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: 52
17
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by humphreysjim
reply to post by Myendica
 


Excellent, then we can both agree Larry is stupid enough to use "it" instead of "them", and there we have our explanation.

Case solved! And all it took was a little teamwork.


Well, obviously your job is done here. Nothing more to see,

move along folks...


What a couple antisemitic posts.
You say Larry Silverstine is STUPID???




posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
All this wet blanket of shotgun theory, just to say "warning signs"????
That is tatamount to saying,
BEWARE of sharp objects, hot things, loose women, wooden nickles, spooks, trolls
and people who work for Sunstine. Which IMO would serve humans and freaks from otta space way better. Did you hear anyone say PULL IT????? no
any help here ljb


You sound like you're just riffing without any kind of argument. Did you actually have a legitimate issue with my post that I could correct for the future? I am willing to learn and change my mind if I'm proven wrong. Some of what I posted was stuff that I haven't personally verified (though I really should. I have an audio program, so maybe I'd find something)



You know what you should learn (and I mean this sincerely)? To ignore people like this. Because all they do is sniper-post looking for negative attention and conflict.
We used to have an ignore option on here (LOVED that!) but seeing we no longer....just do with 99% of us do, scroll right past his/her posts
They're not worth it!



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


So rather than refute or address the post I made to the person that was woefully lacking in fire knowledge, and the confusion about how fire affects steel structures, you go off on a rant about me, complaining that I want people to actually get some real research done and stop wallowing in the garbage the "Truth" Movement puts out as "truth". I have yet to see anything true come out from the "Truth" Movement, except for maybe the date. But 99.9999999% of everything else? Apcray!

What Freudian slip? Larry was talking with the fire dept. Maybe you can direct me to a page where the NYFD does controlled demolitions of massive burning buildings with explosives. Or at least something that states their licensed ability to blow up buildings.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


So rather than refute or address the post I made to the person that was woefully lacking in fire knowledge, and the confusion about how fire affects steel structures, you go off on a rant about me, complaining that I want people to actually get some real research done and stop wallowing in the garbage the "Truth" Movement puts out as "truth". I have yet to see anything true come out from the "Truth" Movement, except for maybe the date. But 99.9999999% of everything else? Apcray!

What Freudian slip? Larry was talking with the fire dept. Maybe you can direct me to a page where the NYFD does controlled demolitions of massive burning buildings with explosives. Or at least something that states their licensed ability to blow up buildings.



Psssst. If you haven't noticed, this person argues with everyone about every position. Truthers. Defenders. Deniers. Believers. OS-thumpers.
I have read enough posts to see what his/her modus operandi is.........and that's positioning him/herself into combat and conflict at every turn.
I give him/her a few more days until the Mods see-through this too



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Your missing something sir, you said you have seen the 9/11 conspiracy proponents say the predominant reason they believe in these "controlled demoliitons" accusations is because Silversten said "Pull it". I am a truther and when I am telling people why I personally believe that 9/11 was an inside job...I have never brought this up because it is simply not compelling enough...so what I am saying is you need to go check your sources again because what you are saying in regards to this being the most predominent reason as to why 9/11 conspiracy proponents believe in the "controlled demolitions" is completely false, at least for me it is. What about the near free fall speed, or the blatant explosions 10 floors under the rubble of falling debris, or the numerous reports by surrounding firefighters and cops who claimed to have heard extra explosions aside from the obvious planes exploding. It is absolutely nieve to come here and say that the only thing we have to back up the towers being brought down in a controlled demolition is something that Silverstein said...which kinda contradicts the whole "Deny Ignorance" motto on this site...just saying.

-TrollerTrollzo



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


So rather than refute or address the post I made to the person that was woefully lacking in fire knowledge, and the confusion about how fire affects steel structures, you go off on a rant about me, complaining that I want people to actually get some real research done and stop wallowing in the garbage the "Truth" Movement puts out as "truth". I have yet to see anything true come out from the "Truth" Movement, except for maybe the date. But 99.9999999% of everything else? Apcray!

What Freudian slip? Larry was talking with the fire dept. Maybe you can direct me to a page where the NYFD does controlled demolitions of massive burning buildings with explosives. Or at least something that states their licensed ability to blow up buildings.

Dude
You need to be in mind of what you say, he says they say etc.
All I know is Larry uttered by his own addmission Pull IT and we watched the building fall. Pull It was not used by firemen all the day of 911.
YOU GOT a PROBLEM with THAT???
see a guy with a couch ljb



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 01:06 AM
link   
The only thing I can think of him meaning was to F-word it, but said pull in the interview to sound professional. Nothing else really makes sense in the context..


edit on 7-4-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by trollertrollzo
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Your missing something sir, you said you have seen the 9/11 conspiracy proponents say the predominant reason they believe in these "controlled demoliitons" accusations is because Silversten said "Pull it". I am a truther and when I am telling people why I personally believe that 9/11 was an inside job...I have never brought this up because it is simply not compelling enough...so what I am saying is you need to go check your sources again because what you are saying in regards to this being the most predominent reason as to why 9/11 conspiracy proponents believe in the "controlled demolitions" is completely false, at least for me it is. What about the near free fall speed, or the blatant explosions 10 floors under the rubble of falling debris, or the numerous reports by surrounding firefighters and cops who claimed to have heard extra explosions aside from the obvious planes exploding. It is absolutely nieve to come here and say that the only thing we have to back up the towers being brought down in a controlled demolition is something that Silverstein said...which kinda contradicts the whole "Deny Ignorance" motto on this site...just saying.

-TrollerTrollzo






I totally agree.
Silversteins' comment is interesting and intriguing but it's almost a moot point. That interview is hardly woth discussing. Just like Rumsfeld's 'missile' or GW claiming to see the first plane comments. We don't need comments. We're past that!

We collectively pieced together events leading up to that day, that day itself and certainly the following days/weeks/months to conclude 9-11 was an inside job and not that of Osama binLaden.

Trust us, we don't need "Pull It" in our arsenal. We have enough ammunition



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
The only thing I can think of him meaning was to F-word it, but said pull in the interview to sound professional. Nothing else really makes sense in the context..


edit on 7-4-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)


Nice try


Larry went on to explain that comment when the controversy first started. He said he meant to 'pull the firemen out of the building'.
So another words "It" equals "men"

Nice to meet you but I do believe you have some catchin' up to do my friend



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


Heh, I lost interest in the truther movement 5 years ago. Too much blind faith involved.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


Heh, I lost interest in the truther movement 5 years ago. Too much blind faith involved.



Sorry to hear that

There has been purposefully placed shills within 'the movement' to make us look absolutely kooky at times. You just had to know when to move on.

But hey, good luck in the NWO



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


So in other words, even though we have numerous accounts of firefighters saying they got pulled from WTC7 and the Pile prior to collapse, and that pulling an operation would be considered "it", and the fact Larry was talking with the fire dept and THEY made the decision to pull the operations from around WTC7, and that the only mention of any "pulling" in and around WTC7 involved WTC6 with cables, you STILL believe that Larry was talking about blowing up WTC7 with the NYFD?


Ok, so a firefighter didnt say "pull it" specifically, but you are going to purposely ignore the countless other times they mention getting pulled from the area, etc etc etc? My goodness, I do not know how one can take you seriously. Are you suggesting that the NYFD does explosive demolition? Yes or no would suffice.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


So in other words, even though we have numerous accounts of firefighters saying they got pulled from WTC7 and the Pile prior to collapse, and that pulling an operation would be considered "it", and the fact Larry was talking with the fire dept and THEY made the decision to pull the operations from around WTC7, and that the only mention of any "pulling" in and around WTC7 involved WTC6 with cables, you STILL believe that Larry was talking about blowing up WTC7 with the NYFD?


Ok, so a firefighter didnt say "pull it" specifically, but you are going to purposely ignore the countless other times they mention getting pulled from the area, etc etc etc? My goodness, I do not know how one can take you seriously. Are you suggesting that the NYFD does explosive demolition? Yes or no would suffice.

Dude

The only contribution you have here is, educating the members, on how to reconize a troll, stiff, hack or a person in distress.
I have purposly distanced myself from firemen in this LARRY thread.
I know these guys like you know spin. They are the BEAUTIFUL ONES.
They are the angel that wraps you in thier arms when the smoke has all but taken your last breath, They are the ones that find your child amongst the burning rubble. They are the black silouetts in the BLAZES from sea to shining sea.
They are the folks that can chew you and spit you into a a pit of reason.
get a hart Merry Band of BEND



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien
Trust us, we don't need "Pull It" in our arsenal. We have enough ammunition



Funny thing is, this is pretty much the conclusion for every bit of ammunition you have. Once one piece of "evidence" is debunked or at least has a plausible alternative explanation, truthers point to the huge pile of other evidence, so that they don't need that one bit of evidence anymore. Ignoring the fact that all that other evidence is equally bad.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by Human_Alien
Trust us, we don't need "Pull It" in our arsenal. We have enough ammunition



Funny thing is, this is pretty much the conclusion for every bit of ammunition you have. Once one piece of "evidence" is debunked or at least has a plausible alternative explanation, truthers point to the huge pile of other evidence, so that they don't need that one bit of evidence anymore. Ignoring the fact that all that other evidence is equally bad.

Oh it is quite the opposite. There is such a mountainous pile of evidence that the OS is a fairy tale, that it is nearly impossible to find ONE SINGLE SHRED of the story that can stand up to scrutiny. I mean, one would think, that if this was really done by 19 morons with boxcutters, that there would be maybe one thing that could prove it. But instead, you had 9 of them showing up within a week to claim they were still alive. That is one of the COUNTLESS things that you quasi-debunkers have ignored and never addressed.

The icing on the cake would be ALL THAT TESTIMONY AT THE 911 JOKE HEARINGS that got THROWN OUT. IF we had a REAL trial and a REAL investigation, this whole damn cabal would be hanging from the lightpoles on every Main Street in America. It's really easy to sit back in your armchair and defend these mofos when you KNOW that they own the whole freakin circus. And as I told Radek, all of this makes you COMPLICIT TO THE CRIME and ENEMIES OF THE HUMAN RACE.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
Oh it is quite the opposite. There is such a mountainous pile of evidence that the OS is a fairy tale, that it is nearly impossible to find ONE SINGLE SHRED of the story that can stand up to scrutiny. I mean, one would think, that if this was really done by 19 morons with boxcutters, that there would be maybe one thing that could prove it. But instead, you had 9 of them showing up within a week to claim they were still alive. That is one of the COUNTLESS things that you quasi-debunkers have ignored and never addressed.


Excellent example of bad evidence (though in fact any truther argument would do). The story that 9 hijackers were still alive is just big nonsense. Sure, people with the same name exist. That does not mean that it is the same person.

For some reason, many truthers ignore this very simply, very logical and very likely explanation.


The icing on the cake would be ALL THAT TESTIMONY AT THE 911 JOKE HEARINGS that got THROWN OUT. IF we had a REAL trial and a REAL investigation, this whole damn cabal would be hanging from the lightpoles on every Main Street in America. It's really easy to sit back in your armchair and defend these mofos when you KNOW that they own the whole freakin circus. And as I told Radek, all of this makes you COMPLICIT TO THE CRIME and ENEMIES OF THE HUMAN RACE.


So why don't truther start a trial? (hint: it has to do with the evidence. More specifically, the lack there of).



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
Oh it is quite the opposite. There is such a mountainous pile of evidence that the OS is a fairy tale, that it is nearly impossible to find ONE SINGLE SHRED of the story that can stand up to scrutiny. I mean, one would think, that if this was really done by 19 morons with boxcutters, that there would be maybe one thing that could prove it. But instead, you had 9 of them showing up within a week to claim they were still alive. That is one of the COUNTLESS things that you quasi-debunkers have ignored and never addressed.


Excellent example of bad evidence (though in fact any truther argument would do). The story that 9 hijackers were still alive is just big nonsense. Sure, people with the same name exist. That does not mean that it is the same person.

For some reason, many truthers ignore this very simply, very logical and very likely explanation.


The icing on the cake would be ALL THAT TESTIMONY AT THE 911 JOKE HEARINGS that got THROWN OUT. IF we had a REAL trial and a REAL investigation, this whole damn cabal would be hanging from the lightpoles on every Main Street in America. It's really easy to sit back in your armchair and defend these mofos when you KNOW that they own the whole freakin circus. And as I told Radek, all of this makes you COMPLICIT TO THE CRIME and ENEMIES OF THE HUMAN RACE.


So why don't truther start a trial? (hint: it has to do with the evidence. More specifically, the lack there of).

You are either completely disconnected with reality, are a paid troll, or worse, are doing it for free.

Go to Sibel Edmonds website and get yourself an education on real evidence that was thrown out and to top it off, death threats and gag orders ensued.

Go ahead, keep defending these slimeballs. You're making your statement on where you stand, so maybe you can go join them when they get shipped off to some remote island off the coast of Nome Alaska.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by SimontheMagus


NIST?? You're kidding, right? Wasn't that the same bunch of shills who originally denied the WTC had an immense steel core?





Right on my friend


Christ, read the content of the exchange. He said that the OS claims that all the support beams "melted at the same time". I pointed out that this is false and suggested he read the NIST report. He responded with




NIST?? You're kidding, right?


It really is impossible if you guys are just going to make up what you think the OS says and then try to debunk it.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

The only possible answer is that they are involved in the conspiracy. Since you support the conspiracy as an explanation you are implicating them. Since I do not, I am not.

It isn't hard. But I fear it may be beyond you.


We're on the same side
however, that might not be necessarily true.

Like any other occupation, this field does not corner the market on Einstein geniuses. I don't mean this disrespectfully. I mean this generally.

People don't ordinarily question things especially in the midst of chaos.

So if firefighters were told (after 8 hours of watching their colleagues parish and their city in ruins) that
"Mr X conferred with Mr Y and its been established that due to some quantum physic probabilities.... that this building will crumble within the next 10-minutes.................." a regular firefighter is likely to obey orders and NOT question it.
"Shock" does this to people.

However, this was NOT the case afterward. Many firefighters think and thought explosives were used. But you have to put yourself in their position at the time of all this confusion and disorder at roughly 5PM Tuesday, September 11th 2001.

So I disagree with you on this one. I don't believe the firefighters were in on the conspiracy. They were just baffled and in total disbelief at the time this was happening and were looking at anyone for answers and guidance.

The bigger question I have is why was FEMA there the day before on the 10th? If anything, FEMA might've been part of the conspiracy to some extent. But that's for another thread for another day!
edit on 6-4-2012 by Human_Alien because: grammar


Sorry, but that's not true. If you read the interviews with Chiefs Nigro and Haydon you can get a good idea of what they thought, and they thought the building would come down. Why do you think they established a collapse zone?

They continue to maintain to this day that they thought the collapse was a probability. Nigro says that "Conspiracy theories surrounding the event have no merit" (I paraphrase). The only possible answer is that they are implicated.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade


Christ, read the content of the exchange. He said that the OS claims that all the support beams "melted at the same time".


Wrong. Here's what I said: "Steel buildings do not collapse into their own footprint unless each and every supporting beam is taken out in a methodical fashion."

And that's what happened, a 47-story building collapsed into its own footprint ON DEMAND. And you pseudo-wannabe-debunkers claim that some of the rubble landed outside the bulls-eye zone. Well take a look at controlled demolition videos. SOME OF THE RUBBLE FALLS OUTSIDE THE BUILDING'S FOOTPRINT!!

You know, you aspiring debunkers really make fools of yourselves and you don't even realize it. What's even more disturbing is that you defend this criminal cabal with an OBSESSIVE PASSION. Keep drinking that fluoride, it's working quite well.
edit on 7-4-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join