It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Which FDNY called Larry?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
reply to post by Griff
 


You really think he cares about a hand full of paranoid internet jockeys?


Good for him. How about MSNBC?



This was posted by Insolubrious on this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

"public hearings so the public can weigh in on this idiot spending another 4 billion dollars..."





posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911

The truther will tell you that the NYFD called old Larry and asked him if it was ok to demo the building and Larry said "pull it" and then they watched the building collapse.

The Debunker will tell you that the NYFD called old Larry to tell him they couldn't contain the fires and that they were going to let it burn out. Larry being the caring guy he is told the NYFD to "pull.." the firefighters out of the building and that they later watched it collapse.

I don't think they were asking Larry if it was OK to demo the building, but maybe to get the final OK or to just let him know that they are about to pull the buildings.

The debunker version really makes no sense because a fire capt wouldn't need the building owner's permission to move his crew out of the building.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFoxSilverstein did not talk to Nigro as was once believed.

What do we know? Not much.... he claims to have spoken to someone at the FDNY...

If you want to believe he talked to a member of the FDNY and you want to believe that he was told by the FDNY that the building was going to be demolished..then you have to admit you are accusing the FDNY as being "in on it" like the thousands of others that were involved in this massive conspiracy.

Incredible all this time has passed and we still don't know who this FDNY commander is that Larry says called him. The more time that crawls by that we don't know who called him, the more it makes Larry look guilty.

CameronFox, if a FDNY did call him and was in on it, that doesn't mean the entire FDNY was in on it too. Could be just a corrupt FDNY at the top. That is not out of the question.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
No, that's not a transcript from the video. There are more than one video of him. Transcripts could be anybody typing their own words for all we know. You can watch the video above for HIS own words. But, if you don't want to watch it, that's fine. But don't comment on things when you're not researched.


You do have a point on that, so, to maintain intellectual honesty I did watch the video now. This interview does not deviate from the transcript I posted in any significant way, and in fact he repeats several points almost word for word. The transcript I posted may have come from a different interview, but it is still valid.

SO, I will repeat- the building had to have already been evacuated by the time he got there for his statements to make sense, and this took about an hour. If he showed up any earlier, to get in he would have had to fight against the tide of 4,000 occupants trying to leave, and he and Hess absolutely wouldn't have been the only people in the stairwell climbing down. That means he entered the building 45 Mins before wtc 1 fell on it, which is well within the timeline of his actions. He claims that both towers were standing at the time, but his being in the stairwell inside the building there'd be no possible way he could have known that reliably. It was definitely the collapse of the north tower that caused the explosion that he described.

The other detail he stated is that the fire fighters told him "not to Look down" and he presumed it was because he was walking over bodies. These weren't bodies- there were no fatalities nor any missing persons from WTC7 specifically because it had already been evacuated, and the list of who died during 9/11 and where is very comprehensive. The lack of any casualties is proof right there that this had to have occurred after the building had already evacuated, again placing him there an hour after the first plane hit, 45 mins before the collapse.

So, I will likewise repeat- I invite you to show how any of this is incorrect.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I hope that this post and my post above are abundantly clear.


No, actually, in your post you only made yourself Less clear. You admit yourself that CDI states, "pull it" means to pull it down I.E. literally, as in with cables, like they did with WTC6. Since it's pretty well established that wtc7 was not pulled down with cables, it's obvious that Silverstein was referring to something else. It also makes no sense whatsoever that he'd be using demolitions lingo in his conversations with the fire department.

Both by context, definition, and your own posts, Silverstein had to have been referring to withdrawing the firefighters from WTC7.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDaveNo, actually, in your post you only made yourself Less clear. You admit yourself that CDI states, "pull it" means to pull it down I.E. literally, as in with cables, like they did with WTC6. Since it's pretty well established that wtc7 was not pulled down with cables, it's obvious that Silverstein was referring to something else. It also makes no sense whatsoever that he'd be using demolitions lingo in his conversations with the fire department.

Both by context, definition, and your own posts, Silverstein had to have been referring to withdrawing the firefighters from WTC7.

You don't refer to people as it. That's derogatory. If Larry was talking about the firefighters, he would have said pull them at the least.

You acknowledge that the phrase pull it is a demolition phrase. In the video they were talking about the building being damaged right before Larry uttered that phrase. Seems clear to me what he meant by the word it. He was referring to the building.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You admit yourself that CDI states, "pull it" means to pull it down I.E. literally, as in with cables

Actually, literally as in "pull it (the building) down". I already have shown that "pull down" means to demolish. Both terms mean to demolish a building, yet you would have us believe that Larry didn't really mean demolish the building, he meant pull the firefighters. What kind of double-speak logic is this?

It doesn't matter if "pull it" means with cables or explosives, it still means to demolish a building. You do not use a demolition term if you're going to evacuate a building. Then we see this:



We have the WTC7 owner using a demolition term after we see WTC7 falling exactly like a demolition. What more could you possibly need?



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
It doesn't matter if "pull it" means with cables or explosives, it still means to demolish a building. You do not use a demolition term if you're going to evacuate a building. Then we see this:



Really?

Interesting....... Please read the following interviews with many firefighters that were at Ground Zero:


I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone. It was a critical decision; we could not lose any more firefighters. It took a lot of time to pull everyone out, given the emotionalism of the day, communications difficulties, and the collapse terrain."
FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro, "Report from the Chief of Department," Fire Engineering, 9/2002)


I do remember us being pulled off the pile. ...We were down by the pile to search or looking around. 7 World Trade Center was roaring. I remember being pulled off the pile like just before. It wasn't just before. It was probably an hour before 7 came down.
–Firefighter Kevin Howe


Hayden: [snip] You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse. 



Firehouse Magazine: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety. 



Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?

Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then.
–Deputy Chief Peter Hayden


There was a big discussion going on at that point about pulling all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center. Chief Nigro didn't feel it was worth taking the slightest chance of somebody else getting injured. So at that point we made a decision to take all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center because there was a potential for collapse.

–Captain Ray Goldbach


So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. But they had a hose line operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too.

–Capt. Chris Boyle


Someone gave a Mayday. I guess it was someone trapped under one of the pedestrian bridges. We started to go under there to look. One of the Chiefs pulled us out of there. He said don't go under there. ..We searched that building and then we started making another move in and we got pulled out again, because I guess the Chiefs were getting more in control of the situation. They pulled everybody out of there. ...that was probably like four or five o'clock before we stopped.
–Firefighter Todd Fredrickson


When the third building came down that's where we were (Stuyvesant High School). We were actually -- they pulled us all back. Actually they pulled us all the way back that far at the point because they didn't want any -- .

They pulled us all back at that time, almost an hour before it, because they were sure -- they knew it was going to come down, but they weren't sure. So they pulled everyone back, and everybody stood there and we actually just waited and waited until it went down, because it was unsafe.
–EMT Joseph Fortis


After that they decided to pull everybody out and I know -- what building was it?
–Firefighter Brian Russo


Then approximately I guess maybe two hours before number 7 came down, we went into Ground Zero and helped dig around and was there when they located Chief Feehan and one of the chiefs pulled us all out because they said 7 was going to come down.
–Firefighter Kevin Quinn


So then they aborted us from setting up the tower ladder because they were worried about now Seven coming down. So then they pulled us away. This is where I kind of start remembering a lot.



–Firefighter Thomas Donato


They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on.

Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there.
–Firefighter Richard Banaciski


Then we were instructed to search through two or three buildings to make sure they were stable, and then they pulled everybody out because of the pink building. Was it 7 World Trade, that was going?
Q: Right.
–Firefighter Adrienne Walsh


We operated until they finally started pulling people back. ...They pulled us back, I think it was like probably between 4 and 6, because of Seven. Seven was the concern at the time.
–Firefighter Fred Marsilla


They put another engine company in there which augmented us. And the stream was even good enough to almost reach Tower 7. And then what happened was, we heard this rumbling sound and my father pulled us all back and then with that Tower 7 came down.
–Firefighter Peter Blaich


At that point, Seven World Trade had 12 stories of fire in it. They were afraid it was going to collapse on us, so they pulled everybody out. We couldn't do anything.
– Firefighter Maureen McArdle-Schulman (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 17)





[edit on 29-4-2009 by CameronFox]



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 03:36 AM
link   
I wonder why Cameron didn't just give us the source and a few quotes rather than cut/pasting all that.


Cameron's source

:TY



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 

Your evidence...

pull back
pulled off
pull everybody
pulling all of our units
pulled back
pulled us
pulled us
pulled everyone
pull everybody
pulled us
pulled us
pulled us
pulled everybody
pulled us
pulled us
pulled everybody


Not once did anyone us it after pull. They know not to call people it.

If you are trying to associate the word pull as a firefighting term, look how pull is used as a demolition term...

the facade was pulled downward
“pull” the northern and eastern walls away
pull the columns inward
pull it down
"pull" a structure
pull the structure down
pull things down
pull the building
pull it away
pull down and demolish the building


That page found demolition teams using the pull it phrase twice!


Truthers = 2
Skeptics = 0



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

Hayden: [snip] You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse. 



Interesting testimony.

Considering that the NIST report states that WTC 7 was structurally ok after suffering some light damage, why would 7 have been 'bulging'? According to NIST, it was only the fires that toppled 7.

Why didn't NIST model the 'bulging' hours before hand? Wouldn't this bulging conflict with the rather sudden, official NIST explanation of Column 79 buckling so all of the other columns fell down in sympathy?

Which Chief gave the order to 'pull'? Who else knew about the alleged 'bulging' and why isn't it mentioned in the NIST report, unless I missed it? Maybe I did. I'll be happy to read a page numbered reference.

Who cares, I've got a flu virus to be scared about now!

[edit on 30-4-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 


He didn't say "pull them", he said "pull IT". That is a proven demolition term. It doesn't matter how you spin it, he said what he said.

[edit on 30-4-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
It doesn't matter if "pull it" means with cables or explosives, it still means to demolish a building. You do not use a demolition term if you're going to evacuate a building.


But then, I've likewise shown that it is *also* an established firefighter term to tell the firefighters to get out of a dangerous area, coming from the days before radio when they had to pull on the fire hoses to signal to the crews inside to get out immediately. It makes absolutely zero sense that Silverstein would ever be discussing demolition terms with firefighters, but it makes perfect sense that he'd be discussing firefighter terms with firefighters, especially when Silverstein's own statement shows he wanted to "pull it" in order to help stop the tremendous loss of life that day. Tell me, just how the heck can blowing up a building help save lives?

He was irrefutably talking about evacuating the fire fighters. "What more could you possibly need" is damned right.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by screwedagain

You don't refer to people as it. That's derogatory.


The idea that Silverstein was referring to people when he said "it" is coming entirely from you. He was referring to the firefighting OPERATION to save the building. At any rate, his intentions were clearly to help save lives, so it's obvious that being derogatory wasn't in his mind when he said it.


You acknowledge that the phrase pull it is a demolition phrase. In the video they were talking about the building being damaged right before Larry uttered that phrase. Seems clear to me what he meant by the word it. He was referring to the building.


If so, then he wouldn't have been discussing it with firefighters. Fire departments put out fires and rescue people, and occasionally inspect buildings for fire hazards. They don't blow up buildings. I'd have thought THAT would be the thing that would seem clear in all of this.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   
There has never been a single fireman or fire commander who has publicly claimed to have called Lucky Larry on that day. If I'm not mistaken, he said that he didn't talk to Larry that day.

After contacting an employee of a demolition company via email, she stated that within the CD industry that the term "pull it" refers to using the cable method of pulling a building down but usually implosion is used to describe CD via explosives.

Just when I was about to let Larry off the hook, she sent another email stating that the term "pull it" is used outside the CD industry as a slang term to refer to a controlled demolition.

Lucky Larry is 'outside' the CD industry so the argument remains valid that Larry was referring to imploding the building and not removing firefighters.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by screwedagain

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911

The truther will tell you that the NYFD called old Larry and asked him if it was ok to demo the building and Larry said "pull it" and then they watched the building collapse.

The Debunker will tell you that the NYFD called old Larry to tell him they couldn't contain the fires and that they were going to let it burn out. Larry being the caring guy he is told the NYFD to "pull.." the firefighters out of the building and that they later watched it collapse.

I don't think they were asking Larry if it was OK to demo the building, but maybe to get the final OK or to just let him know that they are about to pull the buildings.

The debunker version really makes no sense because a fire capt wouldn't need the building owner's permission to move his crew out of the building.



Not only that, there were no manual firefighting operations going on in Building 7 simply because of a lack of water! How can you pull out when your not even in?? LOL

Never mind there are many pictures on the net showing many pictures of firefighter's spraying down the buildings surrounding WTC 7 even though there was not enough water to fight WTC 7 fires! LOL

If debunkers would stop omitting facts from their argument, they would begin to realize how much of a failure their argument is!



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
Not only that, there were no manual firefighting operations going on in Building 7 simply because of a lack of water! How can you pull out when your not even in?? LOL

If debunkers would stop omitting facts from their argument, they would begin to realize how much of a failure their argument is!


The only ones willfully omitting facts from their arguments are the truthers themselves. On this very page I'm posting, there was a discussion about one Brian Jennings who was trapped in WTC 7, and firefighters got him out. How could Jenninigs have been rescued if, as you claim, there weren't any fire fighters in WTC 7 to rescue him?

If you're going to peddle your conspiracy scenarios then it would behoove you to incorporate *all* the facts, and not simply pick and choose those individual sexy sounding ones that offer a veneer of support for your claims. The truther movement has been polluted with so many crackpot claims I.E. laser beams from outer space, no planes ever hit the towers, etc that I'd have thought you'd be doing double time to keep your credibility spotless.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
Not only that, there were no manual firefighting operations going on in Building 7 simply because of a lack of water! How can you pull out when your not even in?? LOL

If debunkers would stop omitting facts from their argument, they would begin to realize how much of a failure their argument is!


The only ones willfully omitting facts from their arguments are the truthers themselves. On this very page I'm posting, there was a discussion about one Brian Jennings who was trapped in WTC 7, and firefighters got him out. How could Jenninigs have been rescued if, as you claim, there weren't any fire fighters in WTC 7 to rescue him?

If you're going to peddle your conspiracy scenarios then it would behoove you to incorporate *all* the facts, and not simply pick and choose those individual sexy sounding ones that offer a veneer of support for your claims. The truther movement has been polluted with so many crackpot claims I.E. laser beams from outer space, no planes ever hit the towers, etc that I'd have thought you'd be doing double time to keep your credibility spotless.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   
I don't know if these pictures have been seen before, but I thought I would put the link up anyhow, I found them on a site English Russia

Apparently the pictures where taken by a Pilot above and around the WTC when the event was taking place, I don't even know if the story is true that goes with them, but it catches the second impact, maybe some evidence of something in there.

Sorry if they have been linked before.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
Not only that, there were no manual firefighting operations going on in Building 7 simply because of a lack of water! How can you pull out when your not even in?? LOL

If debunkers would stop omitting facts from their argument, they would begin to realize how much of a failure their argument is!


The only ones willfully omitting facts from their arguments are the truthers themselves. On this very page I'm posting, there was a discussion about one Brian Jennings who was trapped in WTC 7, and firefighters got him out. How could Jenninigs have been rescued if, as you claim, there weren't any fire fighters in WTC 7 to rescue him?

If you're going to peddle your conspiracy scenarios then it would behoove you to incorporate *all* the facts, and not simply pick and choose those individual sexy sounding ones that offer a veneer of support for your claims. The truther movement has been polluted with so many crackpot claims I.E. laser beams from outer space, no planes ever hit the towers, etc that I'd have thought you'd be doing double time to keep your credibility spotless.


Peddling? One I'm not selling or pushing anything. Two, I'm simply stating the facts.

Dave, lets not confuse fighting fires with rescuing people out of a hole in the wall. Two different things wouldn't you agree? And considering I did not mention rescuing people, your chucking some straw on your argument along with laser beams and no planes as well. Sorry wrong guy to bring that up to.

Why did you purposely lump the two scenarios together? I'm sure you well aware of the difference between the physical action of rescuing people and the physical action of fighting a fire, right?

Dave here is FEMA's statement about fighting fires in WTC 7. Remember, I didn't say it, I repeated what FEMA said.

Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY.
Source:FEMA-source for peddlers


Hey Dave and everyone else, check this picture out....does that look like a lack of water to you? I can post more of the same upon request.
Water Being Used But Not On WTC 7

There is also a 'debunker' video out there entitled: DISPROVING 9/11 WTC COLLAPSE MYTHS "RARE VIDEO"
but for some reason the video was removed. Was it because it showed manual firefighting operations with water on a building that wasn't WTC 7?

What did it show? The video was from the fire fighting going on in the photo above, disproving the excuse of " there wasn't enough water to fight the fires in WTC 7."

Thanks for playing Dave but your done.

Here is some advice the next time you want to challenge my position:

1. Clearly read my posts, because you didn't.
Understand the difference between fighting fires and rescuing people.

2. Photographs and videos contradict Government agencies all the time. Make sure you have a full knowledge base of the topic at hand by studying all sources. A photo is worth a 1000 words and turns the government's truth to lies many times over. Again, omitting the facts! Debunkers do it all the time either on purpose or simply lack of knowledge. It is so old and tiring to continually point that out to people.

3. Do not post strawman arguments by lumping in lasers and no planes in your arguments. To do so simply points to the fact that your position can not stand on facts but must rely on logical fallacies in a feeble but failed attempt to be validated.

Thanks for playing and commenting though, Dave. It is always fun to point out the multitude of errors in a debunker's thinking.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join