Could WTC 7 have been pulled?

[Thunder]

There is something Ive thought about for a while. What if, and is it possible, that the FDNY actually did somehow initiate the collapse of WTC 7.

The scenario that has run through my head is that after the disasterous collapses of WTC 1 and 2, the FDNY were in the pit digging for their brothers. Meanwhile, WTC 7 is towering over them, burning to who knows what fate.

Hours go by, WTC 7's fires are not able to be put out due to cut water lines, and FDNY are still working in the rubble. FDNY then makes the decision that if WTC 7 does not collapse on its own, the structure is just so unsafe to be around or work around that it is best if the assumed eventual collape is initiated on their watch, and not when there are rescue personnel around it and in danger of being killed.

So, somehow, the FDNY or someone else is able to knock out a major support column, or something, in order to initiate the collapse.

Once the building is down, there is much less risk to the rescue workers, and the search can continue with little fear.

But, with all the conspiracy theories developing soon after 9-11, they decide to keep it a secret, as they worry it will add to the theories that the rest of the towers were also brought down intentionally. So they make it their little secret.

So..is this possible at all? Could WTC 7 have been brought down, considering all the interior fire and impact damage, by knocking out a column or two?

[DC]

There is something Ive thought about for a while. What if, and is it possible, that the FDNY actually did somehow initiate the collapse of WTC 7.

The scenario that has run through my head is that after the disasterous collapses of WTC 1 and 2, the FDNY were in the pit digging for their brothers. Meanwhile, WTC 7 is towering over them, burning to who knows what fate.

Hours go by, WTC 7's fires are not able to be put out due to cut water lines, and FDNY are still working in the rubble. FDNY then makes the decision that if WTC 7 does not collapse on its own, the structure is just so unsafe to be around or work around that it is best if the assumed eventual collape is initiated on their watch, and not when there are rescue personnel around it and in danger of being killed.

So, somehow, the FDNY or someone else is able to knock out a major support column, or something, in order to initiate the collapse.

Once the building is down, there is much less risk to the rescue workers, and the search can continue with little fear.

But, with all the conspiracy theories developing soon after 9-11, they decide to keep it a secret, as they worry it will add to the theories that the rest of the towers were also brought down intentionally. So they make it their little secret.

So..is this possible at all? Could WTC 7 have been brought down, considering all the interior fire and impact damage, by knocking out a column or two?

i think yes. That is way i several times already said, a CD of WTC7 must not mean a sinister dark conspiracy. more like some prefered a controlled collapse above an expected uncontrolled collapse.
im not sure why they would keep it secret, you gave a reason i didnt thought of , CT's. I was more thinking about the insurance, while the insurance actually should be happy becuase with that CD if it was one, other damage was prevented.
I think this is alot more plausible than the shredder motive.

[ULTIMA1]

There is something Ive thought about for a while. What if, and is it possible, that the FDNY actually did somehow initiate the collapse of WTC 7.
?

Well the fire commander did give the order to PULL the building when talking Silverstein.

[JimBenArm]

No. This is the nonsense that P'Dope was pushing at one point. Why keep it secret? No one died from the collapse. If it was decided to take it down, there would have been enough people in the loop that knew about it that it would be impossible to keep secret for long anyway.

It's stupid, and doesn't hold up to the slightest bit of scrutiny.

[johnny karate]

Well the fire commander did give the order to PULL the building when talking Silverstein.

What do suppose the motives were of the FDNY to participate in the 9/11 conspiracy by "pulling" WTC7? We're they paid off? Threatened? Or are they just evil?

[johnny karate]

i think yes. That is way i several times already said, a CD of WTC7 must not mean a sinister dark conspiracy. more like some prefered a controlled collapse above an expected uncontrolled collapse.
im not sure why they would keep it secret, you gave a reason i didnt thought of , CT's. I was more thinking about the insurance, while the insurance actually should be happy becuase with that CD if it was one, other damage was prevented.
I think this is alot more plausible than the shredder motive.

You're already on record implicating the FDNY in the destruction of WTC7. Why would they participate in an insurance scam that didn't directly benefit them?

[rwguinn]

Aaaaannnndd:
"Round and round it goes..."
The search function is your friend. This thread is sooooo 2002/2003/2004/2005/2006/2007/2008 ish...:hb::deadhorse:deadhorse:deadhorse:deadhorse :deadhorse

It's DEAD! Leave it in peace!

[beachnut]

Well the fire commander did give the order to PULL the building when talking Silverstein.
They pulled the fire support. Any NSA analyst would know this; you are not an NSA analyst. You have no ability to analyze anything if you mess this very simple grade school level non issue.

Why do you apologize for the terrorist by twisting things?

[ULTIMA1]

What do suppose the motives were of the FDNY to participate in the 9/11 conspiracy by "pulling" WTC7? We're they paid off? Threatened? Or are they just evil?

Sorry no conspiracy. The only motive behind bringing down building 7 was to save lives and keep it from causing more damage and spreading fires as Chief Hayden was worried about.

You do know the fire commander has the authority to bring down buildings in emergencies right?

[ULTIMA1]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]They pulled the fire support.

How would they pull the fire support if it was already out of the building earlier in the day as stated by Chief Nigro and Chief Hayden?

Why do you apologize for the terrorist by twisting things?

Why do you disrespect the familes of those who died by spreading lies?

[beachnut]

How would they pull the fire support if it was already out of the building earlier in the day as stated by Chief Nigro and Chief Hayden?



Why do you disrespect the familes of those who died by spreading lies?
You must be the only NSA analyst that is a terrorist apologist. If you can't get pull it right you can't get anything 9/11 right.

No you are the one spitting on the graves, you are the fantasy man.


You are twisting the story to make false information, lies and fantasy. You do this all the time.

[rwguinn]

We have a rescue effort in building 7. It is headed by joe firman
The rescue effort is in danger of being trapped.
Stop it. Pull it out.
simple. "It" defines the damn SAR effort. To deny that is stupid. Wewlcome to ignore.

[Thunder]

No. This is the nonsense that P'Dope was pushing at one point. Why keep it secret? No one died from the collapse. If it was decided to take it down, there would have been enough people in the loop that knew about it that it would be impossible to keep secret for long anyway.

It's stupid, and doesn't hold up to the slightest bit of scrutiny.

hmm..you are probably right. if they did indeed decide to pull the building..soo many people would know about it that it would be impossible to keep it or the methods a secret.

wtc 7 was most likely not pulled by anything but gravity.

[Thunder]

What do suppose the motives were of the FDNY to participate in the 9/11 conspiracy by "pulling" WTC7? We're they paid off? Threatened? Or are they just evil?

well, i was suggesting that the motive would be to allow the rescue effort to go on without the danger of hundreds more FDNY being killed by the expected/predicted collapse of wtc 7.

but as i said, if this is what happened, too many people would have been told to shut up for this to be kept secret. secrets, in the USA, are notorious for being leaked, espcially in NYC.

[ULTIMA1]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]If you can't get pull it right you can't get anything 9/11 right.

So please show evindence then that the firemen were left in the buidling by thier chiefs (in an unsafe building) while they want to make the call to Silverstein.

Either show me evidence that the firemen were in the building at the time of the call or be adult enough to admit you are wrong.

[ULTIMA1]

We have a rescue effort in building 7. It is headed by joe firman
The rescue effort is in danger of being trapped.
Stop it. Pull it out.
simple. "It" defines the damn SAR effort. To deny that is stupid. Wewlcome to ignore.

Its just too bad that 2 fire chiefs have stated the firemen wer out early in the day, so the how do you pull out firemen who are already out of the buildilng?

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Sorry no conspiracy. The only motive behind bringing down building 7 was to save lives and keep it from causing more damage and spreading fires as Chief Hayden was worried about.

You do know the fire commander has the authority to bring down buildings in emergencies right?

So if their motives were pure, and they had all the necessary permissions, why are they still keeping it a secret, 7 years later?

They could have saved a lot of time and trouble for investigators if they had just admitted it.

Or are they just doing it to mess with people's heads? :rolleyes:

I'm sorry Parky, but this is one of the silliest threads I have ever read, and it's spawning some of the silliest posts too.

[ULTIMA1]

So if their motives were pure, and they had all the necessary permissions, why are they still keeping it a secret, 7 years later?
.

Why don't you ask the people that were there, like i do?

[Thunder]

So if their motives were pure, and they had all the necessary permissions, why are they still keeping it a secret, 7 years later?

They could have saved a lot of time and trouble for investigators if they had just admitted it.

Or are they just doing it to mess with people's heads? :rolleyes:

I'm sorry Parky, but this is one of the silliest threads I have ever read, and it's spawning some of the silliest posts too.

Its not my fault if there are irrational people on this forum who dig around for threads they can exploit for their CT ideas.

If WTC 7 was "pulled" somehow by the FDNY, inorder to protect rescue workers from further harm, that does not make it an "inside job". But so far the only evidence we have that the building was pulled is a misinterpreted Silverstein quote, and 3 attention whore auxiliary emergency personnel.

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Why don't you ask the people that were there, like i do?

So, let me get this straight: you have personally spoken to people on the scene who witnessed the FDNY demolish the building, and none of these people have come forward?

You do realise if one person came forward with solid proof that the FDNY brought the building down/initiated its' collapse and then covered it up, the story would be worth potentially millions?

You also realise you are suggesting that the FDNY brought a building down for all the right reasons - an action which, on that day, NOBODY would have questioned - and then decided to cover it up?! :jaw-dropp

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Its not my fault if there are irrational people on this forum who dig around for threads they can exploit for their CT ideas.

If WTC 7 was "pulled" somehow by the FDNY, inorder to protect rescue workers from further harm, that does not make it an "inside job". But so far the only evidence we have that the building was pulled is a misinterpreted Silverstein quote, and 3 attention whore auxiliary emergency personnel.

Why would they cover it up? They would have absolutely no logical reason to do so.

[MikeW]

So please show evindence then that the firemen were left in the buidling by thier chiefs (in an unsafe building) while they want to make the call to Silverstein.
NIST cite several FDNY interviews. It looks like they place a few firefighters in the building up to 2 pm, perhaps later than that. There were more surrounding the building who had to be "pulled back" after 3.

One Battalion Chief coming from the building indicated that they had searched floors 1 through 9 and found that the building was clear.390 In the process of the search, the Battalion Chief met the building’s Fire Safety Director and Deputy Fire Safety Director on the ninth floor. The Fire Safety Director reported that the building’s floors had been cleared from the top down. By this time, the Chief Officer responsible for WTC 7 reassessed the building again and determined that fires were burning on the following floors: 6, 7, 8, 17, 21, and 30.391 No accurate time is available for these actions during the WTC 7 operations; however, the sequence of event indicates that it occurred during a time period from 12:30 p.m. to approximately 2:00 p.m.

The Chief Officer then met with his command officer to discuss the building’s condition and FDNY’s capabilities for controlling the building fires. A Deputy Chief who had just returned from inside the building reported that he had conducted an inspection up to the 7th or 8th floor.392 He indicated that the stairway was filling with smoke and that there was a lot of fire inside the building. The chiefs discussed the situation and the following conditions were identified: 393, 394

• The building had sustained damage from debris falling into the building, and they were not sure about the structural stability of the building.

• The building had large fires burning on at least six floors. Any one of these six fires would have been considered a large incident during normal FDNY operations.

• There was no water immediately available for fighting the fires.

• They didn’t have equipment, hose, standpipe kits, tools, and enough handie talkies for conducting operations inside the building.

At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacuate the site around the building. 395, 396 The order terminated the ongoing rescue operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed.

390 FDNY Interview 26, winter 2004.
391 FDNY Interview 3, winter 2004.
392 FDNY interview 14, winter 2004.
393 FDNY Interview 3, winter 2004.
394 FDNY Interview 14, winter 2004.
395 FDNY Interview 3, winter 2004.
396 FDNY interview 14, winter 2004.

The Emergency Response Operations
Page 111
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-81.pdf

[doobiedoright]

i think yes. That is way i several times already said, a CD of WTC7 must not mean a sinister dark conspiracy. more like some prefered a controlled collapse above an expected uncontrolled collapse.
im not sure why they would keep it secret, you gave a reason i didnt thought of , CT's. I was more thinking about the insurance, while the insurance actually should be happy becuase with that CD if it was one, other damage was prevented.
I think this is alot more plausible than the shredder motive.



You really believe someone was dumb enough to run into a building on fire with a bunch of explosives on his back?
Then run around looking for the best spot to place them,attach det cord and roll said cord out of the building.
Come on man think!

[njslim]

Unlike the twofers I happen to know many firefighter working nearby WTC 7 - they were
from a neighboring city and across the street in the World Financial Cnter 3 building.

I was in my firehouse listening to radio transmissions from WTC - heard the order being
passed down to clear collapse zone around WTC 7. This was at 3PM

None of my friends saw the building being rigged for demolition by ANYBODY! Also
where would the FDNY get the explosives? Demolition by explosives is illegal in
Manhattan - that is why buildings are dismantled from top down.

Getting sick of listening to retards spouting nonsense about things they know nothing
about....

[johnny karate]

Sorry no conspiracy. The only motive behind bringing down building 7 was to save lives and keep it from causing more damage and spreading fires as Chief Hayden was worried about.

You do know the fire commander has the authority to bring down buildings in emergencies right?

If the FDNY brought down WTC7, they have repeatedly lied about it. This constitutes a conspiracy, and implicates them in the larger conspiracy Truthers claim took place that day.

So what do you think were the motives of the FDNY for participating in a cover-up regarding the events of 9/11? Greed, cowardice, or being evil?

[doobiedoright]

Unlike the twofers I happen to know many firefighter working nearby WTC 7 - they were
from a neighboring city and across the street in the World Financial Cnter 3 building.

I was in my firehouse listening to radio transmissions from WTC - heard the order being
passed down to clear collapse zone around WTC 7. This was at 3PM

None of my friends saw the building being rigged for demolition by ANYBODY! Also
where would the FDNY get the explosives? Demolition by explosives is illegal in
Manhattan - that is why buildings are dismantled from top down.

Getting sick of listening to retards spouting nonsense about things they know nothing
about....


Wow someone just got OWNED!:jaw-dropp

[ULTIMA1]

So, let me get this straight: you have personally spoken to people on the scene who witnessed the FDNY demolish the building, and none of these people have come forward?

I have e-mailed companies that were at ground zero to find the truth.

Why don't you e-mail FDNY to find the truth.

[ULTIMA1]

NIST cite several FDNY interviews. It looks like they place a few firefighters in the building up to 2 pm, perhaps later than that. There were more surrounding the building who had to be "pulled back" after 3.

Yes, and the call was made shortly before the building came down at 5. So that means the firemen were out of the building at the time of the call.

[MikeW]

Yes, and the call was made shortly before the building came down at 5.
Really? I hope you've something definitive to prove that beyond inferring it from Silverstein's statement.

[ULTIMA1]

You really believe someone was dumb enough to run into a building on fire with a bunch of explosives on his back?



Well since there was no fire on the lower floors it could be done.

I mean the EPA recovered all the fuel from the ground floor tanks.

[ULTIMA1]

Really? I hope you've something definitive to prove that beyond inferring it from Silverstein's statement.

Are you saying Silverstien is a liar and his statment cannot be trusted?

I mean he basilcally stated. The fire commander decided to PULL IT and we watched the building collapse.

[MikeW]

Are you saying Silverstien is a liar and his statment cannot be trusted?

I mean he basilcally stated. The fire commander decided to PULL IT and we watched the building collapse.
And you believe that's definitive enough to say the call was shortly before the building collapsed? How like a truther. Flimsy inferences like that are treated as proof positive, while no evidence presented against your arguments is ever enough. I think I'll leave others to waste their time with you - I'm out.

[johnny karate]

Are you saying Silverstien is a liar and his statment cannot be trusted?

I mean he basilcally stated. The fire commander decided to PULL IT and we watched the building collapse.

You have already established the FDNY are liars. Is it that much of a leap to believe that Silverstein was in collusion with these liars and is liar himself?

[beachnut]

Are you saying Silverstien is a liar and his statment cannot be trusted?

I mean he basilcally stated. The fire commander decided to PULL IT and we watched the building collapse.

This proves it, you are fact less, evidence free 9/11 truth expert. He meant firefighting efforts, to say otherwise expose you as the worst NSA analyst ever, pure 48 hours and 60 minute stuff, but alas, they will find out the your real job and there will be no story.

This pull it stuff was refuted long ago. You are new to this?
Refuted a long time ago. 7 years, no progress

At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacuate the site around the building. 395, 396 The order terminated the ongoing rescue operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed.


The truth is fire caused the collapse, to say otherwise is pure fantasy based on your own ignorance of fire, physics and language arts.

[ULTIMA1]

He meant firefighting efforts, to say otherwise expose you as the worst NSA analyst ever, pure 48 hours and 60 minute stuff, but alas,

Well its just to bad i have the statments from 2 fire chiefs that the firemen were out of the buidling early in the day. You really should do some real researach.

You have failed again to post evidence from a source to debate the evidence i have posted.

WHY IS THAT?

[beachnut]

Well its just to bad i have the statments from 2 fire chiefs that the firemen were out of the buidling early in the day. You really should do some real researach.

You have failed again to post evidence from a source to debate the evidence i have posted.

WHY IS THAT?

At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacuate the site around the building. 395, 396 The order terminated the ongoing rescue operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed.


When did Larry say pull it? How many seconds, minutes, hours, days, months after 9/11.

Pull it - you are so funny. debunked years ago, you need to work on and understand what people say. They pulled the firefighting efforts from WTC7, no one placed explosives in the building; you lost this one, you lost the 93 shoot down, you lost the Al plane can't damage core columns in the WTC. You are doing good don't stop exposing your lack of knowledge and sound judgment leading to your failed conclusions.

Too bad you have zero sounds of explosives. How long have you been spreading false ideas on 9/11? Does the NSA know?

[johnny karate]

Well its just to bad i have the statments from 2 fire chiefs that the firemen were out of the buidling early in the day. You really should do some real researach.

You have already established the FDNY are liars. How do you know these two fire chiefs weren't lying in the statements you referenced?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Are you saying Silverstien is a liar and his statment cannot be trusted?


Mr. Silverstein never indicated the time this conversation took place.

I mean he basilcally stated. The fire commander decided to PULL IT and we watched the building collapse.


There's no indication in his statement of the time that passed between those events. You seem to be implying that rigging a building to be pulled down with cables is relatively quick activity.

How long do you estimate such a task takes?

[ULTIMA1]

You seem to be implying that rigging a building to be pulled down with cables is relatively quick activity.


You guys really should learn how to read, or make sure you know what a post states before responding, makes you look really childish.

I never stated building 7 was wired with cables.

[johnny karate]

You guys really should learn how to read, or make sure you know what a post states before responding, makes you look really childish.

I never stated building 7 was wired with cables.

Then please tell us how you believe the FDNY brought down WTC7, and better yet, explain why they have been consistently lying about it for seven years.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I never stated building 7 was wired with cables.


Of course you did. You said it was "pulled".

[1337m4n]

I have e-mailed companies that were at ground zero to find the truth.

And they told you WTC7 was destroyed with explosives?

[ULTIMA1]

Of course you did. You said it was "pulled".

Yes since PULLED means bringing down a building, as the fire commander stated.

[ULTIMA1]

And they told you WTC7 was destroyed with explosives?

NO, the main contractor i posted could not answer my questions at the time due to the 9/11 lawsuts.

I have to wait and get back to them.

[phunk]

Its just too bad that 2 fire chiefs have stated the firemen wer out early in the day, so the how do you pull out firemen who are already out of the buildilng?

They weren't pulled out of the building, they were pulled from the area around the building.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Yes since PULLED means bringing down a building [...]


...with cables.

[phunk]

WTC7 was not demo'd by the fire department. They would not try a world record demo of a building with no planning, if it went wrong it could have damaged the buildings around it and made the situation worse.

[Mince]

"We've had such tremendous loss of life...the best thing to do was pull it."

How was demolishing a building going to prevent further loss of life?

"Truthers" claim there were no firefighters in the building when Silverstein said "pull it." Maybe Silverstein thought there were still firefighters in the building. Or maybe he meant to pull the operation.

In any case, "truthers" are being typical when they presume to know what others mean by their words. Self interpretation. It's always nefarious of course. Mine is just speculation; good luck getting a "truther" to say that.

[Mince]

Double Post. Please delete.

[PhantomWolf]

Mr. Silverstein never indicated the time this conversation took place.

I have the feeling that since then Silverstein has said that it took place in the early afternoon, so it could have been about 2pm.

[PhantomWolf]

Yes since PULLED means bringing down a building, as the fire commander stated.

Please provide evidence that the Fire Commander ever used the word "pull" or "pulled".

[Björn Toulouse]

So if their motives were pure, and they had all the necessary permissions, why are they still keeping it a secret, 7 years later?


Why don't you ask the people that were there, like i do?



So, let me get this straight: you have personally spoken to people on the scene who witnessed the FDNY demolish the building, and none of these people have come forward?





I have e-mailed companies that were at ground zero to find the truth.


And they told you WTC7 was destroyed with explosives?


NO, the main contractor i posted could not answer my questions at the time due to the 9/11 lawsuts.

I have to wait and get back to them.



What? Not again with the "Oh, I don't have it in my hands yet" crap!

[Mince]

Please provide evidence that the Fire Commander ever used the word "pull" or "pulled".

Instead of making this request of ULTIMA1, stab yourself in both eyes and under each fingernail. It will save you a lot of pain.

[johnny karate]

Yes since PULLED means bringing down a building, as the fire commander stated.

And then of course the FDNY spent seven years lying about it. Don't forget that part.

[Quad4_72]

parky, why must you antagonize the twoofers with this thread? They are stupid enough as it is.

THINK ABOUT IT TWOOFERS. The fire commander said he wanted to prevent loss of even more life. So, he pulled his crew back and established a collapse zone and moved the public back.

Now, why in the HELL would he want to send people back into a burning building that is completely unstable to attempt to bring it down in a safe manner by taking out a column with explosives? Who placed said explosives? Are firemen trained in this? If not, do firedepartments have demo teams? Do they bring explosives with them to rescue operations? The whole scenario is EXTREMELY stupid.

Why would no one have came forward and said that they demolished it? No one died, so no harm. Grow up twoofers and GET A DAMN LIFE.

[Disenchanted]

Yes since PULLED means bringing down a building, as the fire commander stated.

That is a lie. Pulled does not mean "bringing down a building."

Show me anyone in demolition that uses pulled or pull it as terms to bring a building down.

So why would a fire commander use a term for demolitioning a building, that is not used by people who demolish buildings?

Perhaps it is you who is misrepresenting what the fire commander said?

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

I have e-mailed companies that were at ground zero to find the truth.

Why don't you e-mail FDNY to find the truth.

Wow. You sent emails to 'companies'? Way to go, hero. :rolleyes: So you didn't actually SPEAK to anyone then?

What 'companies' did you email, and what have they got to do with FDNY? I am assuming that YOU haven't emailed FDNY, and you know what? I don't think I am going to bother: I'm pretty content with the fact that the FDNY didn't quickly rig a dangerous burning building for demolition in the space of a few hours (at best), then purposely bring it down and spend 7 years covering it up.

Also, I have better things to do with my time than take the piss out people who work hard for a living by asking them jaw-droppingly stupid and pointless questions.

[defaultdotxbe]

"We've had such tremendous loss of life...the best thing to do was pull it."

How was demolishing a building going to prevent further loss of life?

"Truthers" claim there were no firefighters in the building when Silverstein said "pull it." Maybe Silverstein thought there were still firefighters in the building. Or maybe he meant to pull the operation.

In any case, "truthers" are being typical when they presume to know what others mean by their words. Self interpretation. It's always nefarious of course. Mine is just speculation; good luck getting a "truther" to say that.
i point this out almost every time this subject comes up, but we dont have a transcript of silversteins conversation with the fire chief, we dont know if he said "pull it" or "pull out" or something else entirely, all we have to go on is silversteins later recollection of the conversation

[Thunder]

How would they pull the fire support if it was already out of the building earlier in the day as stated by Chief Nigro and Chief Hayden?
Why do you disrespect the familes of those who died by spreading lies?

why do you disrespect and insult the thousands of family members by saying al-qaeda didnt do 9-11?????

[Thunder]

NO, the main contractor i posted could not answer my questions at the time due to the 9/11 lawsuts.

I have to wait and get back to them.

how convenient for you.

[Homeland Insurgency]

The reasons for covering it up in the scenario presented in the op are too multiple to fathom or list.

Maybe insurance?

Maybe authority to do as much wasn't authorized.

Maybe liability?

Maybe something none of us is even thinking of or know enough about?

One thing is for sure none of us know enough to claim we know what happen and why.

Just admit it.

[fromdownunder]

I imagine that this has been answered many times on many threads, but I am in Sunday lazy mode, so I will ask here, as the subject does not appear to have been razed (:)) on this thread.

How long would it actually take to safely set up a proper demolition job on a high rise that would not potentially cause collatoral damage, and how many people would it take?

The fastest I ever saw was on Volcano, but AFAIK, Tommy Lee Jones was not at ground zero on 9/11.

Norm

[Homeland Insurgency]

I imagine that this has been answered many times on many threads, but I am in Sunday lazy mode, so I will ask here, as the subject does not appear to have been razed (:)) on this thread.

How long would it actually take to safely set up a proper demolition job on a high rise that would not potentially cause collatoral damage, and how many people would it take?

The fastest I ever saw was on Volcano, but AFAIK, Tommy Lee Jones was not at ground zero on 9/11.

Norm

I guess about as long as it takes for a building to burn down according to the official version.

[Hamradioguy]

Yes since PULLED means bringing down a building, as the fire commander stated.

Oh here we go again. I have been working with explosives for many years. In fact my Vermont Explosives license was #008- one of the first ones issued. "Pulling" a building does NOT mean demolishing it via explosives. And you claim it wasn't done with cables (Demolition firms sometimes pull smaller structures over with cables). So- no explosives and no cables for WTC 7. I thought this matter was settled some time ago.

Any fence sitters out there who doubt my words need only call any demolition firm and ask if "pull" is a term used in explosive demolition.)

[Homeland Insurgency]

Oh here we go again. I have been working with explosives for many years. In fact my Vermont Explosives license was #008- one of the first ones issued. "Pulling" a building does NOT mean demolishing it via explosives. And you claim it wasn't done with cables (Demolition firms sometimes pull smaller structures over with cables). So- no explosives and no cables for WTC 7. I thought this matter was settled some time ago.

Any fence sitters out there who doubt my words need only call any demolition firm and ask if "pull" is a term used in explosive demolition.)

Well if they pulled it with a wire would that be less of a conspiracy? Were any other surrounding buildings pulled with a wire in the clean-up?

[I Ratant]

There was a docu on HIstory a week or so ago, using videos from people who were there.
"I-Witness"
I hadn't seen these previously.
One of them was taken inside WTC7, when it was being cleared of people, as it was pretty well damaged and on fire.
The videographer was one of the last people to leave the site.
The hysterics about its collapse later just make no sense, as do the insane hysteria about everything on 9-11.

[cyclonic]

Intresting comment by Igradyl on this video

http://youtube.com/watch?v=csn6Em87eEE

"Pull It" to many firefighters, especially to those oldtimers like me that served long before portable radios became popular and affordable means to cease all interior operations.

-firefighterforums

"The reason they used the expressions before radios was because when firefighters need to evacuate a building and had no radios, the firefighters would pull on the hose. That signaled the firefighters inside to evacuate immediately. They just happen to still use the same terminology. When an order to 'pull it' was given then, it meant pull the hose, now, it means radio in and get them out".

[Gavron]

Has a fire dept or demolition team ever brought down a 40+ story building before, while it was still burning? Seems like this is the 1st time in history it had been done, and hasnt been done since then either.

If bringing down the building was necessary for safety reasons, why cover it up? Looks like it would be hailed as heroic, since they were entering a burning building they could not save....planting charges or at least weakening the structure to where it would collapse.

Oh, and all without any witnesses to this.

Then told not to tell anyone?

[johnny karate]

Has a fire dept or demolition team ever brought down a 40+ story building before, while it was still burning? Seems like this is the 1st time in history it had been done, and hasnt been done since then either.

If bringing down the building was necessary for safety reasons, why cover it up? Looks like it would be hailed as heroic, since they were entering a burning building they could not save....planting charges or at least weakening the structure to where it would collapse.

Oh, and all without any witnesses to this.

Then told not to tell anyone?

It's almost impossible to believe there are people stupid enough to believe nonsenses like that, isn't it?

[pomeroo]

Well the fire commander did give the order to PULL the building when talking Silverstein.


Uh, no, you are completely wrong. It is impossible to "pull" a 47-story building. As you are the only remaining conspiracy liar who doesn't understand that "pull it" does not mean "blow up the building," and you are incapable of using the search function to find the many threads devoted to this subject, let me inform you that demolition professionals "pull" relatively small structures by attaching cables to them and literally pulling them off their center of gravity.

As has pointed out a few thousand times, asking a
firechief to blow up a building is comparable to asking the mail carrier to fix the kitchen sink.

You have no idea how dead this canard is.

[pomeroo]

hmm..you are probably right. if they did indeed decide to pull the building..soo many people would know about it that it would be impossible to keep it or the methods a secret.

wtc 7 was most likely not pulled by anything but gravity.


Please stop misusing the word "pull." We have established over and over that the phrase "pull it" is not demolition industry slang. Buildings as large as WTC 7 cannot be "pulled," i.e., toppled by attaching cables and literally pulling them off their center of gravity.

[Gavron]

It's almost impossible to believe there are people stupid enough to believe nonsenses like that, isn't it?

There are those that seem to think it happens all the time.....yet cannot site even one example of it ever being done before or since 9/11.

Interesting how people will believe what they want to believe sometimes :D

[pomeroo]

I have e-mailed companies that were at ground zero to find the truth.

Why don't you e-mail FDNY to find the truth.


You keep neglecting to mention that you are a conspiracy liar: you hate the truth. I, and many other rationalists, have spoken with firefighters. You have not contacted anybody, nor do you intend to.

[pomeroo]

Are you saying Silverstien is a liar and his statment cannot be trusted?

I mean he basilcally stated. The fire commander decided to PULL IT and we watched the building collapse.


Again, you are perhaps the only remaining conspiracy liar who doesn't understand that Silverstein's conversation with the fire chief had nothing to do with demolition. "Pull it" is firefighter jargon. Silverstein was talking with a firefighter. Firefighters don't blow up buildings. "Pull it" does not mean "blow up the building."

[fromdownunder]

I guess about as long as it takes for a building to burn down according to the official version.

So does this mean that all the material I have looked at (only on Television) about Las Vegas buildings taking weeks to be set up for proper demolition is incorrect, and it could/should all be done, far more cheaply, within hours on the same day? I guess if your answer is correct, the USA economy is built on inefficiancy.

What a great way to waste money. Spend a long time doing something which could be easily done in a few hours.

Norm

[pomeroo]

Well its just to bad i have the statments from 2 fire chiefs that the firemen were out of the buidling early in the day. You really should do some real researach.

You have failed again to post evidence from a source to debate the evidence i have posted.

WHY IS THAT?


You keep using the word "evidence" to describe your childish lies. WHY IS THAT?

Try to focus: "Pull it" is dead. Finished. Shuffled off this mortal coil. Kaput. Never to be resurrected.

[pomeroo]

Yes since PULLED means bringing down a building, as the fire commander stated.


You've been caught in a very, very foolish lie. And, comically enough, you are the only liar here who doesn't realize how ridiculous you look. The others have been beaten to bloody pulps on this canard many times.

[Gavron]

Whats interesting is Roger will also state that no other building has ever collapsed from fire before....so why not let it burn out then? He says the fires were burning out, but then says the fires were in danger of jumping to other buildings?

Either there are fires ,or there arent fires....which is it?

[ULTIMA1]

So- no explosives and no cables for WTC 7. I thought this matter was settled some time ago..)


So maybe you can explain to me then if 2 fire chiefs stated the firemen were out of the building earlier in the day (before the phone call) how can you PULL firemen that are already out of the buidling as Silverstein stated the fire commander decided to PULL IT.

He could not have been talking about pulling the firemen if they were already out of the building.

[ULTIMA1]

Whats interesting is Roger will also state that no other building has ever collapsed from fire before....so why not let it burn out then? ?

Why must you lie and misquote me? It only makes you look more childish.

I stated thre tower fires were burning out before collaspe, as photos show.

I am still waiting for anyone to show me a steel building that has collasped from fire in the US in the last 30 years.

[UNLoVedRebel]

why must you lie and misquote me? It only makes you look more childish.

I stated thre tower fires were burning out before collaspe, as photos show.

I am still waiting for anyone to show me a steel building that has collasped from fire in the us in the last 30 years.

wtc 1, 2, 5, & 7.

[ULTIMA1]

wtc 1, 2, 5, & 7.

So your saying that WTC 1 and 2 collasped from fire alone and not the plane impacts?

[UNLoVedRebel]

So your saying that WTC 1 and 2 collasped from fire alone and not the plane impacts?

I am saying that fires were sufficient to comprise the structural elements of WTC 1, 2, 5, & 7.

[ULTIMA1]

I am saying that fires were sufficient to comprise the structural elements of WTC 1, 2, 5, & 7.

And your evidence of this is what?

Oh and i mean real evidence the kind that would hold in court not what the media told us to believe.

[UNLoVedRebel]

And your evidence of this is what?

Oh and i mean real evidence the kind that would hold in court not what the media told us to believe.

No one told me to believe anything. That's what I saw.

[ULTIMA1]

No one told me to believe anything. That's what I saw.

So you have no real evidence to back up your claim?

So those buildings just happened to be the only steel buildings in history to collaspe from fire?

[Disenchanted]

And your evidence of this is what?

Oh and i mean real evidence the kind that would hold in court not what the media told us to believe.

What real evidence have you presented? None, in this thread or any you have posted in.

That makes your argument hypocritical, as well as flat out wrong.

[UNLoVedRebel]

So you have no real evidence to back up your claim?

So those buildings just happened to be the only steel buildings in history to collaspe from fire?

No, only the indisputable video evidence.

[ULTIMA1]

What real evidence have you presented? None, in this thread or any you have posted in..

Please be adult enough to stop the lies, I have posted real evidence.

Why must believers lie so much and twist peoples post, are you guys really that afraid of the truth?

[ULTIMA1]

No, only the indisputable video evidence.

You mean the videos that show dark, heavy black smoke that means a fire is burning at a low temp?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/fires/severity.html
Dark smoke implies the presence of soot, which is composed of uncombusted hydrocarbons. Soot is produced when a fire is oxygen-starved, or has just been extinguished. Soot also has a high thermal capacity and may act to rob a fire of heat by carrying it away.


You mean the videos that show the fires going out well before the collapse?

Those videos?

[UNLoVedRebel]

You mean the videos that show dark, heavy black smoke that means a fire is burning at a low temp?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/fires/severity.html
Dark smoke implies the presence of soot, which is composed of uncombusted hydrocarbons. Soot is produced when a fire is oxygen-starved, or has just been extinguished. Soot also has a high thermal capacity and may act to rob a fire of heat by carrying it away.


You mean the videos that show the fires going out well before the collapse?

Those videos?

Wow. I can't believe I just wasted my time with a "oxygen-starved fire" twoofer. I'm reliving 2004 all over again.

[Disenchanted]

Please be adult enough to stop the lies, I have posted real evidence.

Why must believers lie so much and twist peoples post, are you guys really that afraid of the truth?

Being an adult is not dodging an argument like you do, with baseless accusations that the poster is lying.

I did not twist any of your words and I did not lie.

If I have prove I have.

If you have credible evidence post it.

You argument has been shown to be filled with lies (along with the irony of saying others are lying), such as this claim of yours:

"Yes since PULLED means bringing down a building, as the fire commander stated."

That is a lie, unless you can show me any demolition companies that use "pulled" or "pull it" to mean demolishing a building.

[ULTIMA1]

That is a lie, unless you can show me any demolition companies that use "pulled" or "pull it" to mean demolishing a building.

So when the demoiltion team PULLED building 6 they did not demolish it?

Can you post any evidence to prove what i posted about the fire commander wrong? If you cannot be adult adult enough to admit it is not a lie.

[Disenchanted]

So when the demoiltion team PULLED building 6 they did not demolish it?

Can you post any evidence to prove what i posted about the fire commander wrong? If you cannot be adult adult enough to admit it is not a lie.

What evidence do you have building 6 being demolished? Maybe you should start a thread for that since this is about building 7.

The burden is not mine. It is on you to present evidence to support your evidence.

It is your burden to show that "pulled" means to demolish a building and that the fire commander said to demolish building 7.

You have provided no credible evidence for either, why is it my burden to prove it wrong?

Also it is on you to show how I have lied and how I am not acting like an adult, your saying so does not make it true.

[ULTIMA1]

What evidence do you have building 6 being demolished? .

I guess you have not seen the video of building 6 being demeolished by being PULLED down. I keep saying you should do research but i guess you are afraiad of the truth.

The burden is not mine.

The burden is on you when you claim i lied. So either post evidence to prove i lied or we will know who is really dishonest here.

[Disenchanted]

I guess you have not seen the video of building 6 being demeolished by being PULLED down. I keep saying you should do research but i guess you are afraiad of the truth.



The burden is on you when you claim i lied. So either post evidence to prove i lied or we will know who is really dishonest here.

So are you claiming they "pulled" building 7 down with cables? Otherwise the term "pulled" would not apply to building 7.

No, the burden is on you to support your claim or retract it as the lie that it is.

You made the initial claim, so now it is on you to back it up. So far all you have done is make claims, with out credible evidence to support them. Then when called on not providing credible evidence you dodge the posts by trying to shift the burden, just claiming others are immature, afraid or lying.

[ULTIMA1]

So are you claiming they "pulled" building 7 down with cables? Otherwise the term "pulled" would not apply to building 7.
.

NO, please do not try to twist my post, it only makes you look childish.

I am stating the fire commander used PULL as a term to bring down the building.

[Disenchanted]

NO, please do not try to twist my post, it only makes you look childish.

I am stating the fire commander used PULL as a term to bring down the building.

I twisted nothing. Your continuing to dodge does not reflect good on you.

This is a thread about building 7, how is him using pull for a building pulled down with cables relevant to building 7?

[ULTIMA1]

I twisted nothing.

Then show me where i stated building 7 was pulled with cables or it will show you to be liar and twist post.

This is a thread about building 7, how is him using pull for a building pulled down with cables relevant to building 7?

Please read the following sentence many times or have someone read it to you untill you understand it.

I am stating the fire commander used PULL as a term to bring down the building.

Due to the fact that the only reason for the fire commander to call Silverstein was to tell him they could not save the buidling (Silverstein had no authority over what was going on that day.

Also due to the facts as stated by 2 fire chiefs the firemen were out of the building early in the day so he could not have been talking about the firemen when he stated PULL IT.

[MarkyX]

So you have no real evidence to back up your claim?

So those buildings just happened to be the only steel buildings in history to collaspe from fire?

Kader Toy Factory.

[Disenchanted]

Then show me where i stated building 7 was pulled with cables or it will show you to be liar and twist post.

Look to what you wrote below. As far as demolishing a building goes, the fire commander would only use the term pulled in regard to pulling a building down with cables..

You say that the fire commander used the term pull in reference to bringing down building 7 and since "pulled" or "pull it" is not a term used for demolishing buildings with explosives, the logical conclusion from your position would be they brought it down with cables.

Maybe the idea of logic is foreign to you.

Please read the following sentence many times or have someone read it to you untill you understand it.

I am stating the fire commander used PULL as a term to bring down the building.

Due to the fact that the only reason for the fire commander to call Silverstein was to tell him they could not save the buidling (Silverstein had no authority over what was going on that day.

Also due to the facts as stated by 2 fire chiefs the firemen were out of the building early in the day so he could not have been talking about the firemen when he stated PULL IT.

Well again, (no matter how much you dodge the fact) they could not have been talking about demolishing building 7 with explosives because that is not a term used for that. So one thing is clear, whatever the fire chiefs were talking about it was not about demolishing building 7 with explosives.

Once again, you are left with no credible evidence for building 7 being demolished.

[ULTIMA1]

Kader Toy Factory.

Is that a steel building in the US?

[Thunder]

Then show me where i stated building 7 was pulled with cables or it will show you to be liar and twist post.



Please read the following sentence many times or have someone read it to you untill you understand it.

I am stating the fire commander used PULL as a term to bring down the building.

Due to the fact that the only reason for the fire commander to call Silverstein was to tell him they could not save the buidling (Silverstein had no authority over what was going on that day.

Also due to the facts as stated by 2 fire chiefs the firemen were out of the building early in the day so he could not have been talking about the firemen when he stated PULL IT.

just because there was no one INSIDE the building doesnt mean there werent tons of folks AROUND the building.

Hence "pull it" means "pull all personnel from around/near WTC 7".

[ULTIMA1]

You say that the fire commander used the term pull in reference to bringing down building 7 and since "pulled" or "pull it" is not a term used for demolishing buildings with explosives, .

Last time i checked a fire commander is not a normal demolition expert. Please explain why he could not have used PULL as a demolition term.

Also where did i state it had to be with explosives? You do know there are other ways to bring down a building then using explosives?

[ULTIMA1]

just because there was no one INSIDE the building doesnt mean there werent tons of folks AROUND the building.


You guys really should do a little research before posting. NO ONE WAS NEAR THE BUILDING.

Here is still more evidence about the firemen being evacuated away from Building 7.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html
Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7 did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: 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. There were guys going into areas that I wasn�t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn�t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o�clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then.

[Björn Toulouse]

Also due to the facts as stated by 2 fire chiefs the firemen were out of the building early in the day so he could not have been talking about the firemen when he stated PULL IT.



Maybe he was talking about the firefighters who were still in the area of WTC7. After all, it was a pretty tall building. Wouldn't want anyone to get in the way. The following is from a conspiracy website: (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc7.html)




Building 7 was supposedly evacuated around 9 AM. The area around the building was evacuated in the hour before the collapse. Photographer Tom Franklin, who took the famous photograph of firemen raising the American flag, said:

Firemen evacuated the area as they prepared for the collapse of Building Seven. 1 (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc7.html#ref1)






You see, they were still in the area whether they were inside or not. Wouldn't they would have to pulled from the area for safety purposes? Silverstein was talking about people.

[Thunder]

You guys really should do a little research before posting. NO ONE WAS NEAR THE BUILDING.

Here is still more evidence about the firemen being evacuated away from Building 7.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html
Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7 We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o�clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then.

And there we have it. That is what was "pulled". They pulled everybody back..and then the building came down. So much for the Silverstein quote.

But wait, Silverstein is a Zionist, so even though his quote has finally been explained, the conspiracy must go on!!!

[Disenchanted]

Last time i checked a fire commander is not a normal demolition expert. Please explain why he could not have used PULL as a demolition term.

Also where did i state it had to be with explosives? You do know there are other ways to bring down a building then using explosives?

When was the last time you checked and how did you check?

If he is not a "normal" demolition expert why would he be in command of a demolition? Why would he use a term for demolition that no one working it would understand?

Pull is not used by anyone who demolish buildings that is a fact.

Sure there are other ways, like the fire that was responsible for its collapse. There is no evidence for anything else. What other ways do you propose? What evidence do you have to support them?

[Thunder]

Maybe he was talking about the firefighters who were still in the area of WTC7. After all, it was a pretty tall building. Wouldn't want anyone to get in the way. The following is from a conspiracy website: (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc7.html)

You see, they were still in the area whether they were inside or not. Wouldn't they would have to pulled from the area for safety purposes? Silverstein was talking about people.

No. "Pull it" simply cannot refer to the firemen around WTC 7. It simply can't. Even though the building was several hundred feet high...and could kill folks in every direction for several hundred feet, and folks would have to be pulled away for like 1,000 feet in every direction, "pull it" simply cannot refer to people.

Why..because in truther logic "it" is always an inanimate object...not living things.

Even Silverstein said what "it" referred to in his quote. But that doesnt matter. The truthers know what Silverstein was saying..not Silverstein himself.

[ULTIMA1]

When was the last time you checked and how did you check?

I was a federal police officer for 12 years, and trained in Emergency Incident Management.

If he is not a "normal" demolition expert why would he be in command of a demolition? Why would he use a term for demolition that no one working it would understand?

He was in charge of a fire out of control and no water to fight it. He decided to bring the buidling down to keep it from causing anymore damage and to keep fires from spreading to other buildings.

How do yo uknow no one there would not know what he meant, were you there?

Pull is not used by anyone who demolish buildings that is a fact.

Well the fire commader is not a person that usually demolishes buildings is he?

What other ways do you propose? What evidence do you have to support them?

Well as usual since you have not done any researfch into this you probably did not see the video of the hardhat workers coming out of the safety zone around buidling 7 stating that the buidling was coming down.

[ULTIMA1]

And there we have it. That is what was "pulled". They pulled everybody back..and then the building came down. So much for the Silverstein quote.
!

Do you know how to read?

The firemen were evacuated back from the building hours before the building collasped. Before the phone call was made.

[AJM8125]

Do you know how to read?

The firemen were evacuated back from the building hours before the building collasped. Before the phone call was made.

What do you think was the reason for that?

[ULTIMA1]

What do you think was the reason for that?

Gee, i will try to make this as simple as i can.

They were running out of water, they could not fight the fire so it was decided to evacuate them from the building and away from the area.

BTW: Chief Hayden stated they were worried about fire jumping from building 7, 1 reason they brought down the building.

Then the fire commander made the call to Silverstein to tell him they could not save the building.

[AJM8125]

Gee, i will try to make this as simple as i can.

They were running out of water, they could not fight the fire so it was decided to evacuate them from the building and away from the area.

BTW: Chief Hayden stated they were worried about fire jumping from building 7, 1 reason they brought down the building.

Then the fire commander made the call to Silverstein to tell him they could not save the building.

Uh huh. and when did this happen?

[Björn Toulouse]

Gee, i will try to make this as simple as i can.

They were running out of water, they could not fight the fire so it was decided to evacuate them from the building and away from the area.

BTW: Chief Hayden stated they were worried about fire jumping from building 7, 1 reason they brought down the building.

Then the fire commander made the call to Silverstein to tell him they could not save the building.




So, what I gather from this is that the firefighters would have tried to save the building if they had the capability to do so, then decided they could not "save" the building, and that's why they brought it down.

Now how again did they "bring it down" if they had already been evacuated from the area?

[bje]

Are you saying Silverstien is a liar and his statment cannot be trusted?

I mean he basilcally stated. The fire commander decided to PULL IT and we watched the building collapse.

Once again, Ultima1 sticks his foot in his mouth.

Apparently, you are unaware that Silverstein made his statement a month or so after 9/11 during an interview with NOVA summarizing the events of that day.

Given that neither the NOVA filming crew, interviewer, nor PBS reacted in any way to the "pull" statement, it's quite clear they understood the context of the comment.

For Ultima1, who wishes us to believe that we "only believe what we are told", it is rather amusing for him to take as his basis for doubt an interview from the government-subsidized PBS, who, if anything, would never want to reveal a demolition so blatantly if the "pull" statement referred to an actual demolition.

Once again, our new Troll represents the absurdity, contradictions, and illogical nature of "9/11 Truth".

How will you get out of your fix this time, Ultima1?

[Disenchanted]

I was a federal police officer for 12 years, and trained in Emergency Incident Management.

If you were, well every job has its incompetents.

In your time did you ever hear pull as a term to demolish a building with explosives or whatever you believe was used?

He was in charge of a fire out of control and no water to fight it. He decided to bring the buidling down to keep it from causing anymore damage and to keep fires from spreading to other buildings.

How could they safely rig a building with an out of control fire?

Does that mean it did not hit any buildings around it?

That still does not explain why he would use a term that is not used by demolition experts. Do you have any evidence of fire commanders using “pull” to demolish a building with explosives or any way other than with cables?

How do yo uknow no one there would not know what he meant, were you there?

Why would I have to be there? How would they understand “pull” to mean demolish a building with explosives or any way other than with cables when it had not been used that way before?

Well the fire commader is not a person that usually demolishes buildings is he?

So why would he be in command of a demolition in this case when he is by your argument not experienced in demolishing buildings?

Well as usual since you have not done any researfch into this you probably did not see the video of the hardhat workers coming out of the safety zone around buidling 7 stating that the buidling was coming down.

The irony in your posts is amusing. That does not answer my questions. What other ways do you propose could have been used to bring it down?

How are hardhat workers evidence that building 7 was demolished? It is more likely that they could tell that it was weakening due to the fire and would be “coming down.

Have you found any credible evidence in your research?

[ULTIMA1]

So, what I gather from this is that the firefighters would have tried to save the building if they had the capability to do so, then decided they could not "save" the building, and that's why they brought it down.

Well we do not know if they could have saved it even if they had water becasue they had let it burn for awhile befire getting to it.

They probably could have saved it if the sprinklers would have been working but the water supply was cut off.

Now how again did they "bring it down" if they had already been evacuated from the area?

As stated earlier there is a video of hard hat workers coming out of the safety zone area, stating that the building is coming down.

[Björn Toulouse]

As stated earlier there is a video of hard hat workers coming out of the safety zone area, stating that the building is coming down.



How?


How did the building come down as connected with the hardhats?

[Gavron]

Do you know how to read?

The firemen were evacuated back from the building hours before the building collasped. Before the phone call was made.


hours before the building collapsed?

But you just stated this quote from Chief Nigro:

We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o�clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then.


Since when is 90 minutes "hours"??

[Thunder]

so..the FDNY was pulled far away from the building 90 minutes before the collapse. this works perfectly with Silverstein's pull quote.

mystery solved.

[Thunder]

How?


How did the building come down as connected with the hardhats?

i have seen this video. there is no reason to assume that these guys didnt simply get the same pull-back call the FDNY got. we also dont know how soon after the video shot the building came down. it could have been 45 minutes.

[Thunder]

So you have no real evidence to back up your claim?

So those buildings just happened to be the only steel buildings in history to collaspe from fire?

plane impact damage, fire, weakened steel....you got it.

[Thunder]

Gee, i will try to make this as simple as i can.

They were running out of water, they could not fight the fire so it was decided to evacuate them from the building and away from the area.

BTW: Chief Hayden stated they were worried about fire jumping from building 7, 1 reason they brought down the building.

Then the fire commander made the call to Silverstein to tell him they could not save the building.

please provide the quote where Chief Hayden says "we brought down the building". otherwise you are lying.

[johnny karate]

So maybe you can explain to me then if 2 fire chiefs stated the firemen were out of the building earlier in the day (before the phone call) how can you PULL firemen that are already out of the buidling as Silverstein stated the fire commander decided to PULL IT.

He could not have been talking about pulling the firemen if they were already out of the building.

Your using statement from people you believe to be liars to support your assertion. How can you be sure they weren't lying when they said all the firefighters were out of WTC7?

[Thunder]

Your using statement from people you believe to be liars to support your assertion. How can you be sure they weren't lying when they said all the firefighters were out of WTC7?

this is because, when the MSM, FDNY, NYPD, Congressmen, NSA, CIA, FBI, say something that fits the 9-11 Sheeper agenda, they are telling the truth and MUST be trusted.

but when they say something that doesnt fit their agenda, they are NWO/Mossad/Illuminati/Freemason/baby-killer/Neonazicon liars and CANNOT EVER be trusted.

[johnny karate]

I am still waiting for anyone to show me a steel building that has collasped from fire in the US in the last 30 years.

It's possible that there have been many such collapses but they have been kept secret from us by lying members of the fire department for some retarded, unknown reason.

[Bobby]

What's the evidence for the term "pull" being used in connection with demolitions outside of the WTC complex? Surely, if the fire chief and Silverstein used the term interchangeably with Controlled Demolition, it must've been widely used before 9/11 2001.

[johnny karate]

So when the demoiltion team PULLED building 6 they did not demolish it?

Can you post any evidence to prove what i posted about the fire commander wrong? If you cannot be adult adult enough to admit it is not a lie.

Why do you supposed the FDNY told the truth about "pulling" WTC6, but have been lying for seven years about "pulling" WTC7?

[Gavron]

I am still waiting for anyone to show me a steel building that has collasped from fire in the US in the last 30 years.

Well, lets see....there used to be these two towers in NY, I think they called them Twin Towers.

But then again, those came down due to a combination of the plane impacts, and resulting fires ,that started a chain of events that led to eventual collapse.

I'm still waiting for anytime to show us a steel building that has been "PULLED" while on fire in the US in the last 30 years.

[johnny karate]

I am stating the fire commander used PULL as a term to bring down the building.

And then spent the next seven years lying about it, along with every other member of the FDNY. Don't forget that part.

[Gavron]

The ony time my firemen friends here have heard the term "PULL" was when they hooked a cable to the side of a structure to pull down a wall. Granted, these structures were only a couple stories tall.

I cant imagine Roger means the fire dept there hooked up cables to the WTC7, and pulled it over.

[johnny karate]

You guys really should do a little research before posting. NO ONE WAS NEAR THE BUILDING.

Here is still more evidence about the firemen being evacuated away from Building 7.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html
Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7 did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: 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. There were guys going into areas that I wasn�t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn�t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o�clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then.

It's interesting that you reference a statement by Cheif Nigro to support your claims.

Nigro is on record stating that WTC7 collapsed due to debris damage and fire, and has never mentioned it being "pulled" by the FDNY. According to you this makes him a liar.

So how can you trust any statements made by someone you believe to be a liar?

[Dr Adequate]

What's the evidence for the term "pull" being used in connection with demolitions outside of the WTC complex? Surely, if the fire chief and Silverstein used the term interchangeably with Controlled Demolition, it must've been widely used before 9/11 2001. Here you go. (From the SkepticWiki account of the "pull" saga (http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/WTC7#Misconception_2:_.22Pull_it.22).)

ImplosionWorld: Conventionally, "pull a building" can mean to pre-burn holes in steel beams near the top floor and affix long cables to heavy machinery, which then backs up and causes the structure to lean off its center of gravity and eventually collapse. But this is only possible with buildings about 6-7 stories or smaller. This activity was performed to bring down WTC 6 (Customs) after 9/11 because of the danger in demolishing conventionally.

Blanchard et al, A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2 & 7 from an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint: We have never once heard the term 'pull it' being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with.

It seems that ULTIMA1 is being wrong about the same thing on two threads simultaneously. A glance here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=125601) might be useful, as indeed might the moderators merging the two threads.

[Gavron]

Great info, Dr A...thanks! That pretty much matches what my fireman friends have said. Not to mention, I'v enever heard of a fire dept storing explosives in their fire trucks in case they ever needed to "PULL" something.

[MarkyX]

Is that a steel building in the US?

Not in the US, but that wasn't your argument and I fail to see why location matters. Steel is steel.

[Zipster]

Not in the US, but that wasn't your argument and I fail to see why location matters. Steel is steel.

Nah, ULTIMA wil have you believe that Asian steel is much weaker than US steel. :rolleyes:

Anyway, I want to add to the Kader Toy factory.

http://davidraygriffin115lies.blogspot.com/2007/05/fifth-lie.html

About halfway down the page he lists a few other steel structures that collapsed because of a fire. No airplane impact required!

[Plantfoam]

Anyways, I don't know how we got to the discussion of the FDNY demoing building 7 for safety reasons, and then keeping it a secret for no apparent reason. I've never heard such a desperate attempt to move the goalposts.

But what about the standard theory of building 7 being destroyed by the NWO? I've always wondered that if it were true, then why did they wait all day to do it? It seems like they could have easily demoed it while the south tower was falling on it. Nobody would have questioned anything then.

[Dr Adequate]

Last time i checked a fire commander is not a normal demolition expert. Please explain why he could not have used PULL as a demolition term. Last time i checked a fire commander is not a normal cookery expert. Please explain why he could not have used PULL as a term meaning "baste in honey, lemon juice, ground black pepper and coarse sea-salt."

[Seymour Butz]

[QUOTE=Gavron;4098936]Has a fire dept or demolition team ever brought down a 40+ story building before, while it was still burning? Seems like this is the 1st time in history it had been done, and hasnt been done since then either.

QUOTE]

The only instance I can think of would be the fires after the Great San Francisco earthquake, when the fire dept blew up city blocks to keep the fires from spreading. Note that they weren't subtle about the operation - they didn't try to "drop" any buildings "into their own footprint" (LOL) but took the brute force approach, which makes the most sense since then, as now, fire departments don't have the expertise to carry this out.

Also, Forest Service firefighters will bulldoze firebreaks across public and private land if necessary to prevent fires from spreading.

I brought up the lack of training for demo in the FDNY, so Ultima postulated that they may have had help from a demo crew.......

But he also says that they pulled all the firefighters out of the building due to the "out of control" fires, which is about the only thing he gets correct. So..... the FDNY pulls their personnel out of the area, but now sends in CIVILIANS to plant the explosives, in an area that the FDNY itself has evacuated due to the danger. So now, not only is the FDNY silent on the demo, but the crew that set the explosives are silent also. And who would be helping with security? NYPD and PAPD - so it means that THEY are silent too.

Stupid.

But don't expect this birdbrain to admit that. He;s been shown conclusively that he lies. 2 weeks ago we had an exchange about the engines at the Pentagon, and the JT8D, so I referred him to this website: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml to see the discussion about the JT8D. it contains the following passage - .......The JT8D is actually a low-bypass turbofan that was developed for use aboard commercial aircraft like the 727 and 737. ...... Ultima insanely claimed that the site doesn't talk about the JT8D.

I pointed out his lie, but of course, he ignored that fact. Everyone here should get used to this from this terrorist apologist if you think you're gonna get any response from him. He's a troll.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Once again, our new Troll represents the absurdity, contradictions, and illogical nature of "9/11 Truth".


I don't think he's a troll. I honestly think that he is very, very ill. I know a few members here have a personal policy of placing sick individuals on ignore, and I've done the same with ULTIMA1.

[Dave_46]

<snip>Dark smoke implies the presence of soot, which is composed of uncombusted hydrocarbons. Soot is produced when a fire is oxygen-starved, or has just been extinguished. <snip?

This is at least the third fourth fifth time I have posted this.

I just wanted to pick up on the smoke colour.

I happened to be reading a guide to the United Kingdom Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety)

Order yesterday (don't ask!) The one I was reading was for producing a Fire Risk

Assessment for Small And Medium Places Of Assembly.

Link http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/426/SmallandMediumPlacesofAssemblyfullguide_id1500426. pdf

At the bottom of page 16 (document page) is this paragraph.
Smoke produced by a fire also contains
toxic gases which are harmful to
people. A fire in a building with modern
fittings and materials generates smoke
that is thick and black, obscures vision,
causes great difficulty in breathing and
can block the escape routes.



This fits with my experience, and it has been mentioned by other posters here, the smoke

colour is mainly influenced by what is burning, and is not indicative of oxygen

starvation.

Dave

Edited to change Entertainment to Assembly in the document name

[Gavron]

I think that describes perfectly what we were seeing on that fatefull day....

[JimBenArm]

NVM. This thread is stupid.

[bje]

I don't think he's a troll. I honestly think that he is very, very ill. I know a few members here have a personal policy of placing sick individuals on ignore, and I've done the same with ULTIMA1.

Perhaps you are correct.

I do note that in a period of just over 35 hours, Ultima1 managed to chalk up 374 posts here on JREF since he first joined yesterday.

In contrast, this is post #753 for me since I first posted in March 2007 - 19 months ago. Ultima1 has reached half the number of my posts in a mere 1 1/2 days.

OCD?

[Zipster]

Perhaps you are correct.

I do note that in a period of just over 35 hours, Ultima1 managed to chalk up 374 post here on JREF since he first joined.

In contrast, this is post number 753 for me since I first posted in March 2007 - 19 months ago. Ultima1 has reached half the number of my posts in a mere 1 1/2 days.

OCD?

OCD indeed. He won't let any point go without a response. Like I said, he's a virus that just spreads.

[bje]

OCD indeed. He won't let any point go without a response. Like I said, he's a virus that just spreads.

...and spreads as easy as :spam2.

[PhantomWolf]

ULTIMA1,

Please provide evidence of the following things:

1) Your claim that the phone call was after the fire fighters were ordered out at about 3pm

2) That a building can be preped for demolition in less than 2 hours (the time from the the get out order to the collapse of the building in which you claim the phone call and decision to demolish the building occured). This includes the bringing in of the explosives unless you can show why they were already nearby.

3) Your claim that the Fire Commander used the either of the words "Pull" or "Pulled" in his conversation with Silverstien. You have repeatedly made this claim with zero proof.

[PhantomWolf]

OCD indeed. He won't let any point go without a response. Like I said, he's a virus that just spreads.

The funny thing is that anything that seriously harms his case he simply ignores.

[Zipster]

The funny thing is that anything that seriously harms his case he simply ignores.

Only because it falls outside of the script he adheres to. And that it's new information.

Also shows the hypocrite in him. Tells us to constantly do research, but yet refuses to research our newer information (or the information that's been there all along, but he conveniently overlooks :rolleyes:).

Watch, when he gets on at 2 am or so, he's going rip into this post. He'll most likely say: "NO. I do research, and don't believe everything that the media says, unlike everyone else on here."

[pomeroo]

So when the demoiltion team PULLED building 6 they did not demolish it?

Can you post any evidence to prove what i posted about the fire commander wrong? If you cannot be adult adult enough to admit it is not a lie.


When the demolition team PULLED building 6, they ATTACHED CABLES TO IT (it didn't work too well, by the way). Eventually you will tire of being corrected and move on to other thoroughly debunked canards.

[pomeroo]

NO, please do not try to twist my post, it only makes you look childish.

I am stating the fire commander used PULL as a term to bring down the building.


No, demolition professionals use the term "pull" to mean "attach cables to a relatively small structure and literally pull it off its center of gravity."

Are you getting tired of hearing this yet? Do you think that it's past time to abandon a very silly lie that has been worn to rags in this forum?

[pomeroo]

You guys really should do a little research before posting. NO ONE WAS NEAR THE BUILDING.

Here is still more evidence about the firemen being evacuated away from Building 7.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html
Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7 did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: 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. There were guys going into areas that I wasn�t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn�t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o�clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then.


Has the light bulb appeared over your head yet? Are you starting to notice something?

C'mon, really try now.

[twinstead]

That boy ain't right

[pomeroo]

That boy ain't right


He provides a quote from Hayden that utterly destroys the lie he's peddling. Huh? The only other loon who has engaged in that bizarre form of ritual suicide is a guy called "Ion," who disputed my claim that France's intelligence services had concluded that Saddam retained WMD by posting a link to an article that confirmed what I was arguing.

He keeps whizzing by the rather inconvenient fact that it was Silverstein, not the fire chief with whom he was talking, who used the expression, "pull it." He keeps pretending that someone in the FDNY talked about "pulling" building 7. It didn't happen.

[Thunder]

It is now clear, that the only way truthers can argue that the FDNY or Silverstein said they pulled WTC 7 and not the rescue workers around it...is by LIEING.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Perhaps you are correct.

I do note that in a period of just over 35 hours, Ultima1 managed to chalk up 374 posts here on JREF since he first joined yesterday.

In contrast, this is post #753 for me since I first posted in March 2007 - 19 months ago. Ultima1 has reached half the number of my posts in a mere 1 1/2 days.

OCD?

Maybe not OCD. But a helluva lot of cognitive dissonance.

[ULTIMA1]

No, demolition professionals use the term "pull" to mean "attach cables to a relatively small structure and literally pull it off its center of gravity."


Last time i checked a fire chief or fire commander is not a demolition professional.

[ULTIMA1]

Has the light bulb appeared over your head yet? Are you starting to notice something?



Yes the light bulb has been on.

The firemen were PULLED out before the call to Silverstien as stated by the fire chiefs.

Why are you guys so afraid of the truth, even when facts are prvidede to you?

[ULTIMA1]

It is now clear, that the only way truthers can argue that the FDNY or Silverstein said they pulled WTC 7 and not the rescue workers around it...is by LIEING.

So do you have evidence that the 2 fire chiefs are lying about the firemen being pulled out earlier in the day?

[Caustic Logic]

Last time i checked a fire chief or fire commander is not a demolition professional.

So you agree that if they did pull it, it must have been with cables. There were no cables, Ultima1.

[PhantomWolf]

The firemen were PULLED out before the call to Silverstien as stated by the fire chiefs.

You keep claiming this, I'm still waiting for you to actually prove it.

[pomeroo]

Yes the light bulb has been on.

The firemen were PULLED out before the call to Silverstien as stated by the fire chiefs.

Why are you guys so afraid of the truth, even when facts are prvidede to you?


It is impossible to be as obtuse as you are acting. Try to concentrate:

The FDNY makes a courtesy call to Silverstein;

THEY inform HIM that rescue operations are being stopped;

Silverstein agrees with the decision already taken by the fire department--he acknowledges that pulling out would be, given the dangers, the smartest thing to do.

The FDNY does not require Silverstein's permission.

Yes, we all get the idea that the rescue contingent was pulled either before the courtesy call was placed, or immediately after. What's the difference?

Can you begin to grasp the idea that you have no point to make here?

The concept of demolition did not figure in the conversation between Silverstein and the fire chief. Nobody was talking about, or alluding to, demolition--NOBODY.

[RedIbis]

It is impossible to be as obtuse as you are acting. Try to concentrate:

The FDNY makes a courtesy call to Silverstein;

THEY inform HIM that rescue operations are being stopped;

Silverstein agrees with the decision already taken by the fire department--he acknowledges that pulling out would be, given the dangers, the smartest thing to do.



...and then they watched the building collapse. You conveniently left that part out.

[Grizzly Bear]

...and then they watched the building collapse. You conveniently left that part out.

Thank you red to further supporting the point. Then and watched give transition of time and event. This PULL IT strawman is among the most annoying claims I ever hear...

[funk de fino]

...and then they watched the building collapse. You conveniently left that part out.

3 or so hours later

And the point was?

[twinstead]

The fact that we're still arguing 'pull it' 7 years later is a true testament to just how ineffective and pathetic the 'truth' movement is. Hell, truthers, if your evidence as half as good as you think it is we'd be arguing about how stiff Cheney's sentence should be after the trial.

Nice.

[johnny karate]

Yes the light bulb has been on.

The firemen were PULLED out before the call to Silverstien as stated by the fire chiefs.

But according to you, these same fire chiefs are liars that have been lying for seven years about really happened at WTC7. How can you trust anything they say?

[johnny karate]

So do you have evidence that the 2 fire chiefs are lying about the firemen being pulled out earlier in the day?

Well, according to you, these fire chiefs have spent the last seven years lying to the entire world about what happened at WTC7. That should be proof enough for you that nothing these people say can be trusted. Could you please explain why you place so much stock in the words of people you have already established to be liars?

[Bobert]

None of my friends saw the building being rigged for demolition by ANYBODY! Also
where would the FDNY get the explosives? Demolition by explosives is illegal in
Manhattan - that is why buildings are dismantled from top down.

Wow that would sure through a monkey wrench into the CT'ers idea of controlled demolition.
I mean after all why would the all knowing and all powerful NWO bring the towers down via CD when CD is not legal in Manhattan?
Yet another screw up by the NWO!
You would have thought that would have been mentioned and on the agenda on the 9-11 planning meetings.

[johnny karate]

...and then they watched the building collapse. You conveniently left that part out.

And then of course after witnessing events that "might not support [our] side of the argument" and "describe precisely, the characteristics of controlled demo" every single member of the FDNY at WTC7 mysteriously "came to agree with the official explanations" through either stupidity or cowardice. Don't forget that part of your theory.

[Bobert]

Now, why in the HELL would he want to send people back into a burning building that is completely unstable to attempt to bring it down in a safe manner by taking out a column with explosives? .
Sorry but I think that you need to do some research.
Everyone knows that Dick Cheney needed everyone out of WTC7 because he had to back up the dump truck and start loading all that gold that he stole.
He was able to getaway without being caught because his truck had a cloaking device.
BTW the spell check wont allow you to spell "Cheney"!
That is yeat another clear sign!

[defaultdotxbe]

Last time i checked a fire chief or fire commander is not a demolition professional.
so then why would one make a decision to demolish a building?

[Crazytimes]

I love the backpeddling that was done here on the term "pull"

My god Ultima.......

Let me ask another way.

Do you think that some type of explosives were being referenced to bring down the building when the term "Pull" was used ?

[Whiplash]

But, with all the conspiracy theories developing soon after 9-11, they decide to keep it a secret, as they worry it will add to the theories that the rest of the towers were also brought down intentionally. So they make it their little secret.

The CT's didn't start so quickly after 9-11 that it would be a reason to keep the act a secret. It's not like it all happened at the exact same time. While I remember hearing the 4000 jews didn't go to work rumor within days (IIRC), the major CT's were much much later. News of the decision to knock the building down for safety reasons would have come out on the very day of the event. There is no corrolation between the two at all.

[Gavron]

So do you have evidence that the 2 fire chiefs are lying about the firemen being pulled out earlier in the day?

Umm, you yourself quoted Chief Nigro where he said they were evacuated 90 minutes before collapse. 90 minutes is considered earlier in the day? :confused:

[MRC_Hans]

Yes, and the call was made shortly before the building came down at 5. So that means the firemen were out of the building at the time of the call.Son, it was not Silverstein's decision. It was a decision made by the fire chiefs at the site. Silverstein happened to say "we", but it was not his call. He could neither have ordered them to pull, not ordered them not to.

Hans

[Bobert]

Ultima,
Will you be attending the High-Rise Operation Symposium being put on by the FDNY?
It takes place On March 19th & 20th of 2009.
This isy our GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY to have your issues addressed by the FDNY!!
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=125673

[lapman]

...and then they watched the building collapse. You conveniently left that part out.
I love how twoofers are completely unable to grasp the concept of "Readers Digest version." They think that Larry made the statement and the building collapsed in seconds later. Larry had to describe what happened over the entire day in an interview that was only a few minutes long. AFAIK, there were no questions about what time the decision was made in the interview.

[Mangoose]

...and then they watched the building collapse. You conveniently left that part out.

"And" does not entail a causal relation.

Compare:

"The captain saw that the ship was taking on water too fast, and he made the decision to abandon ship, AND we watched it sink at a safe distance."

Did the decision to abandon ship cause the ship to sink?

[beachnut]

Why must you lie and misquote me? It only makes you look more childish.

I stated thre tower fires were burning out before collaspe, as photos show.

I am still waiting for anyone to show me a steel building that has collasped from fire in the US in the last 30 years.
One Meridian Plaza. Show me the building today, it was totaled by fire. WTC7 was totaled by fire.

[ULTIMA1]

so then why would one make a decision to demolish a building?

Becasue they can in an emergency.

[ULTIMA1]

Son, it was not Silverstein's decision. It


Yes, i know. It was the incident commad (IC) that made the decision to bring down the building.

Silverstein had not authority, specailly over pulling the firemen.

[ULTIMA1]

One Meridian Plaza. Show me the building today, it was totaled by fire. WTC7 was totaled by fire.

Exactly it was totaled BUT DID NOT COLLAPSE.

No steel building has ever collaposed from fire no matter how severe. (according to firemen and fire experts).

[Gavron]

Becasue they can in an emergency.

Please show us one example of a fire dept demolishing a still burning 20+ story building.

[twinstead]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Meridian_Plaza_fire

Not that I am a huge fan of wikipedia, but at least this article says that at 7:00 the building was evacuated because fears of a 'pancake' type collapse. Why would they worry about this if it is impossible?

[Gavron]

Nice find there, twin! Looks like the possibility of a pancake style collapse wasnt that far fetched....if they mention it 10 years before 9/11.

[Bobert]

Ultima,
Will you be attending the High-Rise Operation Symposium being put on by the FDNY?
It takes place On March 19th & 20th of 2009.
This isy our GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY to have your issues addressed by the FDNY!!
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=125673

I see ULTIMA ignored this very vaild question.
He is on ignore and I doubt he will ever answer this question let alone attend this event for the world to see that is a terrorist apologist fraud.

[ULTIMA1]

[url]Not that I am a huge fan of wikipedia, but at least this article says that at 7:00 the building was evacuated because fears of a 'pancake' type collapse. Why would they worry about this if it is impossible?

So did the building collapse or was it demolised?

[ULTIMA1]

I see ULTIMA ignored this very vaild question.
He is on ignore and I doubt he will ever answer this question let alone attend this event for the world to see that is a terrorist apologist fraud.

Well let me state that we have tried to get people to together on other forums to go places like Shankesville to talk to the witnesses.

But wouldn't you know the people that beleived the official story were afraid to go becasue they did not want to hear things that would have been different then what they were told happened.

I would go to this as long as it would be an open debate forum and not run by the media who gets to pick and choose who ask questions and what questions they ask.

[Gavron]

Ultima1, can you please show us one example of a fire dept demolishing a still burning 20+ story building?

I just want to see an example of a fire dept "pulling" a burning building prior to 9/11...

[UNLoVedRebel]

So did the building collapse or was it demolised?

Oh boy.

[beachnut]

Exactly it was totaled BUT DID NOT COLLAPSE.

No steel building has ever collaposed from fire no matter how severe. (according to firemen and fire experts). Source? You never source your stuff or do you?

The "pull it" scam is the one thing people can use to be skeptical of all your ideas on 9/11. This one delusion, the "pull it" smoking gun for those who lack the knowledge in life and 9/11 issues, is the easy to see you have problems keeping your fantasy ideas from controlling your understanding reality. This simple semantic error on your part makes it easy for kids to learn the difference between evidence and fantasy based opinions you push. Your ideas on 9/11 are a good tutor for kids to learn between reality, opinions, and evidence. Good job

Have you read the report? No
Fire destroys steel's strength.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/woodbeambentsteel-full.jpg
One thing you do not understand?

[beachnut]

Well let me state that we have tried to get people to together on other forums to go places like Shankesville to talk to the witnesses.

But wouldn't you know the people that beleived the official story were afraid to go becasue they did not want to hear things that would have been different then what they were told happened.

I would go to this as long as it would be an open debate forum and not run by the media who gets to pick and choose who ask questions and what questions they ask.
Too late! The witnesses support the hard evidence found in the ground. The FDR, even the wind that day speaks for the hard evidence. The impact itself proves no shoot down, unless you invisible, silent, never seen missile engagement (lacking the sonic boom! Of the missile) does not do real damage, to the engine or the systems of the plane, is it possible? Not even the CVR picked up the sonic boom of the missile flying into 93. \
Why the tangent?
You are now on a tangent because your false ideas on the "pull it" scam have failed. ???

[ULTIMA1]

Fire destroys steel's strength. [/FONT][/COLOR]


Gee, one thing you sure do not understand is how to research and get information from professionals.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.

[defaultdotxbe]

Becasue they can in an emergency.
so theres an emergency, and suddenly non-experts are allowed to knock down large buildings in the middle of manhattan? this is why i live in chicago, new york is too screwy :D

Exactly it was totaled BUT DID NOT COLLAPSE.

No steel building has ever collaposed from fire no matter how severe. (according to firemen and fire experts).
no steel building? are we back to kader toy factory again? i know you were upset it wasnt in the US but i didnt think that meant it didnt exist

[Gavron]

I see you are still unable to answer this question, ULTIMA1...

Ultima1, can you please show us one example of a fire dept demolishing a still burning 20+ story building?

I just want to see an example of a fire dept "pulling" a burning building prior to 9/11...

[ULTIMA1]

so theres an emergency, and suddenly non-experts are allowed to knock down large buildings in the middle of manhattan? this is why i live in chicago, new york is too screwy :D

Who said non-experts knocked down the building. ALl i said was the fire commander decided to do it?

no steel building? are we back to kader toy factory again? i know you were upset it wasnt in the US but i didnt think that meant it didnt exist

Well as most people with basic intelligence know other countris do not have the building codes we do. Also was the buidling all steel or stele and concrete?

NO steel building in the US has collapsed from fire.

[beachnut]

Gee, one thing you sure do not understand is how to research and get information from professionals.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.

As I thought, your WTC7 "pull it" opinion is based on your lack of knowledge. Your failure to understand fire is noted as you quote and lack understanding.

You make up stuff as you go, or you have some engineering to go with your opinion? Doubt some numbers will be appearing on your failed opinion calculations the WTC fires can't weaken steel.

Pull it, your posts not supporting your opinion on "pull it".

WTC7, where is it? Why?

One Meridian Plaza, where is it? Why?

Windsor Building in Madrid, where is it? Why?

Were those fires fought?
Which ones? Oh?

Fire?

[ULTIMA1]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]As I thought, your WTC7 "pull it" opinion is based on your lack of knowledge.

NO, my "pull it" statement is based on facts and evidence i can show, maybe you should try it sometime.

Even more evidence the firemen were pulled out BEFORE the phone call.

http://911guide.googlepages.com/danielnigro
For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

[Gavron]

But you can't show evidence of a burning 20+ story building ever being "pulled" before? Or after? Why is that?

[A W Smith]

Please read the following sentence many times or have someone read it to you untill you understand it.

I am stating the fire commander used PULL as a term to bring down the building.


In This video Luis Mendez tells us that we had to be very careful how we demolished building six, We were worried about building six coming down and then damaging the slurry walls so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area.
1uxlrcQL5Dk

now why would they use cables to demolish a building only nine story's tall yet be unconcerned with blasting building seven which was 47 story's tall and was right next to the same slurry wall?



Due to the fact that the only reason for the fire commander to call Silverstein was to tell him they could not save the building (Silverstein had no authority over what was going on that day.

Also due to the facts as stated by 2 fire chiefs the firemen were out of the building early in the day so he could not have been talking about the firemen when he stated PULL IT.


from
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm


Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:
"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."
He could be lying, right? But here is the corroborating evidence...
"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski

[GlennB]

...

Well as most people with basic intelligence know other countris do not have the building codes we do. Also was the buidling all steel or stele and concrete?

NO steel building in the US has collapsed from fire.

Does the USA have the top (most rigorous) building codes in the world? Is this what you are saying? How about Germany, or Sweden? Or are you just saying some other countries have worse building codes? Iraq? Guatemala? Liechtenstein ?
You really are gibbering somewhat. Please make your points clearer. So far you're just insulting my "basic intelligence".

[ULTIMA1]

from
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Even more evidence the firemen were pulled out BEFORE the phone call.

http://911guide.googlepages.com/danielnigro
For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

[Gavron]

...yet still no evidence of a 20+ story burning building ever being "pulled" before, or after 9/11.

You can argue all you want about who can authorize it or not....but if its never been done before, it doesnt change the fact that its never been done before. (or since).

[Mangoose]

Gee, one thing you sure do not understand is how to research and get information from professionals.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.


LOL....you end your quote right there, omitting what the author says next: "The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire."

What was it you were just saying about not understanding how to research and get information from professionals?????

[PhantomWolf]

Even more evidence the firemen were pulled out BEFORE the phone call.

You are aware that it was not Chief Nigro that rang Silverstein and therefore his decision on the matter has zero relevance to when the phone call was placed? Nor does it comment on what Silverstein knew at the time of suggesting the firemen were pulled out.

BTW still waiting to heard that recording of the phone call or the Transcripts, you got them somewhere?

[bje]

NO, my "pull it" statement is based on facts and evidence i can show, maybe you should try it sometime.

Your "pull it" statement came from the government-subsidized media, namely PBS.

How are you going to get out of that fact, Ultima1?

[johnny karate]

Yes, i know. It was the incident commad (IC) that made the decision to bring down the building.

Silverstein had not authority, specailly over pulling the firemen.

PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY SOMETHING AS INNOCUOUS AS THE DEMOLISHING OF A DAMAGED BUILDING FOR SAFETY PURPOSES WOULD BE KEPT SECRET FROM THE PUBLIC.

It's a glaring hole in your theory that has been pointed out to you countless times, and yet you refuse to address it. NO ONE is on record saying WTC7 was demolished for safety reasons. EVERYONE involved states it collapsed on its own due to damage and fire. WHY WOULD THESE PEOPLE LIE?

[Bobert]

Excellent post A. W. Smith (#202)!
:)

[Gavron]

Even more evidence the firemen were pulled out BEFORE the phone call.

http://911guide.googlepages.com/danielnigro
For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.


Notice he said WTC 7 collapsed. He did not say WTC7 was pulled. :)

[A W Smith]

Notice he said WTC 7 collapsed. He did not say WTC7 was pulled. :)

Even Silverstein in the infamous quote says collapse.

"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


notice he did not say "and we watched them pull the building down" or "and we watched the demolition commence"

[Grizzly Bear]

notice he did not say "and we watched them pull the building down" or "and we watched the demolition commence"

They had to hide it after just confessing it on national television... didn't you read the NWO memo? :eek:

[A W Smith]

They had to hide it after just confessing it on national television... didn't you read the NWO memo? :eek:


You know what this forum needs? truther mode brackets that put a gif of a tin foil hat wearing gnome as opening quote and close quote with the same gif but a red circle and slash through it. Or just two tin hat gnomes with their backs facing each other

[I Ratant]

One of the locals....

[Disenchanted]

ULTIMA1 in one post:

Last time i checked a fire chief or fire commander is not a demolition professional.

ULTIMA1 in another post:

Who said non-experts knocked down the building. ALl i said was the fire commander decided to do it?

This seems contradictory to me.

Why would someone who is not a demolition expert be the one to make the decision to demolish a building? Would he not at least consult with experts?

Might they tell him it would be unwise and not possible given how long it takes to demolish an unstable building with explosives?

Might they tell him that pull is not a demolition term for demolishing with explosives?

ULTIMA1, it also appears you either missed or ignored post 117. So here are some questions from that post so you may answer them:

In your time did you ever hear pull as a term to demolish a building with explosives or whatever you believe was used?

How could they safely rig a building with an out of control fire?

Do you have any evidence of fire commanders using “pull” to demolish a building with explosives or any way other than with cables?

How would they understand “pull” to mean demolish a building with explosives or any way other than with cables when it had not been used that way before?

What other ways do you propose could have been used to bring it down?

Have you found any credible evidence in your research?

[sts60]

Exactly it was totaled BUT DID NOT COLLAPSE.

No steel building has ever collaposed from fire no matter how severe. (according to firemen and fire experts).
What's especially pathetic is that poor Ultima1 actually acknowledged the example of the Kader Toy Factory collapse (even while whining because it wasn't in the U.S.), but is evidently incapable of retaining this example from one page of this thread to the next. I'd say it's amusing, but really it's rather sad and depressing.

And, of course, firefighters certainly do not say what he claimed. Quite the opposite, in fact. We are well aware that steel buildings can and have collapsed. For those interested, I would recommend Strategic and Tactical Considerations on the Fireground (http://www.amazon.com/Strategic-Tactical-Considerations-Fireground-James/dp/0130614513), by James Smith. This was the text used in our training on building construction and collapse and discusses the failure of steel structures in reasonable depth, with examples.

[sts60]

You mean the videos that show dark, heavy black smoke that means a fire is burning at a low temp?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/fires/severity.html
Dark smoke implies the presence of soot, which is composed of uncombusted hydrocarbons. Soot is produced when a fire is oxygen-starved, or has just been extinguished. Soot also has a high thermal capacity and may act to rob a fire of heat by carrying it away.

You mean the videos that show the fires going out well before the collapse?

Those videos?
I used to snicker when I read the "black smoke" posts like this. Now, I... well, I still snicker.



This is black smoke from a house burn we had not long ago. (After we went through the various evolutions inside, all the boarded-up windows are knocked out - leaving completely unimpeded ventilation throughout - and the whole thing was lit off.)


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3007/2920178721_4e4aac3711.jpg?v=0











As you can see, the fire was definitely going out in this oxygen-starved house.


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3209/2921022744_77399092da.jpg?v=0


(The floor collapsed into the basement about half an hour or so after this shot. I guess somebody ran in with explosives or something while I wasn't looking.)

[Björn Toulouse]

..........(The floor collapsed into the basement about half an hour or so after this shot. I guess somebody ran in with explosives or something while I wasn't looking.)


HAHAHA.

You is bad.

Great post, by the way.

[ULTIMA1]

You are aware that it was not Chief Nigro that rang Silverstein and therefore his decision on the matter has zero relevance to when the phone call was placed?

Wrong again. If the firemen would have still been in the building when the call was made then Chief Nigro would have been told by the fire commander to pull the firemen out.

His statement stands as evidence that the firemen were out of the buidling before the call to Silverstein.

[PhantomWolf]

Wrong again. If the firemen would have still been in the building when the call was made then Chief Nigro would have been told by the fire commander to pull the firemen out.

His statement stands as evidence that the firemen were out of the buidling before the call to Silverstein.

You are aware that a Chief outranks a Commander and so wouldn't be being told what to do by him? You assumptions are nothing but air. You can't even get the quote fropm Silverstein right and figure out who did what and said what. You need to go and do another 7 years of research because up to now your skills are extremely lacking.

[Dave Rogers]

Even more evidence the firemen were pulled out BEFORE the phone call.

That places the evacuation at about 2:20pm. Silverstein says the phone call took place during the afternoon. Does the morning last till 2:21 where you come from?

Dave

[pomeroo]

...and then they watched the building collapse. You conveniently left that part out.


And why on earth is that "convenient"? How many times have I posted Silverstein's entire quote? You, who have been utterly humiliated repeatedly in this nonsensical faux-controversy, are well aware that I have spent considerable time exposing the attempted deception by you conspiracy liars. Seriously, have you lost your mind? The building DID collapse, as most of us know. You can't possibly dream that you have a point to make here. This topic completely destroyed your credibility.

[pomeroo]

Yes, i know. It was the incident commad (IC) that made the decision to bring down the building.

Silverstein had not authority, specailly over pulling the firemen.


Are you capable of comprehending anything I've posted? Silverstein's conversation with the fire chief had nothing to do with demolition. Can you grasp that? Neither side talks about demolition. Say it ten times until the point sinks in. The building was not demolished. There is zero evidence of explosives. I understand that your evil movement requires its slaves to make fools of themselves, but you have a choice. Really.

Do you get the idea that YOU DO NOT KNOW WHEN THE FDNY CONTACTED SILVERSTEIN? You know only that the call was made in the afternoon. That is all you know. YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW LONG AFTER THE CALL THE BUILDING COLLAPSED.

[pomeroo]

Gee, one thing you sure do not understand is how to research and get information from professionals.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.


NIST published ten thousand pages on the collapses of the towers. You have read none of that material, as you are manifestly incapable of reading technical material. But doesn't it raise a red flag that you, a person with no background whatever in science or engineering, are professing to lecture physicists, metallurgists, engineers, and fire safety experts on the properties of steel? What do you know that the serious researchers don't? (Don't worry--no conspiracy liar has ever attempted to answer that question.)

[I Ratant]

(Ultima1)You are aware ...
.
An overly optimistic assumption.
His total lack of awareness would be painful were it not so pathetic.