First Responder States CD Countdown before WTC 7 Collapsed

I am not agreeing to his claim whatsoever, I am simply pointing out that while he commited a logical fallacy so did you by saying "it will never happen". You cannot possibly know that, it is not fact. You then committed another by saying 'twoofers'.

Ultima is wrong? Fine. You did what you complained he did. I was simply pointing that out.

As I said, par for the course.

reply to post by jprophet420


It's not the same thing, son.

It'll never happen cuz it's a lie. They never would go into a burning building with explosives. It would be beyond stupid to do that. MUCH safer to just let it fall and deal with it afterwards. Can you at least agree to that?

And, I'm not saying he's a troofer. I'm saying is that this is what troofers do. If he chooses to act in this manner and put himself into that catagory, well then that's HIS choice.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
You haven't posted anything that backs your statement that a fire dept will set explosives to demo a building while it's on fire.

But i have proven that the Fire Chief does have the authority to demo a buidling.

Also i am goping to keep doing research and put more information together on buidlings being demoed. (i know research is a strange concept for believers)

Also as shown the at least the ground floor was not on fire, most photos just show some fires in the windows of some of the upper floors. (as supported by the EPA who recovered fuel from the ground floor tanks)

[edit on 22-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
It'll never happen cuz it's a lie. They never would go into a burning building with explosives.

Who is stating that they went in with explosives? You do know there is more then 1 way to bring down a buidling, specailly one that is damged?

Also do you have evindece that the ground floors were on fire?

reply to post by ULTIMA1

The NIST reports ignores floors 1-7. I haven't seen any evidence to support that they were on fire.

Now, someone may come along and 'debunk' that statement, but I am certain that even if they were on fire it was insufficient to cause global collapse.

This firefighter forum has some GREAT references to the term "pull it" as used by firefighters.

www.firefightersforums.com...

examples, from veteran firemen:

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.

"Pull It" to firefighters - especially the oldtimers that have been around long before the luxury of portable radios - means to cease all firefighting operations .... it is, like me, as old as dirt ... AND it has absolutley nothing to do with controlled demolition. Never has and never will.

Originally posted by jprophet420
The NIST reports ignores floors 1-7. I haven't seen any evidence to support that they were on fire.

Yes most photos i have seen do not show large fires and not on lower floors.

Also the EPA recovered all the fuel from the tanks on the ground floor so there probably was no fires on the ground floor.


[edit on 22-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Also the EPA recovered all the fuel from the tanks on the ground floor

You need to do better research if you think this is true.

It is true that all the diesel fuel was recovered from the Silverstein tanks.

However, Salomon Bros - which I believe rented about 1/2 of 7 - also had their own tanks, of equal size, and they were found empty.

NIST laid all this out. It's all documented.

So research that.

ETA: start here

wtc.nist.gov...

WTC 7 contained two independently supplied and operated fuel systems for emergency power: the Base
Building system and the Salomon Brothers system. The Base Building system consisted of four subsystems:
the Silverstein sub-system (original system), the Ambassador Construction sub-system, the
American Express sub-system, and the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management sub-system. The
Ambassador Construction and American Express sub-systems were supplied with fuel from the original
Base Building storage tanks installed below the loading dock. The Mayor’s Office sub-system contained
its own storage tank that was filled from the original system tanks. The other system (the Salmon
Brothers system), was supplied by a separate set of fuel storage tanks, also located below the loading
dock. The systems had differing design features with each system operating independently. The two
systems combined with all of the sub-systems, contained more than an estimated 43,000 gal of fuel,
assuming all tanks were filled near capacity. Since the owners had contracts with fuel delivery services to
maintain the tanks full at all times, this assumption is considered reasonable.

The Silverstein system was installed in 1987. The system contained two 12,000 gal capacity storage
tanks.....

In 1990, a second fuel oil distribution system was installed for the Salomon Brothers project. The fuel for
the system was supplied by two 6,000 gal storage tanks.......

[edit on 22-7-2008 by Seymour Butz]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Also i am goping to keep doing research and put more information together on buidlings being demoed. (i know research is a strange concept for believers)

IOW, you've made a bold statement - that the FDNY pulled 7.

But have no idea if this has ever happened before, anywhere.

Or if they have the training to do so.

And have no explanation why they would go into a burning building that they believed was going to fall, in order to..... well, make it fall.

And now must reconcile the fact that they believed it would fall with your belief that there were small fires.

And have no explanation why they just wouldn't say so, since it's within their scope of duties.

I think it'll be a while until you can explain all this.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Who is stating that they went in with explosives? You do know there is more then 1 way to bring down a buidling, specailly one that is damged?

Also do you have evindece that the ground floors were on fire?

Then how do you propose that the FDNY pulled it? Your example with the crane wouldn't apply, yeah?

Irrelevant whether or not the ground floors were on fire or not. Going into a burning building that you believe is going to collapse onto your head..... is.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
IOW, you've made a bold statement - that the FDNY pulled 7.

I never stated the FDNY pulled building 7. I stated the Fire commander decided to pull buidling 7, if the firemen helped in the demo is not known at this time, But the fire rescue teams that were there do have the equipment and knowledge to cut beams for rescue.

And have no explanation why they would go into a burning building that they believed was going to fall, in order to..... well, make it fall.

As stated there is no evidence fo fires on the lower floors. Also as stated the fire chiefs were worried about the spread of fire and more damage if the buidling fell on its own.

And now must reconcile the fact that they believed it would fall with your belief that there were small fires.

There may have been larger fire earlier in the day but near the time they brough it down the fire were small according to photos.

And have no explanation why they just wouldn't say so, since it's within their scope of duties.

Maybe becasue it would not fit in with the official media story.

[edit on 23-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Then how do you propose that the FDNY pulled it? Your example with the crane wouldn't apply, yeah?

The fire rescue teams that were there do have the equipment and knowledge to cut beams for rescue.

Irrelevant whether or not the ground floors were on fire or not. Going into a burning building that you believe is going to collapse onto your head..... is.

Yes it is relevent if the ground floors were on fire. Also as stated photos only show some fires on upper floors, no big inferno closer to when the buidling was brought down.

[edit on 23-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


Good luck getting any CT'erz to believe that.

I posted the exact same thing, but without links about a month or so ago, and of course the delusional ones don't believe it.

Interesting to see if they have anything to say now......

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

I never stated the FDNY pulled building 7. I stated the Fire commander decided to pull buidling 7, if the firemen helped in the demo is not known at this time, But the fire rescue teams that were there do have the equipment and knowledge to cut beams for rescue.

As stated there is no evidence fo fires on the lower floors. Also as stated the fire chiefs were worried about the spread of fire and more damage if the buidling fell on its own.

There may have been larger fire earlier in the day but near the time they brough it down the fire were small according to photos.

Maybe becasue it would not fit in with the official media story.

1- ok, thx for clearing that up. But if you think it through a little, cutting beams with the eq that the FDNY has in order to drop it doesn't make any sense at all. What you're saying is that someone would go into a building that they believe is going to fall, and start cutting beams..... which would make it fall on their heads. Sounds stupid, agree? At this point, if you're going to claim that the building was dropped on purpose, I think you're much wiser to try and push the explosive/thermite theory and just drop the beyond stupid idea that someone's gonna go inside a building a drop it on their own head. Not to mention the time it would take to cut through beams of that size with a gas powered saw would be ridiculous.

2-agree that the ground floor wasn't fully involved. But as has been stated, it's not about going into the fire zone, it's about going into a building, where there are NO lives in danger, in order to drop it.

3- photos are inconclusive. Besides, why were they concerned about the fires spreading if, as you claim, the fires were getting smaller throughout the day? Counterintuitive, eh?

4- now this is real dumb, Ultima. Why make up a story about 7, when all that would need to be said is that the FDNY saying they dropped it since it's within their scope of duties? No one would question that decision.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I never stated the FDNY pulled building 7. I stated the Fire commander decided to pull buidling 7, if the firemen helped in the demo is not known at this time, But the fire rescue teams that were there do have the equipment and knowledge to cut beams for rescue.

Rescue who? I thought the building was evacuated, and all fire personnel were out of the building?

Still waiting for your examples of a fire dept or demo team going into a burning 20+ story building and bringing it down using thermite (beam) cutters or charges.

Chief Nigro's statement of 2007 makes it clear:

The reasons are as follows:
1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.
For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

So the questions are:
How big is a collapse zone for a 47 story building?
How many other buildings were inside that zone?
How many people were still in the buildings within that zone (not just police & firefighters)?
How do you tell that you've evacuated them all and how long is that going to take?

The fact that a collapse zone was cleared indicates no prior knowledge of exactly how the building might fall or even that it would collapse at all (it was considered at risk is all). The fact that the firefighters were already out of WTC7 has no bearing on how long it would take for them to pull everyone, residents and workers included, out of the declared danger zone which would have involved a lot of shouting and door knocking.

Originally posted by gavron
Rescue who? I thought the building was evacuated, and all fire personnel were out of the building?

I was talking about the fire rescue crews are trained and have the eqiupment to cut beams to rescue people. So they could have used that training and equipment to help bring down the building.

Still waiting for your examples of a fire dept or demo team going into a burning 20+ story building and bringing it down using thermite (beam) cutters or charges.

Still doing research and collecting information like the following.

www.globalsecurity.org...

DDC staff was pulled from their regular duties to organize and manage demolition, excavation and debris removal operations. Many worked 18-hour days, seven days a week, to respond to the emergency.

Using emergency procurement procedures, four construction companies were hired on a "time and material" basis. Those firms hired numerous subcontractors for scaffolding and netting, demolition, health and safety planning and monitoring, hazardous materials removal, shoring, structural engineering, and hauling and barging.

Oh, still waiting for you to post any kind of information to support your claims, can you post anything at all ? Are you doing any research ?

[edit on 23-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I was talking about the fire rescue crews are trained and have the eqiupment to cut beams to rescue people. So they could have used that training and equipment to help bring down the building.

So you will show us an example then of firefighters bringing down a 20+ story burning building then (or help a demo team do it)? This is laughable that you are prolonging the inevitable - that you have been caught in a lie.

Firemen have never done what you are saying they have done, ever. Otherwise you would have shown us an example quickly to prove everyone here wrong. Just admit you have zero evidence to back your ridiculous CD claim, and save some face. Otherwise you just keep making yourself look even more immature than you already have.

Originally posted by gavron
This is laughable that you are prolonging the inevitable - that you have been caught in a lie.

If you are so sure that no demo team has never brought done a 20+ story building please show evindece or be adult enough to admit its just your opinion and not fact.

How much infomration do i have to show from the Fire Chiefs and others there that the fire commander decided to demo the building?

How much information do i have to post for you to be adult enough to admit to it?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
If you are so sure that no demo team has never brought done a 20+ story building please show evindece or be adult enough to admit its just your opinion and not fact.

Show you evidence that something isnt possible?

How old are you?

Thats like saying "Show me that police officers cannot patrol the city better riding ostriches rather than unicycles". It hasnt been done, ULTIMA1.

Looks like you're just trolling now. Unable to provide evidence to back your ridiculous claim. Keep trying though, I'll just sit back and laugh.