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

Originally posted by humphreysjim
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???

jim,
Good point,
Perhaps it was just one or two guys that really new what was going on.
They have a command guy who could have said "Get the firemen out of building 7"
And then when it was clear he could press a little red button.
Larry was probably just the triggerman or gave the orders to that one guy.
I red some stuff about this.
yeah good point Thanks for being open minded

Gee, this thread is about 10 years too late, don't you think, Dave?

You must be bored.

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

Originally posted by humphreysjim
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???

jim,
Good point,
Perhaps it was just one or two guys that really new what was going on.
They have a command guy who could have said "Get the firemen out of building 7"
And then when it was clear he could press a little red button.
Larry was probably just the triggerman or gave the orders to that one guy.
I red some stuff about this.
yeah good point Thanks for being open minded

In my experience, when you take an idea that is a little far fetched, and to support it, you have to add another idea that is also far fetched, and support that by another far fetched idea...you might want to have a rethink of your original assumptions.

In this example we have:

1) The building being rigged with explosives without detection - far fetched
2) Larry Silverstein accidently giving away the conspiracy in blatant terms in a documentary - far fetched
3) Key members of the fire department being in on it all, probably many would have to be involved - far fetched
4) Larry Silverstein using a very obscure term that doesn't seem to be legitimate lingo for "demolition" - far fetched
5) Larry implying that pulling it would be the right thing to do to save lives - nonsensical

...and so on.

At this point we should stop, and have a rethink about our initial assumption - that Larry meant "demolish the building with explosives".

In order to accept that he simply meant "get the firefighters out of there and give it up", we only need to accept that:

1) He misspoke on TV, or worded what he was trying to say a little oddly.

reply to post by humphreysjim


Well,
It would be nice if you would tell me what you think my original assumption was.
So I can comment.thanks hump
Hang on I have to read the rest of your post guess I missed it

reply to post by longjohnbritches


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

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? ...

The question you might want to ask instead is what was housed in WTC7, then maybe you'll have some answers or things would make more sense.

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

Originally posted by humphreysjim
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???

jim,
Good point,
Perhaps it was just one or two guys that really new what was going on.
They have a command guy who could have said "Get the firemen out of building 7"
And then when it was clear he could press a little red button.
Larry was probably just the triggerman or gave the orders to that one guy.
I red some stuff about this.
yeah good point Thanks for being open minded

In my experience, when you take an idea that is a little far fetched, and to support it, you have to add another idea that is also far fetched, and support that by another far fetched idea...you might want to have a rethink of your original assumptions.

In this example we have:

1) The building being rigged with explosives without detection - far fetched
2) Larry Silverstein accidently giving away the conspiracy in blatant terms in a documentary - far fetched
3) Key members of the fire department being in on it all, probably many would have to be involved - far fetched
4) Larry Silverstein using a very obscure term that doesn't seem to be legitimate lingo for "demolition" - far fetched
5) Larry implying that pulling it would be the right thing to do to save lives - nonsensical

...and so on.

At this point we should stop, and have a rethink about our initial assumption - that Larry meant "demolish the building with explosives".

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

by your own logic & the official 911 commission report we should stop and have a rethink about our initial assumptions about the events on 911.. because its all far fetched..

If TPTB control all the media how could something like that slip past the censors? It's not like it was aired live. There had to be one or more editors involved.

Why haven't the all powerfull censors forced all the websites remove that video of him saying 'pull it'?

I know it is and if anyone thinks otherwise they are a complete idiot.

Hope that clears that up

Originally posted by humphreysjim
reply to post by longjohnbritches

 

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

Save face and QUOTE ME

reply to post by samkent


Who needs censors when you have sheep dogs, wired-in sheep and paid-for sheep to herd the rest? Ridicule, character assassination, disinfo (double think, double speak, multiple different truths) and fuzzy math does wonders.

Example:

Owners told to "pull down house extension".

www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk...

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
[quot]

Hi hum,
I think the guy that said it was just old and used the old terminology for building destruction that he grew up with.
The guy Larry wasn't a fireman I am sure of that.
I am not sure that helps.
ljb


My first assumption
Care to address IT

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Actualy it is a term used to demolish buildings. Loosly used it means to take out the supports. Originaly it means as as building's supports are taken out, an explosion inside the building is set off to burn the oxygen creating a vacuum that helps "pull" in debris. Where do I know this from...beat the heck out of me. I'll try to find a source for it.

Not actualy a source but pretty much what I'm saying

There isn't much info on this.

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

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?

I asked "so what" because I don't know what your point is by asking about Bill Clinton's cigar sex episode. Are you saying I shouldn't be quoting Clinton because his cigar sex episide doesn't make him someone I should be quoting? Are you saying his cigar sex issue caused a distraction that caused us to be asleep at the wheel and overlook what was brewing elsewhere? Are you saying he was behind it and he used the cigar sex issue to distract people from what HE was doing elsewhere? Plus, it ISN'T relevent to the topic of the thread, so I'm waiting to see what the connection is between Clinton's using a cigar as a sex toy and "pull it".

Actually I just reread that last sentence...I suppose there IS a connection, although probably not the one you're referring to...

Originally posted by NightGypsy
Gee, this thread is about 10 years too late, don't you think, Dave?

Not really, since I don't think a week goes by where someone or another uses the "pull it means controlled demolitions" claim to show conspiracy. Plus, go to Richard Gage's web site and you'll see it's a major component of his conspiracy pushing mechanism even now. Despite the last ten years not a single conspiracy proponent, not one...has actually shown anything that shows "pull it" means controlled demolitions. They simply say it repeatedly and then expect us to accept the claim is true without question.

You'll excuse me if I didn't have my "hey, wait just a minute!" moment until now.

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms
reply to post by samkent

 

Who needs censors when you have sheep dogs, wired-in sheep and paid-for sheep to herd the rest? Ridicule, character assassination, disinfo (double think, double speak, multiple different truths) and fuzzy math does wonders.

Brother mushroom,
I hear you this samething was going on over on a Ancient Civilization thread.
This Dave guy here asks for information about 911. He has a signature that would lead anybody with half a brain to assertain that he already knows who destroyed the building in question.
Then it looks he wants to brainwash and deceive folks that really want to talk about the subject.
Welcome me to MUDDY WATERVILLE.
LATER

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

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?

That's weird cause here's a video of a firefighter telling the other firefighters that there's a bomb in the building and to clear out.



www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

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?

I asked "so what" because I don't know what your point is by asking about Bill Clinton's cigar sex episode. Are you saying I shouldn't be quoting Clinton because his cigar sex episide doesn't make him someone I should be quoting? Are you saying his cigar sex issue caused a distraction that caused us to be asleep at the wheel and overlook what was brewing elsewhere? Are you saying he was behind it and he used the cigar sex issue to distract people from what HE was doing elsewhere? Plus, it ISN'T relevent to the topic of the thread, so I'm waiting to see what the connection is between Clinton's using a cigar as a sex toy and "pull it".

Actually I just reread that last sentence...I suppose there IS a connection, although probably not the one you're referring to...

Dave, why is everyone jumping on your jive?
I may be incorrect
I am new here but there is something I read about in the rules that says something like,
Don't be a moron use the QUOTE button.
if you use the Quote button you would have already answered your own question.

Originally posted by XLR8R
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Actualy it is a term used to demolish buildings. Loosly used it means to take out the supports. Originaly it means as as building's supports are taken out, an explosion inside the building is set off to burn the oxygen creating a vacuum that helps "pull" in debris. Where do I know this from...beat the heck out of me. I'll try to find a source for it.

Not actualy a source but pretty much what I'm saying

That isn't a source. That's unknown person A asking a question based upon the "pull it means controlled demolitions" claim because it's the whole reason why the person asked the question, and unknown person B responding with what he thinks "pull it" means, which again, comes entirely from what this person had heard what Silverstein was referring to by saying "pull it".

In short, over and over and over, everything points to this "pull it means controlled demolitions" definition coming about entirely because of everyone quoting Silverstein's "pull it" thing. In other words, THE DEFINITION NEVER EXISTED BEFORE HE SAID IT. It's this whole "Silverstein said 'pull it'" bit that put the term into our lexicon, not from any lingo that was supposed to exist before he said it.

There isn't much info on this.

Actually, there's NO information on this. There's just people who keep repeating "pull it means controlled demolitions" over and over without an inkling on whether it's even true or not. Why then am I unjustified in saying regardless of what he meant by "pull it", it does NOT refer to controlled demolitions and the term didn't even exist until the controlled demolitions proponents got hold of it?