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.
Originally posted by longjohnbritches
Dave, why is everyone jumping on your jive?
I may be incorrect
I am new here but there is something I read about in the rules that says something like,
Don't be a moron use the QUOTE button.
if you use the Quote button you would have already answered your own question.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Originally posted by XLR8R
reply to post by GoodOlDave
Actualy it is a term used to demolish buildings. Loosly used it means to take out the supports. Originaly it means as as building's supports are taken out, an explosion inside the building is set off to burn the oxygen creating a vacuum that helps "pull" in debris. Where do I know this from...beat the heck out of me. I'll try to find a source for it.
Not actualy a source but pretty much what I'm saying
That isn't a source. That's unknown person A asking a question based upon the "pull it means controlled demolitions" claim because it's the whole reason why the person asked the question, and unknown person B responding with what he thinks "pull it" means, which again, comes entirely from what this person had heard what Silverstein was referring to by saying "pull it".
In short, over and over and over, everything points to this "pull it means controlled demolitions" definition coming about entirely because of everyone quoting Silverstein's "pull it" thing. In other words, THE DEFINITION NEVER EXISTED BEFORE HE SAID IT. It's this whole "Silverstein said 'pull it'" bit that put the term into our lexicon, not from any lingo that was supposed to exist before he said it.
There isn't much info on this.
Actually, there's NO information on this. There's just people who keep repeating "pull it means controlled demolitions" over and over without an inkling on whether it's even true or not. Why then am I unjustified in saying regardless of what he meant by "pull it", it does NOT refer to controlled demolitions and the term didn't even exist until the controlled demolitions proponents got hold of it?
Originally posted by drock905
you guys can't even admit that it's even possible the "it" meant the firefighting and rescue team? Really? You can't see that?
Originally posted by ANOK
Might have already been mentioned, but 'pull' is an old term to demo a building, I think we all agree on that? Well old terms like that stick, regardless of the technology or method changing.
Larry Silverstein made his fortune buying old complexes and re-building them. He has been involved in building demolition for years. He knows very well what 'pull it' means.
I thought we'd moved beyond this nonsense years ago. How about a thread on how the trusses pulled in the columns Dave? Don't forget to explain why the bolts didn't break first OK?
Originally posted by Clunky
So put it all together and what do you have?
Now that's odd, since I spoke with TWO fire fighters who confirmed it means "get the fire fighters out of a dangerous area". It comes from a term back before they used radios, where the teams outside would give the fire hoses a good hard pull as a signal to the teams inside to clear out.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Originally posted by Clunky
So put it all together and what do you have?
I'd say what we have is "misdirection". The question was about what "pull it" means, not about whether controlled demolitions actually brought down the buildings.
Where is it written that the towers can't have been destroyed by controlled demolitions AS WELL AS Alex Jones, Dylan Avery, et al can't be lying through their teeth when they say "pull it" is slang for controlled demolitions? Just because the glove didn't fit on OJ Simpson's hand it doesn't disprove the possibility the glove really was planted in addition to OJ Simpson really being a murderer. One doesn't necessarily cancel out the other.
For one thing, if "pull it" really isn't lingo for controlled demolitions like everyone says, wouldn't that suggest that Silverstein would actually be innocent and all these conspiracy theorists are just making stuff up to railroad him? You could even go so far as to say the real conspirators have invented the term themselves to put the blame on him and move attention away from themselves.
Something to think about.
Originally posted by XLR8R
I know it isn't a source. That's what I called the link. Now "Pulling" coming from a friends of mine comes from back in the day when they didn't use explossives. They demolished the the support columns and leave only the supporting walls. Then they would literally pull the building down. Now this sounds right. As a kid I remember tearing down my grand dad's barn just like that. Rip out the wall and cut most of the posts. Tie the tractor to the truss' and off we went. Pretty neet show.edit on 20-3-2012 by XLR8R because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Clunky
Ok so are you Larry Silversteins publicist or part of his family or something? Because you focusing so much attention on the words he used and trying to defend him at every chance you get makes no sense what so ever.
I think you are right the point is misdirection. You want people arguing about something as pointless as Larry Silversteins words while ignoring the hard evidence. Good job make a thread that wastes people's time so they get caught up arguing irrelevance with you.
The basic idea of explosive demolition is quite simple: If you remove the support structure of a building at a certain point, the section of the building above that point will fall down on the part of the building below that point. If this upper section is heavy enough, it will collide with the lower part with sufficient force to cause significant damage. The explosives are just the trigger for the demolition. It's gravity that brings the building down.
A Real Implosion? Strictly speaking, an implosion is an event where something collapses inward, because the external atmospheric pressure is greater than the internal pressure. For example, if you pumped the air out of a glass tube, it might implode. A building implosion isn't truly an implosion -- atmospheric pressure doesn't pull or push the structure inward, gravity makes it collapse. But the term implosion is in common use for this sort of demolition. In this article, we use the word this way.
Every time you jump, you experience gravity. It pulls you back down to the ground. Without gravity, you'd float off into the atmosphere -- along with all of the other matter on Earth.
You see gravity at work any time you drop a book, step on a scale or toss a ball up into the air. It's such a constant presence in our lives, we seldom marvel at the mystery of it -- but even with several well-received theories out there attempting to explain why a book falls to the ground (and at the same rate as a pebble or a couch, at that), they're still just theories. The mystery of gravity's pull is pretty much intact.
Webster’s Dictionary defines implosion as "a violent collapse inward". In the demolition industry, a blaster is usually trying to pull a structure away from adjacent exposures and towards an area large enough to contain the debris.
When this situation exists, the blaster has no choice; he must make the building collapse in on itself. This is by far the trickiest type of explosive demolition project, and there are only a handful of blasting companies in the world that possess enough experience—and insurance—to perform these true building implosions.
Originally posted by samkent
If TPTB control all the media how could something like that slip past the censors? It's not like it was aired live. There had to be one or more editors involved.
Why haven't the all powerfull censors forced all the websites remove that video of him saying 'pull it'?
Originally posted by drock905
reply to post by ANOK
That's your opinion and that's completely fine we will agree to disagree. When I read the firefighters testimony saying and see a building missing a third of its structure at the base it's not really that fantastic that it collapsed in my opinion.
Stacy Loizeaux: No. The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion." There are a series of small explosions, but the building itself isn't erupting outward. It's actually being pulled in on top of itself. What we're really doing is removing specific support columns within the structure and then cajoling the building in one direction or another, or straight down.