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: 61
17
<< 58  59  60    62  63  64 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by RockLobster
 


:facepalm: Ok I will spell it out for you (you are funny you know). I never said anyone ever said that or wrote that. I say that truthers IMPLIED that. Look up that word. Implying is not the same as saying or writing. They are different words with a different meaning.

The quotes you ask for do not exist. Truthers refuse to oversee the consequences of their delusional interpretation. Hence rational people point that out to truthers. Anok then somehow thinks that these rational people themself think the firemen blew up those buildings. Anok is about as confused as you are.

Anyway, I am really off now, so don't panic. I will be back tomorrow for some more entertaining conversation
.




posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
I have to say, it is pretty rare I meet someone who is so bad at language. You have absolutely no clue about what the words I write actually mean. I write "imply" and you ask for quotes. :facepalmsmiley:

Poor languages skills are endemic among truthers. We still see at least one of them equating "pulled" with "pulled down." They seem to think a verb must have the meaning of a verb phrase even when the rest of the phrase is lacking--but only if it is the verb phrase they want to hear. In this case, when someone says pull, they hear pull down. Idea for an experiment: Tell a truther to "pull his pants." Will he pull them up, pull them down, or just give them a tug?



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


The fact that , get this , there is NO evidence .... of severe structural damage to tower 7.

So , why do you beleive there was severe structural damage ? because of what a few people with badges said ?


Ahh--thank you. Just as I thought. You've based it on nothing--on a "lack of evidence". And on that you're willing to call experienced FDNY officers LIARS? Just because YOU haven't seen any evidence of severe damage, you're willing to implicate as criminals the men who were there, the men who assessed the building first hand, the men who risked their lives to save others?

I think we have a good understanding now of where you're coming from--and what your "knowledge and experience" is worth. It's clear where there's a "lack of evidence". You have NONE on which to back your opinion.

Gee--who should I believe regarding the damage to WTC7? All the fire officers who were actually there? Or rocklobster? He wasn't there, but he says he's smarter and more experienced than those other guys. That's a tough one.


Again with the "LIARS"


How can you beleive them if there is no evidence to back up their claims ?
Why should i believe these men ? because they have badges and save cats from trees ?
Is it wrong to ask questions where you come from ?



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by RockLobster
 


So why do you believe that there were explosives in WTC7? Where is the evidence it was blown up? None? Well, it didnt happen then. See how that works?

The difference here is that firefighters actually were trained and saw the damage and used their training to make an educated observation that the buildings were in big trouble.
edit on 4/8/2012 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by RockLobster
 


So why do you believe that there were explosives in WTC7? Where is the evidence it was blown up? None? Well, it didnt happen then. See how that works?

The difference here is that firefighters actually were trained and saw the damage and used their training to make an educated observation that the buildings were in big trouble.
edit on 4/8/2012 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)


Well , if the structural integrity was not compromised after taking damage from the collapse of the towers , yet tower 7 collapsed into its own foot print , which took seconds , they used explosives . .......... see how that works ?

" buildings " ? , are we talking about the same thing here ?

As for the fire fighter card , i think i`ve already answered your question about 5 times now.

Didn't Controlled Demolition inc get about $3 billion for cleaning up ? I wonder what "pull it" meant
.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by RockLobster
 


So why do you believe that there were explosives in WTC7? Where is the evidence it was blown up? None? Well, it didnt happen then. See how that works?

The difference here is that firefighters actually were trained and saw the damage and used their training to make an educated observation that the buildings were in big trouble.
edit on 4/8/2012 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)


Hi Gen,
Haven't you seen the Barry Jennings tape where he is crawling up and down BLOWN out stairways. EXPLOSIVES. Where he thinks he is climbing over the bodies of dead people. Possibly FIREMEN??? In The CENTER of BUILDING NUMBER SEVEN.
Stop reading those ignorant old made for duffer reports. Catch up to the year 2012 and the TRUTH.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


I never heard of this "general rule and consensuses for 'bad evidence'" and I completely reject it. I also do not know anyone else who accepts it.

This is what you can classify as a straw man argument.


Hi plb
Do me a favor son and go get one, say it again ONE, shread, piece morsel,
bit, tad, are you with me here son?
ONE FRIGGIN HUNK of evidence concerning the day of 911,
that has been tested in a court of LAW??
hurry back ljb



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by RockLobster
 



If they claim to have inspected the damage and decided it was going to collapse, then yes , they were lying. The damage to tower 7 was not enough for it to collapse , how hard is this for you to understand ?



The damage to tower 7 was not enough for it to collapse


So are you are a structural engineer? Do you have an evidence or simply making a stupid "truther" opinion?

Thew FDNY conducted an inspection of the interior of WTC 7

What they found was no water to fight the spreading firews. fires on multiple floors. considerable structural
damage to south facade. This included elevators being ejected from the shafts, and 25% of the south side
damaged with large sections of the building scooped out and missing.

Had set up a transit to watch the structure for any signs of instability - by 2pm could see 3 story bulge in
Southwest corner of building - this told them building was becoming unstable

Had also consulted with an engineer who told them building was in danger of collapse

Seems had a lot more knowledge of what was to happened

I heard this first hand from the incident commander for WTC 7 several months later during a seminar on 9/11



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 



I guess paid trolls have to work on Easter


Yes we get double time on holidays.....

Why are you here? Do you get a day pass......?



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


I wonder if they ever will suspect the truth: We are paid trolls, but not for the government. We're paid by ATS itself, to drive traffic. They're playing right into our hands!



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Problem is before 911 no steel framed building had ever collapsed from fire and asymmetrical damage, so there was no precedence to make such a claim.


Once again, it is their experience and training that trumps your belief.

This is your problem, not everyone else's...


So how would their experience and education help predict a normally impossible act?


Prove that it's impossible. lack of a precedent isn't even evidence of its impossibility. It's merely a demonstration of the maturity of the fire protection engineering community.


What was that claim based on?


As noted, their education and experience. They know that smaller steel structures have fallen due to fire alone before - this is their experience factor. They also realize that scale matters little - this is their education factor. You cannot refute these with anything other than incredulity.


Could have have been rumour rather than experience?


No. Statements have been offered from the chiefs about what they expected. This is not rumor, but first hand testimony.


So not only do OSers think the fire fighters demolished the building


Outright lie.

We are merely pointing out the logic chain that is a result of truther thinking that Larry S told the FDNY "to pull" the building. there is zero other testimony that has any statements anywhere of any other agency or personnel involved. Nothing.

That leaves the FDNY to accomplish the demolition in the typical truther delusion.


and we're the crazy ones...


Everyone does.

Glad you realize that.....



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by RockLobster

Are you kidding , is any one going to show me the evidence of this extreme damage before trying to argue about it ?



It's not just the physical damage from 1's collapse.

Fire causes structural damage too.

If you don't believe that fire can cause structural damage, then try and explain away the need for fire protection on steel framed buildings.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by RockLobster

The fact that , get this , there is NO evidence .... of severe structural damage to tower 7.



Yes there is.

Firefighters statements are evidence. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that you can just handwave it away.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by RockLobster


The photos i have seen do not show enough structural damage for a collapse like that.


Your opinion means nothing.

You weren't there.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by thedman
 


I wonder if they ever will suspect the truth: We are paid trolls, but not for the government. We're paid by ATS itself, to drive traffic. They're playing right into our hands!


Happy Easter doc
Which goverment???
And rather than scratch themselves the team of truth rushes on to the field and plays into the tiny HANDS of the retiring OS'ers.
Let's review your IGNORANCE here.
Larry said "Pull IT", not PULLET like an EASTER chick.
You may be partial to trival tripe and spin. Save that for lunch break.
Barry Jennings said bombs must have caused the internal damage to BUILDING SEVEN.
Firemen have no part of "LARRY saying PULL IT" to nobody knows who"
FIREMEN NEVER mention PULL IT once THE ENTIRE DAY OF SEPTEMBER 11 2001.
let's conclude your IGNORANCE here.
ljb



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


I want to see the evidence of this damage , and no one can provide any , thats enough evidence to say there was no severe damage.

If there was no explosives , no incendiaries , then why did WTC 7 fall into its foot print in seconds , and who were the "companies" that assesssed the damage with the fire dept ? C.D.I ? F.E.M.A ?

Larry was talking to Loizeaux on the phone when he said " pull it " , because i think the fire crews would have more important things to worry about than Silverstein`s wallet , and Loizeaux got a $3 billion contract to "clean up", this is `Controlled Demolitions Inc` by the way.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by RockLobster

Are you kidding , is any one going to show me the evidence of this extreme damage before trying to argue about it ?



It's not just the physical damage from 1's collapse.

Fire causes structural damage too.

If you don't believe that fire can cause structural damage, then try and explain away the need for fire protection on steel framed buildings.


Show me a steel high rise that has collapsed like that due to fire and minor structural damage.
All three towers had fire protection , which for some reason , did not work at all. This shows that either , fire protection is useless and steel melts at lower temperatures these days , or , there is a few liars about .



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by RockLobster

The fact that , get this , there is NO evidence .... of severe structural damage to tower 7.



Yes there is.

Firefighters statements are evidence. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that you can just handwave it away.



There is no evidence , the statements of firemen who say there was bombs are dismissed and ignored , why should we focus on the ones that back up the origonal lie ?

Show me real evidence of severe structural damage.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by RockLobster


The photos i have seen do not show enough structural damage for a collapse like that.


Your opinion means nothing.

You weren't there.


Neither was Bush but you followed him into Iraq and Afghan to get them " terrorists ".
2nd



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by RockLobster

The fact that , get this , there is NO evidence .... of severe structural damage to tower 7.



Yes there is.

Firefighters statements are evidence. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that you can just handwave it away.


Hi fluff,
Any sensible person with a minute anount of reasoning can just FLUFF off this entire thread.
There is not one single scrap of hear say that has stood the test of what used to be the AMERICAN way. A court of law.
Your 1 and two liners of alufagus are just that.
Hope your Easter is all you hoped it would be.
ljb



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 58  59  60    62  63  64 >>

log in

join