Chief Hayden

reply to post by REMISNE


Sorry, but that's it. You are just trolling now.

If you conclude that a demolition occurred because of what the fire chiefs say (and all the other stupid nonsense you laughably call "evidence") then you must also conclude that they are lying when they deny a demolition took place. This is really, really basic. The sort of thing that I could comfortably explain to a nine year old.

And once again you dodged a straight question. Utterly tiresome.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
If you conclude that a demolition occurred because of what the fire chiefs say (and all the other stupid nonsense you laughably call "evidence") then you must also conclude that they are lying when they deny a demolition took place. This is really, really basic. The sort of thing that I could comfortably explain to a nine year old.

Gee do i have to embarres you and show you where i have answered that question.

Lets look at the facts yet again that even a nine year old can understand.

1. Chief Nigro who evacuated the firemen before talking to the owner then became the fire comander and called the owner to tell hiim they could not safe his building.

2. Chief hayden was still getting his men out of the safety zone area and trying to keep water going to the engines when the call was made, so he probably did not know what the fire commander decided to do.



[edit on 13-4-2010 by REMISNE]

reply to post by REMISNE


What's that got to do with what I asked? And feel free to try to embarrass me. I doubt you'll be able to show where you've posted a direct answer to that question.

Originally posted by REMISNE
Oh and thanks for agreeing it does mean PULL THE WALLS DOWN.

Correct. It could mean to pull a wall down with cables, and not explosives.

Please refer to assertion #7 , second graph.

www.jod911.com...

It clearly states "pull it" has never been used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building.

So, that being said, unless your fire chief was instructing them to attach long cables to heavy equipment to physically "pull" the walls down, then he mean "pull the rescue teams".

Thanks again for that link, Roger. I can credit you for finally putting that "pull it" quote to rest...and will refer all future posts to your find.

Originally posted by gavron
Correct. It could mean to pull a wall down with cables, and not explosives.

Correct, as i have stated hundredes of times you did not need explosives to bring down the building.

So thanks again for agreeing that PULL is a term that means to bring down a building.

Originally posted by REMISNE
Correct, as i have stated hundredes of times you did not need explosives to bring down the building.

Thanks again for admitting now that the term "pull it" was referring to the rescue personnel and not the building itself. Because, after all, there were no crews seen outside the building hooking up large cables to the WTC7 to "pull it".

Originally posted by gavron
Thanks again for admitting now that the term "pull it" was referring to the rescue personnel and not the building itself.

Please explain how it could mean the rescue personnel when as proven by the fire chiefs they were out of the building BEFORE the call to the owner.

Also please explain why demo teams were called to building 7 (AS PROVEN).

reply to post by REMISNE


You're like a broken record. This has been shown to you several times. You just ignore the answer, wait for a while, and then go back to asking the same question.

And I'm still waiting for you to embarrass me with teh answer to my question above.

Originally posted by REMISNE
Please explain how it could mean the rescue personnel when as proven by the fire chiefs they were out of the building BEFORE the call to the owner.

Did you see any demo crews hooking up cables to actually pull the structure down? Of course not. That method is used for smaller structures....I believe your link said it was used for the 6 story WTC6 building during cleanup.

Thanks again for proving it meant pulling the personnel and not the building!

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You're like a broken record. This has been shown to you several times. You just ignore the answer, wait for a while, and then go back to asking the same question.

Lets look at the facts yet again that even a nine year old can understand.

1. Chief Nigro who evacuated the firemen before talking to the owner then became the fire comander and called the owner to tell hiim they could not safe his building.

2. Chief hayden was still getting his men out of the safety zone area and trying to keep water going to the engines when the call was made, so he probably did not know what the fire commander decided to do.

Originally posted by REMISNE
1. Chief Nigro who evacuated the firemen before talking to the owner then became the fire comander and called the owner to tell hiim they could not safe his building.

2. Chief hayden was still getting his men out of the safety zone area and trying to keep water going to the engines when the call was made, so he probably did not know what the fire commander decided to do.

Woah, stop the bus...

In your first paragraph, you said the crews were evacuated already before the call.

In your second paragraph, you said they were still getting his men out of the saftety area when the call was made.

Umm, Roger, which was it? They were out, or they were being evacuated?

Originally posted by gavron
Umm, Roger, which was it? They were out, or they were being evacuated?

Sorry but i cannot answer because you have proven and everybody has seen that you will just put words in my mouth

[edit on 13-4-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by REMISNE
Sorry but i cannot answer...

Looks like you got caught in a lie again.

First you say the crews were evacuated before the call....then you say they were in the process of being evacuated during the call.

Looks like someone needs to get their facts straight

Originally posted by gavron

Sorry but i cannot answer because you have proven and everybody has seen that you will just put words in my mouth

Originally posted by gavron

Sorry but i cannot answer because you have proven and everybody has seen that you will just put words in my mouth

Originally posted by REMISNE

Sorry but i cannot answer...

Looks like your very own link has proven you wrong:

www.jod911.com...


Thanks again for showing everyone that "pull it" meant the crews"

I need to change my sig now, so it marks April 13, 2010 as the day Roger finally admitted it was the crews that were pulled...and posted evidence to back that!

Originally posted by gavron

Sorry but i cannot answer because you have proven and everybody has seen that you will just put words in my mouth

Originally posted by REMISNE
Sorry but i cannot answer because you have proven and everybody has seen that you will just put words in my mouth

Actually, the only words put in your mouth were the ones you posted yourself. If you're going to cry about it, that's your decision. But for the rest of us, it provides a valuable link: www.jod911.com...

This document, provided by you, Roger, clearly shows that pull it was not referring to the building.

Thank you thank you thank you!

Originally posted by gavron
This document, provided by you, Roger, clearly shows that pull it was not referring to the building.

Thank you thank you thank you!

Their is no evidence of the fire chiefs lying. Please do not change this by putting words in my mouth.



[edit on 13-4-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by REMISNE
Their is no evidence of the fire chiefs lying.

Correct, The fire chief was not lying when he told them to pull the rescue teams from the area. Did I say the fire chief was lying? No, I did not.