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

Even if WTC 7 was struck by burning derbris, the building was designed so that entire sections could be removed to accomidate a larger living space. There was no logical reason for that building to fall the way it did. Pre-placed thermite charges were used. Same reason microscopic thermite was found in the "dust" of the world trade centers. Only governments with advanced capabilities could produce such a incendiary device. Not some guy in a cave.

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

its quite funny.. In the english language, there happens to be a word, "them". The word "them" refers to "people", typically in a group, or of relation to one another. In the english language, there also happens to be a word, "it". The word "it" is a tricky one. It almost does the same thing, but it refers to an object, or something that isn't people. For instance;. If I want to get "people" out of a building, I would say, "pull them.". If I wanted to say, get the building to, go somewhere, I would say, "pull it.". I know, when referring to multiple "it" objects, you could say, "pull them". But he didnt say "them" now, did he? So he was referring to an object.. "pull it (object)".

Well if you're going to go that route then it equally applies to pull IT as in "only plant controlled demolitions in one building" rather than pull THEM as in "plant controlled demolitions in all three buildings". Are you saying it was only building 7 that had demolitions and the towers really did collapse from the fires? You know as well as I do that's NOT what you're claiming, so you can't pick and choose your definitions as it suits your agenda.

Besides, this isn't a reference that shows pull it is industry lingo for controlled demolitions. All this is, is an explanation for why you want to believe it IS industry lingo for controlled demolitions, and I don't need to tell you there are loads of other people who are posting why they believe it means something else.

Originally posted by Oannes
Even if WTC 7 was struck by burning derbris, the building was designed so that entire sections could be removed to accomidate a larger living space. There was no logical reason for that building to fall the way it did. Pre-placed thermite charges were used. Same reason microscopic thermite was found in the "dust" of the world trade centers. Only governments with advanced capabilities could produce such a incendiary device. Not some guy in a cave.

What do you mean, "there's no logical reason for the building to fall the way it did"? Firefighters at the scene specifically said the fires were burning out of control because the water supply for the fire prevention system were cut when the north tower collapsed, and unless you have information I haven't seen, there's no way you can know even how the south side of the building that got whacked by debris collapsed for you to make "in the way it did" statements.

It sounds like rather than your believing there were controlled demolitions because Silverstein said "pull it", it's really the case you want to believe "Pull it" means controlled demolitions because you think controlled demolitions brought the building down. I'm simply going by your own words, here.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Hi Good
I am waiting for a reply from another poster and I saw your signature.
Do you remember that Clinton was preocupied with cigar sex and court?
Shoot he was commander in chief when all the plotting was going on.
His distraction most likely caused the whole 911 mess.
ljb
PS no wonder he would CHA

I think " Pull it " clearly refers to the operation to try and save WTC 7. In any event the decision was not Silversteins, he said they (FDNY) made the decision to " pull ".

If " Pull" or "Pull it" had any sinister significance then the people with the greatest motive in the world to make something of it were Industrial Risk Insurers. But they paid out $861 million and insurance companies are not well known as being charitable institutions.

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
Hi hump
I am not sure what you are saying doesn't make sense???
What I can find is that no firemen that I know would use the term. pull it

Now that's odd, since I spoke with TWO fire fighters who confirmed it means "get the fire fighters out of a dangerous area". It comes from a term back before they used radios, where the teams outside would give the fire hoses a good hard pull as a signal to the teams inside to clear out.

Granted, this may be more prevalent with older fire fighters who were around back when they didn't have radios yet...like the firefighter officers Silverstein talked to...but that's neither here nor there. I asked for someone to show references for why "pull it" mean CONTROLLED DEMOLITONS, and noone has been able to provide anything except reasons for why they want to believe that's what it means.

After all, I can post for example, an actual reference that shows "jarhead" is slang for a United States Marine. Would you like to see it?

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Hi Good
I am waiting for a reply from another poster and I saw your signature.
Do you remember that Clinton was preocupied with cigar sex and court?

Yes I do. So what?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


This is so ridiculous - a textbook and classic example of combined Truther stupidity, obfuscation and confusion.

The "it" Silverstein was referring to was the firefighting and rescue OPERATION that was ongoing. Pull it. Pull it back. Pull it out. Pull it outta there. It had nothing to do at all with "controlled demolition" and anyone who thinks it does is either as disingenuous as anyone ever had been since the dawn of time or is really, really stupid.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...but a Truther will always be a gullible snake oil salesman...or user..

Gee , I like word games !

There are several ways to demolish a building besides explosives. Explosives are just faster.
When demolishing any building you need to remove, cut or destroy key supports.
" Pull it " means just that, remove the support .

reply to post by GoodOlDave

now your just being silly..

I am not sure how old you are but..

there was a time when demolition of a building used a wrecking ball.. remember those?

or bulldozers with cables pulling the support beams down..

well, this was dangerous & very tricky when done in confined spaces within a city..

then, C4 shape charges became available to the private sector & the delicate technique of imploding buildings became big business.. along with a spectacular show..

implosions became a huge deal.. the new theory was to cause, as we commonly know today, the walls to fall inward away from neighboring structures on themselves (ie their "footprint") with these strategically placed controlled explosions causing a vacuum by pulverizing the core & therefore pulling the building in on itself..

this was such a new & crazy thing to watch it was shown on live television with months & months of planning & months of hype.. sometimes even as a new years eve show.. i remember a few on the new channel FOX at the time..

so by definition..

im·plode (m-pld)
v. im·plod·ed, im·plod·ing, im·plodes
v.intr.
To collapse inward violently.
v.tr.
1. To cause to collapse inward violently.
2. To demolish (a building) by causing to collapse inward.

and how would you describe such an operation?

to create a force able to cause the walls to collapse inward violently?

what would be able to pull the walls inwards on themselves?

you can not begin to describe the event with out using the word PULL..

the suction cause the walls to PULL..

destroying the support columns would PULL..

we can't have this building cause damage to other building close by we need to have it fall way.. to PULL it..

as in a controlled demolition..

the main question is ...

why the hell would the Fire Chief be calling Mr Silverstein in the first place?

was that not FEMA headquarters? FBI? CIA?

surely those interests, being Federal, have a higher priority, correct?

especially with the Defense Dept attacked? we were on a nation wide high alert were we not?

so why on earth would the watch commander call up a civilian and take an order to "pull" the Fire Departments men out of a "dangerous" situation? have you ever heard of such a thing? neither have I, nor anyone else..

could you imagine a scenario in your town where the Fire Dept calls up and asks a Walmart building owner what to do when their building is burning, possible victims still inside, Firemen in danger because the blaze is out of control? no. no you would not tolerate that behavior when it is financially beneficial at the cost of human lives. ever heard of insurance fraud? "yeah, just pull out Chief, I've got State Farm."

searching for excuses as to what the meaning of "pull it" only leads to other very disturbing questions..

which you obviously have not taken any time to think of..

so to sum it up..

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

the very definition of a controlled demolition is the technique of destroying a building by imploding it.

now .. you go and try to describe that to yourself without explaining some type of force needs to act upon the outer walls pulling them together towards each other to accomplish this feat...


ps.. cant wait for more stunning threads titled..

"So who the heck ever said "floor it" was slang for driving a car fast?"
and not a construction term for building a house..

"So who the heck ever said "haulin' a$$" was slang for breaking the speed limit?"
and not transporting donkey's..

"So who the heck ever said "flying high" was slang for being happy?"
and not piloting an airplane..

"So who the heck ever said "blow job" was slang for oral sex?'
when clearly sucking is involved...

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Hi again
It seems to be protocol around these threads to only use select facets of the total information I supply. I would like to discuss this matter with you since you are the one that is asking for information and started the tread.
Please quote all I post. I won't post big long garbly gook stuff.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Hi Good
I am waiting for a reply from another poster and I saw your signature.
Do you remember that Clinton was preocupied with cigar sex and court?

Yes I do. So what?

hi Dave,
Well, to be honest isn't that like saying I know it all so why am I seeking information?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

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.

No, but it WAS struck by wreckage from the north tower, and there WERE out of control fires burning inside the building,,,so the same chain of events that happened to the towers still applies.

I'm sorry but "connect the dots" and "Enron anyone" isn't a reference that shows "Pull it" is lingo for controlled demeolitions. Rather, "connect the dots" is just an admission you're intentionally inventing your own pathway between the "the building collapsed" dot and the "inside job" dot you're trying to get to by making up your own "pull it means controlled demolitions" dot. This was my assertion all along and it was the whole reason why I was asking you to show why it wasn't true.

no building in the history of steel and concrete tower construction, in the entire world, has ever been demolished this way UNLESS IT WAS BY CONTROLLED DEMOLITION...NEVER.

Originally posted by trebor451
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

This is so ridiculous - a textbook and classic example of combined Truther stupidity, obfuscation and confusion.

The "it" Silverstein was referring to was the firefighting and rescue OPERATION that was ongoing. Pull it. Pull it back. Pull it out. Pull it outta there. It had nothing to do at all with "controlled demolition" and anyone who thinks it does is either as disingenuous as anyone ever had been since the dawn of time or is really, really stupid.

I agree that's what it means...though I'm not entirely convinced it's out of stupidity. It's becoming increasingly clear everyone thinks "pull it is slang for controlled demolitions" not because they ever saw any actual reference, but because people keep repeating it over and over to the point where people think it's true. It's the same way people think you should put butter on a burn injury when in reality the salt in the butter would only make the burn even more painful. People are just repeating what they've been told because they're assuming it's true.

The question really therefore is, who came up with the "pull it is slang for controlled demolitions' claim in the first place? It had to have originated from somewhere.

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
hi Dave,
Well, to be honest isn't that like saying I know it all so why am I seeking information?

No, it's like asking "what is your point because I don't understand how that's relevent to anything"?

Originally posted by jimmyx
no building in the history of steel and concrete tower construction, in the entire world, has ever been demolished this way UNLESS IT WAS BY CONTROLLED DEMOLITION...NEVER.

It still doesn't answer the question- where has "pull it" ever been defined as being industry lingo for "controlled demolitions". All you're doing is admitting you're making the claim up becaise you want to believe controlled demolitions were involved. Was there a controlled demolitions trade periodical that made the claim? Did someone from "Controlled Demolition, Inc" ever say that in any of their advertisememnst?

How do I know the buildings weren't brought down by demolitions AS WELL AS the truthers are lying through their teeth about this whole "pull it means controlled demolitions" bit? The two don't cancel each other out any more than Mark Fuhrman possibly being a racist doesn't mean OJ Simpson wasn't really a murderer.

Someone in the know please explain something to me about building 7 .

I always thought that it takes a few days for a building to be prepared for a demolition .

How come the building 7 was prepared for demolition within hours ?

This comes from the Silverstein interview on TV where he recounts his discussions with the NYPD.

The truthers seem to think that Larry somehow gave a command to the NYPD to start the demolition of building 7 and that he slipped up by saying this on TV

That seems a little far fetched to me.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
hi Dave,
Well, to be honest isn't that like saying I know it all so why am I seeking information?

No, it's like asking "what is your point because I don't understand how that's relevent to anything"?

Are you serious'
Your signature makes a statement about 911 which is what this post is about.
You know like who did what and when. oh and where?
Your thread therefore is redundant.
Why ask questions of others about the subject when you already profess to know the answers.
That is unless your signature is there just for fun and you are really still interested in WHO did 911 where and When? Are you?

reply to post by longjohnbritches


Unless the fire department are in on it, I think they'd be considerably more confused by being told to demolish the building via explosives???