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: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I've likewise shown that it is *also* an established firefighter term to tell the firefighters to get out of a dangerous area

How have you shown it? You've typed it, but never showed any source to your claim. So until you prove it with a source, it's your opinion only.



Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Tell me, just how the heck can blowing up a building help save lives?

By bringing the building down manually instead of letting it "magically" collapse from damage and fires on it's own.




Originally posted by GoodOlDave
He was irrefutably talking about evacuating the fire fighters.

How is it irrefutable when not a single person has shown that "pull it" means to evacuate firefighters, but it has been proven that "pull it" means to demolish a building? You should go look up the definition of "irrefutable" again.

Still, it doesn't make sense to use a demolition term and say "it" instead of "pull them". Or just plain say "evacuate". But they didn't need to say "evacuate" because that was already being broadcast on WTC7's internal PA system:


Speakers for voice evacuation announcements were located throughout the building and were activated manually at the Fire Control Center (FCC)
THE FEMA REPORT

You're also ignoring the former NYPD officer Craig Bartmer's comments that he heard "boom boom boom" and that he knows what explosions sound like, when I posted it earlier in this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If that's not enough, let's get more quotes. Here's one from EMT Indra Singh:


INDRA SINGH EMT: "...by noon or one o'clock they told us we need to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or be brought down."

HOST: "Did they actually use the word "brought down" and who was it that was telling you this?"

SINGH: "The fire department. And they did use the words 'we're gonna have to bring it down' and for us there observing the nature of the devastation it made total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility..."
SOURCE

Take note that the above testimony would be the second time that the fire department was referenced in bringing the building down manually.


And next here's one from Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue expert, Kevin McPadden:


"We started asking questions, everybody started asking questions, and the next thing you know there was a Red Cross representative pacing back and forth in front of the crowd holding his hand over the radio - I couldn't hear what it was saying but it was like pulsed - whatever the speech was on there it was pulsed - and that means to me most likely it was a countdown." ... In a taped interview with us after the event, McPadden made it clear that he and onlookers clearly heard "three, two, one" from the radio before the building collapsed.
SOURCE

So, now you have an NYPD officer, EMT and Air Force Special Operations expert, who are all credible people due to their professions, all stating the same observances that WTC7 was brought down in a controlled demolition.

Now, here's what Dr. Jonathan Barnett, a professor of fire protection engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute, had to say:


"A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures.", Dr. Barnett said.
NEW YORK TIMES

I say yet again, what more could you possibly need???




posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
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?


Ahem. I am responding to YOUR OWN POST, from which I quote...

"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 "

By saying "how can you pull out when you're not even in" you implied Silverstein was lying about wanting to pull the firefighters out by claiming there weren't any firefighters in WTC 7, but now that it's shown there *were* firefighters in WTC 7, you're now attempting to pull a bait and switch by claiming fighting fires is different from rescuing people, which only makes your FIRST comment false. Whether they were fighting fires or rescuing people is moot becuase there were still fire fighter personnel in WTC 7.


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.


Seeing that you tried to post false information, and now you're pulling a bait and switch to get out of having egg on your face, I'd say that yes, my comment on the suffering credibility of the truther movement really is pertinent.


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?


I didn't lump them together. You did. I called you on it, and now you're trying to evade responsibility for posting faulty information. Come to think of it, you're *still* trying to evade responsibility. Instead of addressing the fact that yes, there actually were firefighters in WTC 7, you're instead trying to get into this weird side argument on what they were doing there.

There were indeed fire fighters in WTC 7, which makes Silverstein's comment about wanting to pull the firefighter's out to save lives legitimate, which in turn makes your post incorrect. Be my guest in trying to argue further, but in the end, any attempt to salvage any claim that contradicts this fact will be pointless.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 06:15 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.

"Brian" Jennings the Chicago Trib sports writer? I think he is still alive:

www.chicagotribune.com...

You were the only one mentioning [Barry] "Jennings" "On this very page I'm posting"- did you forget a link or something? That did not make much sense.

Also you were the one explicitly bringing up "crackpot claims, laser beams from outer space, no planes ever hit the towers, etc." which is pretty much off-topic and a thread derail. Let's not guess about implications and stick with what people actually state explicitly, in the interests of efficiency shall we?

That derail also happens to be this:
en.wikipedia.org...

this:
en.wikipedia.org...

and this:
en.wikipedia.org...

Is your "debunking" really this weak, or are you flailing here Dave?

[edit on 30-4-2009 by rhunter]



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by screwedagain



I remember getting a call from the, uh, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "You know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it." Uh, and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.


Has it ever been revealed?

Bolding of the OP above mine for emphasis, since so many forget to read for and in context. Sometimes one must read for context when prounouns like "it" are used carelessly.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   
So Larry was more interested in the NYC Firefighters (it) than he was interested in his own building (it)? Why would he be directing, or even suggesting the positioning of Firefighters on the scene when this FDNY activity is beyond his authority?

[edit on 30-4-2009 by SphinxMontreal]



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 


Have a problem with reading comprehension?




I remember getting a call from the, uh, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "You know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it." Uh, and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.


"getting a call from the, uh fire department commander"

Means that Silverstein was NOT at the scene!

"we watched the building collapse"

Mostl likely on Television - was om every channel that day



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
"getting a call from the, uh fire department commander"
Means that Silverstein was NOT at the scene!

For at least 15 years now, there has been a wonderful invention called the mobile telephone. It means that people can take calls on location, not necessarily at an office desk with a landline phone.

I have no idea where Silverstein was when he took the call. Do you? Can you prove it or link it?



"we watched the building collapse"
Mostl likely on Television - was om every channel that day

I take it that your 'most likely' is just a guess and that you really don't know where Silverstein was when he watched WTC 7 fall and who the 'we' people were?

Post some facts about where Silverstein was and how he took the call, rather than passing off your suspicions as probable facts.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
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?

Ahem. I am responding to YOUR OWN POST, from which I quote...
"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 "
By saying "how can you pull out when you're not even in" you implied Silverstein was lying about wanting to pull the firefighters out by claiming there weren't any firefighters in WTC 7, but now that it's shown there *were* firefighters in WTC 7, you're now attempting to pull a bait and switch by claiming fighting fires is different from rescuing people, which only makes your FIRST comment false. Whether they were fighting fires or rescuing people is moot becuase there were still fire fighter personnel in WTC 7.

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.

Seeing that you tried to post false information, and now you're pulling a bait and switch to get out of having egg on your face, I'd say that yes, my comment on the suffering credibility of the truther movement really is pertinent.

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?

I didn't lump them together. You did. I called you on it, and now you're trying to evade responsibility for posting faulty information. Come to think of it, you're *still* trying to evade responsibility. Instead of addressing the fact that yes, there actually were firefighters in WTC 7, you're instead trying to get into this weird side argument on what they were doing there.
There were indeed fire fighters in WTC 7, which makes Silverstein's comment about wanting to pull the firefighter's out to save lives legitimate, which in turn makes your post incorrect. Be my guest in trying to argue further, but in the end, any attempt to salvage any claim that contradicts this fact will be pointless.


READ THE QUOTE DAVE:"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." –Larry Silverstein

This has nothing to do with rescue operations, they were allegedly trying to contain a fire in WTC 7.

READ THE QUOTE AGAIN-not sure they were gonna be able to CONTAIN THE FIRE
See, Dave, fire, not people, not Barry Jennings, not rescue operations.. fire fighting operations to contain a fire!

Now, Dave, what fire were they fighting? According to FEMA there were no manual firefighting operations were undertaken!!

What fire dept. commander was Larry referring to, Dave? Chief Nigro denies speaking to him!

Your whole premise relies on you IGNORING/OMITTING the mysterious fire department commander telling Larry his doubts about CONTAINING THE FIRE! But how can you contain a fire when FEMA says there were no manual firefighting operations?? Who is lying and why, Dave?

Your trying and failing to lump the Jenning's rescue story with the fire containment story in order to justify Larry's "IT" as firefighters!
Massive fail on your part, I might add as your tactic has now been exposed.

I told you earlier...before you ever challenge me, know the difference between rescue operations and firefighting operations due to Larry's quote!

"IT" can only refer to one thing: WTC 7.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   
So far official story problems with the WTC 7 PULL IT story:
1. "I am well aware of Mr. Silverstein's statement, but to the best of my recollection, I did not speak to him on that day and I do not recall anyone telling me that they did either. That doesn't mean he could not have spoken to someone from FDNY, it just means that I am not aware of it." From JREF.
The commander (was there only one that day, Nigro?) is unidentified.

2. Contradictions.
a.FEMA says no firefighting operations because of no water. I've posted
pictures showing the opposite of that statement.
b. How can Larry state the doubts of the fire department commander
regarding the containment of the fire, if there were no firefighting
operations going on?
c. Asymmetrical "Thermal Expansion" of one beam causes a
symmetrical collapse never before and never again even in the face of
other similar buildings engulfed in fire.
d. A average joe firefighter claiming to be the fire dept. commander?
How many commanders are there, anyway?
e. A Fire Dept. Commander is not in the business of confirming,asking,
or "courtsey calling" owners of buildings with regards to the immediate
safety of their men. (perhaps the most idiotic suggestion offered by
Mark Roberts at WTC7liesgooglepages. LOL)

3. Professionals
a. Numerous professional engineers and a CD specialist state the
collapse was a CD.
b. Firefighters after the fact alluding to the potential controlled demolition
of the building if it didn't collapse.
c. Countdowns heard and loud "claps of thunder" heard before the
collapse.

4. Terminology
a. "IT" 1. (used to represent an [B]inanimate[/B] thing understood, previously mentioned, about to be mentioned, or present in the immediate context)-Say like a building.....

b. (used to represent a group understood or previously mentioned)
"It" can't be this because there were no firefighting operations
according to FEMA! LOL

5. Motive: So why demolish "IT", the building?

a. Good Guy/Clueless Larry-save lives from an asymmetrical collapse
into other buildings or people. Avoid potential injury to those hired to
repair the building. Safety of NY is reduced as the Command Center
can't make full use of the facility. Defaults professional decision to
FDNY to avoid responsibility/litigation/etc/further loss of life.

b. Greedy Guy Larry-Insurance payout. Avoid cost of expensive repairs.
Settlements from local or federal cases that might help pay for repair
or reconstruction. Avoid potential litigation from former upgrades that
may or may not have been faulty.Defaults decision to FDNY to avoid
responsibility/litigation/etc or is simply lying about the conversation.

c. Conspiracy Larry-worked with conspirators to allow CD of WTC 7 to
rid the Earth of SEC files, investigations, etc. 7 may have been the
target of one of the planes. Defaults decision to FDNY to avoid
responsibility/litigation/etc or is simply lying about the conversation.

d. Super Bad Larry-combine Conspiracy/Greedy Larry into one potion
and mix thoroughly.

In all of the above scenarios, controlled demolition is justified.
Now that we know the FDNY didn't talk to Larry and no one has come forward otherwise, the conversation is an apparent lie.
If the conversation is a lie, then good guy Larry is not a part of the logic. Now that we know the NIST report on WTC 7 is an exercise in omission and junk science, it appears 'thermal expansion' is ridiculous. Models don't match reality, ignoring evidence of hi temp attack on the steel pieces, ignoring information from first responders, no steel was examined, despite FEMA having it, etc. to therefore, controlled demolition is the only explanation.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
[How have you shown it? You've typed it, but never showed any source to your claim. So until you prove it with a source, it's your opinion only.


I originally learned of the meaning after doing a web search on "pull it"and coming across a fire fighter's discussion board where fire fighters were mentioning it. It was from them that I first learned that it was based upon having to signal to fire fighters by pulling the fire hose. I have since asked two other fire fighters independently, and they too confirmed that "Pull it" is fire fighter lingo for getting fire fighters out of a dangerous area.

It seems to be common sense to me that, if you're curious what fire fighters are talking about, you go ask a fire fighter, rather than a bunch of college students making internet flicks in their dorm room or conspiracy web sites trying to sell you t-shirts.



By bringing the building down manually instead of letting it "magically" collapse from damage and fires on it's own.


Then, there'd be no reason whatsoever for Silverstein, et al., to cover it up becuase their actions really DID save lives. Even then, by doing so they'd still be endangering the fire fighters sent into the structurally damaged, burning, about-to-fall-down-on-its-own building to even set up these hypothetical demolitions. The claim only contradicts his "wanting to avoid any more loss of life" statement even more.

The context you're interpreting it to be STILL doesn't make any sense.



How is it irrefutable when not a single person has shown that "pull it" means to evacuate firefighters, but it has been proven that "pull it" means to demolish a building? You should go look up the definition of "irrefutable" again.


It is irrefutable becuase a) actual firefighters confirmed to me that "pull it" does mean to get fire fighters out of a bad area, and this term had been used *before* 9/11, and b) the only people insisting it has to mean "controlled demolitions" are the truthers themselves, and their interpretation only appeared *after* 9/11.

To me, this is as irrefutable as irrefutable gets. Silverstein was referring to the fire fighters. Let it go, already.



You're also ignoring the former NYPD officer Craig Bartmer's comments that he heard "boom boom boom" and that he knows what explosions sound like, when I posted it earlier in this thread:


...and as I ALSO said previously, MANY TIMES, noone is refuting that witnesses heard explosions. I was lucky enough to speak with an actual former employee who was working in tower 1 at the time, and *she* heard explosions. Of course there were explosions, but it's only in your own mind that these were explosives. All the flammable items I.E. fuel tanks, electrical transformers, pressurized pipes, etc that a skyscraper would normally contain will certainly go BOOM, as the fires reached these items in turn.

From where I'm sitting, it is YOU who's ignoring the comments of such people, since they all say these explosions were going off *before* the towers came down. If they were controlled demolitions the towers would have necessarily come down at the same time they heard explosions or else they wouldn't be controlled demolitions.


And next here's one from Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue expert, Kevin McPadden:


Oh, so it wasn't enough for you that Silverstein associates AND the NY Port Authority AND the NYFD are in on the conspiracy to blow up WTC 7. Now you're dragging in the Red Cross into the mix. Just how many thousands of people were involved in this "secret conspiracy" of yours, exactly?

It should be readily apparent by now that the more you try to interpret the events of 9/11 according to your conspiracy scenarios, the more it necessarily deteriorates into absurdity.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhunter
You were the only one mentioning [Barry] "Jennings" "On this very page I'm posting"- did you forget a link or something? That did not make much sense.


Yes, it was Barry Jennings I was referring to, not Brian Jennings. My bad.

However, my original statement still stands. If you don't believe anything else I tell you, believe me when I say the information about Barry Jennings came from one of your fellow truthers here, not me, mainly becuase I had never heard of Barry Jennings before coming to this board.


Also you were the one explicitly bringing up "crackpot claims, laser beams from outer space, no planes ever hit the towers, etc." which is pretty much off-topic and a thread derail.


Ahem one merely needs to look at the other threads on this board where people are arguing over "no planes" and "nukes in the basement". When I state that there is an exorbitant amount of bad information willfully being curculated by the truthers which only makes their credibility suffer, the actions of your fellow truthers doesn't really prove me wrong.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
READ THE QUOTE DAVE:"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." –Larry Silverstein

This has nothing to do with rescue operations, they were allegedly trying to contain a fire in WTC 7.


All right, I have no idea what type of game you're attempting to play here, so let's nip this in the bud right now. I don't know you, I don't know what your politics are, what your opinions are, what your favorite colors are or anythign else about you. All I know about you is from the posts you leave here, and you posted, and I'll repeat your own words back to you... again...

"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 "

You weren't arguing whether the fire fighters were fighting fires, rescuing people, or playing ping pong. YOU WERE ARGUING THAT FIRE FIGHTERS WEREN'T IN WTC 7 AT ALL. You can't even begin to deny this becuase your own "how can you pull them out when you're not even in" post shows that's what you said. Moreover, you're STILL evading the issue that fire fighters really were in WTC by trying to argue over these side things that you never intended to argue about to begin with, simply to save face.

Look, my intention isn't to embarass you from your mistakes or to "get you", or to make you look stupid, becuase we all make mistakes and I know full well you aren't stupid. My only intention is to sort out the legitimate information about the events from 9/11 from the gigantic pile of outright false information being circulated around by the truthers. You said before that your "only agenda is to preserve the truth" so you out of anyone else here should agree with that goal, but your own actions show that whatever your true agenda really is, preserving the truth isn't it.

You attempted to claim that fire fighters weren't in WTC 7 and I showed that you are wrong. Deal with it.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Ahem one merely needs to look at the other threads on this board where people are arguing over "no planes" and "nukes in the basement". When I state that there is an exorbitant amount of bad information willfully being curculated by the truthers which only makes their credibility suffer, the actions of your fellow truthers doesn't really prove me wrong.

Oh, so you are merely making off-topic (non-Larry Silverstein related) logical fallacies then. Thank you for clarifying that point for us Dave.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   
No Firefighting operations at WTC 7?

Here are quotes from FDNY personnel on scene saying otherwise

Trying to put out fires in WTC 7



We made searches. We attempted to put some of the fire out, but we had a pressure problem. I forget the name of the Deputy. Some Deputy arrived at the scene and thought that the building was too dangerous to continue with operations, so we evacuated number 7 World Trade Center. –Captain Anthony Varriale


FDNY personnel recovering their dead from the area



A Battalion Chief was assigned to us. We took our apparatus to West Street to the north bridge, on that side over there, where we began to operate. We had identified different members who were deceased and trapped in rigs. We were about to proceed our operation there and this was in the afternoon, I would say approximately maybe 2:00 roughly, where we started to operate and then they asked us to fall back again due to the potential of 7 World Trade Center collapsing.


Fighting fires in street



Greenwich and Park was covered with debris, there were burning autos and all debris. It was starting to extend into the buildings on both sides of the block. We went to hydrants in that area. We had off duty guys in our cells, but the hydrants had no water. We did whatever we could. The rigs actually were starting to become in danger of lighting up themselves.

We called trying to get water returned to us over here. Finally one of the members thought, we used it for a good period of time, we forced the door on one of the buildings there and used the water from the roof tanks. It was left in the gravity tanks. We took a two and a half line out of one of the doors. We were able to advance down Greenwich, stopping, putting fire out in the street, the cars and from getting into exposures.

They were worried about 7 at the time. The decision was made not to do it, not to get anybody else hurt. That's when we backed up and they said let's wait for this other building before we continue any work, because where the bridge was in the direct path of 7. It was the north bridge where we were looking initially.


More quotes here

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


I do recall that video about "pulling" building 6. However, did you notice something in it? there were no explosions. What I did see were cables strung up to the remains, hooked up to excavators, and they "pulled" the building down. No use of explosives in that video.

But what about the many firefighter comments about "getting pulled" from WTC7? Should these be ignored or denied?



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
But what about the many firefighter comments about "getting pulled" from WTC7? Should these be ignored or denied?

Irrelevant and avoiding the question asked in the thread title.

Which FDNY called Larry? Do you have a response on that one, GenRadek?



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
It seems to be common sense to me that, if you're curious what fire fighters are talking about, you go ask a fire fighter, rather than a bunch of college students making internet flicks

Then your common sense may be skewed because in the very same documentary a few minutes after Larry said "pull it", they were talking about "pulling" WTC6. Since "pull" is a demolition term and was used as such in the documentary, you would contact a demo company, not a fire department.

Furthermore, there's quite a bit more to the 9/11 truth movement than "a bunch of college students making internet flicks". That statement shows how unresearched and naive you really are. Or you are just flat-out attacking, which is what debunkers like to do when their "evidence" gets debunked.



Originally posted by GoodOlDave
there'd be no reason whatsoever for Silverstein, et al., to cover it up

There is the possibility that Larry was trying to give an explanation as to why it was so obvious that WTC7 fell exactly like a controlled demolition. The documentary was well before the "official" explanation.



Originally posted by GoodOlDave
It is irrefutable becuase a) actual firefighters confirmed to me that "pull it" does mean to get fire fighters out of a bad area

I'm so very happy they confided in you personally. I did a quick Google search and I can't find "pull it" being used hardly at all, let alone any firefighter forums. Without a source, your claim is just your opinion only and NOT irrefutable proof, sorry.



Originally posted by GoodOlDave
b) the only people insisting it has to mean "controlled demolitions" are the truthers themselves

Wow, you really are either trying to be blatantly untruthful or you didn't read anything in this thread and are just posting to see your words on the screen. As I mentioned above, after Larry said "pull it", several minutes later in the same documentary, they talk about pulling WTC6. That doesn't sound like "only truthers" are insisting.

Then in this very thread, I posted a recorded conversation with Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) and they also confirmed that "pull it" means to demolish a building. That also doesn't sound like "only truthers" are insisting.

Care to take back your statement above? Only disinfo artists purposely peddle false information. It's been shown more than twice that "pull it" is a demolition term and nowhere other than your own text has it been shown to be anything else.



Originally posted by GoodOlDave
but it's only in your own mind that these were explosives

Sorry, but this is not "only in our minds":



I'm working on a movie that will show more than one video of actual controlled demolitions where the dust jets are identical to the WTC's, so don't even try to say they are air from collapsing floors, even though the collapse wave is nowhere near these dust jets. No two controlled demolitions are the same. There are over 1000 different types of explosives that can be used in controlled demolitions and depending on the type used will dictate how the size, speed, quantity of material and duration a dust jet will last, let alone where that explosive is placed and how much material/building it has to travel through.

Numerous firefighters saw the flashes from the detonations and heard the detonations as the buildings were collapsing. The video evidence also shows some of these detonations. And in a couple videos, you can also hear these detonations. Besides, snapping columns don't blow you down a stairwell or blow you into a wall. And snapping columns don't cause red flashes with explosive sounds going all the way around the building as the building is collapsing.

You can continue to deny the evidence, but the evidence will not go away and neither will we. You're fighting a non-winnable battle.



Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Oh, so it wasn't enough for you that Silverstein associates AND the NY Port Authority AND the NYFD are in on the conspiracy to blow up WTC 7. Now you're dragging in the Red Cross into the mix.

Once again, you're either twisting the facts around or you're not reading/comprehending what you're reading. These are all witnesses to what was happening on that day. You are the only one asserting that they're "in on the conspiracy".



Originally posted by GoodOlDave
It should be readily apparent by now that the more you try to interpret the events of 9/11 according to your conspiracy scenarios, the more it necessarily deteriorates into absurdity.

Nothing can "deteriorate into aburdity" when you have only typed text on a screen that has no proof behind it. Typing text on a screen doesn't debunk anything. Without sources, text means nothing.

It should be readily apparent by now that "pull it" is a demolition term and that the more you try to interpret it as anything else according to your denial scenarios, the more it makes us look more credible.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   

posted by _BoneZ_
By bringing the building down manually instead of letting it "magically" collapse from damage and fires on it's own.


posted by GoodOlDave
Then, there'd be no reason whatsoever for Silverstein, et al., to cover it up becuase their actions really DID save lives.


Yes there would be. Silverstein would have to explain how the demolition explosives got into the building before 9-11.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


I've seen those alleged "squibs" plenty of times online. However, one thing always rubbed the wrong way when observing them: they increase in speed and amount of debris as the Towers collapse. How does that happen? Explosives create an initial detonation of high velocity which decreases exponentially immediately afterwards. They never explode and then pick up speed after detonation, explosives do not work this way. Those alleged "squibs" actually speed up over time, which is more indicative of high pressure being vented from the collapsing tower above through elevator shafts or airducts. You can see a better video clip here:

Overpressure

Now this "squib" is actually working in reverse of an actual explosive.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


And as I've stated more than once in this and other threads, I have videos that are freely available online of actual controlled demolitions where the dust jets are exactly identical to the WTC's. Once I finish and release the movie I'm working on that will present this evidence, you won't have to keep copy-pasting from the "debunker's" website anymore because you'll have nothing left to "debunk".

If you would have spent several years researching controlled demolitions, or researched the dust jets at all, you would already know all of this whether you believe 9/11 was an inside job or not.

But since you want to tow the absolute proof of the debunker website, please explain to everyone why those dust jets are not seen in any other building collapse other than those that are brought down with explosives and are the direct result of explosives being detonated.

And please don't sit there and assume or theorize. It's a fact that the dust jets are a direct result of explosives. It's only a theory to those in denial as they try to explain away these facts because they don't want to believe what these facts suggest.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join