• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ed Moving On is coming.

LashL said:
Some old timer firefighter types will tell you that "pull it" is indeed an old firefighting term that refers to the physical act of tugging on the hoseline to signal firefighters inside a building to evacuate the building.
Click to expand...
Can you please supply some historical documentation to confirm this claim?

[EDIT] Just googled hose+pull+signal and couldn't find anything.
 
Gravy said:
I'll answer your questions on this topic when you've apologized to Val McClatchey, creep.
Click to expand...
Well I'm gagged from talking about that, so I can't. Now I'm anxiously await you r hard evidence on OBL being involved with 9/11 that would convict him in a court of law.
 
well considering Oude mentioned it was before radios, i think its prudent to ask when TEAM2CAP started fighting fires


but why are we even discussing this, does anyone acually think WTC7 was "pulled" in the way demolition firms use the term?
 
defaultdotxbe said:
odd, i googled and found this: http://www.firefightersforums.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=001134;p=0

read the 4th psot, from OudeVanDagen
Click to expand...

Nice link!

ShadowXIX:

After checking around some websites - mainstream, left wing and underground - that promote unrestricted open discussions, which also allow for and/or include the advancement of conspiracy theories; and after carefully viewing the comments posted in those forums, it is abundantly clear that the alleged intentional controlled demolition of the World Trade Centers has once again become a popular topic - and as such has initiated questions such as yours. In fact, some members who frequent those websites, who are in opposition to the controlled demolition conspiracy theory, have strongly urged inquisitve minds to post the "What does 'Pull It' mean?" question on firefighting discussion sites such as this and to simply ask a firefighter.

Firefighters in the older, centuries old towns and cities that are very deep and rich in history and tradition know from records, logs, or for years and years have heard stories about the 'old days' and can - usually - easily explain terminolgy and slang from previous eras that's still very much used today. The origins of these terms really are no mystery to any firefighter who cares about his history. Words and terms in firefighting are used every day without any thought to their origin; fire 'plug' is an example. There'a a reason some call a hydrant a plug.

Same is true for "Pull It" and some of the other terminology conspiracy theory people now think means to demolish a structure. "Pull It" does not mean that to firefighters with knowledge of history or to those serving in departments with deep, rich histories.

As I explained in my above post the term in question, "Pull It" comes from 'back in the day' where the fire hose would be pulled to signal to the interior crew that they must egress the structure asap. It is a very old term. It's from the horse drawn and steam powered fire engine days - but is still used today by many. In no manner shape or form on NineEleven - or at any other time - does "Pull It" have anything to do with controlled demolition.

OVD
Click to expand...
 
Killtown said:
Um, I was asking for some historical documentation, not some mention from an anonymous forum poster...like me!

Plus, I like what the next poster on that forum replies to that:
Click to expand...

Can you provide historical documentation that "pull it" means demolishing a building with explosives?
 
Killtown, in all seriousness. Start a new thread about WTC7 and let this thread be for Russell.
 
Bell said:
Can you provide historical documentation that "pull it" means demolishing a building with explosives?
Click to expand...
No, haven't found any just like never found any documention on the phrase "pull it" for any meaning. I doubt there is a lot of historical docs on slang term used in an industry, but who knows.
 
To : Retards who still use Silverstein's "pull it" quote as evidence.

1. If this was such an elaborate, intricate plan, do you not think Silverstein might have kept his mouth shut if he knew of a controlled demolition of building 7?

2. In the quote, Silverstein makes it clear that the head firefighter made the decision to "pull it," so are you indicating that the first responders were in on the conspiracy?

3. If this WAS a conspiracy, why would they take down building 7? Why not hit it with another "remote controlled" airplane if they had good reason?

4. Is it beyond a possibility that when he was using the term "pull it," that he could have been referring to a noun such as a firefighting operation?

Honestly, its beyond me how this is possibly regurgitated by these "truthers" time and again. Its absurd.
 
yawn, the bloke lost out financially on WTC7. Id love to know why he wanted to demolish it.

5 years to investigate a massive structural failure, and I believe a first of its kind. Do you know that some fraud cases require more then 5 years to compile sufficient data to conclude a reasonable and factual trail of evidence? How long in your world should it take. Do you think they solve crimes in 2 hours like the average movie?
 
hellaeon said:
yawn, the bloke lost out financially on WTC7. Id love to know why he wanted to demolish it.

5 years to investigate a massive structural failure, and I believe a first of its kind. Do you know that some fraud cases require more then 5 years to compile sufficient data to conclude a reasonable and factual trail of evidence? How long in your world should it take. Do you think they solve crimes in 2 hours like the average movie?
Click to expand...
of course, if an actor can solve a crime in 2 hours it shouldnt take an actual investigator more than liek 5 minutes toi blow the lid off the whole thing
 
Killtown said:
Can you please supply some historical documentation to confirm this claim?

[EDIT] Just googled hose+pull+signal and couldn't find anything.
Click to expand...

I don't like responding to you here because you are an attention whore doing your usual thread hijack routine, but I will say this:

The real world existed before Google, you know.

Try your local library, then your local fire station, then your local historical society. Get out of the basement, talk to actual human beings, and you will find that it's true.

Now either start a new thread on the topic that you wish to discuss or STFU on this thread.
 
Last edited:
Russell Pickering said:
hellaeon,



I recognized it as being about a financial trail instantly.

You indicated that it might contradict Mueller's statement, "The hijackers also left no paper trail. In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper – either here in the U.S. or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere – that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot. The hijackers had no computers, no laptops, no storage media of any kind."

It does not.

Russell
Click to expand...

Well I suppose that gets thrown out then?!?!? What? Are you deliberately obtuse?

It does contradict the statement. It is a financial trail linking the hijackers to 9/11. You said there were none. Actually Mueller said it. Thats an FBI pdf document 2 years after the report you supplied. You realise that an investigation requires constant information gathering and updating of facts? Why do you persist with Muellers initial statement, then a few years later after heavy investigation, refuse to acknowledge the same department only this time, financial evidence. This is lame. This is the same arguement most CTers will post. Still referring to past documents when facts were hazy, refusing to acknowledge the further investigation that has proceeded the event.

Why dont you acknowledge this document shows a small piece im sure of many in the paper trail? what because Mueller did not write it or say it??? You honestly believe that no evidence has been found since 2002?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom