Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

[tomwaits]

I tried asking you before if you thought firefighters were in on it or not, and you refused to answer. This suggests that you do, in fact, think it. However, you can easily change this notion yourself.

 

[The Big Dog]

One of the more distasteful strategies of the debunker crowd is to suggest that such scrutiny of the bldg collapses encompasses firefighters being "in on it."

If you can't quote me making such an absurd claim, please keep that rule 8 away from me.

Thank you.

Well, you are certainly welcome. But perhaps you can see the source of our confusion. You see, around here 2 (Silverstein) + 2 (FDNY Fire Commander) + 2 ("pull it") equals 6 (accusations of FDNY involvement in the CD of WTC 7).

Sorry for drawing that connection. I am certain when you raise the "Pull it" comment you are totally talking about something different. Totally, I mean, you would not want to have people draw that conclusion, now would you?

 

[Swing Dangler]

One of the more distasteful strategies of the debunker crowd is to suggest that such scrutiny of the bldg collapses encompasses firefighters being "in on it."

If you can't quote me making such an absurd claim, please keep that rule 8 away from me.

Thank you.

Not only that Red, if "pull" in this context was meant to mean "demolish" then the firefighters only made the 'decision' when someone else could have had the building rigged.

Here is an example of a firefighters who stopped fighting the fires and then after discussing with a building contractor and then decided to demolish the building albeit without explosives while it was still smoldering.
In this case, the firefighters consulted with the buildings owner before deciding on the fate of the building. Demolition Crews Summoned To Battle Fire Near Tunnel
It was decided to demolish the entire building, Mr. Cruz said, after discussions with a building contractor...Jose Cruz, deputy director of the Fire Department.

 

[MikeW]

There's also the sticky issue that "pull it" is unlikely to refer to the firefighting operation since there were no firefighters in WTC 7 since 11:30am.

That was the verdict of FEMA. NIST spent rather longer on this, though, and they said otherwise:

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...

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

 

[TimB1]

One of the more distasteful strategies of the debunker crowd is to suggest that such scrutiny of the bldg collapses encompasses firefighters being "in on it."

If you can't quote me making such an absurd claim, please keep that rule 8 away from me.

Thank you.

Not only that Red, if "pull" in this context was meant to mean "demolish" then the firefighters only made the 'decision' when someone else could have had the building rigged.

Here is an example of a firefighters who stopped fighting the fires and then decided to demolish the building albeit without explosives while it was still smoldering.

So Red Ibis, Swingdangler is wrong and absurd to suggest that the firefighters were in on it?

 

[Belz...]

One of the more distasteful strategies of the debunker crowd is to suggest that such scrutiny of the bldg collapses encompasses firefighters being "in on it."

If you can't quote me making such an absurd claim, please keep that rule 8 away from me.

Thank you.

Fair enough, but let's make it very clear, shall we ?

Do you think that the firefighters are "in on" this conspiracy ?

If not, how do you reconcile this with the "pull it" argument ? Specifically, why would Silverstein tell the firefighter chief to "pull it" if he wasn't in on it ?

 

[DavidJames]

One of the more distasteful strategies of the debunker crowd is to suggest that such scrutiny of the bldg collapses encompasses firefighters being "in on it.".

You want to have it both ways. You want the US government to be guilty of mass murder but you don't want to soil your pretty reputation by actually accusing anyone.

This is mass murder skippy, lots of blood and death. How about you grow a pair and tell us what happened. Maybe actually say something of substance instead of sniping and trying to play gotcha. This is serious, stop acting like this is a game.

As I expect you will attempt to turn this back around, I support the conclusions published by NIST. So please act like a grown up and tell everyone what you think happened and support it with evidence.

Thanks.

 

[tomwaits]

Fair enough, but let's make it very clear, shall we ?

Do you think that the firefighters are "in on" this conspiracy ?

Don't waste your energy, he won't answer. He knows how to play the game: never say anything concrete because he knows that that way he can always change his position or use completely different arguments with the (mistaken) hope of never contradicting himself. He can always claim "i never said that!" even when it's clear that's what he's implying.

 

[GStan]

Not only that Red, if "pull" in this context was meant to mean "demolish" then the firefighters only made the 'decision' when someone else could have had the building rigged.

Here is an example of a firefighters who stopped fighting the fires and then after discussing with a building contractor and then decided to demolish the building albeit without explosives while it was still smoldering.
In this case, the firefighters consulted with the buildings owner before deciding on the fate of the building. Demolition Crews Summoned To Battle Fire Near Tunnel
It was decided to demolish the entire building, Mr. Cruz said, after discussions with a building contractor...Jose Cruz, deputy director of the Fire Department.

What is the point of this? You have just weakened your own argument. You are providing evidence that there is precedent for firefighters to have openly demolished WTC7 to protect their men. Yet despite this precedent, the firefighters engaged in a conspiracy to cover up something that they had no reason to cover up. And none of the conspirators has given up the secret, a secret that there was no reason to create and maintain in the first place.

Do you have an explanation for why the news story you quoted is relevant to any theories you may hold about 9/11, or why it is relevant to this thread topic?

 

[Swing Dangler]

Fair enough, but let's make it very clear, shall we ?

Do you think that the firefighters are "in on" this conspiracy ?

If not, how do you reconcile this with the "pull it" argument ? Specifically, why would Silverstein tell the firefighter chief to "pull it" if he wasn't in on it ?

One, we are only getting 1/2 of the conversation.
I linked below to an article about the decision to demolish a building while it was on fire due to the structurally unsound nature of the building. The fire official did not want to risk the lives of the firefighters any longer.

So Red Ibis, Swingdangler is wrong and absurd to suggest that the firefighters were in on it?

The story I linked to had firefighters in on "it". That is the decision to demolish a building. It would only be "wrong" if lives were lost in the decision to demolish a building because it was structurally unsound. Your trying to equate a moral decision "right or wrong" in the context of demolishing a building due to structural instability. That is wrong and unnecessary.

 

[johnny karate]

Actually, what is trying to be established is how you feel the example of firefighters demolishing a burning building relates to WTC7. You seem to be implying that they did indeed demolish WTC7, thereby making them accomplices after the fact.

If not, then why bother offering that example?

Edit: Also, it should be noted that many firefighters on the scene gave testimony that not only was WTC7 heavily damaged (a claim many CTers deny), but that it was in imminent danger of collapse. These testimonies can be found here.

So, if WTC7 was a controlled demolition, then how can this be reconciled with a lack of involvement from the FDNY, based on the testimony linked above?

 

[JimBenArm]

Your trying to equate a moral decision "right or wrong" in the context of demolishing a building due to structural instability. That is wrong and unnecessary.

Speaking of wrong and unnecessary, if this was the case, why are they denying it again? Why not come right out and say "we demolished the building because it was in danger of collapse."?

Not that you have an answer that makes a lick of sense. Just like to point out how utterly absurd this argument is.

 

[Swing Dangler]

What is the point of this? You have just weakened your own argument. You are providing evidence that there is precedent for firefighters to have openly demolished WTC7 to protect their men. Yet despite this precedent, the firefighters engaged in a conspiracy to cover up something that they had no reason to cover up. And none of the conspirators has given up the secret, a secret that there was no reason to create and maintain in the first place.

Do you have an explanation for why the news story you quoted is relevant to any theories you may hold about 9/11, or why it is relevant to this thread topic?

1. Debunkers state that CT'ers believe firefighters are in on it because of the decision to "pull it" and well....that is just absurd....your an evil bastard for thinking such things, they are heroes, etc, blah blah.

2. I just showed in fact that firefighters would be expected to be in on a decision to demolish a building while it was on fire due to structurally unsound nature of the building and the safety of the firefighters.

3. If this holds true to WTC 7 and CD, these issue need to be addressed for the CT crowd:

a. Who rigged the building in the first place?

b. When was the building rigged?

c. Why was it rigged?

Assuming it is CD, we know the fire chief consulted with the building owner just like the example below that I linked to. We don't know if either of the men consulted with a contractor or structural engineer as in the case I listed.

I could argue that with regards to the "decision to pull" there isn't a conspiracy at all as I pointed to an example showing just that for safety reasons. The method of demolition of course is the issue.

I don't necessarily agree with the likes of Alex Jones who states the "firefighters" were in on it.

 

[Swing Dangler]

Speaking of wrong and unnecessary, if this was the case, why are they denying it again? Why not come right out and say "we demolished the building because it was in danger of collapse."?

Not that you have an answer that makes a lick of sense. Just like to point out how utterly absurd this argument is.

The fire chief made a decision. Someone else could have performed the act. In the case I pointed to, one of the issues was

...The warehouse's owner, Mecca & Sons Trucking, called in a wrecking company, but the work was delayed because an insurance adjuster had not signed off on the demolition, the fire officials said. Late in the afternoon, the Fire Department gave the wrecking company, Nacirema Environmental Services Group, an ultimatum: Begin dismantling the two brick walls or city crews would be called in to do the work instead.

So perhaps the non-admission has something to do with the Larry's lawsuit, insurance, the need for someone else to sign off on it.

 

[GStan]

1. Debunkers state that CT'ers believe firefighters are in on it because of the decision to "pull it" and well....that is just absurd....your an evil bastard for thinking such things, they are heroes, etc, blah blah.

I've not seen any conspiracy scenarios that include a WTC7 CD that did not require some degree of firefighters being 'in on it' or at the very least, not speaking out about those who were in on it. When firefighter involvement is removed as an assumption, every WTC7 CD theory crumbles to pieces. I would like to hear one that doesn't.

2. I just showed in fact that firefighters would be expected to be in on a decision to demolish a building while it was on fire due to structurally unsound nature of the building and the safety of the firefighters.

Yes. And you've shown why conspiring to hide such a demolition would be stupid and unnecessary.

3. If this holds true to WTC 7 and CD, these issue need to be addressed for the CT crowd:

a. Who rigged the building in the first place?

b. When was the building rigged?

c. Why was it rigged?

Given the underwhelming evidence of 'rigging' there is no point in addressing a, b or c.

Assuming it is CD, we know the fire chief consulted with the building owner just like the example below that I linked to. We don't know if either men consulted with a contractor or structural engineer as in the case I listed.

I could argue that with regards to the "decision to pull" there isn't a conspiracy at all as I pointed to an example showing just that for safety reasons. The method of demolition of course is the issue.

I don't necessarily agree with the likes of Alex Jones who states the "firefighters" were in on it.

my bolding
Its not too late to get out altogether Swing. Grab your critical thinking cap and come on over to the dark side. Trust me, its way more fun to win virtually all the time.

 

[johnny karate]

I suppose one could could speculate about what the fire chief might have done, or simply go to the source.

Swing, Fire Chief Nigro clearly contradicts your speculative claims of what might have transpired that day at WTC7. Your thoughts?

 

[Swing Dangler]

I suppose one could could speculate about what the fire chief might have done, or simply go to the source.

Swing, Fire Chief Nigro clealry contradicts your speculative claims of what might have transpired that day at WTC7. Your thoughts?

I would have to bring into question his entire statement...

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.
Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.
Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

Yet Larry Silverstein and his later released public statement states that Larry was consulted.

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.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001."

So tell me...who is wrong and who is right? Who is lying and who is not?

 

[JimBenArm]

That's easy. You're wrong.

Try something harder next time, 'kay?

BTW, told you you couldn't answer with anything that made sense. Right, again. Yay, me!^TM

 

[Swing Dangler]

That's easy. You're wrong.

Try something harder next time, 'kay?

BTW, told you you couldn't answer with anything that made sense. Right, again. Yay, me!^TM

You wouldn't be captain of your local DODGE ball team would you?

 

[uk_dave]

It depends on whether chief Nigro believed he was consulting the building owner or merely informing him of the situation.

That Silverstein expressed the view that the safety of the firefighters was paramount and the building was secondary doesn't in any way mean that had he said the opposite, chief Nigro would have changed his decision on the day.

You really do have problems with comprehension, don't you swingy?