Which FDNY called Larry?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by NIcon
Here's a good rebuttal to myself: That's all fine and dandy NIcon, but did you ever consider that they may have thought about a demolition, but seeing as they had no water pressure, maybe they ruled it out because if something went tragically wrong, they would still not be able to do anything about it.

Nah, that's not a rebuttal I would use, myself. *My* rebuttal would be...
Imagine you're a demolitions engineer. You're standing at the WTC complex and you just saw two gigantic skyscrapers collapse, killing thousands. The whole place is all smashed up and it looks like Berlin at the end of WWII, fires are burning left and right, and you can't even see beyond 25 yards from all the smoke and dust fillign the air. WTC 7 has a huge gouge in it from where one of the towers fell on it. It too has fires, and it's such a death trap that the fire fighters themselves were ordered to get the heck away from it. THEN, someone tells you that becuase WTC 7 is so dangerous and can fall down any minute, you'll need to go inside and set demolition charges to bring it down.
Question- would you respond with ...
a) "Sir, yes sir!", or,
b) "[censored] you and the horse you came in on, I ain't going in there!"
I'm sure I speak for all these supposed secret agents when I say that they don't relish the idea of getting squished, either. I think *that* is about the best rebuttal to these conspiracy stories of all.

Now you know why the conspiracy exists....the building was rigged up prior to the day's events.

Now you know why NIST, when they subcontracted the study of WTC 7 to a different company excluded floors 1-8 in the study.

According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, on March 31, 2006, under solicitation number SB1341-06-Q-0186, a fixed price purchase order has been awarded by the federal government to Applied Research Associates, Inc. (ARA) of Albuquerque, New Mexico to research and provide World Trade Center Building Seven structural analysis and collapse hypotheses.[7] Specifically, the U.S. government has contracted with ARA to:
Create detailed floor analyses to determine likely modes of failure for Floors 8 to 46 due to failure of one or more supporting columns (at one or more locations) in World Trade Center Building Seven.

Please note that contractually, ARA is restrained to research likely modes of failure only for floors 8 to 46.

Stacey Loizeaux of CDI said, “We only really need to work on the first two floors, because you can make the building come down that way(in a controlled demolition”.
However, ARA has been hired by the government to create detailed floor analyses to determine likely modes of failures for Floors 8 to 46 due to failure of one or more supporting columns (at one or more locations) in World Trade Center Building Seven.

The fix was in from the start, Dave.
Now why didn't they study 1-7 considering the Barry Jennings story as well as CD expert statements?

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
The fix was in from the start, Dave.
Now why didn't they study 1-7 considering the Barry Jennings story as well as CD expert statements?

Becuase...

A) I've showed numerous times that the timeline from Barry Jenning's own testimony shows that the damage to WTC 7 was caused by the collapse of the north tower, and I will post it again if you so desire,

B) The NIST report already studied floors 1-7, and they declared that the initial structural failure began somewhere on floors 5-7, *not* the ground floor, where you yourself admit they would have put explosives. Besides, if there was any coverup they wouldn't even have contracted any outsiders to review the collapse.

Then of course there's C) it's impossible to plant controlled demolitions in an occupied building without anyone noticing in the first place. Good grief, floor 1 would be the lobby where everyone came into the building to begin with!

Originally posted by NIcon
Why did they go against the firemen's wishes? Why did the firemen only at 4:15 contact them to shut down the power, if the building was poised to collapse at anytime from 10:30 to 4:15? What happened around 4:15 to spur this decision? Just more questions.

That should be self evident. This is the first time anything ever happened on such a massive scale, and everyone was slipping on banana peels and stumbling into walls trying to find out what to do. Even in the 9/11 commission report, it said the FAA was negligent in its duty to warn aircraft of possible hijacking as it should, plus NORAD was negligent in handing out orders uniformly, plus the CIA was negligent in sharing information with the FBI and vice versa, and even the TSA was negligent in faling to catch Atta, et. with their box cutters.

There's a saying I heard somewhere- "never blame malice for what can easily be explained by stupidity". Official response simply wasn't as efficient as how they anticipated it would be.

Also, what secret agents are we talking about? I could have sworn that what I'm referring to is the demolition crews that may have been there at 3:00 p.m..... that is if that Brent Blanchard is not trying to blow smokem up all of our rumpuses with his paper.

That bit about secret agents was from conspiracy theorist I was talking to before you. I forgot that not all truthers believe in the same conspiracies. My bad.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

No problems. Now if only I could believe that I believed that one set of circumstances happened rather than another. But too many questions keep popping up for me, whichever way I go. But that's what's attractive to me with this line of thought I'm having: there's really no malice in the circumstances. But one big question does pop up, if the fire department did take it down, why would they hide it? But that gets into studying the motives of mice and men.... and the mice are a whole lot easier to figure out than the men. Ah well, I'll keep looking and maybe someday I'll be satisfied with something.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Do I really have to tell you that you're stretching, and mighty badly, at that?

The only one stretching is you with your denial-fueled excuses to explain away the evidence. Two people had or heard conversations with FDNY about controlled demolition. Until you explain that, anything else you say looks like "blah blah blah". Hope that's clear enough for ya.

reply to post by NIcon

And you are correct it usually takes months of planning to take down a building, but what you are forgetting is on September 11, 2001 there was a set of extra extra extra extra extra extra ordinary circumstances. This was no run of the mill Tuesday, I'm sure what ever officials monitor the use of explosives in NYC would surely have looked the other way on that day. What if the fire department did go to these demolition crews which may have been there and said "Now listen boys, we need to take this down before we have the Great Fire of Chicago on our hands. We think it's clear up to the 6th floor, here's the plans, so get to work." Would they not have found the volunteers to "save Manhattan"? Would it be possible to take it down in a few hours to "save Manhattan"?

More tin foil logic....

1) So you are going to go into a unsafe building where fires are breaking
out on multiple floors to plant explosives?

What happens when fire reaches explosives?

2) Where are getting the explosives from? FF do not carry explosives,
you can't just call up and get a couple hundred pounds of explosives
like ordering a pizza

Or are one of the loons who believe it was all planned and they were
waiting to demolish the building ?

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by NIcon

More tin foil logic....

1) So you are going to go into a unsafe building where fires are breaking
out on multiple floors to plant explosives?

What happens when fire reaches explosives?

2) Where are getting the explosives from? FF do not carry explosives,
you can't just call up and get a couple hundred pounds of explosives
like ordering a pizza

Or are one of the loons who believe it was all planned and they were
waiting to demolish the building ?

More ad hominem fallacies...

On Q1, that would depend upon the explosive. Composition C-4, for example :

Just as with other explosives, you need to apply some energy to C-4 to kick off the chemical reaction. Because of the stabilizer elements, it takes a considerable shock to set off this reaction; lighting the C-4 with a match will just make it burn slowly, like a piece of wood (in Vietnam, soldiers actually burned C-4 as an improvised cooking fire). Even shooting the explosive with a rifle won't trigger the reaction. Only a detonator, or blasting cap will do the job properly.

science.howstuffworks.com...

On Q2, demolitions companies (such as the one(s) cited earlier on this thread or CDI) or DoD would be logical possibilities, I would think. These groups have been known to work with various explosives.

Edit: See the Blanchard/Implosionworld paper cited here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 4-5-2009 by rhunter]

reply to post by thedman

Hmmm.... is it really tinfoil logic to ponder the possibility that the fire fighters and demolition crews may have realized things could have gotten a lot worse and decided to risk their lives and take action? Is it really tinfoil logic to think that some brave men may have taken matters into their own hands and entered into an unsafe building with unsafe materials, rather than sitting outside with their fingers crossed hoping that the building did not fall into the Verizon building and spread the fire? Is it really tinfoil logic when I read on page two of this very thread "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." and imagine them in the building with all that creaking and groaning going on around them and they still were not concerned for their lives but would have rather kept fighting the fires despite it being an unsafe building? Is it tinfoil logic to think that, even though explosives are illegal in Manhattan to bring down a building, they just might have gotten a pass on using them that day?

But wait a sec... that was one big problem in my line of thought: "why would they cover that up?" Now I know....they're covering it up because they don't want to be arrested for using illegal explosives! Thanks, thedman.

But anyway back to this tinfoil logic. I always assumed that the tinfoil adjective came from the phrase tinfoil hat, that of which a person would wear to protect themselves from what they believed was harmful radiation put out by what they believed to be nefarious sources in order to harm and/or have undue influence of said person. So I assumed that whenever the term tinfoil was used in describing conspiracies of any kind that it usually referred to an irrational belief or nonlogical outlook that forces are involved with the purpose to harm and/or have undue influence of a person and/or persons. But now that I come up with a scenario where I characterize the New York Fire Department as a benevolent organization and I ponder a scenario where they are actually benefitting people, I get classified as tinfoil. I'm so confused.......

But anyway, no I'm not that kind of loon. I'm the kind of loon who believes he believes that he doesn't know nor believes he knows what happened. But now I assume I'm also a tinfoil loon, too.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Imagine you're a demolitions engineer. You're standing at the WTC complex and you just saw two gigantic skyscrapers collapse, killing thousands. The whole place is all smashed up and it looks like Berlin at the end of WWII, fires are burning left and right, and you can't even see beyond 25 yards from all the smoke and dust fillign the air. WTC 7 has a huge gouge in it from where one of the towers fell on it. It too has fires, and it's such a death trap that the fire fighters themselves were ordered to get the heck away from it. THEN, someone tells you that becuase WTC 7 is so dangerous and can fall down any minute, you'll need to go inside and set demolition charges to bring it down.

Here's a different spin on your tale:
"Imagine you're a demolitions engineer who's just watched his finest piece of work ever, the twin towers falling from your own charges! You worked for months placing them just right and it went down better than expected - people believed it was jet fuel! Harley Man said so!

You know that WTC 7 is safe from collapse, until you press the charges, so you'll go in and poke around as much as you like..."

Note to debunkers, the above alternate story is not what I necessarily believe or disbelieve. I wrote it to present an alternate point of view that other people subscribe to.

reply to post by NIcon


Explain how you get your crack teams of saboteurs into the building?

Area around WTC 7 is being cleared for possible collapse - so bunch of guys running into building carrying backpacks will not attrach attention?

Also elevators in building are smashed so you have guys running around
burning building - not smart

Explain how one plants explosives here

www.911myths.com...

Note well involved fires on several floors

Also by late afternoon word had gotten out that WTC 7 will collapse -
cameras are now trained on building - how does one carry out such an operation without notice?

reply to post by thedman

Just a quick repsonse as I've got lots to do today:

No, No, No...not sabotuers... in my thoughts these would be brave men (or women) who were trying to save Manhattan from going up in flames. Maybe a good guess would be through the substation, but I seem to be not able to find plans for that so I don't know. Or we have the North Side, possibly the loading ramp? Or the South? Or the East? Or the West? Are we claiming the building was inaccessible?

They may not have attracted as much attention as the other burning buildings, the people running around searching for survivors from the towers, the people tending to the injured, burning cars, sirens, car alarms, people screaming, etc. etc.

According to NCSTAR 1-9 Vol1 page 344/404, the stairwells seemed to have been sufficient up to the 8th and 9th floor. There was smoke but I'm sure the fire department has equipment for entering burning buildings that contain smoke. And yes not smart... but maybe brave? or heroic?

Better than explaining, I'll show a pretty picture:



Which brings up a quote posted in this thread on 4-5-2209 @ 12:58 PM by Swing Dangler. I copy it here so people will not have to scroll up and/or to another page: “We only really need to work on the first two floors, because you can make the building come down that way(in a controlled demolition”. (But I do recommend you go read Swing Dangler's post as it does have some good points, so if you have the time, I'm just suggesting)

And finally, perhaps by late afternoon the plan had already been 75% implemented. Besides which, do you know of any extensive footage of the bottom floors? Something that's not these 5 or 10 second clips. Can you please post some links to these as I'd love to see them. (Also a note: I have seen somewhere on these boards a clip which supposely shows human activity around one of the damaged areas of the building higher up. I have not pursued this at all, but those interested may want to search for it.)

Edited to add (or women)

Edited again to add another point to my third point.... the thing about brave and heroic

[edit on 5-5-2009 by NIcon]

[edit on 5-5-2009 by NIcon]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
The only one stretching is you with your denial-fueled excuses to explain away the evidence. Two people had or heard conversations with FDNY about controlled demolition. Until you explain that, anything else you say looks like "blah blah blah". Hope that's clear enough for ya.

So let me get this straight...I tell you that several fire fighters have, independently of each other, confirmed to me personally that "pull it" is in fact a phrase meaning to pull fire fighters out of a dangerous area...and yet you still can't bring yourself to believe it. Yet, you read on some internet web site that a couple of people (who you've never talked to yourself), mentioned one or two mysterious phrases they've heard (but can't confirm) that kinda-sorta sound like controlled demo lingo when taken out of context, and without even a second glance you rush to accept it as "irrefutable evidence".

Oh, yes, it's become perfectly clear for me. It's perfectly clear that you've set up for yourself a nice little double standard where everything that disagrees with your conspiracy scenarios regardless of its validity just has to be false, and everything that agrees with them regardless of its absurdity just has to be true. You don't even seem to care that you're forced to submit ever increasingly fantastical explanations of secret agents and coverups in order to keep your conspiracy stories alive in the face of the evidence that shows they can't possibly be true. This has absolutely nothing to do with seeking the facts. It's an active agenda to advance these conspiracy stories regardless of what the facts actually are.

If you were to ever hold your conspiracy stories to the same exacting high standard of critical analysis that you do to the accepted account, you would find you wouldn't be championing your conspiracy stories, for very long. It's fallacy, not the truth, that need fear critique, as Patrick Henry once said.

Originally posted by tezzajw
"Imagine you're a demolitions engineer who's just watched his finest piece of work ever, the twin towers falling from your own charges! You worked for months placing them just right and it went down better than expected - people believed it was jet fuel! Harley Man said so!

You know that WTC 7 is safe from collapse, until you press the charges, so you'll go in and poke around as much as you like..."

Note to debunkers, the above alternate story is not what I necessarily believe or disbelieve. I wrote it to present an alternate point of view that other people subscribe to.

Interesting scenario, I must admit...but it flies in the face of all the facts.

1) the towers were not only occupied, but *heavily* occupied, with upwards of 10,000 occupants each. Your "flipping the switch" scenario would necessarily mean there had to be a control cable from the switch to the explosives, which means that someone would certainly start wondering, "hey, what the heck are these cables running all over the place for"? It relies too unrealistically that everyone is as dumb as a bag of hammers. Moreover, it's usually the people who are as dumb as a bag of hammers who wind up fouling everything up to begin with.

2) The north tower fell on WTC 7, leaving a gaping hole in the side of the building, starting uncontrolled fires, and causing the fire dept to fear for their safety enough to pull out. A secret agent CD technician really would have to be as dumb as a bag of hammers to blithely go in believing it was perfectly safe, and I can't say that secret agents are dumb as a bag of hammers, either.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
So let me get this straight...I tell you that several fire fighters have, independently of each other, confirmed to me personally that "pull it" is in fact a phrase meaning to pull fire fighters out of a dangerous area...and yet you still can't bring yourself to believe it.

Um, I'm not sure why you're not getting it through your head that you telling something to someone means jack. You need to back yourself up with links. I don't know what makes you so special that you expect people to believe you based on your sole word alone.

One problem that you have is that Controlled Demolition, Inc. did confirm that "pull it" means to to bring a building down, so I don't know why you can't bring yourself to believe that. I've shown proof, you have not.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
It's an active agenda to advance these conspiracy stories regardless of what the facts actually are.

What the facts actually are is I've shown that "pull it" means to demolish a building and you've shown nothing but your words, I guess everything else you have said is null and void.

So, to sum things up, you should get your own facts and sources before coming in a thread and attempting to debunk a proven fact and expect everybody to believe you based on your words alone.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
there had to be a control cable from the switch to the explosives

Unless you're using remote-controlled demolition charges:

www.controlled-demolition.com...

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
The north tower fell on WTC 7, leaving a gaping hole in the side of the building

No gaping holes here:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bf9a4c7ba108.jpg[/atsimg]

Looks like mostly cosmetic damage to me.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
starting uncontrolled fires

Um, there were already fires in WTC7 before either tower collapsed:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bf2bd1d82650.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c1224da02971.jpg[/atsimg]


Research, Dave! It does a mind good!

Um, there were already fires in WTC7 before either tower collapsed:

What you call fires are actually reflections of sunlight off glass/metal cladding of the buildings....

reply to post by thedman


You may want to get a bigger monitor and look again. In the second picture, you can see the sun on the right and you can clearly see the yellow flames in the windows and neither are the same color. But as usual, whatever you have to tell yourself to deny the evidence.

Originally posted by NIcon
Hmmm.... is it really tinfoil logic to ponder the possibility that the fire fighters and demolition crews may have realized things could have gotten a lot worse and decided to risk their lives and take action? Is it really tinfoil logic to think that some brave men may have taken matters into their own hands and entered into an unsafe building with unsafe materials, rather than sitting outside with their fingers crossed hoping that the building did not fall into the Verizon building and spread the fire?

It's not so much tinfoil logic, but rather impracticality. By the time it became obvious that WTC 7 was goign to fall it had become apparent to that there had already been massive loss of life, so the order of the day wasn't saving buildings, but saving lives. WTC 7 had been smashed and had raging fires, and it was obvious its collapse was imminent, but they really had no idea when. It was a disaster area, so the best they could do was to evacuate the whole area so that no more people would die. That would necessarily include the fire fighters themselves,

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Um, I'm not sure why you're not getting it through your head that you telling something to someone means jack. You need to back yourself up with links. I don't know what makes you so special that you expect people to believe you based on your sole word alone.

So then why do you consider someone deliberately quoting someone else out of context any more reliable? You didn't even receive your information first hand like I did. You got it off one of those stupid conspiracy web sites, which means you got it third hand. Besides, you're obviously of a mind that I'm actively out to tell you false things, so if you refuse to believe anything I myself will tell you, then you'll certainly refuse to believe anything from any link I could ever provide, too.

You do have one detail correct, though. You shouldn't believe what I tell you on my "sole word alone". You shouldn't believe *anything* on their "sole word alone". That's why anyone who genuinely wants to learn the truth about what happened on 9/11 should go verify what other people tell them. That's specifically why, when I found out "pull it" was actually fire fighter lingo, I went out and asked a fire fighter whether it was true and found out that it was...but you don't have the intellectual honesty to do even that. You judge credibility not according to its source, but solely by whether it happens to agree with you.

Thus, Silverstein just has to be a liar, and these outlandish stories circulating around the internet of secret explosives, massive coverups, doctored investigations, and secret agents planted throughout all walks of life just have to be true. It's as if you've been so seduced by these sexy sounding conspiracy stories that you actually hope they ARE true.

One problem that you have is that Controlled Demolition, Inc. did confirm that "pull it" means to to bring a building down, so I don't know why you can't bring yourself to believe that. I've shown proof, you have not.

That's right, CDI did say that pull it means to bring a building down...WITH CABLES! LIKE WHAT THEY DID WITH WTC 6!! It isn't lingo for anything. It's an actual description of the physical act. I read their statement so I know full well what it says. You insult my intelligence and the intelligence of everyone else here if you think that sort of artful misquoting will fool anyone here.

You really have no credibility.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Silverstein said "pull it" meaning "pull the building" or "pull WTC7".

Pull WTC6, pull WTC7. There is absolutely no difference in the lingo except your denial to believe that WTC7 was brought down intentionally, period. Plain and simple.