View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Skeptics, why did Popular Mechanics lie about "pull it"?

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Skeptics, why did Popular Mechanics lie about "pull it"?

Postby Scepcop » 26 Aug 2009, 19:05

Skeptics,
Popular Mechanics claimed that every expert they consulted said that the term "pull it" was not a demolition term at all, PERIOD.

However, anyone who calls a demolition company will find out that it IS a demolition term after all. However, the term refers to bringing down a building with cables, not explosives.



I guess to you guys, lying is ok as long as it defends anything official. Gee you guys have great morals.

If I'm wrong, then you should rebuke Popular Mechanics for lying. Otherwise, you guys have no morals.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29






Re: Skeptics, why did Popular Mechanics lie about "pull it"?

Postby ProfWag » 26 Aug 2009, 21:13

Scepcop wrote:Skeptics,
Popular Mechanics claimed that every expert they consulted said that the term "pull it" was not a demolition term at all, PERIOD.

However, anyone who calls a demolition company will find out that it IS a demolition term after all. However, the term refers to bringing down a building with cables, not explosives.



I guess to you guys, lying is ok as long as it defends anything official. Gee you guys have great morals.

If I'm wrong, then you should rebuke Popular Mechanics for lying. Otherwise, you guys have no morals.

Huh?! I haven't even begun to look into this, but saying I don't have morals because someone else lied is really fishing for anything. Richard Gage lied. Does that make you a bad person? No, that doesn't.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Skeptics, why did Popular Mechanics lie about "pull it"?

Postby ProfWag » 26 Aug 2009, 21:33

Okay, I spent a minute and a half researching the term "pull it." Once again, I have determined that you are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill in an attempt to support your position. The term "pull it" in all actuallity is NOT a term used to refer to an explosive demolition of a building. It is a term used in conventional demolition circles to attach cables to pre-weakened buildings and then using heavy machinery to "pull" down the building.
As such, I have determined that Popular Mechanics was NOT lying and that you were trying to "pull" a fast one on us. Shame on you Mr. Wu. Have you no morals?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Skeptics, why did Popular Mechanics lie about "pull it"?

Postby Scepcop » 26 Aug 2009, 23:56

ProfWag wrote:Okay, I spent a minute and a half researching the term "pull it." Once again, I have determined that you are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill in an attempt to support your position. The term "pull it" in all actuallity is NOT a term used to refer to an explosive demolition of a building. It is a term used in conventional demolition circles to attach cables to pre-weakened buildings and then using heavy machinery to "pull" down the building.
As such, I have determined that Popular Mechanics was NOT lying and that you were trying to "pull" a fast one on us. Shame on you Mr. Wu. Have you no morals?


Good job on your homework about the term "pull it".

However for a professor, your reading comprehension skills suck. Read what I wrote again.

Popular Mechanics said in their hit piece, that the term "pull it" is not a demolition industry term AT ALL, PERIOD!

That's why I said they lied. Do you defend their lie or rebuke it?

You just repeated what I said, that it referred to cables, not explosives. But Silverstein could have just used the generic word to mean he wanted the building taken down. But your sites trying to debunk 9/11 truth have also said that "pull it" is not a demolition term but refers to firefighters. That's a lie.

Where is your proof that Richard Gage lied? I have met many con artists and charlatans before. And Gage is no con artist, I can tell you that. He is a sweet likable guy that everyone trusts when they meet him.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Skeptics, why did Popular Mechanics lie about "pull it"?

Postby ProfWag » 27 Aug 2009, 00:46

Scepcop wrote: He is a sweet likable guy that everyone trusts when they meet him.

So was Ted Bundy.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Skeptics, why did Popular Mechanics lie about "pull it"?

Postby ProfWag » 27 Aug 2009, 00:52

Scepcop wrote:However for a professor, your reading comprehension skills suck. Read what I wrote again.

Popular Mechanics said in their hit piece, that the term "pull it" is not a demolition industry term AT ALL, PERIOD!

That's why I said they lied. Do you defend their lie or rebuke it?


Perhaps my reading comprehension skills suck. Perhaps. However, I went back and LISTENED TO THE INTERVIEW YOU PROVIDED. He was CLEARLY talking about CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS. He mentioned controlled demolitions and that was his thought process. Anything else referenced is CLEARLY OUT OF CONTEXT AND AN ATTEMPT TO DEFRAUD THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO ADVANCE YOUR IDEALS.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Skeptics, why did Popular Mechanics lie about "pull it"?

Postby ciscop » 27 Aug 2009, 01:27

ProfWag wrote:
Scepcop wrote: He is a sweet likable guy that everyone trusts when they meet him.

So was Ted Bundy.


Image


Really, Scescop, Believers should stop using their emotions and ¨likebility¨ of someone (is that a word?) as arguments
at dragoncon, dont do this... ¨people like him and he wouldnt lie¨... so what?.. Jim Jones was a likeable guy, he had close to a thousand followers and they all die drinking his kool aid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_jones
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: Skeptics, why did Popular Mechanics lie about "pull it"?

Postby Scepcop » 27 Aug 2009, 01:35

Why are you bringing Ted Bundy into this? It's totally irrelevant. You guys are sick.

I could say that since Ted Bundy is of the human race, and so are you, that you and him are to be compared. But I'm not that low like you guys are.

You guys have no arguments so you resort to cheap shots.

Mr. Gage has NOT committed any fraud at all, period.

You guys who claim he is are committing libel and slander and that is a misdemeanor.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Skeptics, why did Popular Mechanics lie about "pull it"?

Postby ProfWag » 27 Aug 2009, 01:50

Scepcop wrote:Why are you bringing Ted Bundy into this? It's totally irrelevant. You guys are sick.

I could say that since Ted Bundy is of the human race, and so are you, that you and him are to be compared. But I'm not that low like you guys are.

You guys have no arguments so you resort to cheap shots.

Mr. Gage has NOT committed any fraud at all, period.

You guys who claim he is are committing libel and slander and that is a misdemeanor.

I was trying to explain to you how saying someone is "sweet and likeable..." is totally irrelevant to an argument. Totally. I was really trying to help you out. See ciscops comments for more complete information on what I was trying to do. At least HE was able to see my post for what it was.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Skeptics, why did Popular Mechanics lie about "pull it"?

Postby ciscop » 27 Aug 2009, 01:54

I could say that since Ted Bundy is of the human race, and so are you, that you and him are to be compared. But I'm not that low like you guys are.
well.. you did said it :D

also you are the one using
¨He is a sweet likable guy that everyone trusts when they meet him.¨
as an argument
you just didnt like that you got served

im just saying
i have seen you using the same argument with uri geller (sorry for derailing)
it is not an argument
it is an opinion
that´s no way of wining a debate or arguing at all ¨he is a sweet guy¨.... (are you joking?!?!?!?! thats NOT AN ARGUMENT)

so.. back to the thread
i dont even read popular mechanics i am not an engineer... so smack on them if they lied according to you..
not on skeptics please, i have nothing to do with that magazine nor care too
is like me asking .. ¨believers?, why did the watchtower (Jehova´s witness magazine) lie about the end of the world on 1900?¨...
it is a topic that has NOTHING to do with you or the rest of paranormalists in this site
(unless you are indeed a jehova witness).
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04


Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests