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: 71
17
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by RockLobster

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.



So are you renouncing this whole "pull it is lingo for controlled demolitions" bit as a hoax? The whole purpose of this thread was to determine the validity of the claim, and regardless of what other conspiracy theories you subscribe to, if you're agreeing with the mountain of evidence that shows THIS one has been completely made up by crackpots and con artists like Alex Jones to give themselves false credibility, then I withdraw my comment, as there's no real grounds for debate.




posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by RockLobster



Seems water tight does it ? want to go back and quote the posts that confirm i believe the dribble he wrote ?

If you have been taking any notice at all from your plastic bubble in fairy land ..... you will already know what i believe happened , so why are you all making a point of asking me over and over ?


That's the point. If you think that building seven was demolished and Silverstein admitted it then you have to allow that those things must be true. Logically you have to believe them. If you don't then you have to go back and alter your beliefs.

I encounter this time and again here. Truthers are shown the necessary implications of their beliefs and they profess not to believe them. It's insane.
edit on 11-4-2012 by TrickoftheShade because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by RockLobster



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



Not really. But if you want your viewpoint to become commonly accepted then you need to have decent arguments that stand up when people criticise them.

Unless you don't care about the Truth...



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious

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


That's because they did "pull" WTC 6. With chains.

Are you saying that's what they did to 7?



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious
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.


Why exactly would it be a coincidence that someone is saying "pull it" when that's literally what they're being paid to do- pulling down a destroyed building with cables? Are you seriously suggesting Silverstein ordered the NYFD to secretly pull down the WTC 7 building with cables?



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by RockLobster
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.


How exactly is it ignorant to point out that between the eyewitness accounts of people who were physically there and the accounts of peopel who are clearly lunatics, that it's a safe bet to rely on the eyewitness accounst of peopel who were physically there. I am relying on firefighters like Deputy chief Hayden who specifically said the fires in WTC 7 were burning out of control, while everyone else clinging to this "pull it is lingo for controlled demolitions" is quoting this joker (pun intended) whether they realize it or not.

I'm askign you to state in 30 words or less why these firefighters for 9/11 truth people think there's a conspiracy. If it's because of the "pull it is lingo for controlled demolitions" foolishness Jones is putting out then there's no way their position is credible, regardless of whether they're firefighters or not.



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.


This is your own low elf esteem talking, not me. I've already said I don't believe you're stupid or even crazy. My position is that the information you're basing your positions on was all invented by these internet con artists and crackpots regardless of whether you heard it directly or word of mouth. I myself didn't know Alex Jones invented the "pull it is lingo for controlled demolitions" hoax either until I started this thread.

The very moment...the very billionth of a second...you need to rely on "armies of sinister secret agents planted everywhere" to explain how your conspiracy claims are tenable, it's an admission you ARE directly or indirectly referencing the horse [censored] these characters are putting out because it's their abject paranoid over these armies of sinister secret agents planted everywhere that's instigating their theories and accusations to begin with.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave




The very moment...the very billionth of a second...you need to rely on "armies of sinister secret agents planted everywhere" to explain how your conspiracy claims are tenable, it's an admission you ARE directly or indirectly referencing the horse [censored] these characters are putting out because it's their abject paranoid over these armies of sinister secret agents planted everywhere that's instigating their theories and accusations to begin with.

Rant and rave dav.
I busted this down to make it easy for you to see your Ignorance in the bright light of day.
You are the ingnorant one that started the whole shooting match.(instigator)
"who ever said by good ole dave"
Do you never tire from trippin on the damn fool reports and your own shoe laces???
later ljb
edit on 4/11/2012 by longjohnbritches because: sce

edit on 4/11/2012 by longjohnbritches because: grrr quot

edit on 4/11/2012 by longjohnbritches because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Are you seriously suggesting Silverstein ordered the NYFD to secretly pull down the WTC 7 building with cables?


I've already told you at least twice I don't believe Silverstein spoke to the fire department commander, there is no proof he spoke to anyone in FDNY.

Silverstein would also have us believe the antenna of the north tower sliced through the facade of 7, that never happened either!

Silverstein would pay his lawyers to have us believe his comments meant pull out the firefighters, yet there were no firefighters in the building!

Either way, I guess FDNY is exempt from corruption and criminal activity right? Considering that NYPD Bernard Kerik 911 police commissioner is now behind bars for FRAUD and mobster connections, how could one ever believe every member of the FDNY are completely honest and legit.



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



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
Rant and rave dav.
I busted this down to make it easy for you to see your Ignorance in the bright light of day.
You are the ingnorant one that started the whole shooting match.(instigator)
"who ever said by good ole dave"
Do you never tire from trippin on the damn fool reports and your own shoe laces???
later ljb


No, actually, it was technically Alex Jones who started this whole "pull it is lingo for controlled demolitions" bit becuase he's the one who invented that whole hoax, but that's neither here nor there.

It is not for debate that the conspiracy theorists religiously have to rely on "armies of sinister secret agents" to justify their pet theories from "how the secret controlled demolitions got into the buildings without being noticed" to "why the NIST and FEMA reports contradict what you want to believe" to even "why all the eyewitnesses are saying they saw a plane hit the Pentagon". I don't think a week goes by without someone accusing *me* of being a sinister secret agent spreading disinformation. If you're saying this isn't the case then you are lying,

I've said many times that if you don't concur with the 9/11 commission report then it becomes YOUR responsibility to provide an alternative scenario that better fits the facts, and that's ALL the facts, not the carefully cherry picked one or two tidbits you've found that kinds-sorta looks the way you want it to look. Don't blame me when I simply point out the glaring holes in your conspiracy theories that you don't want anyone to notice.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Are you seriously suggesting Silverstein ordered the NYFD to secretly pull down the WTC 7 building with cables?



If he is, or me, or any one out side of the damn fool report koolaide drinkers.
Please quote who, what, where and when. Total accusatory IGNORANCE on your part dave.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious

I've already told you at least twice I don't believe Silverstein spoke to the fire department commander, there is no proof he spoke to anyone in FDNY.

Silverstein would also have us believe the antenna of the north tower sliced through the facade of 7, that never happened either!


I agree that Silverstein is not a reliable source. But why do you think he lied about speaking to the firmene but in the very same sentence apparently told the truth about the building being demolished?



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Are you seriously suggesting Silverstein ordered the NYFD to secretly pull down the WTC 7 building with cables?


I've already told you at least twice I don't believe Silverstein spoke to the fire department commander, there is no proof he spoke to anyone in FDNY.


If you're claiming he's lying about speaking to the NYFD then this means that whole claim about his ever saying "pull it" cannot be taken at face value either because the NYFD were the ones he claimed he said it to. All this means is that Silverstein is a total liar and this whole "pull it" bit is a double hoax.


Silverstein would pay his lawyers to have us believe his comments meant pull out the firefighters, yet there were no firefighters in the building!


Then would you mind terribly explaining how Barrry Jennings got out of WTC 7 after the north tower collapsed on it and trapped him inside? He himself admits it was the NYFD that went in and rescued him.

How is it that YOU'RE supposed to be the truther and I'M suppsoed to be the debunker, and yet I know your own conspiracies better than you do?



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

If he is, or me, or any one out side of the damn fool report koolaide drinkers.
Please quote who, what, where and when. Total accusatory IGNORANCE on your part dave.


Dude, have you been asleep throughout this whole "pull it is lingo for controlled demolitions" debate? It's irrefutably been proven by now that it's a hoax and that "pull it" referred to pulling a building down with cables. It's not even lingo- they're specifically saying what they're doing- so it's isn't any "lingo" any more than "watching TV" or "driving to the store to buy milk" or even "putting your daughter to bed" is. If you're claiming Silverstein referred to demolitions when he said that, then that's what it would have meant.

It's one thing for you to subscribe to these conspiracy claims because you have actual tangible evidence for it, but it's another thing entirely to cling to them in desperation because you don't want to believe you're being suckered by that crackpot Alex Jones. He's the one who invented that whole "pull it" hoax, after all.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave


Then would you mind terribly explaining how Barrry Jennings got out of WTC 7 after the north tower collapsed on it and trapped him inside? He himself admits it was the NYFD that went in and rescued him.



According to the New York times it was at 11:30 a.m that Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from WTC 7 for safety reasons. Barry Jennings was rescued not long after the north tower went down (10:30) so there was atleast a window of about an hour when firefighters were allowed to enter wtc7 after the north tower went down.

Larry Silverstein claims however he didn't speak to the Fire Dept, commander until 3:30 to 4:00pm! (Probably more like 4:30 to 5:00pm)



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
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!!!


Alex Jones? Is that you?



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by RockLobster
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 .


Do you have any proof of this, or is this your opinion? It seems like you're just making it up.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious

Originally posted by GoodOlDave


Then would you mind terribly explaining how Barrry Jennings got out of WTC 7 after the north tower collapsed on it and trapped him inside? He himself admits it was the NYFD that went in and rescued him.



According to the New York times it was at 11:30 a.m that Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from WTC 7 for safety reasons. Barry Jennings was rescued not long after the north tower went down (10:30) so there was atleast a window of about an hour when firefighters were allowed to enter wtc7 after the north tower went down.


Excuse me, but who's going back on their words now. Previously you said the firefighters weren't in the building and now you're admitting firefighters were in the building rescuing people. They weren't going to tell Silverstein they were abandoning efforts to save WTC 7 because of some OTHER building being in trouble. They were going to tell Silverstein they were abandoning the effort to save WTC 7 itself after the fires started burning out of control once it jumped to multiple floors, which would take much longer than just the one hour.


Larry Silverstein claims however he didn't speak to the Fire Dept, commander until 3:30 to 4:00pm! (Probably more like 4:30 to 5:00pm)


If you're going to guestimate at what time the conversation took place, then logically you can equally guestimate that the conversation could likewise have taken place earlier in the day, rather than later. While this was all going on everyone was staring in disbelief at what they were seeing and handling the situation the best they could. They WEREN'T carefully writing down the time documenting everything they were doing in case someone came along later to bicker over what they were doing.

I don't know the exact time the NYFD determined that the fies were beyond their ability to control and when they notified Silverstein...but then I really don't care. If you need to resort to looking under every rock and through every garbage can for evidence to back up your conspiracy claims that you're even resorting to bickering over the exact time the NYFD told Silverstein they were writing the building off, then this isn't research. It's a mark of extreme desperation from not wanting to admit you're wrong.

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



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave


Excuse me, but who's going back on their words now. Previously you said the firefighters weren't in the building and now you're admitting firefighters were in the building rescuing people.


Firstly, I never accused you of going back on your words so I don't know what relevance that comment has to anything, and secondly I never claimed there were no firefighters in the building on the day of 911...






If you're going to guestimate at what time the conversation took place, then logically you can equally guestimate that the conversation could likewise have taken place earlier in the day, rather than later.


Actually it wasn't really my guess, it was Larry Silverstein that told us the call was around 3:30-4:30pm in the afternoon. New York Times said the FDNY abandoned WTC7 at 11:30am. Larry claimed later that it was his own 'people' that he had in the building to ensure everyone had evacuated, not FDNY.




I don't know the exact time the NYFD determined that the fies were beyond their ability to control and when they notified Silverstein...but then I really don't care.


Oh neither do I, I just happened to notice..




If you need to resort to looking under every rock and through every garbage can for evidence to back up your conspiracy claims


Um.. I found it on the New York Times website and my other source is Larry Silverstein direct quotes, but I guess you consider them a "garbage can" source?

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



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
I am convinced you lot are being paid per word. Just look at how many 'OSer' posts one 'truther' post generates.

That and the tactic to flood the thread with apposing views. Problem is when it constantly comes from the same handful of people it becomes obvious.

You probably all sit back thinking what a good job you're doing.

Hilarious.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
I am convinced you lot are being paid per word. Just look at how many 'OSer' posts one 'truther' post generates.

That and the tactic to flood the thread with apposing views. Problem is when it constantly comes from the same handful of people it becomes obvious.

You probably all sit back thinking what a good job you're doing.

Hilarious.


What's obvious, is your consistent failure at offering a convincing argument. Have you figured out yet how 3 massive sized skyscrapers were wired for demolition covertly? Yeah, I didn't think so.

Hilarious!




top topics



 
17
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join