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

reply to post by anakark


It is often alleged that UA 93 was intended to hit WTC 7 but all the evidence is against it. When UA 93 turned around after the hi-jacking it settled on a bearing for Washington. The hi-jackers dialed in the VOR (VHF Omni-directional Range ) frequency for Reagan National airport to help them get there.

Then you have to consider the practicality of hitting WTC 7 while the Towers stood.

No, I think anyone who believes WTC 7 was a cd has to believe that the plan was just to blow it up without any cover or disguise. It was only by accident after all that it was hit by falling debris and fires started.

reply to post by anakark


Conjecture. Your points are invalid.

reply to post by Varemia


Not sure how a post asking questions can be considered invalid conjecture...?

99% of the things I see on truther threads are conjecture... please go through and make your point to all of those people.

1600 architects and engineers that stand behind 9/11 truth.

That was one of the funniest lists of "architects and engineers" that I have ever read. Some of their jobs and titles are hilarious.

And they spoke with actual folks who do that sort of job - all said the same thing. Pull it is not used in reference to demolishing a building.

Originally posted by Oannes
Read Jim Marrs book on 9/11. Im pretty sure he goes into detail on the things that were actually said and done on that day. World trade center 7 was never struck by an airplane, keep that in mind. What was the biggest story before 9/11...Enron anyone. And guess which building housed the Enron papers...WTC7. Connect the dots.

edit on 20-3-2012 by Oannes because: (no reason given)

No, it was struck by a falling building, a pretty big one.

Last time I checked that was bigger.

Whatever he meant by saying "pull"; it almost certainly would not be in reference to the fire firefighters. He has no authority over the city fire department or expertise in fighting fires. The decision would not be up to him. If it was then that only raises more suspicion. The Insurance company could possibly have some say in whether or not the fire fighters continued their attempts..... but probably not.

sb

Originally posted by safetyblack
Whatever he meant by saying "pull"; it almost certainly would not be in reference to the fire firefighters. He has no authority over the city fire department or expertise in fighting fires. The decision would not be up to him. If it was then that only raises more suspicion. The Insurance company could possibly have some say in whether or not the fire fighters continued their attempts..... but probably not.

sb

Additionally, Silverstein said "THEY (the fire fighters) made the decision to pull". Since when do fire departments conduct controlled demolitions?

From the context I think the usage of "pull it" seems pretty clear. The fire-chief calls Silverstein, owner of the building, and says, I don't thing we can save this thing. Silverstein responds with a consideration of the safety of the firefighters, i.e., okay then, let it go--it's not worth risking more lives to try to save it. "Pull it", meaning, pull the operation--pull the effort.

It's pretty silly to think he would be telling a documentary producer that he or, rather, the fire fighter decided to demo the building.

Its all very well saying that you are not debating what "Pull it" actually does mean, but that is crucial to the whole issue, so we'll tell YOU what is up for debate, not you telling us. So you can not find any reference to the term "Pull it" being used by demolition workers, well as far as I'm aware, Silversten is NOT a demolition worker and so whether he uses an industry term is totally irrelevent, what IS relevent, and the ONLY thing that is relevent is... WHAT DID HE MEAN? ... because one thing is certain, 47 storey buildings don't collapse at free fall speed into their own footprint because of their office furniture catching on fire.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

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.

Who is 'you people' ?? What category are you actually putting me into with that suggestion? You know nothing about me and you are categorising me?!

Looking at all footage I have seen, it does not depict a raging fire that cannot be controlled. Even so, it would not have brought the building down in a manner that resembled a controlled demolition.

Please do take the time to explain what kind of person you have pre-judged me as....

Originally posted by EddieCusak
Its all very well saying that you are not debating what "Pull it" actually does mean, but that is crucial to the whole issue, so we'll tell YOU what is up for debate, not you telling us. So you can not find any reference to the term "Pull it" being used by demolition workers, well as far as I'm aware, Silversten is NOT a demolition worker and so whether he uses an industry term is totally irrelevent, what IS relevent, and the ONLY thing that is relevent is... WHAT DID HE MEAN? ... because one thing is certain, 47 storey buildings don't collapse at free fall speed into their own footprint because of their office furniture catching on fire.

edit on 21-3-2012 by EddieCusak because: to make a further point

Do a google search of building 7 WTC pictures.

Then come back and say that again.

There was plenty of damage to WTC7, plus many hours of fire.

Originally posted by Myendica

dave. He didnt say pull them. And by the time he said "pull it" the two towers were down. So why would he? You know that you are wrong, atleast this once right dave? And to that other odd faced avatar member.. I agreed larry is stupid... Enough to screw up the secret in a documentary by admitting he pulled the building. It does not equal people. ........... You know what.. The only way "pull it" means firefighters.. Is if larry is one of those rich jewish type who think hes better than everyone and considers people, objects. Which very well could be the case.. Am I correct? Is that the answer you want dave? I know someone will want to delete this post... If I leave that in... Which means I may be right..

A) there's no possible way that "pull it" means controlled demolitions because according to your own scenario he was supposedly telling the New York Fire department to do it and the New York Fire Department supposedly "pulled it". Since when do fire departments ever work with with controlled demolitions?

B) "Rich Jewish type who thinks he's better than everyone"??? Is that some sort of Brownshirt thing?

C) This isn't the "Loose Change" forum and there isn't conscious censorship to advance any political agenda here, so you have the same right of free speech that everyone else has here. This is important because if you ask me, your bringing 'he's just a Jew" into the mix says more about your position than you actually intended to.

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver

 

It's a government building, it's liable to need repairs, inspections, maintenance and suchlike over a long period of time. Obviously the explosives were all ready to be used, there is no other explanation possible. Controlled demolitions require much time and much planning. Time and foresight is something TPTB are quite good at despite all appearances to the contrary.

I would strongly urge you to research your statement that it was a government building, and when I say strongly urge I mean "I would look up who owned it and who the tenants of the building were before you attempt to use that statement again".

Originally posted by humphreysjim
It doesn't even make sense.

If they've had a great loss of life, how would causing the building to collapse via explosives help that?

Also, is the thought that Silverstein just accidently gave away the whole conspiracy for a documentary? Are we imagining he's that stupid?

"Don't say it was a CTD, don't say it was a CTD, don't say it was a CTD...OOPS!!!"

He's already said what he meant by it, it seems pretty feasible it meant "pull the firefighters out and give it up", so why jump to the ridiculous conclusion that he gave the game away using a very obscure term that, as you say, does not even mean "bring down via controlled demolition"?

Silverstein would have said something like "pull THEM" or "get them out" or "evacuate", something that makes more sense in the context of people vacating a building. "Pull it" is most definitely not a term you'd use for that scenario. It is a CD term, and has been confirmed as such by demolitions experts. If Silverstein says otherwise, he is just doing damage control because of his careless talk.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

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.

Goodoldave, you should change your name to presumptious Dave, or judgemental Dave because you seem to think you know why people think certain things without a shred of information to back up your claims.


In the qote above you said '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'

Erm, sorry to disappoint you dear chap, but you are completely wrong. Maybe a few people just regurgitate what they read, but personally, I used my eyes and ears to work it out. Explosions and falling into own footprint in the way all 3 buildings did is enough to figure out it was a controlled demolition. One does not need other people to present their views for me to come to that conclusion. I'm sure you have watched the videos, it's blatantly obvious.

Surely you must just be trying to help cover things up, but you're not doing a convincing job!

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by humphreysjim
It doesn't even make sense.

If they've had a great loss of life, how would causing the building to collapse via explosives help that?

Also, is the thought that Silverstein just accidently gave away the whole conspiracy for a documentary? Are we imagining he's that stupid?

"Don't say it was a CTD, don't say it was a CTD, don't say it was a CTD...OOPS!!!"

He's already said what he meant by it, it seems pretty feasible it meant "pull the firefighters out and give it up", so why jump to the ridiculous conclusion that he gave the game away using a very obscure term that, as you say, does not even mean "bring down via controlled demolition"?

Silverstein would have said something like "pull THEM" or "get them out" or "evacuate", something that makes more sense in the context of people vacating a building. "Pull it" is most definitely not a term you'd use for that scenario. It is a CD term, and has been confirmed as such by demolitions experts. If Silverstein says otherwise, he is just doing damage control because of his careless talk.

Who are the demolitions experts who confirm that "pull it" means explosive cd in their jargon ?

It is apparent from the reported conversation that Silverstein suggested the "pull it" but FDNY actually carried it out. Are you saying that FDNY were in on it and carried out the cd. Had FDNY already rigged the building ?

reply to post by GoodOlDave

And I would strongly urge you to consider advising other people on what you think is important. To be clear, honest, open and polite, your opinion means nothing to me.

reply to post by Alfie1


This is where it stops making sense for me, the truth movement that is.

The WTC was already bombed once, the damage was pretty bad too, if it had been twice the size it might have actually worked.

So which scenario is easier to keep quiet, another straight up bombing that would require a lot less people to know about it, or a very elaborate plan that required planes hit the buildings at precise locations and times, and require a lot more people to keep quiet.

Another bombing would have been much easier to "contain", the real scenario is far too complex for government work.

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by humphreysjim
It doesn't even make sense.

If they've had a great loss of life, how would causing the building to collapse via explosives help that?

Also, is the thought that Silverstein just accidently gave away the whole conspiracy for a documentary? Are we imagining he's that stupid?

"Don't say it was a CTD, don't say it was a CTD, don't say it was a CTD...OOPS!!!"

He's already said what he meant by it, it seems pretty feasible it meant "pull the firefighters out and give it up", so why jump to the ridiculous conclusion that he gave the game away using a very obscure term that, as you say, does not even mean "bring down via controlled demolition"?

Silverstein would have said something like "pull THEM" or "get them out" or "evacuate", something that makes more sense in the context of people vacating a building. "Pull it" is most definitely not a term you'd use for that scenario. It is a CD term, and has been confirmed as such by demolitions experts. If Silverstein says otherwise, he is just doing damage control because of his careless talk.

Who are the demolitions experts who confirm that "pull it" means explosive cd in their jargon ?

It is apparent from the reported conversation that Silverstein suggested the "pull it" but FDNY actually carried it out. Are you saying that FDNY were in on it and carried out the cd. Had FDNY already rigged the building ?

I recall seeing a documentary where a demo expert confirmed that they commonly use the term "pull it" to refer to a demolition event. It's been a while so I don't remember the program, but I am sure of the quote.

I doubt FDNY had any involvement other than being informed that they should get the hell out. It's likely that it was rigged weeks or months in advance by a crew masquerading as some sort of maintenance detail. It was obviously a covert operation and would have been carried out as such. 57-story buildings just don't fall down at freefall velocity

.

Originally posted by humphreysjim
reply to post by longjohnbritches

 

That Larry was referring to bringing the building down with explosives.

Hi hump,
YOU ARE SO CORRECT,
Now just a few more to convert.
Thanks jim

reply to post by 4hero


Sigh.. And yet there were no visible or audible explosions, at least not
after the initial impacts, and the OS does explain why they fell the way they did.