So who the heck ever said "Pull it" was slang for controlled demolitions?

page: 6
17
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   
This is what it looks like when a building falls down on top of another building. The story of debris falling on the building making it fall is absurd. Sorry if this was posted already.

This is the WTC Marriott hotel which was right next to the WTC's.



If you don't believe WTC7 was imploded you have bigger issues than trying to figured out this mystery.




posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   
If the info presented in this video is accurate, it seems like a pretty strong case against the truther "pull it" argument:



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 

Your profile viewed.
3 threads made, all on 9/11 subject matter and all your posts are related to the same. Do you really have such a narrow interest focus or do you have an agenda? Now go view my profile. I invite others to do the same with my profile and yours and make up their own minds.


ETA Although goodoldave has a lot more posts and threads...guess what? They all seem to be in the 9/11 forum. Oh my, lions and tigers and bears.
edit on 21/3/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA


ETA2 And a bunch of copy pasta.
edit on 21/3/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA2

ETA3 "I have looked over Jordan and I have seen, things are not what they seem." Pink Floyd, Sheep from the album Animals.
edit on 21/3/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA3



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

I used Google Groups to attempt to see when "pull it" = demolition entered the lexicon. Searching for "'pull it' 9/11," I could not find any posts with that meaning until January 2004 ("WTC demolished" on alt.conspiracy). I tried a general search using the terms "'pull it' demolition OR demolish" for all dates in the archive up to 1 January 2001, read the first few pages of results, and found no evidence that the phrase "pull it" was associated with demolition.

Next, I searched Google Books for "'pull it' demolition OR demolish." There are references to structures being "pulled down," but I do not see the word "pull" in this sense standing without the modifier "down." I searched some other databases (the "deep web," or whatever you want to call it), and again, there was "pull it down" but not "pull it." In at least one article, to pull a building down refers explicitly to use of an excavator, not explosives (Kosub, "Demolition: It's An Art," On-Site, June 2000).

Not conclusive, but narrows down your search. If you want to know who said "pull it" was slang for controlled demolition, look for people talking about 9/11 after the event but before February 2004.


Hi fur
You do realize that this is a moot quest you have undertaken ?
Larry speak would have developed in the 20th century.
ljb



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 12:17 AM
link   
First, setting explosives for a controlled demolition in a large building takes an army of people working for weeks in advance. It takes extensive planning and very careful and delicate execution. Dozens of charges are required and literally miles of wiring. Wireless devices are not reliable enough and are not used. The chances of this installation happening right under the noses of people working in the building are zero, even if the work was done nights and weekends it would have been noticed. Surely many of you work in offices and have noticed the same thing I have- if even minor work is done in the building it leaves behind tell-tale signs like little pieces of lay-in ceiling if overhead work has taken place, and people ask questions. They want to know why there's extra dust on their desk or a piece of ceiling in their potted plant. I'm an architect and have been involved with a lot of interior remodel work and people notice EVERYTHING and they complain about EVERYTHING and they snoop into EVERYTHING. If demolitions had been placed in WTC7 then some average Joe or Judy would have noticed and come forward by now.

Second, if this guy who says "pull it" was referring to bringing the building down with demolition charges then the charges would already have to be in the building, so why would he be sitting back allowing fire department personnel into a burning building that has explosives in it? Makes no sense.

I don't claim to know what happened on 9-11, there's a lot about it that's suspicious. But frequently people are just barking up the wrong tree like with this whole crazy "controlled demolition" nonsense.



edit on 21-3-2012 by SavedOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by SavedOne
 

It's a government building, it's liable to need repairs, inspections, maintenance and suchlike over a long period of time. Obviously the explosives were all ready to be used, there is no other explanation possible. Controlled demolitions require much time and much planning. Time and foresight is something TPTB are quite good at despite all appearances to the contrary.

Who oversees the government? Who watches the watchers? No one.
edit on 21/3/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: Typo



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
If the info presented in this video is accurate, it seems like a pretty strong case against the truther "pull it" argument:

Hi lunar
In a court of law, pretty strong sucks wind
In the real world of law, Beyond the Shadow of a Doubt is the trump card.
You just played the duce of spades.
2 sides remember



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 

Your profile viewed.
3 threads made, all on 9/11 subject matter and all your posts are related to the same. Do you really have such a narrow interest focus or do you have an agenda? Now go view my profile. I invite others to do the same with my profile and yours and make up their own minds.


ETA Although goodoldave has a lot more posts and threads...guess what? They all seem to be in the 9/11 forum. Oh my, lions and tigers and bears.
edit on 21/3/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA


ETA2 And a bunch of copy pasta.
edit on 21/3/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA2

ETA3 "I have looked over Jordan and I have seen, things are not what they seem." Pink Floyd, Sheep from the album Animals.
edit on 21/3/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA3


I assume you don't like the video I posted? It must have really threatened you in some way for you to jump straight in with ad hominems and no mention of my post. Any thoughts on the video?

BTW, I bet my dad can beat up your dad. I invite others to compare my dad with yours and make up their own minds.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

I used Google Groups to attempt to see when "pull it" = demolition entered the lexicon. Searching for "'pull it' 9/11," I could not find any posts with that meaning until January 2004 ("WTC demolished" on alt.conspiracy). I tried a general search using the terms "'pull it' demolition OR demolish" for all dates in the archive up to 1 January 2001, read the first few pages of results, and found no evidence that the phrase "pull it" was associated with demolition.

Next, I searched Google Books for "'pull it' demolition OR demolish." There are references to structures being "pulled down," but I do not see the word "pull" in this sense standing without the modifier "down." I searched some other databases (the "deep web," or whatever you want to call it), and again, there was "pull it down" but not "pull it." In at least one article, to pull a building down refers explicitly to use of an excavator, not explosives (Kosub, "Demolition: It's An Art," On-Site, June 2000).

Not conclusive, but narrows down your search. If you want to know who said "pull it" was slang for controlled demolition, look for people talking about 9/11 after the event but before February 2004.


this was the first one of 584 000
missed it I guess?


Date: January 9, 1996
File No. 5370TAUN

TO: Vancouver City Council
FROM: City Building Inspector
SUBJECT: Demolition of Dangerous Building
5370 Taunton Street
Lot 11, Block 18, 19 and 22, District Lot 37, Plan 2220
COUNCIL POLICY
Section 324A of the Vancouver Charter enables Council by resolution or By-
law to declare any building, in or upon any private or public lands a
nuisance or dangerous to the public safety or health and by such By-law or
resolution, to order that building to be removed by the owner, agent,
lessee or occupier thereof.
City staff have contacted the property owner by phone to request that he
obtain a demolition permit and pull down and demolish the building,
however, the owner has demonstrated no desire to cooperate.

vancouver.ca...

thats just the first one on the list
584,000 to go

something tells me you weren't really looking very hard

edit on 21-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-3-2012 by Danbones because: big bold and underlined
edit on 21-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 12:32 AM
link   
well.. you're right about 1 thing so far Dave..

Humphrey Bogart did not say "play it again Sam"




posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 

Wow, you people are defensive. Notice I said IF the info in the video is accurate (no assumption that it is), then it SEEMS like a strong argument (no assumption that it is). But thanks for setting me straight, I forgot this was a court of law.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 

If ifs and ands were pots and pans there'd be no need for tinkers. Of course we noticed your use of the word IF.

edit on 21/3/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: Clarification



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 12:49 AM
link   
I would like to throw my hat into the ring. With a couple pieces of evidence that I find pretty fun.

Exhibit A.

A guy who worked in the WTC's telling you about a power down before 911. He still doesn't really put the pieces together cause he still thinks muslims did it and is going to protest a mosque



Exhibit B.

A fox news reporter, actually trying to Debunk Conspiracy theorists such as Jesse ventura .. actually admits that controlled demolition was an option for wtc 7. Really? this was an option? Fox News pulled this article after it was published but I was amazed to find it back up.




A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy. While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was. Read more: www.foxnews.com...


www.foxnews.com...

What do you have to say about this dave. lol
edit on 21-3-2012 by mayabong because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 12:50 AM
link   
The more I watch video's and read this very thread the more I ask myself, who are the real people?

There is a lot of mudslinging in this thread about the use of the term "pull it". The truthers believe this was Larry's definition of a "controlled demolition". The OS'ers are saying the term didn't exist and or does not mean "controlled demolition".

Ok now that we got that out of the way.

Explain to me why he said, "we decided". Is he some sort of God or something? How does one decide a building will fall? Debris fell on a lot of buildings that morning. Why did they decide to pull down that one and not other buildings?

We decided to pull it. It wasn't physics or fires, it was US!

You guys can complain that there isn't enough evidence to go either way but if you open your eyes, ears and minds the obvious answers are right in front of your faces. You can choose to believe it or not, doesn't matter to me.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 

You assume wrong but your argument comes over in the post I replied to as little better than the childish wailings of someone who has been called out.
Fail, major fail. And goodnight.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 

If ifs and ands were pots and pans there'd be no need for tinkers. Of course we noticed your use of the word IF.

edit on 21/3/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: Clarification


Your quips are nifty, but substance is usually more interesting.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 

Wow, you people are defensive. Notice I said IF the info in the video is accurate (no assumption that it is), then it SEEMS like a strong argument (no assumption that it is). But thanks for setting me straight, I forgot this was a court of law.

Hey lunar
ljb rides his own horse. I have no mouse in my pocket. LJb is not a we.
You did prepare for a long journey?
The road to truth is a rough one.
keep on truckin
edit on 21-3-2012 by longjohnbritches because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-3-2012 by longjohnbritches because: because i forgot the last time
edit on 21-3-2012 by longjohnbritches because: u can spell truth only oneway



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 

You assume wrong but your argument comes over in the post I replied to as little better than the childish wailings of someone who has been called out.
Fail, major fail. And goodnight.


Yeah, but still, I'm just sayin'. My dad's pretty tough.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 

You assume wrong but your argument comes over in the post I replied to as little better than the childish wailings of someone who has been called out.
Fail, major fail. And goodnight.


Yeah, but still, I'm just sayin'. My dad's pretty tough.


You know, This I will agree upon.
Mine was also. To our fathers.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Close-Up of WTC-7 Collapse Footage Shows Unmistakable Demolition Charges

www.prisonplanet.com...



demolish
v demolish [diˈmoliʃ]
to pull or tear down They're demolishing the old buildings in the centre of town.

www.thefreedictionary.com...
edit on 21-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-3-2012 by Danbones because: fixed tags etc





new topics
top topics
 
17
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join