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: 46
17
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kluute
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Pull it down?
Tear it down?
Bring it down?

Regardless of what that guy said, It couldn't have been anybody but the US Government, the evidence is overwhelming.

I can't believe its been over 10 years and people still believe otherwise.

God bless america!


Hmmm. From what I've seen the bulk of the 9/11 conspiracy population actually thinks "the evidence is overwhelming" that Israel is behind the operation, with the "dancing Israelis", Silverstein being Jewish, all the Jews supposedly being told to stay home on 9/11, etc etc etc. Apparently, not even the might of the US gov't is any serious comparison to the "Zionist World Order". That makes you "the US gov't is behind 9/11" people the minority.

Would you mind explaining this? I'm just a goose stepping sheeple who drinks the CNN Kool-Aid, after all. All I know is what you truthers are telling me.




posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by humphreysjim
It doesn't even make sense.

If they've had a great loss of life, how would causing the building to collapse via explosives help that?

Also, is the thought that Silverstein just accidently gave away the whole conspiracy for a documentary? Are we imagining he's that stupid?

"Don't say it was a CTD, don't say it was a CTD, don't say it was a CTD...OOPS!!!"

He's already said what he meant by it, it seems pretty feasible it meant "pull the firefighters out and give it up", so why jump to the ridiculous conclusion that he gave the game away using a very obscure term that, as you say, does not even mean "bring down via controlled demolition"?


"pull the firefighters out and give it up" makes no sense in connection with "pull it". Yes, I would believe that Silverstein let it slip that they were going to bring the building down. They were winging it all day long. They had their plan, but in a day of chaos, something was bound to slip. Just like the next day when Rumsfeld said that a missile hit the Pentagon. That was no mistake. Nobody would mistake a missile for a passenger airplane.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies

Originally posted by Oannes
Read Jim Marrs book on 9/11. Im pretty sure he goes into detail on the things that were actually said and done on that day. World trade center 7 was never struck by an airplane, keep that in mind. What was the biggest story before 9/11...Enron anyone. And guess which building housed the Enron papers...WTC7. Connect the dots.
edit on 20-3-2012 by Oannes because: (no reason given)


WTC also housed many records that were needed for a large scale Department of Defense investigation into where BILLIONS of dollars of defense budget had mysteriously disappeared to, and shortly after 9/11, that investigation was dropped also.


Exactly, just the day before on September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld held a press conference and stated that they cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions and had a big wonderful plan about overhauling the way the Department of Defense operates. So much for that missing $2.3 TRILLION.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by canselmi
I'm with you. Not only is "Pull It" not an industry standard phrase, but the quote of Silverstein saying it comes after the fact. If he had been recorded in real time saying 'pull it', then maybe the truther's would have a leg to stand on. But he wasn't, he was recounting what happened and more than likely paraphrased how the conversation went.

I realize that a lot of the official story doesn't add up or make sense, but it really bugs me when people point out a insignificant detail and say "Look! There's the smoking gun. It was absolutely an inside job!"


Silverstein said that's what he said on that day at that time. He was quoting himself.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
Hi hump
I am not sure what you are saying doesn't make sense???
What I can find is that no firemen that I know would use the term. pull it


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.

Granted, this may be more prevalent with older fire fighters who were around back when they didn't have radios yet...like the firefighter officers Silverstein talked to...but that's neither here nor there. I asked for someone to show references for why "pull it" mean CONTROLLED DEMOLITONS, and noone has been able to provide anything except reasons for why they want to believe that's what it means.

After all, I can post for example, an actual reference that shows "jarhead" is slang for a United States Marine. Would you like to see it?


Yeah right. Like anybody would be using a old phrase that was used before radio. Talk about a stretch. It's funny how you official story people say the connection of "pull it" and controlled demolition is far fetched, take a look at all of your explanations trying to debunk it.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerimar65
Yeah right. Like anybody would be using a old phrase that was used before radio. Talk about a stretch. It's funny how you official story people say the connection of "pull it" and controlled demolition is far fetched, take a look at all of your explanations trying to debunk it.


How are you so sure? I imagine that unless you talked to the fire department, it is indeed a possibility.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

6.9 second into its own footprint


Oops.


Oops what? Subtract the 6 seconds between the start of the collapse of the penthouse section and the start of the collapse of the main structure from the 13 seconds of total demolition time and you have about 7 seconds.

Tell me, who built WTC 7? A child with an erector set?
edit on 2-4-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-4-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)


Yeah. And if you subtract three seconds from the start of the fall of the main structure you get 3.9 seconds.

Why would you do that though?



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus


Visual evidence doesn't matter with these would-be debunkers.


It matters to me. And it mattered to the firefighters who described visual evidence that made them think the tower would fall.

Why did they do this if they couldn't have known it would come down? And why do they continue to endorse the OS version of the collapse? Are they in on it?



It wouldn't matter if the building fell in 7 seconds or 13 seconds


Then why did you mention the time of the collapse?


the building's owner admitted giving the order to take it down. D


Why would he do this? If it was a conspiracy then what reason can you give for him admitting it on camera?



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

My wild guess is the fire fighters were not supposed to know WTC 7 was coming down, but the word got out. Their lives were thankfully saved.

So NO the fire fighters were not in on it. Stop trying to claim we think they were, and stop claiming we ignore your stupid questions.


That's a very wild guess, and one that flies in the face of the facts. No firefighter mentions "word getting out". On the contrary they give detailed accounts of why the visual evidence made them think the building would fall. And then it did.

I know it's inconvenient for your theory that they must be implicated, and that's why every time it's mentioned you poison the well with lots of unrelated material, but unfortunately it's a necessary component of your thinking. At least have the intellectual honesty to admit that.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Hi trick,
I hope you checked your in box and got the message from Springer.
I for one am sick and tired of you mentioning that myself and other members here say (or type)negitive things about firemen.
So be fore warned, I won't put up with it unless you provide a Quote.
I liar makes accusation about another that are not true.
I think it wise for you to stay on topic and not rant on meaninglessly as that behavior is frowned upon in Springers message to you.
Larry used the term Pull It because it would be a term he grew up with.
He is no spring chick. Old dogs don't learn new tricks.
ljb
edit on 4/4/2012 by longjohnbritches because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Hi trick,
I hope you checked your in box and got the message from Springer.


I got a link to a thread about racism. He's obviously not referring to something I or any debunker here wrote.

He may have in mind some of the Truther antisemitism, I don't know.


I for one am sick and tired of you mentioning that myself and other members here say (or type)negitive things about firemen.


You spelled negative wrong.

Your argument requires the fire personnel to be involved in the conspiracy. Perhaps you should just have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that. But since you're the sort of person who is trying to pretend a general mod warning about bigotry is aimed at your interlocutors in this thread, I imagine you may struggle with such sophisticated thinking.


So be fore warned, I won't put up with it unless you provide a Quote.


Yawn. You've seen the quotes. Time and again.

And what do you mean you "won't put up with it"? Will you go running to your mummy again?


I liar makes accusation about another that are not true.


Nope. No sense there whatsoever. "I liar"? You literally are unable to write basic English.


I think it wise for you to stay on topic and not rant on meaninglessly as that behavior is frowned upon in Springers message to you.


It is germane to the discussion that you think that the firemen are capable of being involved in the conspiracy. Because it is unlikely, and really a smear. Just because you don't have the courage to admit it to yourself doesn't make it anymore edifying.

And this attempt to characterise the message from Springer as aimed at me? As I said, it's beyond pathetic.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerimar65
Yeah right. Like anybody would be using a old phrase that was used before radio. Talk about a stretch. It's funny how you official story people say the connection of "pull it" and controlled demolition is far fetched, take a look at all of your explanations trying to debunk it.


What do you mean? Silverstein was supposedly talking to the NYFD fire command when he said it, and if anyone would know about pe-radio firefigher slang it would be NYFD commanders who were in the fire department for forty years. On the other hand, Silverstein was a real estate developer so he wouldn't have known demolitions technician lingo either. The IT he was referring to may just as well have been his way of saying "pull the plug on the attempt to rescue the building".

Not that it matters, since everything I've seen shows this "pull it is lingo for controlled demeolitions" is a completely made up internet meme invented by Alex Jones. You know, THIS guy:



...and this bit only came about after 9/11, and specifically because of 9/11. Silverstein specifically said in a followup interview that he was referring to preventing any further loss of life, so at the end of the day it has definitively been proven he was NOT referring to demolitions.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Hi dav,
Since you think firemen use Pull It all the time.
Show just one of your examples that you must have a stack of
where ANY fireman used the trem PULL IT
ON THE DAY OF SEPT 11 2001.
ljb



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade







[quoe/]

Your argument requires the fire personnel to be involved in the conspiracy. Perhaps you should just have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that. But since you're the sort of person who is trying to pretend a general mod warning about bigotry is aimed at your interlocutors in this thread, I imagine you may struggle with such sophisticated thinking.



It is germane to the discussion that you think that the firemen are capable of being involved in the conspiracy. Because it is unlikely, and really a smear. Just because you don't have the courage to admit it to yourself doesn't make it anymore edifying.




------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------
This is what is beyond pathetic.
Your germaine arrguement bout what YOU tink I tink.
You fail again. QUOTE or remain a mere SPINSTER.
edit on 4/4/2012 by longjohnbritches because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/4/2012 by longjohnbritches because: edit

edit on 4/4/2012 by longjohnbritches because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Hi dav,
Since you think firemen use Pull It all the time.
Show just one of your examples that you must have a stack of
where ANY fireman used the trem PULL IT
ON THE DAY OF SEPT 11 2001.
ljb


On the flip side, since you think demo people use it all the time, why don't you provide an example where it was used. Go ahead, no one's stopping you.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Hi dav,
Since you think firemen use Pull It all the time.
Show just one of your examples that you must have a stack of
where ANY fireman used the trem PULL IT
ON THE DAY OF SEPT 11 2001.
ljb

PS BTW I will repost my questions to dav if he does not reply to them.

On the flip side, since you think demo people use it all the time, why don't you provide an example where it was used. Go ahead, no one's stopping you.


The flip side would be Larry Silverstine.
Have you ever checked out his childhood, pre and teen years, early adult hood ,Connections with people that have been pulling it for a long time.????
Post em up son.
edit on 4/4/2012 by longjohnbritches because: repost to dav



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
The flip side would be Larry Silverstine.
Have you ever checked out his childhood, pre and teen years, early adult hood ,Connections with people that have been pulling it for a long time.????
Post em up son.
edit on 4/4/2012 by longjohnbritches because: repost to dav


Unless you really are that dense, you would know that Larry Silverstein's quote is what we're debating in the first place! It's not certain that it was used to refer to demolition, especially given the context in which he was talking about loss of life and the firefighters. They made the decision to "pull," with no 'it' attached to it, and they watched the building fall, since obviously there was nothing else they could do. That's my perspective, so obviously you haven't even a single other instance of the use of the words "pull it," and it has never been used to refer to demolishing a building.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by ReconX
 

What about the video and photographic evidence that shows this?


There is no video or photographic evidence that shows this, that's why I acknowledge it's a theory.

The difference though is that NIST didn't just say "duh, the building fell, it much have been bombs" and then run away giggling like Richard Gage does. They attempted to reverse engineer the collapse that fits the know evidence I.E. the structural design, eyewitness accounts, NYPD photographs, and video...as well as that weird way the penthouse collapsed. What they wound up with that replicates how the north face collapsed is a model of the south face collapsing inward, so the penthouse didn't actually just fall down into the interior of the structure, it actually toppled over at the same time the south face folded in.

Although even NIST admits this is an educated guess, it does bring up the interesting question of "what makes you so sure the south side fell the exact same way as the north side if you don't have any evidence one way or the other"?


Well i know for damn sure it didn't collapse like the NIST model!




A collapse due to fire, and to end up like this is impossible!




posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Kluute
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Pull it down?
Tear it down?
Bring it down?

Regardless of what that guy said, It couldn't have been anybody but the US Government, the evidence is overwhelming.

I can't believe its been over 10 years and people still believe otherwise.

God bless america!


I'm just a goose stepping sheeple who drinks the CNN Kool-Aid, after all.


This is Reality finally the TRUTH from ,
GOOSE STEPPING SHEEPLE who drinks the cnn kool-aid,
Who is this guy ???? WHY it is goodolddave every body.
FIREMAN BASHER



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Kluute
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Pull it down?
Tear it down?
Bring it down?

Regardless of what that guy said, It couldn't have been anybody but the US Government, the evidence is overwhelming.

I can't believe its been over 10 years and people still believe otherwise.

God bless america!


Hmmm. From what I've seen the bulk of the 9/11 conspiracy population actually thinks "the evidence is overwhelming" that Israel is behind the operation, with the "dancing Israelis", Silverstein being Jewish, all the Jews supposedly being told to stay home on 9/11, etc etc etc. Apparently, not even the might of the US gov't is any serious comparison to the "Zionist World Order". That makes you "the US gov't is behind 9/11" people the minority.

Would you mind explaining this? I'm just a goose stepping sheeple who drinks the CNN Kool-Aid, after all. All I know is what you truthers are telling me.



Personally I don't believe any of the rubbish about Israel behind 911 but they must have known in advance.

You say that, " Apparently, not even the might of the US gov't is any serious comparison to the "Zionist World Order"".
But you believe that 19 idiots with box cutters, sent by a man who is from the dark ages, and lives in a cave, brought the might of the USA to it's knees?




top topics



 
17
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join