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

Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by lunarasparagus

 

Yes exactly , here we go again , yet another ignorant post.

Who on earth do you think you are ? Do you think i need to prove something to you ?

Fool

Prove something? Novel idea. How about debating something that can actually be supported and then backing-up the statements you make with relevant information?

Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by Varemia

 

How can it be a "FACT" if there is no evidence of this extreme damage ?

So its a "FACT" they called Silverstein ? and you are ok with that ? people dying all over the place , every second counts , and its fine to phone Larry just to let him know he`ll get "full whack" on his insurance , yeah , peachy.

Why did you ask me a question if you were just going to throw an ignorant reply at me -V- ? thats not like you

Since when did eyewitnesses (multiple accounts of the same damage) cease to be evidence? Do you think the firefighters are lying then?

Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by Varemia

 

No one said the firefighters demolished the building though did they -V- ?
2nd

Yes, actually, you conspiracy truthers are saying they demolished the building. Silverstein said THEY (as in the NYFD "pulled it", not him, so if you're insisting that "pull it" is lingo for controlled demolitions then you're accusing the NYFD of secretly destroying the building, whether you want to come out and admit it or not. We are only going by what YOU are telling us, after all.

This is what happens when you listen to crackpots like Alex Jones. You're trying to translate lunatic-speak into something rational sounding and it simply isn't coming out the way you want it to.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by RockLobster
Here we go again with "those damn fool conspiracy web sites" , and once again , you are both speaking to me as if i am a child.

I think you both need to learn the word ignorant.

How can you even take yourself seriously with this crap ? you believe Silverstien was just chatting to the fire dept like it was a normal thing ....... what is it ? denial ? you dont want to think your government could do such a thing to you "patriots" ? America the land of the free , the terrorists hate your freedom ?

You misunderstand me. I'm not trying to treat you like a child or to make you feel bad about yourself. I'm trying to point out that you're being raped by that bunch of con artists and crackpots running those damned fool conspiracy websites. It's been irrefutably shown throughout SIXTY PAGES here that A) "pull it is lingo for controlled demolitions" means no such thing and is just an internet hoax invented by Alex Jones, as well as B) Islamic fundamentalists are notorious for pulling stunts like murdering innocent bystanders, launching suicide attacks, and hijacking planes for decades so they can't NOT be on the top of the list of suspects. You forget the question isn't whether the gov't could have done this, but whether the gov't DID do it, and after seeing the caliber of the people running those websites you're getting all your "the gov't staged 9/11" tidbits from it's blatantly obvious you're simply being fed a lot of outrageously bad information. Noone watched what was happening on 9/11 and spontaneously wondered whether the towers were destroyed by lasers from outer space or if the planes were holograms. Someone came along after the fact and put the idea into your heads.

Please, explain to me, when you see someone behaving like THIS:

What part of this makes you think that it's safe for you to believe everything this person says completely and without hesitation? More to the point, why on Earth would you take this guy's word for it over the firefighters who were physically there on 9/11?

edit on 11-4-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)

Hi dav ole pal,
Are you sure that, that isn't you in the drag make-up?
You keep posting it like a suspect that returns to the scene of the crime.
Hoping to get caught. Ask Columbo.
You ask about Pull It in the OP
You NOW realize that was a misstake and resort to trivial manuvers such as this.
haven't you had enough? Total IGNORANCE that comes back for more. DUH!!!

reply to post by GoodOlDave


And you arent , you are just being ignorant .......

I have already stated that i do not visit "conspiracy websites" other than ATS if thats what you would call it , and i cant stand alex jones .

You do realise that your whole post is ignorant right ? i mean , how many pages am i on ? how many times have i gone over this ? its not like you need to tell me there is fruitcakes out there.

The fact that you OSers resort to ---- "alex jones is a nut" and "damn fool conspiracy websites" , as though every single person who does not agree with you is some brainless TV zombie , is ignorant . Especially when most of you watch fox news religiously , where they tell you just how low us truthers are , stealing candy to buy crack.

reply to post by lunarasparagus


How about you actually look up the word ignorant , you are showing us just how pathetic and childish you are.

Show me your evidence of severe structural damage to wtc 7 .

reply to post by Varemia


Have you missed the past 20 pages or so -V- ?

Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by Varemia

 

Have you missed the past 20 pages or so -V- ?

Will you address my point? I'll post it again.

Since when did eyewitnesses (multiple accounts of the same damage) cease to be evidence? Do you think the firefighters are lying then?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by Varemia

 

No one said the firefighters demolished the building though did they -V- ?
2nd

Yes, actually, you conspiracy truthers are saying they demolished the building. Silverstein said THEY (as in the NYFD "pulled it", not him, so if you're insisting that "pull it" is lingo for controlled demolitions then you're accusing the NYFD of secretly destroying the building, whether you want to come out and admit it or not. We are only going by what YOU are telling us, after all.

This is what happens when you listen to crackpots like Alex Jones. You're trying to translate lunatic-speak into something rational sounding and it simply isn't coming out the way you want it to.

Quote me saying they demolished it.

I told YOU and the rest of the star hunters pages and pages back , now if your brain has enough power left from all that typing , why dont you go back a few pages to save me repeating myself ... as usual.

Lunatic - speak ? ... pathetic.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by Varemia

 

Have you missed the past 20 pages or so -V- ?

Will you address my point? I'll post it again.

Since when did eyewitnesses (multiple accounts of the same damage) cease to be evidence? Do you think the firefighters are lying then?

We covered this pages back -V- , if you missed it , go find it.

What is with the ignorant reposting and questioning ? who am i ? Larry f###ing Silverstein ?

Originally posted by RockLobster
We covered this pages back -V- , if you missed it , go find it.

What is with the ignorant reposting and questioning ? who am i ? Larry f###ing Silverstein ?

Address my point, please.

Since when did eyewitnesses (multiple accounts of the same damage) cease to be evidence? Do you think the firefighters are lying then?

reply to post by Varemia


Go back , and look for it if it bothers you so much -V-

I`m still waiting for this REAL evidence of severe structural damage.

Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by Varemia

 

Go back , and look for it if it bothers you so much -V-

I`m still waiting for this REAL evidence of severe structural damage.

I'm asking you to simply address the point I'm making.

Since when did eyewitnesses (multiple accounts of the same damage) cease to be evidence? Do you think the firefighters are lying then?

reply to post by Varemia


And i am telling you that everything you want to know is just a few pages back , if it bothers you so much.
2nd

Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by Varemia

 

And i am telling you that everything you want to know is just a few pages back , if it bothers you so much.
2nd

Will you please just address the point I made in response to one of your earlier posts?

Since when did eyewitnesses (multiple accounts of the same damage) cease to be evidence? Do you think the firefighters are lying then?

reply to post by Varemia


Eyewitness accounts mean squat -V- , if you go back you will see that i believe they were lying yes , there was no extreme damge to tower 7 , if there was we wouldnt be in this thread would we ?

There is also eyewitness accounts of military planes and missiles , but they arent classed as evidence are they ? would it stand in a court of law ?

Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by Varemia

 

Eyewitness accounts mean squat -V- , if you go back you will see that i believe they were lying yes , there was no extreme damge to tower 7 , if there was we wouldnt be in this thread would we ?

There is also eyewitness accounts of military planes and missiles , but they arent classed as evidence are they ? would it stand in a court of law ?

In order for you to invalidate their accounts, you would need to have a clear picture of WTC 7's South side after the collapse of the North Tower. Without that, the firefighter accounts are all that we have (due to the smoke covering the face of the building after the fires had been burning for some time). What proof do you have that invalidates the firefighter testimony and shows them to be liars?

Here's an example of a demolition team using the term 'pull' referring to pulling down/demolishing WTC6.

I guess it's just another co-incidence that it's used in exactly the same context as Larry Silverstein pull it comment. Of course, they're talking about pulling a building down but when Larry says it then it means something completely different.

Hmm but wait just a minute, regardless of all this, doesn't it take several months of planning to bring a building down? Yet here's a demolition team pulling 4,5 and 6 just weeks into the cleanup... Mazzocchi Demolition eh, the mob related demolition team.

Nick Mazzocchi boasts his demolition company could have taken down the Empire State Building.

Built up over four decades, Mazzocchi commanded the state’s largest army of excavators, high rise cranes, and heavy trucks.

...One of the first firms on the scene was Mazzocchi Wrecking, brought in by the New York City Housing Preservation Department, but then hired by AMEC. A few months after 9/11, the N.J. Division of Gaming Enforcement "charged that three members of the DeCavalcante crime family worked for Mazzocchi." 78 Other AMEC contractors that were linked to the mob were Peter Scalamandre & Sons, and Breeze National, both linked to the Luchese crime family. AMEC's lead person on the ground was Vice President Leo DiRubbo, a reputed associate of the Luchese crime family.

reply to post by Varemia


These are eyewitness accounts -V- nothing more nothing less , you can`t hang on their every word just because they`re firemen.
There was no severe damage to wtc7 , the fires were not hot enough , and the building imploded.
Doesn`t fit with their eye witness accounts .