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

Originally posted by coyotepoet


And then you realize that the trees you have been looking at are really the legs of an elephant, like the 3 blind men who were convinced an elephant was a tree, a rope, or a hose depending on whether the blind man was "looking" at the elephant's leg, tail, or trunk. These individual "trees" can be deceptive, and I'm not just pointing the fingers at the debunkers. Human perception is an interesting thing. To quote a Vorlon, "Understanding is a 3-edged sword, your side, their side, and the truth."

See, here is the problem. You (truthers) are looking at a large forest and trying to determine what all those trees are.

Me (and most debunkers) look at one tree at a time and dig deep to determine what it is.

Who do you think is more apt to look at all those trees and mistake it for an "elephant"? The person who is looking at a clump of trees, or the person that studies them one at a time?

Enough with the metaphorical jibber jabber. I'm hoping you now can understand why debunkers dissect each issues - one at a time. We like to speak with truth, facts, & hard data. Something truthers avoid like the plague.

reply to post by ANOK

Yes, if you think sagging trusses can pull in columns, and cause global collapse, then you don't understand physics.

Well, since you have such an unmatched understanding of physics then you must be pretty good at math - so here's a little math question - what are the odds that out of millions and millions of engineers and physicists on the planet earth, only one person picks up on what you consider an obvious flaw?

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by coyotepoet


And then you realize that the trees you have been looking at are really the legs of an elephant, like the 3 blind men who were convinced an elephant was a tree, a rope, or a hose depending on whether the blind man was "looking" at the elephant's leg, tail, or trunk. These individual "trees" can be deceptive, and I'm not just pointing the fingers at the debunkers. Human perception is an interesting thing. To quote a Vorlon, "Understanding is a 3-edged sword, your side, their side, and the truth."

See, here is the problem. You (truthers) are looking at a large forest and trying to determine what all those trees are.

Me (and most debunkers) look at one tree at a time and dig deep to determine what it is.

Who do you think is more apt to look at all those trees and mistake it for an "elephant"? The person who is looking at a clump of trees, or the person that studies them one at a time?

Enough with the metaphorical jibber jabber. I'm hoping you now can understand why debunkers dissect each issues - one at a time. We like to speak with truth, facts, & hard data. Something truthers avoid like the plague.

"Who do you think is more apt to look at all those trees and mistake it for an "elephant"? The person who is looking at a clump of trees, or the person that studies them one at a time? "

Teacher ,teacher, I got my hand up.

The ONE at a time dummy!!!
CAUSE there is a tiger behind all the other trees waiting to eat his dumb as#.
Larry said PULL IT and WATCHED the BUILDING SEVEN fall.
Into it's own foot print. Foot prints are all that's left of the stupid single tree watcher too.

Originally posted by coyotepoet
reply to post by GenRadek

 

I think it is interesting that the last several pages at least and perhaps much of the rest, of back and forth bickering of ONE aspect of the whole thing. Bolts and steel beams. Bolts and steel beams. The thing is, the whole of 9/11 isn't about just one aspect, it is about the whole picture looked at together. The anomalies, the reports, the "co-incidences" all add up after a while to provide a bigger picture to those that are willing to see it, and that bigger picture clearly points to the fact that the OS is a big lie, whatever the truth is.

I'm sorry, I completely disagree with you here. It's only possible to believe in things like a missile at the Pentagon or CD at the WTC if you purposely refuse to investigate each issue properly.

That's why so many threads here end with Truthers either accusing 'debunkers' of being shills, or else basically conceding that the claim in question may not have merit "but if you look at the bigger picture..." When in fact each small component of the bigger picture has also been, in almost every case, debunked.

Therefore, these focused arguments about one aspect successfully derail the search for the truth because in this case, the truth is in the bigger picture. You cannot take one aspect and one aspect only and continue to argue your point ad infinitum and hope to get any where towards finding the truth. Like the whole premise of the OP. All right, so "pull it" may or may not be slang for CD, but it is only one aspect and cannot be taken as proof that the OS true.

But, sorry - you can't blame people for responding to a thread that advances that point of view with a discussion of, um, that point of view. What are they supposed to do? Veer off topic?

It's through painstaking accumulation of facts and details that the truth is uncovered. And in the case of 9/11 you're right - you do have to ignore the details if you want to be a "Truther". Because any examination of them shows each and every claim to be baseless.

There definitely are paid agents on here meant to influence the direction of discussions. Who they are is up for debate and it is unfair to point fingers, but the fact that they are here is unarguable. That focusing on the trees to exclude the forest is a great way to influence discussion because that goads the CT'ers like Anok to constantly defend their positions which wastes page after page on pointless discussion, because that is the point-to avoid the exploration of the metaphorical forest.

But if people like ANOK are unable to defend their position then they are probably wrong, no?

It certainly looks that way to me. And it doesn't actually matter if Anok's opinions are shown to be false by a paid agent or a private citizen or a lump of cheese. They're still false.

So, to my CT brethren: Don't allow yourself to get drawn in to pointless back and forth arguments that only serve to keep the truth further at bay. And to the debunkers, if you don't want people to suspect your motives, don't use tactics that are straight out of disinfo 101.

edit on 19-4-2012 by coyotepoet because: (no reason given)

It's not disinfo 101 to look at things in detail. It's the action of a cultist to demand that despite the details not being in place or correct the "bigger picture" is still true. Because that is an act of faith, not logic.

reply to post by ANOK


I can remember that you were claiming that I did not understanding physics, after I did not answer your completely irrelevant physics question. And now you yourself have already either refused to answer or given a completely wrong answer to a very basic physics question. According to your own standards, you don't understand basic physics. I guess, although your standards make no sense at all, they accidentally come to the correct conclusion this time.

But I am still awaiting for you to answer this basic physics question, as it is extremely relevant to understanding the WTC collapse. I just don't really have very high hopes. I think you will just ignore it again. I guess avoiding reality is the most convenient option for you.

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by ANOK


Says you.

Says me? No, mate says ALL controlled demolitions. Unless for the first time in history, 3 buildings were demolished using silent bombs. Oh wait... you don't know what was used. It must have been a sekrit gubbamint bomb!

Where is the evidence that no explosives were heard?

I don't find it necessary to post the collapses of the towers. I am quite certain you have seen and heard the ones up close. If you are having a hard time finding the one for WTC...there is a news reporter interviewing a woman with a baby. The building starts collapsing behind them...and they had no idea.

Who said a bomb or bombs is the only way to take down a building????? Ever heard of thermite? That's just one way that doesn't require loud booms. And please don't be naive... You really think that over 60 years after the atomic bomb that no major advancements in weaponry have been made?? There's all kinds of stuff we dont even know about. Things we couldn't even imagine! They aren't going to tell us, because if even one person had access to anti gravity, teleportation, time travel, invisibility, unlimited free energy, or any other amazing technology, they could cause unimaginable destruction if they chose to... So imagine if the whole world had access to some fantastic technology! All it would take is one group of nutjobs to destroy humanity thinking they're doing "gods will" because we are all sinners and its their job to bring gods judgement to us. OR, OR, a gigantic catastrophy could happen by total accident, with the very best of intentions! So they keep it for tjemselves and use it rarely when they deem it necessary.

Even if you think I'm a loony toon for thinking all this COULD be true, you have to accept the fact that there are KNOWN ways to destroy or weaken steel without creating a very loud boom... Like very hot thermite, or very cold nitro glycerin... You don't even have to destroy it, just weaken it enough so it cannot support the weight of a tall building... Under the guise of maintanance some devices could have been planted where nobody would see. I'm just saying, its possible. I have no idea what happened but I believe in my heart that there is a lot we have been lied to about. The insider trading alone is enough to convince me...

Originally posted by 3n19m470
Who said a bomb or bombs is the only way to take down a building????? Ever heard of thermite? That's just one way that doesn't require loud booms. And please don't be naive... You really think that over 60 years after the atomic bomb that no major advancements in weaponry have been made?? There's all kinds of stuff we dont even know about. Things we couldn't even imagine! They aren't going to tell us, because if even one person had access to anti gravity, teleportation, time travel, invisibility, unlimited free energy, or any other amazing technology, they could cause unimaginable destruction if they chose to... So imagine if the whole world had access to some fantastic technology! All it would take is one group of nutjobs to destroy humanity thinking they're doing "gods will" because we are all sinners and its their job to bring gods judgement to us. OR, OR, a gigantic catastrophy could happen by total accident, with the very best of intentions! So they keep it for tjemselves and use it rarely when they deem it necessary.

What you're referring to here is called "Deus Ex Machine", or "God in the machine" and refers to a literary device where glaring holes in the plotline of a story is filled in by some fantastical device or machine that has no purpose other than that one function. James Bond's gadgetry is a case in point, where a watch can become a supermagnet that attracts something that helps the hero to escape from across the room while tied up and surrounded by pirahnas, which other than that is a pretty useless feature.

What YOU'RE referring to is the faith in some similar wonder device or machine that has no other purpose in nature than to blow up a building silently, and of course the excuse for it never being seen anywhere on the face of the planet before is that "it's secret gov't technology and the gov't always has technology we don't know about". The problem is that this isn't an explanation- it's circular logic in that you're just explaining the exact same original opinion in different terms in order to explain itself. Secret agents snuck in and sabotaged the building without anyone noticing, and they used secretly planted explosives to do it, and it wasn't just any explosives, but "secret agent" explosives. Of course, the reason why nobody noticed any of this is because the secret agents are spreading disinformation to cover it up. The point is, you seem to be relying a hell of a lot on this "secret agent" crutch here.

On a side note, I'm in the tech field so I see right way you're trying to spell "Enigmato" in your handle. Hasn't Hacker speak gone out of style because of overuse by the script kiddies?

This should put the whole "pull it" issue to rest.....

www.thewebfairy.com...

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK

 

Yes, if you think sagging trusses can pull in columns, and cause global collapse, then you don't understand physics.

Well, since you have such an unmatched understanding of physics then you must be pretty good at math - so here's a little math question - what are the odds that out of millions and millions of engineers and physicists on the planet earth, only one person picks up on what you consider an obvious flaw?

So have you spoken to every one of these millions and millions of engineers you are going on about to clarify if they pick up on the flaw or not?! Nope, didn't think so, your comment is void.

Originally posted by kidtwist

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK

 

Yes, if you think sagging trusses can pull in columns, and cause global collapse, then you don't understand physics.

Well, since you have such an unmatched understanding of physics then you must be pretty good at math - so here's a little math question - what are the odds that out of millions and millions of engineers and physicists on the planet earth, only one person picks up on what you consider an obvious flaw?

So have you spoken to every one of these millions and millions of engineers you are going on about to clarify if they pick up on the flaw or not?! Nope, didn't think so, your comment is void.

He seems to hold the mathematical smoking gun, the indisputable final nail in the coffin of the "OS", yet he selfishly chooses to keep this to himself, arguing only with ignorant amateurs and lay-people on ATS. None of these published researchers seem to have any real understanding of physics. It's too bad Anok won't publish his superior physics acumen and share with the world the final answer to 9/11.

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Originally posted by kidtwist

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK

 

Yes, if you think sagging trusses can pull in columns, and cause global collapse, then you don't understand physics.

Well, since you have such an unmatched understanding of physics then you must be pretty good at math - so here's a little math question - what are the odds that out of millions and millions of engineers and physicists on the planet earth, only one person picks up on what you consider an obvious flaw?

So have you spoken to every one of these millions and millions of engineers you are going on about to clarify if they pick up on the flaw or not?! Nope, didn't think so, your comment is void.

He seems to hold the mathematical smoking gun, the indisputable final nail in the coffin of the "OS", yet he selfishly chooses to keep this to himself, arguing only with ignorant amateurs and lay-people on ATS. None of these published researchers seem to have any real understanding of physics. It's too bad Anok won't publish his superior physics acumen and share with the world the final answer to 9/11.

Many people have published their findings that contradict the OS findings. It's obvious in a cover up situation that the OS findings will naturally support their story! Unfortunately there are many people wise to the OS fabrications, and they have done their own research, and found that the OS physics are a total sham!

Originally posted by kidtwist

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Originally posted by kidtwist

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK

 

Yes, if you think sagging trusses can pull in columns, and cause global collapse, then you don't understand physics.

Well, since you have such an unmatched understanding of physics then you must be pretty good at math - so here's a little math question - what are the odds that out of millions and millions of engineers and physicists on the planet earth, only one person picks up on what you consider an obvious flaw?

So have you spoken to every one of these millions and millions of engineers you are going on about to clarify if they pick up on the flaw or not?! Nope, didn't think so, your comment is void.

He seems to hold the mathematical smoking gun, the indisputable final nail in the coffin of the "OS", yet he selfishly chooses to keep this to himself, arguing only with ignorant amateurs and lay-people on ATS. None of these published researchers seem to have any real understanding of physics. It's too bad Anok won't publish his superior physics acumen and share with the world the final answer to 9/11.

Many people have published their findings that contradict the OS findings. It's obvious in a cover up situation that the OS findings will naturally support their story! Unfortunately there are many people wise to the OS fabrications, and they have done their own research, and found that the OS physics are a total sham!

Care to share any of these "many people"? In which professional or peer-reviewed journals have they published? Can you refer us to the articles as I have done?

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Care to share any of these "many people"? In which professional or peer-reviewed journals have they published? Can you refer us to the articles as I have done?

Well, technically there IS Judy Wood and her crackpot "lasers from outerspace" report. If memory serves, didn't Morgan Reynolds put out a book pushing the "no planes" theory?

Kidtwist said there were "many people who released reports that refute the OS". I notice he never mentioned wiat it was they were saying.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Well, technically there IS Judy Wood and her crackpot "lasers from outerspace" report.

You just insist on repeating the same old lies and embellishing them with the same old rhetoric. Do you have any idea how transparent you are? This stuff only works with imbeciles, and I personally take offense to this crap as an insult to all intelligent readers. You're bringing ATS down to Peanut Gallery level.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
This should put the whole "pull it" issue to rest.....

www.thewebfairy.com...

I doubt it. Truthers hear what they want to.

Building Six was pulled. Seven was not.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
This should put the whole "pull it" issue to rest.....

www.thewebfairy.com...

I doubt it. Truthers hear what they want to.

Building Six was pulled. Seven was not.

That's the point. It confirms what "pull it" means. Or did that escape you?

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
This should put the whole "pull it" issue to rest.....

www.thewebfairy.com...

I doubt it. Truthers hear what they want to.

Building Six was pulled. Seven was not.

That's the point. It confirms what "pull it" means. Or did that escape you?

Yes, it almost does. And I applaud you for trying to settle the debate. But unfortunately Truthers are still going to pretend that it means something other than pulling a building down with cables.

Unless of course you think Seven was pulled down with cables?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Yes, it almost does. And I applaud you for trying to settle the debate. But unfortunately Truthers are still going to pretend that it means something other than pulling a building down with cables.

Unless of course you think Seven was pulled down with cables?

It means to pull a building down, by whatever means appropriate to the situation. It certainly does not mean to pull the firemen out of an already empty building. "They made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse." All of your obfuscating from here to Kingdom Come won't change that.

And why did Larry say it? He's a smug bastard who knew he could say it and get away with it. That's how these douchebags work. They tell you what they are going to do or have done so that they don't violate free will, in their own bass-ackwards reality,

It must really suck to have to fight from between a rock and a hard place. I don't envy you.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
It means to pull a building down, by whatever means appropriate to the situation. It certainly does not mean to pull the firemen out of an already empty building. "They made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse." All of your obfuscating from here to Kingdom Come won't change that.

No it does not mean that. It means to pull down a building with cables after weakenign the structure first. The relevent pages from a demolition reference book was already posted here a few pages back and that's specifically what it says. Alex Jones made up the whole "pull it is lingo for demolitions" as he was falsely quoting demolitions experts talking about pulling down WTC 6 with cables. These are the facts and it does you no credit to be making things up to defend this internet hoax.

And why did Larry say it? He's a smug bastard who knew he could say it and get away with it. That's how these douchebags work. They tell you what they are going to do or have done so that they don't violate free will, in their own bass-ackwards reality,

What concerns me here is that your blind arrogance is leading you to call Silverstein of being "a smug bastard" and a "douchebag" entirely becuase of an internet hoax. Silverstein specifically said it was in reference to getting the firefighters out of a dangerous area and I have not seen anything showing he meant anything to the contrary outside of those damned fool conspiracy web sites and those "sinister secret plots to take over the world" claims they're spewing, so unless you have anything more tangible to base your assessments on then I will need to presume this is nothng but your own abject paranoia.

'good' ol dave, don't you ever tire of trying to defend the indefensible? if nothing else, i admire your stamina