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: 7
17
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

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 thruth 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

Okay, well, congrats on the horse. And if you have no mouse in your pocket, I guess that just means you're happy to see me?




posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


No your Dad
Are you taking a rest on the road to TRUTH



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Here is some evidence of demolitions crew using the term "pull" in reference to a controlled demolition....Both demolitionists say the explosions "pull" the building in the desired direction.......Perhaps its not the perfect example you were looking for, but it does, at the very least suggest that the word "pull" is used in controlled demolitions.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by bhornbuckle75
 


Thats amazing. Demolition experts use the word pull.

The argument is a fallacy called special pleading to begin with. If you assume that Silverstein can make a mistake by accidentally saying they blew up the building, he can as easily have made the "mistake" of using a vague term to say they left the building. There is no reason at all the assume the former is more likely than the latter. On the contrary. The first is supported by evidence (fire fighters did leave the building) while explosives have no evidence at all.

But then again, every single argument from truthers that supports an inside job is based on a fallacy.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





This is akin to Josef Goebbels saying "don't take my word for it that the Germans are the master race. Go ask that fellow Heinrich Himmler".


Wow. of all the possible comparisons, you came up with this? Is there a specific goal in comparing conspiracy theorists to nazis, or is this your general train of thought?


maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."


I don´t see how anyone that can grasp the English language can think he was refering to anything else but the building, when he said pull IT.

If he was talking about firefighter he would have said pull THEM OUT.

Seems very simple to grasp and only someone with an agenda would suggest otherwise. Or someone that is really dumb and uneducated.




In fact the only reference I can even find is that "Pull it" is lingo for literally "Pull it" as in pulling a building down with cables (yes, it's an established procedure, look it up). This is certainly demolition,


So you are disproving your own point. In your own words, the pull it is definately connected to demolitions, and not to pulling out firefighters.




I'm not debating what else "Pull it" could mean, I'm not debating that Silverstein would have said pull THEM instead of pull IT, and I'm not debating whether Silverstein or the NYFD "pulled it". What I'm debating is where exactly the claim "Pull it" means CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS came from, vs it being slang for "toasting marshmallows over an open fire" or "a dog taking a whiz against a fire hydrant", because from what I'm seeing, it's a completely made up claim


So you´re debating semantics, the word controlled in specific, while it is clear to anyone that is not a shill what was said.
here.

Patheticly weak attempt here Dave, running out of options?
edit on 21-3-2012 by bastardo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by bhornbuckle75
 


Thats amazing. Demolition experts use the word pull.

The argument is a fallacy called special pleading to begin with. If you assume that Silverstein can make a mistake by accidentally saying they blew up the building, he can as easily have made the "mistake" of using a vague term to say they left the building. There is no reason at all the assume the former is more likely than the latter. On the contrary. The first is supported by evidence (fire fighters did leave the building) while explosives have no evidence at all.

But then again, every single argument from truthers that supports an inside job is based on a fallacy.


I'm not making any argument for anything. The OP simply was asking if there was any legitimate evidence that Demolition experts used the word "pull" in reference to controlled demolitions. About 5 minutes of searching on Youtube, and I found evidence of just that.....I'm always happy to help!



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 04:42 AM
link   
reply to post by bhornbuckle75
 


Sorry I was not clear, only the first line applies to your post. The fact that explosives experts use the word pull is a no-brainer and has never been in question. The whole argument from truthers is that it is slang to detonate explosives or bring down a building. In your example the word "pull" means exactly that: "pull".
edit on 21-3-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


thanks..

you're the only response I've gotten all day...

I'm going to call this one..

Thread Closed Dave..





posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


well, if you "pull" the support of the building, the building falls.
it's not that complicated.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 05:41 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


dave. He didnt say pull them. And by the time he said "pull it" the two towers were down. So why would he? You know that you are wrong, atleast this once right dave? And to that other odd faced avatar member.. I agreed larry is stupid... Enough to screw up the secret in a documentary by admitting he pulled the building. It does not equal people. ........... You know what.. The only way "pull it" means firefighters.. Is if larry is one of those rich jewish type who think hes better than everyone and considers people, objects. Which very well could be the case.. Am I correct? Is that the answer you want dave? I know someone will want to delete this post... If I leave that in... Which means I may be right..
edit on 21-3-2012 by Myendica because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 05:48 AM
link   
I know how we can come to the final conclusion. Anyone interested? Dave? Since you will never prove that "pull it" meant "pull people".. Why dont you just go give larry a call, im sure some of your langley buddies got his information.. And shoot him up with some sodium pentathaul.. Or maybe some mdma.. He'll tell ya exactly what he meant.. Even tell ya his pet name for his carriage of money he earned for "keeping his mouth shut".



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 06:55 AM
link   
OP, you answered your own question with your opening paragraphs!

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."


"maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it"


"they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse"


'It' is a thing, not a person, so based on these words pull it cannot really mean anything else!



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I will just have to say, Really!! cmon now I believe any demolition expert would laugh in your face



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   
Also OP, the fires in WT7 were not 'out of control' and the building was not made of wood, so should still be standing now because it wasnt hit by a big enough force to make it fall into it's own footprint.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

The real question is why is Larry getting a call from a fire dept capt at all. Is he that important that a working man risking his life and his fellow brothers is gonna take the time to call some rich dick and tell him about his building. I dont even think that convo ever took place. Its just Larry the lizard wanting to speak out on the subject because of his ego and how ha thinks hinmself important



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link   
There is also the possibility that the interview in question was scripted as it was for a reason: to incite debate.

Most media interviews these days are scripted, even when they appear to be off the cuff and conversational.

The use of this particular term served its purpose: to plant the seed of an idea that the buldIngs were brought down by controlled demolition, even if that ruse meant incriminating hImself.

When you are planning a coverup, you need to polarize the debate to deflect attention from the real issue.

The issue in this case was a military strike by another nation.

The staged debate was between the officIal story proponents, and the inside job theorists
edit on 21-3-2012 by FlutterByte because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:08 AM
link   
At the end of the day, what the meaning of 'pull it' means is irrelevant. Anyone with half a brain can see that all 3 buildings were controlled demolitions. That is enough evidence, anything else like these two trivial words (pull it) is just not worth even discussing because the videos answer all the questions.

I'm assuming that anyone who thinks otherwise is of low IQ or working for the people that orchestrated this.



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


still looking for pull it facts, but found this informative sight with a lot of interesting facts that went on that day that show stuff between the lines! www.wtc7.net...
“I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.”#ing Fact so why did it go to China?

pull it info pretty detailed:wtc7.net...
insurance scam? :911review.com...
It all makes sense now that i read Enron data was being held in that building...Wow!

Here's a sweet rap and info to help spit game to the truth:www.youtube.com...
I know an electrical problem wouldn't have caused it to look like thermite pouring out the sides of the building because we build fuses that keep that from happening in all structures!



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
...and "Pull it" according to the 9/11 conspiracy proponents is supposed to be slang for bringing down a building via controlled demolitions.


Haha ok. But I guess you just accept Larry's explanation that "pull it" is slang for telling everyone to get out of the building.

Gee, I wonder where THAT slang term came from. Because I certainly have never heard it used like that before.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by bastardo
 


Well, as thedman posted, "pull it" can refer to pulling the water line. They were trying to put out fires even though water pressure was so low it couldn't get up into the building. Tugging the water line is a method of letting them know to group up and get out of the area. Now, here's a great collection of firefighters' recollections of the damage to the WTC 7 and being told to pull out of the area:

sites.google.com...

Edit: I did some more research, and it looks like the pressure on water lines is far to high to actually tug them anymore, but the term persists among older firemen.
edit on 21-3-2012 by Varemia because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join