'s hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they're saying... Nothing to account for what we saw...


This would be a far more interesting account, seen as there is no guessworking of context in the words used.
edit on 25-3-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)


Booms during the collapse, almost as if heavy objects were impacting the ground. There's no other possible explanation than controlled demolition explosives to you? Not even a hint of a possibility?



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 

Oh? So these "Fire Chiefs" somehow knew that the beam would expand with the heat, and walk itself off the top of column 79 ?



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Flatcoat
 


So if you see a plane that is about to crash you also must know that it is caused by masking tape that was accidentally left over some or all of the static ports after the aircraft was cleaned? Or because of the fuse pins not failing properly, but instead suffering metal fatigue prior to overload failure? Or do you think "damn that plane looks damaged and is on a crash course"?



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 

maybe might have been yep thats logic alright
does not make it so
the video spoke for you..

so did this expert:

After being shown the footage of WTC 7 collapsing Jowenko stated “This is a controlled demolition carried out by a team of experts.”

At the time Jowenko did not know that he was watching footage from September 11th 2001 and responded in disbelief when the reporters explained what the footage was.

In 2007 reports began to circulate that Jowenko had retracted his stance on the footage of WTC7, however, he reaffirmed his previous opinion in a phone call with blogger Jeff Hill, noting “When the FEMA makes a report that it came down by fire, and you have to earn your money in the States as a controlled demolition company and you say, ‘No, it was a controlled demolition’, you’re gone. You know?”...

...A Dutch building demolition expert who went on record as saying he believed that World Trade Center building Seven was brought down in a controlled demolition, has been reported killed in a car accident.

www.prisonplanet.com...



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


According to NIST the collapse was a spontaneous occurrence caused by "thermal expansion" and the beam suddenly falling off it's footing. The visible damage had nothing to do with it. The building wasn't diving towards the ground, trailing smoke, with the pilot screaming "Mayday", so your analogy just doesn't cut it, I´m afraid. You tell me then- who's right? NIST or you and the Fire Chiefs?



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Flatcoat
 


So you think the fires causing this thermal expansion were not visible? Invisible fires? Interesting.




top topics



 
17
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join