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

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

Originally posted by Demigodly
That's an incredibly ignorant take. A&E for 9/11 represent professionals that have the COURAGE to be a part of something that may jeopardize their careers/reputations for something they feel is RIGHT and IMPORTANT. They have integrity, and that should be commended.
But you and your kind * (see Fluff) would dismiss them as 'delusional'. And what do you uneducated nobodies have to offer on this topic?

I offered statistics and math. Feel free to respond in kind. Or, if you can't, type some more words in CAPITAL LETTERS and insult me some more.

Do you have any reason to be here other than to insult the intelligence of others with your cack ?

why was Larry talking to the fire dept during a life and death situation ?

Let me put it this way , If you are "out of town" and your house is on fire , does the fire dept contact you for your permission to do their job simply because you own the building ? does this sound normal to you ?

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

Originally posted by Demigodly
That's an incredibly ignorant take. A&E for 9/11 represent professionals that have the COURAGE to be a part of something that may jeopardize their careers/reputations for something they feel is RIGHT and IMPORTANT. They have integrity, and that should be commended.
But you and your kind * (see Fluff) would dismiss them as 'delusional'. And what do you uneducated nobodies have to offer on this topic?

I offered statistics and math. Feel free to respond in kind. Or, if you can't, type some more words in CAPITAL LETTERS and insult me some more.

Yea, YOUR statistics that you're using to imply only .02% of professionals question the official reports. When in fact it's more to do with the majority not wanting to get involved, not caring, and simply not analyzing the evidence.
You interning for FixNews?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
So, it's not even 1 percent. So what? These are just the people who had the BALLS to come forward. Not many more Americans than that have balls, you know. They've been thoroughly lobotomized, and YOU are living proof!

No, that's not it. Despite these characters myriad backgrounds, experience, and areas of expertise, they all have precisely one thing in common- they all went to those damned fool conspiracy website to listen to the drivel those internet con artists are shovelling out. Every single one of them is therefore basing their opinions on the fake information Gage is putting out, like "the fires were almost out" and "pull it is industry lingo for controlled demolitions".

I don't know much about all the people you talk about in your post above.
But, your reply is repeitive, arrogant, nasty and ignorant.
After all these pages of the OVERWHELMING slam dunk support for PULL IT EQUALS DEMOLITION ON 911 FOR BUILDING SEVEN you remain horse kicked.
I would trust the words of Mr Ed before your trival empty rants.
ljb

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
So, it's not even 1 percent. So what? These are just the people who had the BALLS to come forward. Not many more Americans than that have balls, you know. They've been thoroughly lobotomized, and YOU are living proof!

No, that's not it. Despite these characters myriad backgrounds, experience, and areas of expertise, they all have precisely one thing in common- they all went to those damned fool conspiracy website to listen to the drivel those internet con artists are shovelling out. Every single one of them is therefore basing their opinions on the fake information Gage is putting out, like "the fires were almost out" and "pull it is industry lingo for controlled demolitions".

I don't know much about all the people you talk about in your post above.
But, your reply is repeitive, arrogant, nasty and ignorant.
After all these pages of the OVERWHELMING slam dunk support for PULL IT EQUALS DEMOLITION ON 911 FOR BUILDING SEVEN you remain horse kicked.
I would trust the words of Mr Ed before your trival empty rants.
ljb

So, where's all this "slam dunk support for PULL IT EQUALS DEMOLITION ON 911"? It's interesting what you ignore in this thread. How about this SLAM DUNK?

reply to post by lunarasparagus


-" 1. A building owner would never be in a position to dictate to fire personnel or emergency workers whether his building should be “pulled” or demolished. We know of no case where command and control of a disaster scene has ever been transferred to a private third party, much less a disaster of such scope. This action would violate a number of ethical canons regarding the safety of emergency responders and the general public, not to mention exposing those who transferred and assumed such authority to substantial liability risks. Therefore, even if such a statement was made on 9/11, it is highly doubtful that the comment would have affected decisions at the scene. "-

..... so , what ? just forget about it ?

Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by lunarasparagus

 

-" 1. A building owner would never be in a position to dictate to fire personnel or emergency workers whether his building should be “pulled” or demolished. We know of no case where command and control of a disaster scene has ever been transferred to a private third party, much less a disaster of such scope. This action would violate a number of ethical canons regarding the safety of emergency responders and the general public, not to mention exposing those who transferred and assumed such authority to substantial liability risks. Therefore, even if such a statement was made on 9/11, it is highly doubtful that the comment would have affected decisions at the scene. "-

..... so , what ? just forget about it ?

edit on 9-4-2012 by RockLobster because: (no reason given)

Yes, forget about it--if--you believe that the testimonies of multiple fire officers are more credible/accurate than Silverstein's. He may be implying that he had some say in the matter, but you will not find any testimony from a fire-fighter corroborating this self-aggrandizing implication by Silverstein. Who's word do you trust more?

And you have nothing to say past point number one? Why am I not surprised?

reply to post by lunarasparagus


Ok then i`ll forget about it , i`ll forget about it all , i`ll start watching fox news and believing everything i`m told

Who was Larry talking to then , if it wasn`t the fire dept ? .............. C.D.I ?

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

I don't know much about all the people you talk about in your post above.
But, your reply is repeitive, arrogant, nasty and ignorant.
After all these pages of the OVERWHELMING slam dunk support for PULL IT EQUALS DEMOLITION ON 911 FOR BUILDING SEVEN you remain horse kicked.
I would trust the words of Mr Ed before your trival empty rants.
ljb

Excuse me, where is that "OVERWHELMING slam dunk support for PULL IT EQUALS DEMOLITION ON 911 FOR BUILDING SEVEN"? I must have missed it as I went through the pages reading all the comments. About all I see is quite the opposite. That pull it refers to the firefighting operation. But please, for sake of posterity, can you repost that slam dunk support for it one more time. I really am having trouble finding it here.

Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by lunarasparagus

 

Ok then i`ll forget about it , i`ll forget about it all , i`ll start watching fox news and believing everything i`m told

Who was Larry talking to then , if it wasn`t the fire dept ? .............. C.D.I ?

I didn't say he wasn't talking to someone from the fire dept. Maybe he was--maybe he THOUGHT he was. But if you want to know who was making the decisions and what those decisions were--why not go to the source, i.e., to the fire officers who were in charge? Does that logic make any sense to you?

How is it that you will call Silverstein a lying crook and criminal regarding everything else he has said and done, but as soon as he makes one ambiguous comment which can be construed as "evidence" supporting your theory, it MUST be true?

ETA: And you have nothing to say past point number one?

Originally posted by RockLobster


Explain away .............. www.youtube.com... ...........

As for the second part of your post , thank you for yet another ignorant suggestion. It just shows how much of a star hunter you really are.

Ok, so me giving you a chance to educate yourself with facts, so you do not look ignorant and foolish, is an ignorant suggestion? How about you prove me wrong with some actual facts, or actually do what we have suggested so you can learn something?

Can I please refer you to the motto of ATS?

DENY IGNORANCE

That is what I am trying to do. To help you quit looking like a foolish ignorant that is obviously way behind on the topics of conversation.But noooooo, you prefer to wallow in it.

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

I didn't say he wasn't talking to someone from the fire dept. Maybe he was--maybe he THOUGHT he was. But if you want to know who was making the decisions and what those decisions were--why not go to the source, i.e., to the fire officers who were in charge? Does that logic make any sense to you?

Because he said it , how about that logic ?

How is it that you will call Silverstein a lying crook and criminal regarding everything else he has said and done, but as soon as he makes one ambiguous comment which can be construed as "evidence" supporting your theory, it MUST be true?

Because he said it , how is this so hard for you to understand ?

ETA: And you have nothing to say past point number one?

I have a lot to say , but then i would be dragging the thread into another direction , which seems to be your job so i`ll leave that to you

reply to post by GenRadek


-"Ok, so me giving you a chance to educate yourself with facts, so you do not look ignorant and foolish, is an ignorant suggestion?"-

Yes , it was an ignorant suggestion , just like the other suggestions , and that post was ignorant too . You are being ignorant right now , you are also ignoring the point i was making with my post.

Originally posted by RockLobster

Because he said it , how about that logic ?

That's not logic.

I have a lot to say , but then i would be dragging the thread into another direction , which seems to be your job so i`ll leave that to you

WTF? There is no better example of truther evasion than the above statement, since point #2 (the very next point in the excerpt being referred to) is directly and absolutely relevant to this thread:

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

2. We have never once heard the term “pull it” being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we’ve spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers, etc.) to “pull” the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement. This author and our research team were on site when workers pulled over the six-story remains of WTC-6 in late fall 2001, however we can say with certainty that a similar operation would have been logistically impossible at Ground Zero on 9/11, physically impossible for a building the size of WTC 7, and the structure did not collapse in that manner anyway.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus



The firefighters expecting collapse does not help your case one iota. In fact, it proves that SOMEBODY had foreknowledge.

You and a couple of your goon buddies here are very obviously TROLLS.

Try to have a Happy Easter with your family, if you have one. I won't be wasting any more time with your circular reasoning, rudeness, and utter nonsense.

The firefighters don't help your case unless you think they were in on it. You clearly do, and that's fine. At least you've got the intellectual honesty to admit it.

Most people, you'll find, will not agree with you. And they won't find it as easy as you do to dismiss plain logic as "circular reasoning".

Oh, and well done for trying to mislead people and then just ignoring me when I expose your falsehoods. The truth will definitely come out if everyone sticks to that standard of behaviour.

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.

So how would their experience and education help predict a normally impossible act? What was that claim based on? Could have have been rumour rather than experience?

So not only do OSers think the fire fighters demolished the building, they think they were psychic, and we're the crazy ones...

Yawn, this has been covered. As usual you ignored it.

How would a steel-framed building on the verge of collapse look different to a non-steel framed building on the verge of collapse? You must know if you're so sure of your statements above. This is not a rhetorical question. Try to answer it.

And if it can't collapse from fire and damage then why did the firemen think it could? If it was a "rumour", why do they not mention that - indeed why do they specifically say it was the evidence of their own eyes that convinced them? And why do they continue to insist that it was no surprise it came down, and that conspiracy theories are baseless?

The only conclusion is that they are implicated. You should at least have the courage to admit that.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by -PLB-

 

There are no pics of structural damage, stop stretching the facts to fit your agenda.

So the firefighters definitely lied about that then?

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by -PLB-

We've got 1,500++ architects and engineers with REAL DEGREES in architecture and engineering who are making a very big LIAR out of YOU.

Um, no. You don't. You might want to check the qualifications of some of those. In fact fewer than 400 are qualified architects or engineers in the sense you mean. The reason you think they are authorities is because you've been misled - willingly it seems - by people who lie for money.

Originally posted by Demigodly


Yea, YOUR statistics that you're using to imply only .02% of professionals question the official reports. When in fact it's more to do with the majority not wanting to get involved, not caring, and simply not analyzing the evidence.
You interning for FixNews?

Do you really think that if 99.8 per cent of a profession disagrees with something it is because they are all too frightened to speak up? Isn't it more likely that it just has no merit?

How would you go about silencing all those people? Do you really think you could just telephone, say, Richard Rogers and tell him not to air his views about 9/11? Why would he bother listening to you? Why wouldn't he publicise your contact with him?

You may of course believe it possible to completely silence tens of thousands of people with threats. You won't find many people agreeing with you on this though.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by SimontheMagus



The firefighters expecting collapse does not help your case one iota. In fact, it proves that SOMEBODY had foreknowledge.

You and a couple of your goon buddies here are very obviously TROLLS.

Try to have a Happy Easter with your family, if you have one. I won't be wasting any more time with your circular reasoning, rudeness, and utter nonsense.

The firefighters don't help your case unless you think they were in on it. You clearly do, and that's fine. At least you've got the intellectual honesty to admit it.

Most people, you'll find, will not agree with you. And they won't find it as easy as you do to dismiss plain logic as "circular reasoning".

Oh, and well done for trying to mislead people and then just ignoring me when I expose your falsehoods. The truth will definitely come out if everyone sticks to that standard of behaviour.

MY falsehoods eh? You are the one dismissing plain logic here. Do you know ANYTHING about steel frame construction? If each and every supporting beam is not taken out properly, this is what invariably happens:

DEMOLITION FAIL

www.youtube.com...

Now if your building 7 fairy tale is correct, and that the lower corner damage took the building down, it should have fallen down sideways, or incompletely. You must think steel frame buildings are put together with corn flakes and steel powder. This is what I mean with you quasi-debunkers denying the laws of physics. Not only are you DUMB enough to think that steel frame buildings can collapse into their own footprint without explosives, therefore eliminating the need for controlled-demolition companies like the BUSH-OWNED company that took down the WTC, you are ARROGANT enough to attack anyone who disagrees with your nonsense from some alternate universe.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus


Oh, and well done for trying to mislead people and then just ignoring me when I expose your falsehoods. The truth will definitely come out if everyone sticks to that standard of behaviour.

MY falsehoods eh? You are the one dismissing plain logic here. Do you know ANYTHING about steel frame construction? If each and every supporting beam is not taken out properly, this is what invariably happens:

DEMOLITION FAIL

www.youtube.com...

Nice work Simon. Did you watch the video you posted? You showed failed water tower demos and old concrete buildings. The last demo (Landmark Building) ... did you notice the LARGE booms? Yeah, those were missing on 9/11.