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: 39
17
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
They said they got pulled out, they were ordered to pull, the decision was made to pull, and that's what they did, and they waited for the building to fall.


LOL but you got the words wrong.

They didn't wait for the building to collapse, no, they WATCHED the building collapse.

"And they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse."

Where does he say the fire fighters got pulled out? He didn't even mention the fire crews. You can not claim to know who 'they' were.

The fire crews were 'pulled out' long before the building collapsed. So why would he jump from that to an event that happened hours later? The fire fighters did not pull it, they pulled 'out', the demolition crew pulled 'it'.

'Pulled out' is not the same as 'pull it'. You guys need English grammar lessons, as well as physics. Trying to twist the term pull to fit your fantasy, hilarious.




posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
Hi lun

Nope, just post where a fireman used the words PULL IT September 11 2001.
If you can not save your breath and some cyber space here on ats.
Do you realize just how ignorant you reply???
later ljb

That's the whole point--they never said it. You're arguing against yourself now.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
'Pulled out' is not the same as 'pull it'. You guys need English grammar lessons, as well as physics. Trying to twist the term pull to fit your fantasy, hilarious.

Yeah, we got your physics lesson, thanks. Hey, I think those guys at MIT would appreciate your guidance on Newton's laws of motion. You should send that physicsclassroom.com link over to Dr. Wierzbicki who directs the Impact and Crashworthiness Laboratory. He would probably really appreciate it. I don't think he gets Newton's laws which is a shame considering his profession.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Kerry was asked about an investigation into WTC7 and the connection with leasehold Larry Silverstein who publicly stated that the "decision was made to pull it," a term that refers to controlled demolition:

"I don't believe there's been a formal investigation. I haven't heard that; I don't know that. I do know that that wall, I remember, was in danger and I think they made the decision based on the danger that it had in destroying other things-- that they did it in a controlled fashion".



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
Hi lun

Nope, just post where a fireman used the words PULL IT September 11 2001.
If you can not save your breath and some cyber space here on ats.
Do you realize just how ignorant you reply???
later ljb

That's the whole point--they never said it. You're arguing against yourself now.

lun
Just to clarify. You now say that there was not one fireman on 911 that used the terminology, Pull It???
ataboy ljb



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Varemia
They said they got pulled out, they were ordered to pull, the decision was made to pull, and that's what they did, and they waited for the building to fall.


LOL but you got the words wrong.

They didn't wait for the building to collapse, no, they WATCHED the building collapse.

"And they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse."

Where does he say the fire fighters got pulled out? He didn't even mention the fire crews. You can not claim to know who 'they' were.

The fire crews were 'pulled out' long before the building collapsed. So why would he jump from that to an event that happened hours later? The fire fighters did not pull it, they pulled 'out', the demolition crew pulled 'it'.

'Pulled out' is not the same as 'pull it'. You guys need English grammar lessons, as well as physics. Trying to twist the term pull to fit your fantasy, hilarious.


How long were they "pulled" from WTC7 before collapse? According to many, 3-3:30PM.

Also, can you provide us with a list of controlled demolitions the NYFD has done in the past 30 years, with explosives while the building was burning?



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches


This is a good idea. But first ask him to help you out with your ignorance about what real firemen say about abandoning an operation.
He'll learn ya


Hmm, an operation is not a person. It is a thing. Hence, "pulling" an operation, you would say, "pulling" it. Basic grammar school English.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


You see, Now that's your problem. You continue to make reckless assumptions while lumping everyone that disagrees with your drivel all together. I never said those things. Not here in this thread, nor in anyother one. So get off your condescending highhorse bro. Like I said before, the fact that you question nothing and always fall in line with whatever your masters shovel your way just proves how much of a yes man, sheoplized robot slave you are. Course at the end of the day, being a fool is your business though.


~$heopleNation



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by longjohnbritches


This is a good idea. But first ask him to help you out with your ignorance about what real firemen say about abandoning an operation.
He'll learn ya


Hmm, an operation is not a person. It is a thing. Hence, "pulling" an operation, you would say, "pulling" it. Basic grammar school English.


No I would not.
It is good you have a back up plan in teaching basic grammer.
I think you'll do well. not
see ya



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


You're being awfully pedantic in order to continue believing that the evidence is irrelevant. You have to face the facts:

1. There was a lot of damage to the building.

2. The building was on fire for seven hours.

3. The firefighters were forced out of the area ~3 hours before the building fell.

4. They watched the building fall.

Now, you look at Silverstein's words after this and still see, "they made the decision to demo, and that's what they did, and they watched the building fall"?

You have to assume the following:

1. There were explosives already in the building.

2. The explosives were unharmed by the damage to the building and the 7 hour fire.

3. The explosives made no sound at all.

Who here is reaching, honestly?



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   

edit on 30-3-2012 by ReconX because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ANOK
 


You're being awfully pedantic in order to continue believing that the evidence is irrelevant. You have to face the facts:

1. There was a lot of damage to the building.



NIST said the damage had nothing to do with the collapse, and that fire is what caused the collapse.
From what i've seen it did not look like a massive amount of damage.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReconX
NIST said the damage had nothing to do with the collapse, and that fire is what caused the collapse.
From what i've seen it did not look like a massive amount of damage.


Stop trying to distract from reality. I don't give two craps what NIST said. The eyewitnesses say there was damage to the building, and the few post-impact pictures of the South side help back it up.

What we're talking about here are the facts. There was damage to the building, a great deal. That is a FACT. Understand FACTS? You are saying that you want me to believe that pre-planted demolition wiring was completely unharmed by the impact of chunks of the North Tower, and that the 7 HOURS of fire did nothing? You want me to believe that the firefighters were lying about recognizing the danger that Building 7 was in, and that they were lying about being pulled away for safety?

Why do you only believe your internal delusions?



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ANOK
 



3. The explosives made no sound at all.

Who here is reaching, honestly?


Witnesses did hear explosions. Some, have sadly, 'passed away'.
edit on 30-3-2012 by ReconX because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReconX

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ANOK
 



3. The explosives made no sound at all.

Who here is reaching, honestly?


Witnesses did hear explosions. Some, have sadly, 'passed away'.
edit on 30-3-2012 by ReconX because: (no reason given)


Witnesses heard booms and rumbling specifically DURING the collapse. Maybe this is hard for you to grasp, but tons of falling granite, concrete, and steel makes a little bit of noise when it hits stuff. Nobody heard anything prior to the collapse, and the videos back that up.

Didn't you know we have video with sound of the towers and Building 7?



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ANOK
 




3. The firefighters were forced out of the area ~3 hours before the building fell.

4. They watched the building fall.

Now, you look at Silverstein's words after this and still see, "they made the decision to demo, and that's what they did, and they watched the building fall"?


Hey varima

SMOOOCH couldn't find a smily for that!

Thanks for the quote.

Now let's see what makes me so HAPPY.

Your #3 above makes me happy.

If the fire fighters were pulled, jerked. yanked. or removed at 3pm as you say.
What the frukus were they pulling till 5pm ???? duh


So your # 4
Means that the building was totally empty
for at least TWO say it again Sam,
Two HOURS before LARRY said Pull It.

So why in the hubs of hell would anyone have to say
get the men out at 5pm when Larry said Pull It, to start DEMOLITION ???
Remember Larry said pull it and watched the building fall. 5pm
I know ANOK could have destroyed you himself.
sorry anok I had to do it.
edit on 3/30/2012 by longjohnbritches because: apology to anok



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
Hey varima

SMOOOCH couldn't find a smily for that!

Thanks for the quote.

Now let's see what makes me so HAPPY.

Your #3 above makes me happy.

If the fire fighters were pulled, jerked. yanked. or removed at 3pm as you say.
What the frukus were they pulling till 5pm ???? duh


So your # 4
Means that the building was totally empty
for at least TWO say it again Sam,
Two HOURS before LARRY said Pull It.

So why in the hubs of hell would anyone have to say
get the men out at 5pm when Larry said Pull It, to start DEMOLITION ???
Remember Larry said pull it and watched the building fall. 5pm
I know ANOK could have destroyed you himself.
sorry anok I had to do it.
edit on 3/30/2012 by longjohnbritches because: apology to anok


Your post doesn't make much sense. I think you misinterpreted something somewhere, but your syntax is so bad that I can't quite make out what point you're making. What the hell are you going on about? Are you trying to say that they managed to demo the building within a couple hours while firefighters and other first respondents all watched from a couple blocks away?



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


You say it doesn't, but It makes alot of sense to me as well. Yuh know what? They should pay you yes men, sheoplized robots for the drivel and spin that you respond with. It's almost as if you just choose to ignore simple facts, or maybe it's that you just lack the abiltiy to comprehend logic. ~$heopleNation



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by SheopleNation
reply to post by Varemia
 


You say it doesn't, but It makes alot of sense to me as well. Yuh know what? They should pay you yes men, sheoplized robots for the drivel and spin that you respond with. It's almost as if you just choose to ignore simple facts, or maybe it's that you just lack the abiltiy to comprehend logic. ~$heopleNation



Honestly, I would love to get paid for doing this. I try to be objective, and all I'm doing is researching the witnesses and reports from that day, poring over collections of pictures to see if I can find some detail that other people are missing. Yet every day, I return to this site attempting to find reason in the conspiracy arguments, when the arguments have to ignore very obvious evidence in order to hold water.

I just want the conspiracy to be solid, since I know that the government would legitimately do something like 9/11. It's not beyond the scope of a few people with the power and capability. I just haven't found any evidence for it yet, and the idea of controlled demolitions just doesn't match the evidence. Based on the factors necessary to validate a controlled demolition, the possibility is in-fact contradicted at many points.

The point of this particular thread was to dissect Silverstein's interview in which he used the words "pull it." Now, if you pull it out of context and act like a layman using slang, saying "pull it" can refer to pulling the building, especially given the next out-of-context line "we watched the building fall."

In context, Silverstein is talking about the firefighters. He says they had so much loss of life that maybe it was best to pull it, and the fire chief "made the decision to pull", and we watched the building fall. I can't see even a slight possibility of this meaning controlled demolition. He's cleared referring to the firefighting operation around Building 7, which had been showing signs of instability based on the accounts of other firefighters from that day. They said they heard creaking, the building looked like it was leaning, and it had a huge chunk torn out of it with fires on many floors, which burned for around 7 hours.

Please, enlighten me as to how I am missing something here.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by ReconX
NIST said the damage had nothing to do with the collapse, and that fire is what caused the collapse.
From what i've seen it did not look like a massive amount of damage.


What we're talking about here are the facts. There was damage to the building, a great deal. That is a FACT. Understand FACTS?



This is the damage.
Other buildings sustained more damage and fire without collapsing.





new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join