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: 41
17
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Monkeygod333
 


Why don't you open a thread with a "big fact"? That would be fun.




posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Monkeygod333
 


Why don't you open a thread with a "big fact"? That would be fun.


"Big Fact" like Barry Jennings?



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ReconX
 


If you think it is one of them, sure make a topic about it.
edit on 31-3-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ReconX

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Monkeygod333
 


Why don't you open a thread with a "big fact"? That would be fun.


"Big Fact" like Barry Jennings?


Yes, Barry Jennings gave interesting accounts of what it was like to be in WTC 7 when the North Tower fell and clobbered it.

Have you timed the collapse of WTC 7 yourself yet ? Or are you still sticking with Richard Gage and burying your head in the sand ?



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Why is anyone bothering to debate GoodOlDave? This guy is a disinfo troll and a mainstream dupe. This guy doesn't know anything. Hey Dave, if you don't believe in the 9/11 conspiracies, why do you put so much effort into refuting and debunking the alternative theories? It would be my bet that this guy is a state sponsored disinformer probably under the office of information and regulatory affairs Cass Sunstein who wrote the article on Cognitive Infiltration of conspiracy related groups and websites.

-1



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by Varemia
 



It's already been explained why fire could not have caused the collapse into its own footprint.


It really hasn't.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by RadioactiveRob
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Why is anyone bothering to debate GoodOlDave? This guy is a disinfo troll and a mainstream dupe. This guy doesn't know anything. Hey Dave, if you don't believe in the 9/11 conspiracies, why do you put so much effort into refuting and debunking the alternative theories?


Ummm, because they're based entirely upon the lies, innuendo dropping, and distortions peddled by a bunch of internet con artists like Alex Jones and Dylan Avery? I've been looking into this and the nearest I can tell, it looks like this entire "pull it is lingo for controlled demolitions" was invented by Alex Jones and he embellished it by quoting the engineers demolishing building 6. What he DOESN'T tell you is that he was cutting and pasting it out of a conversation about pulling it down with cables. In the artful way he did it there's no way he can NOT know he's pushing a lie.

...and then you people come along and mindlessly swallow everything those damned fool conspiracy web sites say as if it was the word of God. Look at this very thread and you'll see FORTY pages of people bickering over double and triple meanings behind "pull it", "pull them", and "Pull down" in desperation from not wanting to abandon their conspiracy stories. This, despite the fact you've been given irrefutable proof the claim is ridiculous, both from references from demolitions industry material and from the simple fact that fire fighters aren't involved in controlled demolitions.

You don't see the needless, pointless bickering the circulation of outright fake information is causing? I mean, really?


It would be my bet that this guy is a state sponsored disinformer probably under the office of information and regulatory affairs Cass Sunstein who wrote the article on Cognitive Infiltration of conspiracy related groups and websites.


There, you see? Every time something comes along that threatens your belief in your beloved conspiracy stories you aways imagine there are all these "armies of sinister secret agents" boogeymen coming to get you. Fire fighters are in on the conspiracy. The FBI, the CIA, and the NYPD are in on the conspiracy. NIST, FEMA, MIT, and Perdue are all in on it. The FAA, NATO and NORAD are in on the conspiracy. I've even heard some people accuse the Red Cross of being in on the conspiracy. So, of course- BIG SURPRISE- I'm in on the conspiracy too. This is all just another way of saying there is literally NO evidence on the planet that will ever convince you that your conspiracy theoroes are a hoax and that crackpot Alex Jones is lying to you.

This isn't research. It's a religious zeal to convert others into believing what you want to believe regardless of whether it's even true or not...and you actually need to ask why I'm debunking these theories of yours?



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
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.


This is an old claim, explosives are perfectly safe in a burning building...



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.


There's many factors as to why he may of mentioned it but we can't explore those possibilities without more information.




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.


There are no facts here, just story telling. There is no evidence of these conversations between Larry and an unknown fire department commander as claimed. Larry has never confirmed who he spoke to and I don't believe that spin from his lawyers. They're just covering his ass, that's their job and you swallowed it.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious

Originally posted by GenRadek
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.


This is an old claim, explosives are perfectly safe in a burning building...



Thats not what it says here :-

library.enlisted.info...



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious
 


This is an old claim, explosives are perfectly safe in a burning building...



Masterful attempt at bait and switch. What he was referring to is that these "sinister secret agents" aren't robots. Noone in their right mind is going to hang around inside a burning, creaking building and be planting demolitions when flaming debris can come crashing down on them or the flooring can give way beneath their feet at any moment, regardless of how sinister they are or how secret of an organization it is they work for. Fire never cared about any of the other victims it claims every year so why would fire care about these imagined demolitions experts of yours?


There are no facts here, just story telling. There is no evidence of these conversations between Larry and an unknown fire department commander as claimed. Larry has never confirmed who he spoke to and I don't believe that spin from his lawyers. They're just covering his ass, that's their job and you swallowed it.


If that's the case then this whole "pull it" discussion is moot because it didn't happen and he didn't say pull it to anyone to begin with.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by Varemia
 



It's already been explained why fire could not have caused the collapse into its own footprint.


It really hasn't.


Wow you guys get better and better at debating this.


So tell me, fire expert, how does a fire induced collapse mimic an implosion demolition, and land mostly in its own footprint?

You wouldn't know the explanation if it smacked you as to why it couldn't. But then when you simply deny what you don't want to be true, you don't have to explain anything. That is called being intellectually dishonest.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by Varemia
 



It's already been explained why fire could not have caused the collapse into its own footprint.


It really hasn't.


Wow you guys get better and better at debating this.


So tell me, fire expert, how does a fire induced collapse mimic an implosion demolition, and land mostly in its own footprint?


There are a number of possible (and contradictory) explanations for why it fell the way it did...but none of that shows how "pull it" isn't just some internet meme that is treated as fact entirely becuause it's been repeated ad nauseum. Peope keep repeating "Play it again Sam" despite the quote never actually appearing in Casdablanca, and yet acknowledging the fact certainly doesn't imply the film Casablanca doesn't really exist.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


So do you have any proof that larry and the fire marshall talked? Just curious if it exists.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
The 9/11 conspiracy that criminal elements with the U.S. govt pulled off the attacks is well founded, it's not a belief.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
It does not mean demolish the building. The 9-11 truthers are crazy everyone knows tower 7 fell because of the small fire. It was not demolished only a crazy downer would think that.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

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.


heh, again that's a bad analogy of what Larry is saying. A better one is comparing it like someone admitting yes they cheated on their wife and we have the evidence that suggested it (lipstick on the collar) but protecting the identity of his lover by saying 'oh it was some hooker i didn't know' when in fact it's his wife's best friend. It's credible that he cheated yes, but not credible that it was 'some hooker' purely because he said so...




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.


Not in laymen's terms, I demonstrated that a few posts back. I believe Larry meant pull it down, like when a building is brought down purposefully.




...but since Chief Nigro and deputy Chief Hayden were physically there and they both give thumbs down to these controlled demolitions claims


So did I to begin with..


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?


I'm surprised if you haven't already found it (the source).



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   
i said it once and i'll say it again, since when did people start referring to firefighters as "it". if they were talking about firefighters wouldent they use the word "them"? cause from my time in school ive deduced that "it" is referring to an inanimate object and last i checked firefighters are not inanimate objects.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave


Masterful attempt at bait and switch. What he was referring to is that these "sinister secret agents" aren't robots. Noone in their right mind is going to hang around inside a burning, creaking building and be planting demolitions when flaming debris can come crashing down on them or the flooring can give way beneath their feet at any moment, regardless of how sinister they are or how secret of an organization it is they work for. Fire never cared about any of the other victims it claims every year so why would fire care about these imagined demolitions experts of yours?


I never said demo experts were planting explosives in the building whilst it was on fire so I don't know what you're ranting about.

Funnily though I do recall Larry said his people were in the building in the afternoon checking out the damage but it wasn't the fire department, so it was probably his own so called 'security' team. WTC7 was on fire before the afternoon as the north tower was down by 10:30...

edit on 31-3-2012 by Insolubrious because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
John Kerry knows who Larry is and understood the plan for WTC7, he was told they had to bring it down (wtc7) in a 'controlled fashion' because it was in danger of damaging other things.

Are you familiar with this recording?


edit on 31-3-2012 by Insolubrious because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious


This is an old claim, explosives are perfectly safe in a burning building...


Are you sure?





There's many factors as to why he may of mentioned it but we can't explore those possibilities without more information.


It's reasonable to ask why Silverstein admitted to it if it was supposed to be a coverup. Because it makes it wildly improbable that he meant what you claim he did. Unless you think people are in the habit of owning up to their crimes by mistake. On TV.



There are no facts here, just story telling. There is no evidence of these conversations between Larry and an unknown fire department commander as claimed. Larry has never confirmed who he spoke to and I don't believe that spin from his lawyers. They're just covering his ass, that's their job and you swallowed it.


You've swallowed the nonsense from the conspiracy profiteers is all that's happened. For you to believe that Silverstein meant that the building should be detonated you have to believe that

- he would accidentally admit it on camera

- the fire chiefs are in on the ruse. Indeed all the firemen who claim they thought the building would collapse and remain solidly unsurprised that it did must be lying to support the conspiracy

- buildings can be detonated with highly irregular patterns of explosives some of which go off hours before the fall (an historic first)

- the conspirators thought that building seven was worth destroying in public and that they were lucky enough to have debris land on it and fires start. Otherwise it would have just fallen down from nothing


Obviously you have no issue with telling yourself that this stuff is plausible. But you probably shouldn't be surprised that such a small number of people share your concerns



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join