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: 37
17
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by surfstev
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Does it actually matter that Clark gable never actually said “Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn” in Gone With The Wind yet everyone remembers it that way?



You may want to double check your source...





posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by surfstev
 


But then how can you say WTC7 was pulled if there were no cables attached, and the only video you show is WTC6 being pulled down by cables, and they said, they are pulling down WTC6?



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 


Hmm. Looks like you are correct. At least he didn't say "Frankly my dear. Why don't you just go and pull it?"



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by surfstev
 


But then how can you say WTC7 was pulled if there were no cables attached, and the only video you show is WTC6 being pulled down by cables, and they said, they are pulling down WTC6?


Who said the cables had to be external? The technique is shake the building to induce the failure.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by surfstev
 


But then how can you say WTC7 was pulled if there were no cables attached, and the only video you show is WTC6 being pulled down by cables, and they said, they are pulling down WTC6?


Because some people still use that slang when referring to all demotions?

Why can't you understand that people do that? Terms stick, people still call vacuum cleaners hoovers, they're not hoovers are they. Hoover was a trade name but it stuck as slang for vacuum cleaner.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


in Oz "hoovering" is even a verb..
and if one can't get hoovered
(haha I don't mean like j edgar might have done while wearing a dress)...
one might have to pull it....around....like a hoover
edit on 29-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   
I just wish when Larry said PULL IT.
The flunkies would have said SHOVE IT.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
At lest now Larry can afford to have it pulled in style.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by surfstev
 


I think he has been able to afford having it pulled by someone else for most of his life.


(sry mods couldn't resist)



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by surfstev
 


But then how can you say WTC7 was pulled if there were no cables attached, and the only video you show is WTC6 being pulled down by cables, and they said, they are pulling down WTC6?


Because some people still use that slang when referring to all demotions?

Why can't you understand that people do that? Terms stick, people still call vacuum cleaners hoovers, they're not hoovers are they. Hoover was a trade name but it stuck as slang for vacuum cleaner.


Yeah, but just who is "using that slang when referring to all demolitions" exactly? I've been asking that for 36 pages and not a single one of you has shown any such thing. On the one hand we have someone posting a specific reference showing it refers to pulling down with cables, so "pull it" isn't referring to explosives any more than "having his head blown off" is slang for being stabbed to death. On the other hand, we have people trying to put words in Silverstein's mouth by claiming he meant to say pull DOWN rather than pull IT, which flies in the face of their previous insistance on how critically important it was that he said pull IT instead of pull THEM. Worse, they don't even try to make sense out of the nonsensical claim the NYFD is involved with planting controlled demolitions.

I gotta ask you, why can't you continue pushing your "secret controlled demolitions" claims AND acknowledge this whole "pull it is lingo for controlled demolitions" bit is a fake internet meme being circulated as fact? The two don't cancel each other out.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by surfstev
 


But then how can you say WTC7 was pulled if there were no cables attached, and the only video you show is WTC6 being pulled down by cables, and they said, they are pulling down WTC6?


Because some people still use that slang when referring to all demotions?

Why can't you understand that people do that? Terms stick, people still call vacuum cleaners hoovers, they're not hoovers are they. Hoover was a trade name but it stuck as slang for vacuum cleaner.

Doesn't matter, mate. Larry said "pull it", but no fire chief is quoted as having said that. Larry had no say in the decisions made by the FDNY. They made the decision to pull out, not Larry. It's all on record and it's not at all unclear what they meant regarding that decision.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


ANOK, since when does the New York Fire Dept do explosive demolitions? Can you direct me to a list where the NYFD did demolitions of buildings with explosives, especially when they are burning?



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 03:37 AM
link   
I doubt Larry even spoke to the fire department like he claimed he was probably lying to cover up who he was really talking to. We do know though he was on the phone to his lawyers trying to get authorisation to demolish the building which seems bizzarre in itself considering it takes months to prep a building, but I guess it was just co-incidence it happened to collapse just like a demolition moments after Larry requested it.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 04:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 



I just talked to Daniel Nigro. He was put in charge of the fire department that morning after Peter Ganci was killed. He was at WTC7 at the time of collapse, and does not believe it was Controlled Demolition. However, he says he did not talk to Larry Silverstein that day, and doesn't know who did. He is now retired.


www.911blogger.com...



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious
I doubt Larry even spoke to the fire department like he claimed he was probably lying to cover up who he was really talking to. We do know though he was on the phone to his lawyers trying to get authorisation to demolish the building which seems bizzarre in itself considering it takes months to prep a building, but I guess it was just co-incidence it happened to collapse just like a demolition moments after Larry requested it.


Your argument is consistantly making less and less sense. Are you now saying that Silverstein was lying when he said he was talking to the fire department? If he's lying about talking to the fire department then that necesarily means he's lying about the whole "pull it" conversation. Or are you simply picking and choosing what you think is credible and what isn't for yourself, even though it's all coming out the the same sentence? Not even a gambling addict is going to wager on which part it is you're going to insist is true.

I agree that he couldn't have told the fire department to abandon any further attempts to rescue the building. THEY would have told HIM they were abandoning any further attempts to rescue the building. I also agree there's some debate on who the "firefighter command" was that told him this because most fire fighter commanders would have been too preoccupied trying to control the anarchy from the collapsing buildings and missing firefighters going on at the time. It probably was some undistinctive laison reaching out from the fire department to contact him for legal purposes.

Nontheless, someone from the fire department would have notified him that his buildings were being written off by the city, and nonetheless, by Silverstein's own words he did acknowldege that further loss of life needed to be prevented. I agree he might have embellished the conversation but that doesn't give you license to inflate it into such absurd proportions for your conspiracy truthism and it certainly doesn't give you license to be circulating this "pull it is lingo for controlled demolitions" internet meme because now YOU'RE the one embellishing the conversation.

No matter how you slice the baloney, you are still trying to force your square conspiracy peg into a round 9/11 hole here, so you shouldn't complain when the end result of your own actions is that you wind up making absurd accusations like "New York Firefighters planted contolled demolitions".



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Myendica
 


Or perhaps the 'it' refers to the rescue operation; i.e. he was saying pull the rescue operation.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Insolubrious
I doubt Larry even spoke to the fire department like he claimed he was probably lying to cover up who he was really talking to. We do know though he was on the phone to his lawyers trying to get authorisation to demolish the building which seems bizzarre in itself considering it takes months to prep a building, but I guess it was just co-incidence it happened to collapse just like a demolition moments after Larry requested it.


Your argument is consistantly making less and less sense. Are you now saying that Silverstein was lying when he said he was talking to the fire department?


Yes..


If he's lying about talking to the fire department then that necesarily means he's lying about the whole "pull it" conversation.


Why?


Or are you simply picking and choosing what you think is credible and what isn't for yourself, even though it's all coming out the the same sentence? Not even a gambling addict is going to wager on which part it is you're going to insist is true.


I'm simply making an observation based on the things I've seen. I am not one for gambling either, in fact I'm quite against it for the most part.



I agree that he couldn't have told the fire department to abandon any further attempts to rescue the building. THEY would have told HIM they were abandoning any further attempts to rescue the building. I also agree there's some debate on who the "firefighter command" was that told him this because most fire fighter commanders would have been too preoccupied trying to control the anarchy from the collapsing buildings and missing firefighters going on at the time. It probably was some undistinctive laison reaching out from the fire department to contact him for legal purposes.


Larry suggested 'they' pull it and 'they' (whoever they are) made the decision to pull.

I definitely think someone pulled it, but of course it wasn't who Larry said it was.




Nontheless, someone from the fire department would have notified him that his buildings were being written off by the city, and nonetheless, by Silverstein's own words he did acknowldege that further loss of life needed to be prevented. I agree he might have embellished the conversation but that doesn't give you license to inflate it into such absurd proportions for your conspiracy truthism and it certainly doesn't give you license to be circulating this "pull it is lingo for controlled demolitions" internet meme because now YOU'RE the one embellishing the conversation.


That's irrelevant in light of my previous statement.




No matter how you slice the baloney, you are still trying to force your square conspiracy peg into a round 9/11 hole here, so you shouldn't complain when the end result of your own actions is that you wind up making absurd accusations like "New York Firefighters planted contolled demolitions".


Again, irrelevant. Larry is lying about who he spoke to, or was deliberately deceived, but I doubt that he was deceived but rather the deceiver because we have another report that he was on his phone to his lawyers trying to get permission for controlled demolition on the same afternoon.
edit on 30-3-2012 by Insolubrious because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


Well if you believe someone actually "pulled" WTC7, and that for some reason LS lied about who he was talking to, then maybe you can explain just how they managed to do that, since as I understand it, explosives and demolition rigging just don't jive with hours of fire and shock.

Also, if LS wasnt talking with NYFD, why did he even bother mentioning it to begin with, AND say that phrase? It is making less and less sense, and really, it is becoming one giant pile of manure.

Sorry but the facts are: Larry spoke with a fire dept head or chief. Larry was talking about abandoning WTC7 with said fire head, in order to save lives. Fire chief made decision to "pull" the operations around WTC7 (firefighting and S&R) and pull back as corroborated by many fire fighters on site around 3-3:30PM, after making the decision around 2PM or so. Remember, it takes time to send down orders and with the reported issues with radio communication all day, it took some time for all to receive it. All this fantasy and make believe that somehow WTC7 was pre-rigged and that everyone was in on it, but yet they still needed to ask permission, or that the explosives and equipment would magically survive hours of fire exposure without pre-detonation, or that it all can be rigged within an hour or two while surrounded by fire and steadily worsening structural conditions, and have it all go off silently without much warning, is beyond ludicrous.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious
Why?


Because if one part of the statement cannot be viewed as credible then none of the statement can be viewed as credible. If someone said "I couldn't have cheated on my wife because I was working all day" and it's shown the person really did cheat on his wife, it's obvious the claim that he was working all day cannot be taken at face value.


Larry suggested 'they' pull it and 'they' (whoever they are) made the decision to pull.


So your argument is making even less sense now. The entire context of the conversation revolved around a discussion that would only make sense with people who were actively fighting the fires I.E. the "telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire" part. Regardless of whether you believe fire fighters are involved in the controlled demolitions business, one thing that cannot be debated is that people in the controlled demolitions business are NOT the ones fighting fires.

It seems to me that you're simply trying to have your cake and eat it too, here- you want to accuse Silverstein of being involved in a conspiracy but you're trying to avoid slandering the fire department, so you're just inventing your own standards on how to judge credibility that suits your purposes. Heck, you've all but come out and said his entire statement is one big fat lie except- big surprise- for the two words "pull it" because those are the only two words in the entire sentence that aren't fire department related. Doesn't that strike you as being somewhat contrived?


I definitely think someone pulled it, but of course it wasn't who Larry said it was.


There is no evidence whatsover that WTC 7 was pulled down with cables. That IS what "Pull it" means according to both industry references and recorded conversations involving building 6, after all.


Again, irrelevant. Larry is lying about who he spoke to, or was deliberately deceived, but I doubt that he was deceived but rather the deceiver because we have another report that he was on his phone to his lawyers trying to get permission for controlled demolition on the same afternoon.


...but since Chief Nigro and deputy Chief Hayden were physically there and they both give thumbs down to these controlled demolitions claims, it's quickly becoming obvious that your "report he was on the phone to his lawyers" claim is equally as suspect as the "pull it is lingo for controlled demolitions" claim is. More so, since using one unproven claim to back up another unproven claim is circular logic.

Are you quoting an actual source that Silverstein talked to directly or is this another "all the conspiracy web sites are repeating it as if it were fact" thing?



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   
I worked in demolition and also in search and rescue. The term pull it is from search and rescue, we never said it demolishing.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join