• 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.

Merged "Pull It" (Stop yawning people!)

parky76 said:
my impression was that he meant "pull the operation and let nature take its course".

but i also knew that paranoid conspiracy theorists would immediately jump on the quote. and i was right.
Click to expand...

im pretty sure you also knew , the paranoid mason truthers would jump on your avatar for beeing bulletproof evidence that you are in on it. i mean a freemasons symbol and the seal of salomon. thats pretty scary stuff, would it be alowed at work, i would wear my tinfoilhat when reading your posts.

:jaw-dropp
 
uk_dave said:
Yep, we will. Doubt you'll be around to admit that you were wrong though.
Click to expand...

i will be here.

i have no problem with admiting i was wrong :)
and its pure speculation, not based on evidence, just based on indications that would for you not even be indications, they would simply be , coincidences :)

when McCain , Obama or Clinton2 will take place in the whitehouse i will admit i was wrong.

even when nader or mcKinney or Paul takes office :) ill be here and admit my specualtion was wrong :)
 
Dictator Cheney said:
oh sorry, i must be wrong then, it is not possible for a one sided damaged building that is on fire to topple over?
can this only happen in earthquakes?
Click to expand...

Building codes are very different in earthquake zones. Here, buildings under a certain height may indeed topple because they're designed to contend with side-to-side movement. I don't think a 47-story building has ever displayed this behavior, though.
 
What a stupid, stupid argument.

Look, you can interpret the statement 1 of two ways.

1) We've had a lot of human life loss, and it may collapse. Let's get them out of there before it's too late. And guess what, I was proven right, because a short time later it indeed collapsed.

2) I know the building is wired for demolition, and that we are going to blow it up. Nonetheless, I've completely disregarded that, and sent a bunch of my men in that building, repeatedly, for hours, to die. And boy, did they die. Die, die, die. And now it dawns on me, hey, it's already wired to be kersploded, we weren't supposed to stop the fires in the first place, so let's kersplode the f'er. Cause now that I think of it, killing my own men is not as fun as I thought it would be. D'oh! Oh, hey, wait, I wasn't supposed to admit that out loud, was I. Doh x2!

Which is the reasonable statement here?
 
Last edited:
Apollo20 said:
Now what I see here is that the "pulling" RESULTED in the collapse.
Click to expand...

OK, the "pulling" did result in the collapse. Had they chose to fight the fires, the building probably would not have collapsed that day (although it wouldn't have been salvageable).
 
I don't think so. After the collapse of WTC 1 and 2, there were hundreds of firefighters missing and dead, dozens of fire apparatus destroyed, water mains destroyed, and quite possibly (though I haven't looked into it) damage to WTC 7's own fire suppression system. I don't believe FDNY had the capability to mount an effective fire attack on WTC 7 at that point. It would have required an immense effort, diverting effort from rescue operations and fire suppression efforts on buildings which were actually salvageable.
 
I have a question for the people who believe "pull it" = bring down that building.

Why, and how, would that save lives?

eta: If it was done to save lives. How is it part of any conspiracy? If it was done on a whim, how was it part of any conspiracy?
 
Last edited:
Dictator Cheney said:
and about explosives in buildings.

in my country, switzerland, we have bridges and tunnels prepared with explosives.
i never realy belived it, it was never officially, its was a urban legend.
till after the fires in several tunnels and partial collapses. they announced that they will not use explosives anymore in tunnels, it is to dangerous in a case of fire.

many ppl laugh about such things like prepositioned explosives. but they are fact, i dont know if WTC7 had that, and im sure its only very hard to prove if they had explosives in the building already.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that WTC7's long tradition of being invaded by Italy and Burgundians ensured that it would be packed with explosives.
 
Apollo20 said:
And one final point: if I was building a "command bunker" to deal with a potential terrorist threat I would definitely consider incorporating a "self-destruct" mechanism. The military do this all the time.........
Click to expand...

:jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp

Hooooo-boy....

Apollo, please bear in mind that I fully respect your credentials as a scientist and a researcher and find you to be extremely well-versed in studying how the buildings fell... but quite frankly, this is the nuttiest thing I have EVER heard you say.

The ONLY things I know of that we might put self-destructs into are various types of explosive ordnance, and I'm not even sure of that, to be perfectly honest; I know it's been touted in Hollywood films as being done with missiles and the like, but that's Hollywood. WHY on EARTH would you imagine we automatically build things with self-destructs built into them without offering up some kind of proof beyond your own speculation? No offense intended, but any military person reading this would quite literally crack up laughing at the implication. So I'd like to ask; do you have any proof to back up this assumption? If not, I would like to ask that you please retract the statement. Thank you.
 
I can see that the electronic systems on ships and airplanes, which could possibly wreck and be recovered by our potential enemies, would have self-destruct mechanisms. But not in a building in downtown New York. In fact, destroying the building would be the worst possible way to try to secure something there. It's hard to control access when your stuff is lying all over the street.
 
Last edited:
All credibility from anything Dr. Greening has ever written, has now vanished.

Self-destruct mechanism. In public buildings.

Just... wow. You raise that idea in a room full of high school kids and half of them will laugh at you. That someone with his education...

I'm speechless.
 
Sabrina said:
:jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp

Hooooo-boy....

Apollo, please bear in mind that I fully respect your credentials as a scientist and a researcher and find you to be extremely well-versed in studying how the buildings fell... but quite frankly, this is the nuttiest thing I have EVER heard you say.

The ONLY things I know of that we might put self-destructs into are various types of explosive ordnance, and I'm not even sure of that, to be perfectly honest; I know it's been touted in Hollywood films as being done with missiles and the like, but that's Hollywood. WHY on EARTH would you imagine we automatically build things with self-destructs built into them without offering up some kind of proof beyond your own speculation? No offense intended, but any military person reading this would quite literally crack up laughing at the implication. So I'd like to ask; do you have any proof to back up this assumption? If not, I would like to ask that you please retract the statement. Thank you.
Click to expand...

As It happens, I am in the British Army and have worked for extended periods of time with:

a) Documents up to 'Top Secret', which if fell into the wrong hands, would have compromised Operations and quite possibly lives in Iraq/Afghanistan.

b) Secret Intelligence documents in Northern Ireland which if seen or came into the wrong person's hands would have CERTAINLY resulted in deaths.

We had 'emergency self-destruct' systems in place in both locations, which were:

In the case of a), a Hammer for destroying magnetic media, HDDs, CDs etc, a small can of petrol and a lighter for hard copy documents.

In the case of b), things were more high tech - we had more or less what I mention above, plus a grenade!

As you can see, a true 'Self Destruct' system - we had to destroy it ourselves...

'Self Destruct Mechanism'.... :D The only place you find them are in films, and the better class of Evil Supervillain's lair.
 
SatansMaleVoiceChoir said:
As It happens, I am in the British Army and have worked for extended periods of time with:

a) Documents up to 'Top Secret', which if fell into the wrong hands, would have compromised Operations and quite possibly lives in Iraq/Afghanistan.

b) Secret Intelligence documents in Northern Ireland which if seen or came into the wrong person's hands would have CERTAINLY resulted in deaths.

We had 'emergency self-destruct' systems in place in both locations, which were:

In the case of a), a Hammer for destroying magnetic media, HDDs, CDs etc, a small can of petrol and a lighter for hard copy documents.

In the case of b), things were more high tech - we had more or less what I mention above, plus a grenade!

As you can see, a true 'Self Destruct' system - we had to destroy it ourselves...

'Self Destruct Mechanism'.... :D The only place you find them are in films, and the better class of Evil Supervillain's lair.
Click to expand...

I'm in the US Army and currently work as a contractor within the US Intelligence Community. We've got the same materials; plus, we shred documents that are sensitive but no longer needed.

That's right, I said SHRED. Not BLOW UP, SHRED. Eat that, truthers.

Sorry; I'm still a little peeved over the whole "WTC7 was blown up to destroy sensitive information" canard.
 
Sabrina said:
I'm in the US Army and currently work as a contractor within the US Intelligence Community. We've got the same materials; plus, we shred documents that are sensitive but no longer needed.

That's right, I said SHRED. Not BLOW UP, SHRED. Eat that, truthers.

Sorry; I'm still a little peeved over the whole "WTC7 was blown up to destroy sensitive information" canard.
Click to expand...

We too have such futuristic high technology as shredders; the petrol (and grenade) were for emergencies. A big, glowing red button under a protective case marked 'Self Destruct! Emergency Only' would have been much more exciting though... That's the problem; the truth is usually so plain and 'unsexy', whereas 'the twoof' is exciting and (over)complex (and far-fetched, and influenced by too many films).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom