Is it normal to call a group of fire fighters "it" as in "pull it" ?

reply to post by filosophia


Did you bother to read my response

I dont think so

Here is relevant portion............

Trying to fight fires in WTC 7 meant GOING INTO THE BUILDING, one which was structurally unstable (all those creaking noises FF heard coming from WTC 7) . The standpipe system had been damaged meaning no water to reach upper floors. Elevators were out of commision and stairways damaged, ever try to hump equipment in a building wearing full gear?

FDNY incident commanders knew did not have resources to fight fire on such a scale with fires on multiple floors
in building with severe strucural damage to it and systems .

You don't go into burning buildings without operating hose lines, too easy to get cutoff by fire and trapped

Without functioning standpipes no water can be pumped into building to fight fires

Building suffered severe structural damage, debris was falling from facade and FF could hear it creaking

Elevator was not functioning and stairways damaged - without elevator it is long slow tiring climb trying to
reach fire floors with your equipment.

incident commander took stock and realized did not have resources to tackle WTC 7

Why get more of your men killed or injured trying to put out fire in abandoned building

Which is why we use professionals not truthers to do such operations....

reply to post by filosophia


If say the group of firefighters was called team 6 and a subordinate said what shall we do with team 6, a correct reply could be "pull it". Just sayin it's possible, I'm not a supporter of the govts conspiracy theory.

I still think it’s strange; that a 'smallish' fire was devastating enough to have fire-fighters pulled and crumbled a building. But WTV...

reply to post by deenuu


What small fire?

13 floors of WTC 7 were on fire

During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30. In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoo

www.911myths.com...

Notice heavy volume of smoke coming from numerous floors on south & west faces of WTC 7

Also notice fires breaking out on north face

I agree. The fires were anything but "small". Check out these building-destroying fires.



WTC7 simply didn't stand a chance.

reply to post by Nathan-D


Beautiful! I mean wow! Way to show how truthers like to leave out the very important parts. A shining example you have provided us.

Now as in typical fashion, we have to include the rest of the picture that you convinently left out:

















Hey you showed the north side, I show the south side. Small fires? Really? Many people and firefighters that were there completely disagree with you. As do I.

I can't see any raging fires in those videos, just smoke, which is characteristic of an oxygen-starved fire. Meh. Not particularly convincing. You want to see some real fires? Check out these beasts.

I will say, it's a little odd/interesting how so much smoke is only coming out of the South side of WTC7, and absolutely no smoke whatsoever from the West (I hope I have that South and West correct).

reply to post by thedman


I did say smallish and heavy volumes of smoke don’t indicate the strength of a fire, a small pile of green leaves gives lots of smoke.

Still doesn’t explain why the building crumbled into its own footprint, if one side was burning more intensely due to damage from WTC1 or 2 wouldn’t it topple over sideways??, I’m sure you have also seen fires much stronger in other buildings that haven’t crumbled, e.g. china.

freepressinternational.com...

There doesn’t seem much America can do right, build strong buildings, stop terror attacks, gather credible Intel re WMDs. The problem is I don’t see Americans being so stupid which makes me wonder.....

No offence meant to US citizens.

reply to post by Nathan-D


Ok want fires on west side of WTC 7

www.911myths.com...

Check out clip #8 - can see smoke streaming from lower section of west face of building

Clips 9, 10, 11 show progression of fires on North face

reply to post by deenuu


Depends on constrction of the building - Here is design parameters for WTC 7

Read it over (which I rather doubt...) will explain a lot

www.fema.gov...

Many of the alleged examples showing buildings which didn't collapse were built with concrete inner core which
resist fires

Here is building in Holland - Deflt University School of Architecture

www.liveleak.com...


It collapsed from fire - something in truther universe which is not supposed tom happen

So guess they don't build 'em so well overseas.........

reply to post by thedman


I will read it cheers for the info,

Lol I’m not a truther or part of any group, I don’t claim to know what happened, I am just interested in geo-political issues and am a naturally curious person who asks questions if something doesn’t feel right, I do find it interesting that people divide into groups and spit so much venom at each other on every issue, very much divide and conquer.

The observations and findings are inconclusive this report states itself that

"The specifics of the fires in WT7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time, although the total diesel fuel contained massive potential energy THE BEST HYPOTHISIS HAS ONLY A LOW PROBABILITY OF OCCURENCE. Further research, investigation and analyses are needed to resolve the issue".

This report contains so many May’s, could’s and suggest’s, it really doesn’t say too much. Not saying its wrong just proves how many unknowns there truly is about the WT7 collapse.

Wait ...
Hang on...
There is a debate on this?
Really?
You mean thats what happened?
I never knew.

Larry meant pull the building not the firefighters. If you believe he meant pull the firefighters you're a sucker! End of story.

Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

So then, what are you going to do about it?

You can't do nothing.

Larry has us all by the balls.

reply to post by Insolubrious


Hmm, so they were just going to run into the burning, leaning, bulging, partially collapsing building, to set up explosives very quickly, within what, an hour? Two? WOW!!!!

That must have had some major records broken including fastest preparation, rigging, and detonation of a 47 story building, which was also well in flames, severely damaged and leaning to one side with partial collapses under way.

Or maybe he was seeing what his options were LATER once clean up was to be done under way, like WTC4,5,6, and the Deutches Bank. Hmm demoing a severely damaged building later on seems way more plausible than blowing it up on that day, within an hour or two.

reply to post by GenRadek
Three buildings collapsing because of fire on the same day...within hours of each other..quite the anomaly...do you have a bridge, or some swamp land you want to sell me?

reply to post by jambatrumpet

Three buildings collapsing because of fire on the same day...within hours of each other..quite the anomaly...do you have a bridge, or some swamp land you want to sell me?

Forgetting something? Truthers always seem to ignore evidence which gets in way of fantasy

How about 2 buildings being impacted by large aircraft st speed of 500 mph and dumping 10,000 gal of jet fuel
in the building to start massive fires

Think that might have something to do with building collapsing Sherlock?

Or WTC 7 being impacted by debris from WTC 1 collapse leaving a 20 story gash in side and setting it on fire
in multiple locations

Think this may have something to do with fact it collapsed Sherlock ....?

reply to post by thedman

Do your research...fires, whether caused by fast moving airplanes, or otherwise, have never, in the history high rises, caused them to collapse...and they did twice on 911....but, please, continue to believe the fiction of the official story....Sherlock..

Oh yeah...building 7...not only announced as collapsing early by BBC...damage on one side of the building causes complete structural failure of the complete building...oky doky

reply to post by jambatrumpet


So fact that jet airliners slammed into buildings has no bearing on why it collapsed?

Or that 110 story building falling on adjacent building and badly damaging it doesn't bear on it collapsing ?

I heard of self delusion before, but never like this.....

reply to post by thedman

I love how you try to present a one in a million anomaly as commonplace...and I am delusional...

Please explain to me how damage to the top third of a building causes the complete structural failure of all of the floors below it...what, they weren't designed to sustain the weight of the floors above them?....just ridiculous...

Good luck 'sherlock'...enjoy your fiction.