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: 27
17
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by Cassius666
Wow already 26 sites.



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?


You can look up the french demolition technique to see what an collapse should sound like. I have a greater problem with the officer being near the building in the first place, seen as an area around the building was cleared while people waited for the building to come down. Maybe he did not get the notice, maybe the area has only been evacuated of civillians, or not at all.

But the point I wanted to make is there is no point in discussing slang therms. You would have to take the word of Silverstein to explain to you what he meant by using that therm.
edit on 25-3-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


I see. So what your saying is that fires causing "thermal expansion" and subsequent total collapse of a high-rise building, is something that "Fire Chiefs" are quite well acquainted with, and can predict with a fair degree of accuracy.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 




Also reports of the extent of the damage reached the FDNY incident commanders who made decision to
abandon WTC 7 as being too dangerous this was shortly after noon (12PM)


We made searches. We attempted to put some of the fire out, but we had a pressure problem. I forget the name of the Deputy. Some Deputy arrived at the scene and thought that the building was too dangerous to continue with operations, so we evacuated number 7 World Trade Center. –Captain Anthony Varriale



So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandeis came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

Firehouse Magazine: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered through there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. – Capt. Chris Boyle
.


The FDNY Collapse Unit arrived and set up a transit to monitor the building

By 2:30 PM could see that WTC 7 was beginning to "move" or creep indicating structure was compromised
and high probably of collapse

At 3PM orders went out to set up collapse zone (WTC 7 was 47 story, 610 ft, collapse zone is 1.5 time height
or 900 ft around)


Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 o'clock, that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, we've got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and that's when 7 collapsed. Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess. –Lieutenant William Ryan


FF were moved or "pulled" away from WTC 7 - it collapsed at 520 PM




Hi thed
Holly molly that is alot noise to try and sequence.
If you can and I am not saying what you have taken the time to post is wrong yet.
But do your best to condence all that info.

1 Could you put an exact time frame on Larry's statement in the OP where he says we made a decision to pull it and we watched the building fall?

2 Can you confirm that a decision to abandon was made at 12pm?

3 Why are times left out where you quote firemen saying
"We were heading for 7 and just around FREAKIN BLANK we were a hundered yards away." WTF
4 Do you confirm that by 2:30 7 was starting to move?
5 Do you confirn that the terminology at 3pm was prepare for a collaps zone?
6 Do you confirm that at 3pm a fire man said THEY THOUGHT 7 was going to collapse?
7 and at 3pm was that the time the firemen got every one in a pile and the main concern was to get every one out?
8 Do you confirm that not once in all the NYCFD speak is there even the SLIGHTEST mention of PULL IT.

See what you can do for me on this one if you dare.
thanks pal
if you spin you can't win
cause it is above you. You can see that right?
I am waiting for you.


Well it looks as if the thedman is preoccupied.
Anyother OSer want to tackle some truth???
PLB,???? DAVE???? Tricks???



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
It's the building it's self that is the smoking gun. Not Larry Silverstein's statement.

When Larry said “pull it” I think he had a double meaning in mind. To “pull it” could have easily been old time slang to pull the hose of a firefighter as a signal him to abandon the building. It could have also just as easily been slang giving the order to demolish a building. As in the old days the guy responsible for everyone's safety would probably say “pull it” to the guy pulling up on the plunger and beginning a ten second count down delay before pushing it back down and blowing everything to smithereens. I think he probably did this as a pathetic intentional blunder to draw attention to the fire department in case it were ever “officially discovered” that the buildings were "obviously" demolished.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Flatcoat
 


Apparently. They predicted those buildings could collapse after visual inspection, and they did. Unless of course you think that the NYFD was in on your conspiracy and had foreknowledge of the collapse.
edit on 25-3-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
No. Of course not. The fact the NYFD had anything to do with the collapse, is absurd which is exactly my point. Larry's dual meaning statement was designed to throw anyone off track of the truth if the obvious ever got officially discovered... that the buildings were demolished.
edit on 25-3-2012 by surfstev because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 



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.


LOL did i say they were not damaged beyond repair...nope....i said...still standing....you chose to pick and choose.

now if you are not able to understand how the term muffled was used.....shall i explain...MUFFLED..


Definition of 'muffle' Random House Webster's College Dictionary


1. (v.t.) muffle
to wrap with something to deaden or prevent sound:
to muffle drums.

2. muffle
to deaden (sound) by wrappings or other means.
...do you see....i would venture you do not....but you know what is nice.....many people can read and understand what is being said to them.....now if you wish to be condescending that is your choice...But i prefer to look at what was happening on the day...and not hide behind blinders....I will ask you straight.....will the sound travel easily through a building that is full of items with glass around....or would it be more audible in a empty structure without any windows.........did i say there wasn't any sound....guess what...nope....hence the term muffled.

but you can believe what you like.....



edit on 123131p://f26Sunday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by surfstev
No. Of course not. The fact the NYFD had anything to do with the collapse, is absurd which is exactly my point. Larry's dual meaning statement was designed to throw anyone off track of the truth if the obvious ever got officially discovered... that the buildings were demolished.



So what exactly is the reason that you think it is obvious that those buildings were blown up with explosives? And how does Larry's statement throws someone off track in case that the official story states the buildings were CDed?



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 



Because I am a builder and I understand physics. I bet Larry does too. It throws someone off track because Larry said NYPD gave the order to pull it. If it was ever determined that he meant pull down the building than his statement implicates them.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


i see your using the truther term....YET again....and taking words out of context..and your doing this with me...should i do the same back to you...nope....you know why....because i have talked to you many times...your mixing terminology...did it appear to be a CD....yes it does.....was it normal....lets do this again shall we.....normal CD...remove all interior materials......removes all windows....to stop flying debris where other structures or people maybe be affected.....exposed columns.....was all this done nooo...does it still make it not a CD.....no....it makes it a CD outside of what normal practice is if it was indeed a CD.....but if your here to slag truthers...and not discuss the thread at hand so be it......wont be discussing it with me...as i will ignore your comments as i have done so in the past.....when you try to derail by bashing....i will dip into your past comments and bring them forward.

IF it was a CD...was it what could be considered a normal CD....simple answer is no.....refer to to top...



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by surfstev
 


So it is obvious because you say so. I also understand physics, and I say it is obviously not a CD. There. Your argument is debunked.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


ONE WAY OR ANOTHER IT WAS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION




OK BOYS "PULL IT!"



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


Ok, you just think it is CD because you want it yo be CD.

We indeed have discussed this before. I think some time ago you said you were working on something that included the involved physics and would proof that the collapse must have been CD (I can't remember the specifics). Did anything come from that?



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by surfstev
 


if your presupposition is that it was CD, then I guess one way or another it has to be CD.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
I haven't read all these pages, so I'm not sure if it's been mentioned, but the person from the NYFD Silverstein mentioned as making the "phone call" to him were he says "pull it", says HE NEVER HAD THIS CONVERSATION with Silverstein.

Now, to the "pull it" arguement.........Like explosives, there is NO WAY the NYFD or any other organization could have installed cables to "pull" the building down if the time-frame from the time the Silverstein supposedly had his fictional conversation with the NYFD and when the building imploded on itself.

Not to mention, there would obviously be SOME footage somewhere of the fire department or whatever company that would have been used to install these cables to "pull" the building down. Fortunately, we do have footage of WTC 7 while still standing that day that shows it deserted and no FD or other workers hurriedly installling cables to "pull" #7 down.

CHALLENGE TO DEBUNKERS- Show me footage or any proof from a witness or fireman, which shows ANYONE installing cables to "pull" down WTC 7????

Good luck!



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by freedom12
CHALLENGE TO DEBUNKERS- Show me footage or any proof from a witness or fireman, which shows ANYONE installing cables to "pull" down WTC 7????


I guess you mean to say "CHALLENGE TO PEOPLE CLAIMING FIREMEN PULLED DOWN THOSE BUILDINGS WITH CABLES" which amounts to exactly 0.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 



1 Could you put an exact time frame on Larry's statement in the OP where he says we made a decision to pull it and we watched the building fall?
2 Can you confirm that a decision to abandon was made at 12pm?
3 Why are times left out where you quote firemen saying
"We were heading for 7 and just around FREAKIN BLANK we were a hundered yards away." WTF
4 Do you confirm that by 2:30 7 was starting to move?
5 Do you confirn that the terminology at 3pm was prepare for a collaps zone?
6 Do you confirm that at 3pm a fire man said THEY THOUGHT 7 was going to collapse?
7 and at 3pm was that the time the firemen got every one in a pile and the main concern was to get every one out?
8 Do you confirm that not once in all the NYCFD speak is there even the SLIGHTEST mention of PULL IT.



1 Dont have exact times for call by Chief Nigro to Silverstein - would guess be about mid afternoon

2 Decision to abandon WTC 7 was made sometime around 12:30 PM or little later


One Battalion Chief coming from the building indicated that they had searched floors 1 through 9 and found that the building was clear.
In the process of the search, the Battalion Chief met the building’s Fire Safety Director and Deputy Fire Safety Director on the ninth floor. The Fire Safety Director reported that the building’s floors had been cleared from the top down. By this time, the Chief Officer responsible for WTC 7 reassessed the building again and determined that fires were burning on the following floors: 6, 7, 8, 17, 21, and 30.
No accurate time is available for these actions during the WTC 7 operations; however, the sequence of event indicates that it occurred during a time period from 12:30 p.m. to approximately 2:00 p.m.


3. Because the FF did not check their watches - is rather difficult wearing full turnout gear.....

4 Collapse Unit from Rescue 3 had set up transit to watch the building . Saw a bulge forming on SW corner


Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.



As aside heard Chief Hayden speak at seminar 6 months after 9/11 about operations at WTC 7

5 Collapse zone 3 pm


William Ryan -- Fire Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.)
Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 o'clock, that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, we've got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there.
...
So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and that's when 7 collapsed.


Chief Hayden


Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon.


Can see by 3 PM were aware of the danger of WTC 7 collapsing

Can confirm this - that day our FD was put on standby incase needed at WTC (live 15 miles west of NYC)
We were also covering for neighboring city which had sent entire tour to WTC - they were in World Financial
Center across street from WTC 7 putting out fire. Over the radio heard chief in command (someone known
for 20 years) giving orders to his men to clear the building and evacuate because of danger from WTC 7

This was shortly after 3 PM



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


Wow Lunar guess whole FDNY was involved in it - right ....?



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


You know very well that everyone except truthers were involved. Oops, I wasn't supposed to say that right?



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatcoat
 


No idiot its because they saw

1 An 18 story gash ripped in the south facade

2. Extensive structural damage to the building reported by their officers

3 Fires on numerous floors spreading

4 A 3 story bulge in the SW corner

Taken togather this equals building on verge of collapse...

Or do you know better than experienced fire officers ?



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join