posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 04:56 PM
Originally posted by GenRadek
This is the problem truthers have when being confronted by facts. You cannot go and claim the building was pulled, and then reverse and say it was not
the NYFD, but when reading the quote it is clear who he spoke to and who made the decision to do anything. So are you going by his full quote, or are
you cherry picking the parts you want and creating a whole new account that has nothing to do with the original? This whole "pull it" nonsense came
about from truthers cherry picking a single line from an entire quote that when taken in context, means nothing the truthers are trying to falsely
create. Just by his quote alone, truthers are also accusing the NYFD of explosive demolitions. It is that simple. You cannot create a whole new
narrative from a quote that was erroneously (or maliciously in this case) taken out of context, and expect it to hold water.
It doesn't also have to be your way. He said the decision to pull it as if he was telling them that was happening. He was informing NYFD they were
pulling it. There you go, not accusing NYFD of anything. It isn't pulled out of context. People use words for a reason. Those words have meanings. It
wasn't an accident that he used the term 'pull'.
And about WTC7. There is absolutely a difference between one fire and another. A small office fire is much different than the jet fuel fire at WTC 1
and 2. Lets assume for a second it was the jet fueled fire that took down WTC 1 and 2, I'm not sure about this in my own opinion but that's not the
topic now. So that jet fueled fire was what it took to take the first sky scraper down in history. The fires in WTC7 were NOT jet fueled fire. So
yes, it burned at a MUCH cooler temperature than WTC1 and 2. You can see this in difference of smoke and color of the fire. And I don't know about
you, but I have seen many offices have fires. And some which burnt much much longer and none of those sky scrapers fell, let alone fell in their own
And that leads me to another question I have ( I like this debate as long as we both stay cool and civil)...How do you explain an office fire taking a
building down in free fall speed into its own footprint? Even if the fire took it down, it would have slowly crumbled. It would not have fallen in
free fall speed. And let me explain why the free fall speed is so important....
For something to fall in free fall speed, it would mean there is no resistance. Because if there was resistance, it would have taken longer to fall. A
fire causing the building to collapse would create resistance, steel, concrete, metal, iron, etc give resistance and slows the fall down. But we cant
argue the speed, it was free fall. Thus there cant be resistance. What does no resistance mean? It means all that steel and concrete had to be
obliterated. The only thing that can do that are explosives.
edit on 25-11-2012 by bknapple32 because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-11-2012 by bknapple32 because: (no reason