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: 67
17
<< 64  65  66    68  69  70 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by RockLobster

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

In this case, I came to see who the heck ever said "Pull it" was slang for controlled demolitions (implosion). As far as I can tell, nobody, until about 2004. I stayed to watch the conversation evolve, and to jump back in when some of the more egregious distortions are left unchallenged.

(I see you picked up the offer I made to DemiGodly and ran with "insult me." Good choice. May I recommend you accuse me of being a paid shill next?)


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 ?

I've read several accounts of the infamous pull quote, and in none of them did any firefighter ask Silverstein's permission to conduct their operations in whatever manner they saw fit. The way Silverstein tells the story, the fighters call to tell him they probably can't save the building, he reacts with resignation, and the fire department commander pulls the last unit before the building collapses. It was a very humane thing for that firefighter to do. If any of my property ever burns down, I hope a commander takes the time to tell me why they are giving up.




posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
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?

"Everybody agrees with me, but they are scared to say so." It's a common enough belief among conspiracy theorists. Creationists believe there is a great deal of support for a young Earth among earth scientists, and for special creation in the life sciences, but all these closet creationists are kept mum by the threat not getting tenure. Nonscientific medicine advocates believe lots of doctors support nonscientific medicine, but are kept quiet by the AMA and Big Pharma.

It is a very potent belief for conspiracy theorists, because it allows them to imagine both a reservoir of support (secret truther engineers, silenced creation scientists, etc.) and a massive, threatening enemy (the 9/11 PTB, tenure committees).

(That's not to say there aren't any truther engineers or creationist scientists--of course we know there are some. It's a matter of proportion.)



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli




(I see you picked up the offer I made to DemiGodly and ran with "insult me." Good choice. May I recommend you accuse me of being a paid shill next?)


"insult me" ? i honestly have no idea what you are talking about . Also, you may .... but i believe that most of you delusional OSers are paid shills anyway so it wouldn`t make any difference if i "accuse" you of being one or not.



I've read several accounts of the infamous pull quote, and in none of them did any firefighter ask Silverstein's permission to conduct their operations in whatever manner they saw fit. The way Silverstein tells the story, the fighters call to tell him they probably can't save the building, he reacts with resignation, and the fire department commander pulls the last unit before the building collapses. It was a very humane thing for that firefighter to do. If any of my property ever burns down, I hope a commander takes the time to tell me why they are giving up.


Well , is it normal for the fire dept to phone you and tell you that they "probably" can`t save your building ... whilst the operations are on going ?

And , from what Larry Silverstein said ... He suggested that they should "pull it" , they did not make the dicision to "pull it" until Larry suggested it , therefore Larry effectivly told them to forget about anybody trapped inside and "pull it" ....... and they listened to him.

So , either Larry was wrong / lying / whatever , and he never even spoke to the firefighters let alone say " pull it " ......... or ......... he did , and they listened , and everyone involved needs to face justice.

The structural integrity of tower 7 was not compromised , if it was , i want evidence of that ..... just like the rest of the world.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by Demigodly
Pay attention, be aware of all that's happened/passed since then. The executive orders, undermining civil rights, tougher security measures, changes in domestic and foreign policies, the increased tensions involving the middle east. The 'capture' of the boogieman and disposal of, without a trial -


Those are all bad things, but they are not evidence concerning the events of Sept. 11. Those are all choices that were made afterward.




Spoken like a true sheep. And why would American citizens sit idly by as this regime takes hold and exact these drastic measures? You are relinquishing power to those who suppose to REPRESENT you. And what business does your govt/military have staking claim all over the middle east and forcing change? And you wonder why the U.S. is so despised and losing allied support. The only enemy is your own govt. Wake up. You'll have no one to blame but yourselves when TSHTF.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by RockLobster
The structural integrity of tower 7 was not compromised , if it was , i want evidence of that ..... just like the rest of the world.


Well let's see- a piece of the North tower slammed into it, it then burned for hours without help from sprinklers or firemen. Then we have eyewitness testimony from firemen that it was leaning, bulging, or somehow distorted. On the day, it was reported to be a likely event hours before the actual collapse. finally, it collapsed.

What part of that evidence is not consistent with the structural integrity of the building "not being compromised"



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Demigodly

Those are all bad things, but they are not evidence concerning the events of Sept. 11. Those are all choices that were made afterward.




Spoken like a true sheep. And why would American citizens sit idly by as this regime takes hold and exact these drastic measures? You are relinquishing power to those who suppose to REPRESENT you. And what business does your govt/military have staking claim all over the middle east and forcing change? And you wonder why the U.S. is so despised and losing allied support. The only enemy is your own govt. Wake up. You'll have no one to blame but yourselves when TSHTF.


I agree we americans have no-one to blame but ourselves for the sad decisions made by our leaders after 9/11. But that still doesn't address the point that I made.

All the bad things that 9/11 was used to justify are distinct from the event itself. Maybe if we had a wiser president we would have taken more judicious action that would have created a better world. In such a case we would not be praising 9/11 because it was used to justify good actions.
edit on 4/10/2012 by DrEugeneFixer because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by RockLobster
The structural integrity of tower 7 was not compromised , if it was , i want evidence of that ..... just like the rest of the world.


Well let's see- a piece of the North tower slammed into it, it then burned for hours without help from sprinklers or firemen. Then we have eyewitness testimony from firemen that it was leaning, bulging, or somehow distorted. On the day, it was reported to be a likely event hours before the actual collapse. finally, it collapsed.

What part of that evidence is not consistent with the structural integrity of the building "not being compromised"

Dr
Sweet, so you know how far the building was leaning??
I call BS because the firemen had to set up a transit to see anything.
They couldn't have know what the level was before that to check it against.
Well unless you have the measurments yourself good doctor, you got squat.
The only structual damage was caused to the internal superstructure attested to by Barry Jennings. Ka BOOM
pop.pop.pop, ljb



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli


The way Silverstein tells the story, the fighters call to tell him they probably can't save the building, he reacts with resignation, and the fire department commander pulls the last unit before the building collapses.


Hi fur
Totally bogas and pure conjecture on your part.
How in the hell would an engaged top firefighter know how to reach Larry and why would he give a coutrsy call when his men are injured burried an dead all around him.
The building had been already abandoned for over 2 full hours. There was no one there in the building to get out.
Pull IT means Demolish It.
It never has and never will mean get the firemen out. Especially when they are not even in.
what gaul.
ljb
PS resignation and $$$$$$$ in his mind
edit on 4/10/2012 by longjohnbritches because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by RockLobster
Well , is it normal for the fire dept to phone you and tell you that they "probably" can`t save your building ... whilst the operations are on going ?

I've never owned a building that burned down. If I did, I would hope someone would keep me updated. And why would they not? Adjusting for scale, how is a chief talking to a skyscraper owner any different than a sergeant saying, "Sorry, buddy, it's a goner" when my garage burns down? Property owners have an interest in the outcome of a firefighting operation, and they may have information that is useful to the firefighting effort, so it seems like a good idea to keep in contact them and keep in touch as the situation allows.

My scenario is far more likely than the alternative presented by truthers, i.e. veteran firefighter (who is secretly a controlled demolitions expert and Illuminati penetration of the FDNY) calls Larry Silverstein (who is secretly an Illuminatus) to ask permission to blow up his building (which they were going to do anyway because they packed it full of explosives and set it on fire). Larry gives the coded go word (which is actually a well-known demolition phrase [that no one ever heard before 2004]), waits for everyone to think the building was not demolished, then announces to everyone on TV it was demolished, thus completing the secretest covert op ever.


And , from what Larry Silverstein said ... He suggested that they should "pull it" , they did not make the dicision to "pull it" until Larry suggested it , therefore Larry effectivly told them to forget about anybody trapped inside and "pull it" ....... and they listened to him.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. If Larry had said, "No, keep your men in that building," do you think the chief would have listened to him? Why or why not?


The structural integrity of tower 7 was not compromised , if it was , i want evidence of that ..... just like the rest of the world.

Except the "rest of the world" has expressed no such desire. Just a few interesting characters on the fringe. Is this another case of closeted supporters, like all those hundreds of thousands of engineers and architects who are too afraid to sign Richard Gage's petition?



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
what gaul.

In tres partes!

That is all.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by RockLobster
The structural integrity of tower 7 was not compromised , if it was , i want evidence of that ..... just like the rest of the world.


Well let's see- a piece of the North tower slammed into it, it then burned for hours without help from sprinklers or firemen. Then we have eyewitness testimony from firemen that it was leaning, bulging, or somehow distorted. On the day, it was reported to be a likely event hours before the actual collapse. finally, it collapsed.

What part of that evidence is not consistent with the structural integrity of the building "not being compromised"


What evidence ?
Where is the evidence of leaning , bulging , or distortion ?
Do you honestly believe that with all of the attention WTC 7 had before it went down , every single photo and recording missed these signs of collapse ?

You know that high rise steel structures do not collapse from fire damage ........ so why would WTC 7 implode ?



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
 


You honestly believe that Silverstien was talking to the fire dept during a life and death situation ?
Your last post is just a wall of babble , star hunting much ?



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by RockLobster
What evidence ?
Where is the evidence of leaning , bulging , or distortion ?
Do you honestly believe that with all of the attention WTC 7 had before it went down , every single photo and recording missed these signs of collapse ?

You know that high rise steel structures do not collapse from fire damage ........ so why would WTC 7 implode ?



The firefighter testimonies, duh. Have you read them, or do you think they're all lying?



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


If i believed everything i read i would`nt be a "truther" .

I want evidence , evidence that would stand in a court of law.

Why did it implode ?



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
what gaul.

In tres partes!

That is all.

Est Gallia, duh
Pull it is english for stay on topic,



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


The only evidence you have to base you claim of WTC 7 leaning is one video.

And guess what?

It is inconclusive because you can only see one side of the building. If you consider post collapse pics, and how the rubble landed, especially the outer walls, it is obvious the building did not lean at all but was completely vertical.

Seeing as the walls all fell inwards, as evidenced by post collapse pics, and landed on top of the rest of the collapsed building, it is more logical that the lean is actually the walls falling inwards, as all four walls did. In fact in this vid you can see the facing wall, and the right side wall, fall inwards towards the center, the two obscured walls are doing the same thing (as evidenced by post collapse pics). More evidence it was a controlled 'implosion' demolition.




edit on 4/10/2012 by ANOK because: This space for rent, U2U for rates...



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

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

Sweet, so you know how far the building was leaning??
I call BS because the firemen had to set up a transit to see anything.
They couldn't have know what the level was before that to check it against.


Wow.

NO.

You call bs because the firemen set up a transit to measure the distortion of the building. Newsflash: they only did this because the building was visbly out of plumb.

As to your statement concerning the transit level, it could be used to measure distortion from plumb by simply sighting a point low in the building, say a window, and then rotating the lens upward to another, vertically aligned window. if the window is no longer vertically aligned, the building is being distorted. In short, they were not limited to using a transit as a level, as your comment seems to assume



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


How do you know if it was visibly out of plum or not if you did not see it yourself and have seen no evidence other than quotes from firemen ?



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 

If you consider post collapse pics, and how the rubble landed, especially the outer walls, it is obvious the building did not lean at all but was completely vertical.


We're discussing the state of the building before the collapse, ANOK, which, I hope we can all agree is a separate subject from the way the rubble landed. We can get into this some other time.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


How do you know if it was visibly out of plum or not if you did not see it yourself and have seen no evidence other than quotes from firemen ?


Great question.

Answer: I have no reason to believe that the firefighers were lying. I could understand if it were alleged that they misremembered some detail of the fire or what time something happened, but making up a whole series of events? Yeesh.

Do you have any evidence that they are deliberately lying or are confused?



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 64  65  66    68  69  70 >>

log in

join