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: 35
17
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by longjohnbritches


Is your nogin boggin.


I find it amusing that you keep suggesting that you're somehow causing befuddlement or confusion amounting to physical pain. I suppose it helps you to imagine that you're creating some kind of difficulty, weaving a spell of Truthy wonder.

Believe me, your 'arguments' - when intelligible - are laughably simplistic. They wouldn't give a toddler pause.


Come on dude there is a world of truth that you will miss if you drop out now.


Can't wait.


Ah yes my crafty friend
Yes if there is pain,a smile helps.
The answer to your second suposition is, Absoutly not I am.
Thank you as usual for accepting my intelligence although simplistic as it should be.
Ugh I have paused you consistantly, Why pick on children???




posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by BravoBull
This is stupidest OP thread around. All either side says, is how they have logic and fact on their side. What is the point of all this? Neither side will change the other's mind. It is just argument...blah, blah, blah... I've looked at the web sites posted here. Some for a more prosaic answer as to why WTC 7 collapsed and others with equally compelling arguments on how it was NOT fully investigated. But most people here have made up their mind, so why continue the argument. Which is why I think the OP was stupid. It was clear that they wanted to get an argument going. As if "Pull It" was somehow the most compelling argument against the NIST explanation. Give me a break. Someone please KILL THIS thread.

Forgive me for missing your post Brovo
I say Bravo times ten
I didn't know you could ask for such an obvious concept.
Bravo ljb



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ReconX

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by ReconX
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Did you watch the video?


I've seen it before. It has Richard Gage lying about WTC 7 falling in under 7 seconds when it was actually about twice that.


This is exactly why it's pointless!

If you believe that WTC 7 collapsed in 14 seconds then you really are not fit for a debate on 911 end of!

That's all from me on this one.


The collapse time of WTC 7 is not a matter of opinion but of observable fact.

Richard Gage and AE 9/11t in general consistantly ignore the first seconds of collapse evidenced by the east penthouse falling in. Why would they do that if they are simply looking for the truth ?

www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


OK i'll bite!




posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 01:54 AM
link   
*QUOTE Alfie1*
"The collapse time of WTC 7 is not a matter of opinion but of observable fact".


I agree!
edit on 27-3-2012 by ReconX because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-3-2012 by ReconX because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ReconX
*QUOTE Alfie1*
"The collapse time of WTC 7 is not a matter of opinion but of observable fact".


I agree!
edit on 27-3-2012 by ReconX because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-3-2012 by ReconX because: (no reason given)


In that case why don't you take up Varemia's suggestion on page 32 and time it yourself ? He has posted a pretty good quality video there.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by ReconX
*QUOTE Alfie1*
"The collapse time of WTC 7 is not a matter of opinion but of observable fact".


I agree!
edit on 27-3-2012 by ReconX because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-3-2012 by ReconX because: (no reason given)


In that case why don't you take up Varemia's suggestion on page 32 and time it yourself ? He has posted a pretty good quality video there.


Did you watch the video?
He explains it much better than I could.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ReconX

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by ReconX
*QUOTE Alfie1*
"The collapse time of WTC 7 is not a matter of opinion but of observable fact".


I agree!
edit on 27-3-2012 by ReconX because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-3-2012 by ReconX because: (no reason given)


In that case why don't you take up Varemia's suggestion on page 32 and time it yourself ? He has posted a pretty good quality video there.


Did you watch the video?
He explains it much better than I could.


Yes I have seen it and I have also seen this debunk :-

www.youtube.com...

But why wont you look at a collapse video, like Varemia's ( not a truncated AE 9/11 t one without the east penthouse falling in ), and time it for yourself. You agree it is just a matter of observation and it will only take you 14 or 15 seconds. You can then see for yourself whether Richard Gage was being honest with you when he said the collapse was less than 7 seconds.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
Are you threating me or suggesting someone hunt me down?
I will also run this by the moderators
No matter how you try to pass yourself off it gets worse all the time.
I hope you will stop trying to derail your own thread.
I hope as I go down the list of replies someone has one on topic.


No, I'm not suggesting someone should hunt you down and I would appreciate if you'd refrain from attributing things to me that I never said, thank you very much.

What I AM saying is that there are people in the truther movement so madly in love with these idiotic "secret plots to take over the world" conspiracy hoaxes that to them, this make believe is starting to become reality and sooner or later someone is going to get killed over this horse [censored]. I've had TWO people threaten me with "sooner or later I'm going to get what's coming to me" and one guy even forged my handle and posted pornographic material so that he could "get me". They're so madly in love with the idea there are armies of sinister secret agents hiding in the shadoes putting out disinformation... so when you all but admit you're simply posting flame bait to make fun of the truthers, GUESS WHAT? That puts you on their "you're a secret disinformation agent posting nonsense to make them look bad" radar too, and I'm trying to point out the potential consequences of your actions to you because you're clearly thinking this is all just a game.

Don't take my word for it. Listen to Alex Jones say the very thing you're attempting to attribute to me-



It's true that not ALL truthers are are waiting to be the next Mark David Chapman, of course, but it's also true that the next Mark David Chapman is gravitating to the truther movement for the abject paranoia outlet it offers. All this, simply because I asked "who the heck said 'pull it' was slang for controlled demolitions".
edit on 27-3-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic4life
What else could he have meant when he said pull-it ?? hmm ?

This is a dead horse..stop flogging it.

Cosmic..


All right, let's look at that statement. What else *could* Silverstein have meant? The possibilities are...

a) he was referring to pulling the plug on the operation to save the building

b) He was referring to pulling the firefighter team out (as "pull it" IS a firefighter term, and he was talking to firefighters when he used it)

c) The NYFD didn't actually bother giving him a choice- they simply told him they were pulling the plug/pulling the firefighters out and he's embellishing the conversation to make himself look more important in the decision process


...and yet, out of all the possible explanations, the truthers religiously ignore any and all other possibilities and deliberately zero in on:

d) He ordered the NYFD to secretly blow up WTC 7 and the NYFD gladly covered up the murder of 343 of their brother firefighters, and he admitted everyone's involvement in conspiracy, murder, and treason on camera for the benefit of you truthers.


Does that answer your question? There's a reason why I'm pointing out that this whole "pull it is lingo for controlled demolitions" bit is just an internet hoax, after all.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.





Apology not accepted



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
The collapse time of WTC 7 is not a matter of opinion but of observable fact.

Richard Gage and AE 9/11t in general consistantly ignore the first seconds of collapse evidenced by the east penthouse falling in. Why would they do that if they are simply looking for the truth ?


Just to add to your statement, the NIST report estimates that the south side of the building didn't collapse in the same manner as the north side, but actually folded in like a book, which is why the penthouse collapsed.

Richard Gage's response shoulsn't be surprising- he falsely pretends their animation of the south side collapse was really an animation of the north side collapse, while falsely pretending the south side fell the same way as the north side, all so he can point out "it didn't fall that way". Combine THAT with his snipping off the penthouse collapse (not to mention his annoying tendency to repeatedly ask for more and more contributions), it becomes immediately obvious Gage is trying to pull a fast one here.

Personally I think HE'S the joker who invented the whole ""pull it" is lingo for controlled demolitions" hoax to begin with, but I don't know. All I do know is that the claim could only have come from someone who has no qualms about making stuff up.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

Apology not accepted


Who told you I was apologizing? I'm pointing out that these conspiracy stories provoke a zealotry that rational people would not understand the consequences of until it's too late. If someone can kill a member of the Beatles becuase of secret messages he thought he was reading in "the catcher in the Rye" then there will be people who'll read all these "sinister secret plots to take over the world" claims and get the idea they need to take matters into their own hands. This is arguably the reason why the Al Qaida hijackers pulled this whole 9/11 stunt to begin with.

Accept or ignore this at your own cost.
edit on 27-3-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

Okay , here's my bitch with all those 9/11 conspiracy people; why if the government or some other secret hidden power planned the attacks did they highjack the air craft and crash them into the building? After all if they , the conspirators, had planted explosives in the buildings why not just blow it up? and why use aircraft? All they needed to do was use a truck full of explosives like Tim McVeigh did in Oklahoma City or like the first attack did in '93. After all , according to the conspiracy types , the planes were just a diversion so the government or who ever "was behind " the attacks and the buildings had been rigged with explosives. Or why use any type of diversion ? We all know that the "real attackers" had planned to destroy the building with explosives so why this elaboration plan? sorry but I can NOT buy all this foolishness that the Conspiracy Theorists spout. None of it makes sense .



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by runningdoglacky
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

Okay , here's my bitch with all those 9/11 conspiracy people; why if the government or some other secret hidden power planned the attacks did they highjack the air craft and crash them into the building? After all if they , the conspirators, had planted explosives in the buildings why not just blow it up? and why use aircraft? All they needed to do was use a truck full of explosives like Tim McVeigh did in Oklahoma City or like the first attack did in '93. After all , according to the conspiracy types , the planes were just a diversion so the government or who ever "was behind " the attacks and the buildings had been rigged with explosives. Or why use any type of diversion ? We all know that the "real attackers" had planned to destroy the building with explosives so why this elaboration plan? sorry but I can NOT buy all this foolishness that the Conspiracy Theorists spout. None of it makes sense .


If memory serves, someone else recently created a thread asking that very question- why ARE there all these bizarro details of "staging hijacked aircraft to conceal secret controlled demolitions", and the responses he received were largely the same as the responses here- they completely ignore the question and go straight to why they believe there's a conspiracy. Apparently to the truthers, when someone ignores a difficult question they can't answer, it makes the question invalid.

The best attempt at an explanation I've seen so far is that the bulk of these bizarro world details are in fact unsubstanciated guesses by overreachign truthers and/or disinformation released by secret agents in an attempt to discredit the truthers. Richard Gage for example is quite vocal in insisting he doesn't support any conspiracy theory- he's simply trying to show the case for demolitions. Gage isn't stupid- he certainly has to know that showing the case for demolitions IS supporting a conspiracy, becuase there can't be controlled demolitions without a support base of conspirators (not to mention a concealed reason for doing it) to make that happen. He's falsely trying to appear neutral when he's actually trying to have his cake and eat it too.

In truth, the reason why there are so many absurd details is that the conspiracy proponents are trying to force their make believe into reality, but to do that they need to invent whatever details they need to which justifies how make believe can exist in reality. THAT is where this whole "pull it is lingo for controlled demolitions" hoax came from, not from any actual demolitions source, because the conspiracy theorists simply want their "smoking gun evidence" to throw around that says "Silverstein ordered the NYFD to blow up WTC 7" and they don't particularly care that it means they're accusing the NYFD of secretly murdering 343 of their brother firefighters.
edit on 27-3-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Why are you saying everyone that believes 9-11 was a conspiracy believes Silverstein's comment meant demolition? There's plenty of evidence of conspiracy over 9-11 without Silverstein's unusual comment. So much in fact that it gives good reason to be concerned about it even though it proves nothing.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Plenty of demolition jobs have invoked the term 'pull it' and they still do today but more commonly when it involves cables. I'm pretty sure I heard it long before 9/11 and I get the impression it was used more commonly in the old days than it being a modern term. It says to me Larry didn't really have any specifics but understood it would be brought down or pulled down in a controlled fashion much like they did with building 6 and the last of the towers facade - they 'pulled it' down.

It's used as a general term like 'to pull a building down' or 'bring a building down'.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by surfstev
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Why are you saying everyone that believes 9-11 was a conspiracy believes Silverstein's comment meant demolition? There's plenty of evidence of conspiracy over 9-11 without Silverstein's unusual comment. So much in fact that it gives good reason to be concerned about it even though it proves nothing.


Actually I'm not saying that, and if that's the impression I'm giving that's entirely my fault. I know that not all conspiracy proponents believe in the "Silverstein said "pull it" claim as not all conspiracy proponents believe in the same conspiracy. I know Judy Wood for one is dead seat against the controlled demolitions model because she has her own "lasers from outer space" model.

I am merely exploring the "pull it is lingo for controlled demolitions" claim which many of the "controlled demolitions" proponents are pushing as if were a de facto piece of evidence. The reason why I want to discuss it is straightforward- if these conspiracy web sites are teaching people that "pull it is lingo for controlled demolitions" when it's now been shown to be false, what OTHER bad information are these web sites pushing? All one needs to do is a 30 second google search on "pull it" and you'll see just how many of them are spreading this hoax. Don't you see anything disturbing with this trend?



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious
Plenty of demolition jobs have invoked the term 'pull it' and they still do today but more commonly when it involves cables. I'm pretty sure I heard it long before 9/11 and I get the impression it was used more commonly in the old days than it being a modern term. It says to me Larry didn't really have any specifics but understood it would be brought down or pulled down in a controlled fashion much like they did with building 6 and the last of the towers facade - they 'pulled it' down.

It's used as a general term like 'to pull a building down' or 'bring a building down'.


All right, I do try to be fair. What sources are you using to show this? Someone else posted an excerpt from a demolitions reference book that specifically said it was a term to describe literally pulling a building down with cables, and nowhere in the reference does it say it's a generic term. Please show a reference that says "pull it is industry lingo for controlled demolitions". That's all I ask.

Honestly, the more I discuss this, the more realistic it sounds that Silverstein was embellishing the whole conversation and the NYFD specifically told him they were abandoning the building, and this "pull it" bit is just his way of making himself look like he was part of the decision process when he really wasn't. If so, this whole "pull it" bit is actually a double hoax being played on us all.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Your entire thread has been nothing but a garbly gook rambling rant against thoes you stereotype "Truthers"
And with 35 pages of your deceptive spin you got (NADA).
Nothing accomplished but embarising yourself and your Band of Merry Bend.
I would suggest you get some underling to go start another thread for you.
At least untill the heat cools down.
To answer the question of the OP.
LJB said it.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join