It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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 truckinedit on 21-3-2012 by longjohnbritches because: (no reason given)edit on 21-3-2012 by longjohnbritches because: because i forgot the last time
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".
maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
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,
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
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.
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.