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: 8
17
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   
Yea to me it like a trade name the old timers used to say, take a building down, because back in the old days if they had a problem or the structure was old, that's all they could do is pull it down.
Then building got taller and some one had a big steel ball, so who's going to pull the building, that guy with the big steel ball is going to knock it down.
Then at some point the explosive engineers retired military most, thought we'll just blow they up.

But in construction trade names stick, if they called something that 50 years ago, if something resembles it today they still call it by trade name.

So "pull it" they could of said "take it down" , "knock it down" old steel ball method, it's new age to say "let's use explosives to demolish the building". "OK it's done, pull it". Get the permits, what ever else, but the buildings got to come down, don't make any dust or break any windows, as collateral damage.




posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by 4hero
 



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.


Structure was not wood, but contents were combustible.

In fact in modern office building almost everything will burn - much of it (carpets, furniture, computers/monitors
and such) are synthethics. Synthethics aka plastic are derived from petroleum. They burn with heat energy
of some 12,000 to 16,000 btu.lb. Organics (wood, paper, cloth) only burn with 8000 - 8500 btu/lb

Them again as a ofiice building there was tons and tons of paper to burn

By mid afternoon fires were observed on 13 floors - I guess that is not "out of control" .....



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by bastardo
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?


All right, if that's all you're able to get out of the analogy, then how about "Everything the Bible is the complete truth because there's a passage in the Bible that says everything in the Bible is the complete truth." It's still circular logic to be quoting something as a fact when the the thing you're quoting is simply someone else quoting you, regardless of what wrapper you're putting it in.

There's no way I can explain this any more clearly.



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.


How about the IT being shorthand for "pull the plug on the operation to save the building". What *I* don't see is how anyone actually would think the New York Fire Department (or any other fire department for that matter) is even remotely involved in controlled demolitions. It says right in Silverstein's quote that he said THEY "pull it", not himself.


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


Said who? When the guy said it he was simply talking off the top of his head in an impromptu discussion. He wasn't anticipating armies of conspiracy people were going to be going through his grammer with a fine tooth comb looking for secret hidden meanings.


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


Oh, I get it now- you're one of those characters who is so madly in love with these conspiracy claims that you identify with them on such a strong emotional level that any attack on these claims however vague is seen as a personal attack on yourself, and you respond in kind. That's not research. That's blind zealotry.

I didn't ask what your mother's bra size was, guy. I asked to show how "pull it" was slang for controlled demolitions and all I've gotten so far is "it's what you conspiracy people want "pull it" to mean". If you can't show how that statement is incorrect with a more mature and reasonable answer than "I'm dumb and uneducated if I don't believe what you believe" then go back to playing your Nintendo, kid. Princess Peach isn't going to rescue herself, you know.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


The predominant reason alternate truth theorists believe the towers on 9/11 were taken down via controlled demolition is: a) 3 towers fell with only 2 planes, b) they fell into their footprint with extreme impact pulverizing everything, including concrete and steel.

Asymmetry (planes crashing into buildings, fires in WTC7) does not lead to symmetry (buildings falling into their footprint perfectly). That is not how nature works.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by sadwolf
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

Its such a mute point why bother? What he "said", what he didn't "say" ,"how he said it" blah blah blah.
The facts are the 40+ story building came down in a little over a minute,,, just collapsed into itself!




???????

No it didn't! WTC 7 was standing upright and burning for seven hours after it got whacked by wreckage from the north tower, and if it's such a mute point then why is every conspiracy theorist from Alex Jones to Richard Gage who's pushing their "controlled demolitions" theories using this "pull it" bit to justify their claims?

Or is it simply become moot now that you're beginning to realize this "pull it is slang for controlled demolitions" claim is just something those guys made up?



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
 

TO: Vancouver City Council
FROM: City Building Inspector
SUBJECT: Demolition of Dangerous Building
5370 Taunton Street
Lot 11, Block 18, 19 and 22, District Lot 37, Plan 2220
COUNCIL POLICY
Section 324A of the Vancouver Charter enables Council by resolution or By-
law to declare any building, in or upon any private or public lands a
nuisance or dangerous to the public safety or health and by such By-law or
resolution, to order that building to be removed by the owner, agent,
lessee or occupier thereof.
City staff have contacted the property owner by phone to request that he
obtain a demolition permit and pull down and demolish the building,
however, the owner has demonstrated no desire to cooperate.


Apples and oranges. This was referring to literally pulling a rickety building down with cables, so it isn't demolition lingo any more than "pull it" is farmer's lingo that describes how a horse makes a plow move.

I find it ironic that in an arena so extensively anal retentive where people will even argue over the symantics of someone saying pull IT instead of pull THEM would suddenly be forgiving when someone else says pull DOWN instead of pull IT. You're literally changing your definitions in mid argument to suit your agenda, here.


something tells me you weren't really looking very hard


Something tells me you really need to keep looking. I don't even see how "pull it" would even be slang for controlled demolitions because it's not pulling anything at all. It's blowing things up.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4hero
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.


Not true. Deputy fire chief Peter Hayden was there at the scene and he said the fires in WTC 7 were burning out of control because the water supplies for the building's fire prevention systems were destroyed by the collapse of the north tower, so unless you have something that shows why a guy who was physically there and in the business of fighting fires is wrong and you're right, I'm necessarily going to take his side of the story.

I thought you people always said we needed to rely on eyewitness accounts on such things. It was in fact his testimony that I was referring to when I said it.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The slang words "pull it" (meaning to implode a structure/building) comes from demolition experts who go in to buildings, like those old casinos in Las Vegas, and "bring them down" in a controlled explosion, so that a new casino (for example) can be built on that particular site.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Oannes
 


LOL

Such brain dead "logic".

The OS of 9/11 never claims it was hit by a plane, so that's a strawman...

And the Enron thing... give me a break, there was dozens of things in that building; you just chose a random one then "connected" meaningless "dots" to form a baseless opinion.

Show us actual proof that Enron was connected to 9/11. Go on.

Annnnnnnnnnnd..... you can't.

But sure, that doesn't stop you from making wild accusations.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by dign4it
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The slang words "pull it" (meaning to implode a structure/building) comes from demolition experts who go in to buildings, like those old casinos in Las Vegas, and "bring them down" in a controlled explosion, so that a new casino (for example) can be built on that particular site.



Really? And exactly who are these "demolition experts" and why would they choose those words as slang?



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   
BTW:

Go read this:

www.911myths.com...



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


The term "pulling" the building is still used among the old school guys. You have to remember that there are still guys that did this kind of work from 50 years ago that used to help their dad with the company and stuff like that. It's an older term and now it's been bastardized. As for building 7 being demolished...Looks pretty fishy to me. My impression is that indeed it was imploded. But I'm no expert. But ehe odds of having 3 steel builgings come down due to fire in the same day and they're the only one ever to react to fire in this maner....



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by anakark
 



The predominant reason alternate truth theorists believe the towers on 9/11 were taken down via controlled demolition is: a) 3 towers fell with only 2 planes,

So if a plane had hit wtc7 then there would be no conspiracy theories?

b) they fell into their footprint with extreme impact pulverizing everything, including concrete and steel.

So if they were spread out a little more and fallen a little more gently then there would be no conspiracy fantasies?

Asymmetry (planes crashing into buildings, fires in WTC7)

Please explain why a plane crashing into a building is declared "asymmetrical".

does not lead to symmetry (buildings falling into their footprint perfectly). That is not how nature works

Can you prove that? So the buildings fell PERFECTLY into their footprints? Wrong.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Glad to see that the fairiytalers get a field day, ATS is going down at a rate its reassuring.
Nice to see the owners-mods show their colors afterall.

You really need to ask yourself why a post by one of the fairytalers, wich has in his signature written whatever fairy tale he believes, AKA the OS, is still allowed to stir the pot and seek a few bans here and there for the truth seekers.

Above Those Retards...



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   
" Pull it " as meaning explosive controlled demolition in this conversation makes absolutely no sense on any level. Just as a matter of plain English try substituting explosive controlled demolition for " pull it " :-

It becomes " We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is explosively demolish it." The last part of the sentence then bears no relation to the first part. How would explosively demolishing a damaged burning building be safer than simply pulling the men back ?

Then you have to consider the absurdities that arise if you want to believe that " pull it " in this conversation meant explosive controlled demolition. Does it not mean that :-

a) Larry Silverstein knew the building was rigged for cd but hadn't come to any decision about implementing it until a telephone conversation in the afternoon of 9/11 when WTC 7 had been on fire for hours .Did he never think of doing anything himself before the building fell down spewing det cord and undetonated charges everywhere ?

b) FDNY were clearly in on it and raring to go despite losing several hundred men that day. Silverstein did not have to explain other than to say "pull it" nor did he have to say " the plunger is in the garage " or some such to start the process. So it is implicitly alleged that FDNY fully colluded and were already aware of all the cd arrangements.

c) With FDNY in full collusion why was a telephone discussion necessary ? In one of the worst mass murders in history hadn't any plans been made prior ? Was it really being made up as it went along ?

d) And then I suppose the oscar winning absurdity. Larry Silverstein admits it all on TV.

I go with Industrial Risk Insurers who paid out $861 million in respect of WTC 7 because they had no choice, much as they might have wished otherwise.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Maybe he was talking about a chicken...wiki.answers.com...



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by anakark
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


The predominant reason alternate truth theorists believe the towers on 9/11 were taken down via controlled demolition is: a) 3 towers fell with only 2 planes, b) they fell into their footprint with extreme impact pulverizing everything, including concrete and steel.

Asymmetry (planes crashing into buildings, fires in WTC7) does not lead to symmetry (buildings falling into their footprint perfectly). That is not how nature works.


I beg to differ. Anyone who reads my posts will know my position that the predominant reason why truth theorists believe the towers were taken down by controlled demolitions is because they're getting all their information from a bunch of internet con artists making up nonsense to make a fast buck...but that's neither here nor there. None of this of addresses the topic of why "pull it" supposedly means "controlled demolitions, except perhaps that it's relevent because I'm trying to prove a point this is also coming from a bunch of internet con artists making up nonsense to make a fast buck.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


So if a plane had hit wtc7 then there would be no conspiracy theories?

WTC7 is the smoking gun. United flight 93 that was supposed to hit it was hijacked by passengers and brought down in a field in Shanksville. According to the NIST report, WTC7 fell at free fall speeds for 2.5 seconds. Fell at free fall speeds due to fire? That doesn't add up.

So if they were spread out a little more and fallen a little more gently then there would be no conspiracy fantasies?

What I am saying is that in the history of fires burning in buildings for extended periods of time (much longer than the WTCs), NONE have fallen in such a controlled demolition fashion.

So if the plane impact/fires were the actual cause of the collapse, the buildings would have not fell into their own footprint.

Watch your language, 'conspiracy fantasy' implies your ignorance and vehement denial of anything that is not spoon fed to you by the media.

Please explain why a plane crashing into a building is declared "asymmetrical".
does not lead to symmetry (buildings falling into their footprint perfectly).

The point is that fires burning at random in buildings does not cause them to come down directly into their footprint, as in controlled demolition style.



Can you prove that? So the buildings fell PERFECTLY into their footprints? Wrong.

Perfect is a relative term. In regards to them being a perfect demolition, yes they were.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by XLR8R
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


The term "pulling" the building is still used among the old school guys. You have to remember that there are still guys that did this kind of work from 50 years ago that used to help their dad with the company and stuff like that. It's an older term and now it's been bastardized. As for building 7 being demolished...Looks pretty fishy to me. My impression is that indeed it was imploded. But I'm no expert. But ehe odds of having 3 steel builgings come down due to fire in the same day and they're the only one ever to react to fire in this maner....


All right, fine. Give me a source that says "pull it" is lingo for controlled demolitions among "the old school guys" because all you've said is that "pull it" is shorthand for saying "pull it down" regardless of whether explosives are used or not...in which case it's not lingo, it's decribing what they were actually doing. The reason I'm asking is that if you're willing to accept the possibility "pull it" is short hand for "pull it down" then you have to also be willing to accept the possibility that "pull it" is also shorthand for "pull the plug on the operation to save the building".

No matter how you slice it and dice it, it's still blatantly apparent the conspiracy theorists are reverse engineering this whole thing themselves and are inventing "pull it means controlled demolitions with explosives" because they're of the belief that controlled demolitions with explosives were used.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I feel sorry for you and your soul.

Peace



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join