So Silverstein "pulled" his buildings so he could go broke rebuilding them?

[Dipsy]

Ultima1, you're just wasting everyone's time. It's boring. You're boring. Go and spout to the half dozen mental cases who take you seriously on your truther board. You and Heiwa can have a splendid time giving each other lovebites, but just just go away and stop boring the adults.

Dipsy.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

But any research done will show that fire commanders, fire chiefs and fire marshalls can bring down a building in an emergency.

that's not what you said. You said you needed time to gather your proof that a 40 story building had been pulled prior to 9-11. I gave you 2 days. It turned into 16 days and you still haven't posted what you promised. Sure, you've had time to register and post at the LCF and a few other places, but you don't have time to post your all damning evidence that a 40 plus story building has been "pulled" before 9-11? You still haven't done so.

Ergo, I don't think you have any proof, I don't think you will ever have any proof, and the fact that you said you did, but don't, makes you a LIAR.

Good day, sir. I said good day!

 

[BigAl]

But any research done will show that fire commanders, fire chiefs and fire marshalls can bring down a building in an emergency.

I think you meant "watch buildings collapse" with as little death and collateral damage as possible.

That's what happened to WTC7.

 

[johnny karate]

Let the record show that johnny karate concedes that he is dishonest and does not have the information that he stated he did.

BTW: There is no pretend NSA for you to send anything to,,, please stop being dishonest and stop living in a fantasy world.

Please read carfully or have someone read it for you:

Has anyone at Pretend NSA Headquarters been able to find why everyone involved in this perfectly innocuous demolition decided to lie to the world about it? Please check with your fellow pretend analysts at your next pretend meeting and get back to me.

If you cannot do this then you and other have been dishonest about having the information.

 

[FineWine]

But we do know that Chief Nigro evacuated the firemen without talking to anyone. That means he did not talk to Silverstein or the fire commander.

Nigro says that he did not talk with Silverstein. We'll take his word for it. He says he doesn't know who called Silverstein. We'll take his word for it.

So you are saying Silverstien lied about the call.

It's possible. Personally, I think that someone made a courtesy call to the owner of WTC 7 informing him of the fire department's decision to halt operations and pull the men. That, however, is my opinion, and not a provable fact. For all I know, Silverstein's ego was bruised when efforts to save his building were abandoned and nobody bothered to tell him. He may have invented a tiny role for himself in the day's historic events. That's a bit of a problem for your side. The conversation in which Silverstein agreed with the department's decision to "pull" may not have occurred.

Yes it was before Chief Nigro talked to anyone as he has stated.

You use the bizarre phrase, "talked to anyone." Shouldn't it be obvious that Nigro had to talk with someone in order to implement his evacuation order? Think about it.

Yes we do know unless your calling Chief Hayden a liar.



Yes we do know unless your calling Chief Hayden a liar.



Yes we do unless your calling Chief Nigro and Chief Hayden liars.

You are having tremendous difficulties with a very simple concept. Try this approach: Grab a crayon and draw two boxes, one on the left and one on the right. They can be squares or rectangles. Actually, any quadrilateral will do. Next, write inside the box on the left the time the men were pulled from the collapse zone. Yes, I understand that you DON'T KNOW the exact time. Hayden gave us a suggestive range, 3:00 PM to 3:30 PM, so pick any time within that range. Choose whatever appeals to you. It might be 3:12 PM, or it might be 3:29. If you want to use 2:57 PM or 3:42 PM, I won't quibble. Next, write inside the box on the right the time the courtesy call to Larry Silverstein was made. Now, compare the two times you have written and see if you can determine which time is the earliest.

What's that you say? You say that you can't compare the times because one of your boxes is empty? Aha! We are making progress. Listen closely: there is a good reason why the box on the right is empty. It is empty because you DON'T KNOW what to write in it. And you DON'T KNOW what to write because you DON'T KNOW what time the call to Silverstein was made. If you have worked hard on this problem, as I suggest that you do, you have learned something important. In order to compare two things, it is necessary to know what both of them are. Knowing about only one of them is not sufficient.

Our conclusion is that we DON'T KNOW if all the men had been pulled from the collapse zone before the call to Silverstein was made because we DON'T KNOW when the call was made. If you browse through the pages of this absurdly swollen thread, you will notice this theme being repeated over and over. That is a clue for you.

 

[FineWine]

No, actually he supports the fact that since the firemen were out of the building before the call then the fire commander could have only been talking about the building when he stated pull it.

NOBODY who works in demolition recognizes the phrase "pull it" as relating in any way to explosives. It is IMPOSSIBLE to "pull," attach cables and attempt to pull off its center of gravity, a 47-story building. NOBODY talked about "pulling" World Trade Center 7. It makes absolutely no sense to talk about "pulling" such a large building. It can't be done. The FDNY talks about "pulling" contingents of firefighters. It does not talk about "pulling" buildings.

You must stop.

 

[Audible Click]

Well done, FineWine.

 

[FineWine]

But any research done will show that fire commanders, fire chiefs and fire marshalls can bring down a building in an emergency.

Absolutely nothing "shows" that any protocol exists for bringing down with explosives a 47-story building. The job would require teams of demolition professionals working for weeks. You are lying.

You must stop.

 

[FineWine]

http://www.firefightingnews.com/article.cfm?articleID=59146

You will see that the fire chief talks about taking the building down under emergency orders.

We see that he is talking about a TWO-story building, not a massive FORTY-SEVEN-story skyscraper that would require many weeks of preparation to bring down.

 

[Dave Rogers]

What's that you say? You say that you can't compare the times because one of your boxes is empty? Aha! We are making progress. Listen closely: there is a good reason why the box on the right is empty. It is empty because you DON'T KNOW what to write in it. And you DON'T KNOW what to write because you DON'T KNOW what time the call to Silverstein was made. If you have worked hard on this problem, as I suggest that you do, you have learned something important. In order to compare two things, it is necessary to know what both of them are. Knowing about only one of them is not sufficient.

A little while ago I coined the term "unevaluated inequality fallacy" to describe this problem. It's a classic piece of truther non-reasoning. The Twin Towers fell too fast to be anything but a controlled demolition. How fast did they fall? We don't know, but it was too fast. How fast do buildings collapse due to fire and impact damage? We don't know, but it's not that fast. The collapse of WTC7 didn't look right. How should it have looked? I don't know, but it shouldn't have looked like it did. The debris field from flight 93 was too large. How big should it have been? I don't know, but it should have been smaller. There wasn't enough debris on the Pentagon lawn. There wasn't enough debris at Ground Zero. There were too many military exercises going on during the 9/11 attacks. And so on ad infinitum.

Good luck with trying to educate ULTIMA1 in the fundamentals of rational thought. Nobody's managed yet, but who knows? You may be the first.

Dave

 

[FineWine]

Well done, FineWine.

Thanks, Audible Click. I'm glad you enjoyed my little spoof. Seriously, do you think he really can't grasp what is being said to him? Is that possible? I start out having fun, then the fun turns into frustration. He says over and over that the men were pulled before the call to Silverstein was made. Wouldn't you think that he must, at some point, acknowledge that he doesn't know when, or even if, that call was made? As I have asked, if he's deliberately telling lies, why lie so stupidly? I confess that I'm genuinely puzzled.

 

[A W Smith]

a backhoe took down building seven?

We see that he is talking about a TWO-story building, not a massive FORTY-SEVEN-story skyscraper that would require many weeks of preparation to bring down.

http://www.lincolncourier.com/archive/x1647202066/Chief-Fire-damage-at-1-million

After the fire burned out late Friday night, emergency workers determined the building had to come down. They brought in a large backhoe, which went to work as firefighters continued spraying down the still-smoking rubble.
They worked for some time in the only pool of light in downtown Lincoln. AmerenCILCO workers had cut power to a grid serving about 1,200 people to prevent complications with the fire earlier that night, so lights were brought in to guide the demolition process.

http://www.lincolncourier.com/archi...00ae9f38d9079739d6ac75c380428cce00aded151.jpg


http://www.wickedlocal.com/il-peori...Lincoln-community-rallies-after-fire?view=pop



from
http://www.firefightingnews.com/article.cfm?articleID=59146

Emergency operations involved the assistance of the following public agencies and organizations:
Mutual aid fire departments: Lincoln Rural, Atlanta, Mount Pulaski, Beason, Elkhart, Latham, New Holland, Sherman, Williamsville, Warrensburg, Bloomington, Decatur, MABAS Division 46 and 51.
Other agencies and organizations: Logan County Paramedic Association, Logan County E-911 Dispatch Center, Logan County Emergency Management Agency, Lincoln Police Department, Logan County Sheriff’s Department, Illinois State Police, Lincoln Public Works Department, Salvation Army of Macon County, American Red Cross, Goodman’s Excavating of Lincoln, AmerenCILCO utility company and American Water Company.
The Lincoln Fire Department expresses thanks for all the assistance from these agencies and organizations and the numerous individuals and businesses that helped or offered to help.
The cause of the fire is still under investigation.

 

[FineWine]

A little while ago I coined the term "unevaluated inequality fallacy" to describe this problem. It's a classic piece of truther non-reasoning. The Twin Towers fell too fast to be anything but a controlled demolition. How fast did they fall? We don't know, but it was too fast. How fast do buildings collapse due to fire and impact damage? We don't know, but it's not that fast. The collapse of WTC7 didn't look right. How should it have looked? I don't know, but it shouldn't have looked like it did. The debris field from flight 93 was too large. How big should it have been? I don't know, but it should have been smaller. There wasn't enough debris on the Pentagon lawn. There wasn't enough debris at Ground Zero. There were too many military exercises going on during the 9/11 attacks. And so on ad infinitum.

Good luck with trying to educate ULTIMA1 in the fundamentals of rational thought. Nobody's managed yet, but who knows? You may be the first.

Dave

I love the term you formulated! Hits the nail on the head!

We can't properly assess the possibility of educating Ultima1 in logic unless we can somehow know whether his spectacular obtuseness is real or feigned. Frankly, I don't have the answer. He keeps trying to pretend that he's "proved" somehow that fire chiefs were talking about "pulling" a 47-story building. He makes no concessions to reality. The impossibility of "pulling" such a massive structure doesn't dissuade him from claiming that sane adults were talking about doing it. He ignores the fact that "pulling" is not demolition jargon for using explosives. You can repeat these points from now until doomsday, but they never penetrate his skull. I don't understand what is going on here.

 

[FineWine]

http://www.lincolncourier.com/archive/x1647202066/Chief-Fire-damage-at-1-million

http://www.lincolncourier.com/archi...00ae9f38d9079739d6ac75c380428cce00aded151.jpg


http://www.wickedlocal.com/il-peori...Lincoln-community-rallies-after-fire?view=pop

Yes, excellent research. But--the question remains, does he get it? Does he grasp the difference between a small structure and a massive skyscraper? If he does, why does he pretend not to? I always find myself asking the same question: if the "truther" understands himself to be attempting a deception, who is he trying to deceive?

 

[Audible Click]

Thanks, Audible Click. I'm glad you enjoyed my little spoof. Seriously, do you think he really can't grasp what is being said to him? Is that possible? I start out having fun, then the fun turns into frustration. He says over and over that the men were pulled before the call to Silverstein was made. Wouldn't you think that he must, at some point, acknowledge that he doesn't know when, or even if, that call was made? As I have asked, if he's deliberately telling lies, why lie so stupidly? I confess that I'm genuinely puzzled.

IMO he does this because he knows we'll eventually get frustrated and he likes to push our buttons. Maybe he craves negative attention because nobody with an ounce of critical thinking skills would post the things that he does.

 

[MikeW]

He says over and over that the men were pulled before the call to Silverstein was made. Wouldn't you think that he must, at some point, acknowledge that he doesn't know when, or even if, that call was made?

I believe the "logic" goes something like this.

Silverstein said "And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse".

The "and then" establishes that there's an immediate causal link between "the decision to pull" and "we watched the building collapse".

Silverstein wouldn't have used that form of words if the gap between the call and the collapse had been 3 hours or so.

Therefore the call must have been later.

So yes, it's just the usual desperate word parsing that truthers regularly use in lieu of evidence. (Apologies if he's said that already, I'm not about to waste any more of my life wandering through the thread reading Ultima1 posts.)

 

[A W Smith]

Yes, excellent research. But--the question remains, does he get it? Does he grasp the difference between a small structure and a massive skyscraper? If he does, why does he pretend not to? I always find myself asking the same question: if the "truther" understands himself to be attempting a deception, who is he trying to deceive?

I added a fourth link there which proves that Goodman excavating performed the demo (with its excavator (backhoe)) and NOT the fire department.

 

[FineWine]

I believe the "logic" goes something like this.

Silverstein said "And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse".

The "and then" establishes that there's an immediate causal link between "the decision to pull" and "we watched the building collapse".

Silverstein wouldn't have used that form of words if the gap between the call and the collapse had been 3 hours or so.

Therefore the call must have been later.

So yes, it's just the usual desperate word parsing that truthers regularly use in lieu of evidence. (Apologies if he's said that already, I'm not about to waste any more of my life wandering through the thread reading Ultima1 posts.)

You're exactly right. Silverstein's statement is vague. We really can't infer from it how much time elapsed between the courtesy call and the collapse of the building. Normal people frequently talk in this manner, and sometimes the imprecision gives rise to confusion. I could say that, "I decided to put an end to his annoying requests for loans during poker games, and I watched him start hitting on other players." When did the guy last ask me for a loan? When he did he first ask someone else? We just don't know. The statement does not allow us to determine how much time elapsed between my decision and the physical acts affected by it.

As always, the question remains, If the "truthers" don't understand such a simple concept, why don't they?

 

[Gavron]

that's not what you said. You said you needed time to gather your proof that a 40 story building had been pulled prior to 9-11. I gave you 2 days. It turned into 16 days and you still haven't posted what you promised. Sure, you've had time to register and post at the LCF and a few other places, but you don't have time to post your all damning evidence that a 40 plus story building has been "pulled" before 9-11? You still haven't done so.

Ergo, I don't think you have any proof, I don't think you will ever have any proof, and the fact that you said you did, but don't, makes you a LIAR.

That's it in a nutshell. Unless he thinks a backhoe knocked down WTC7, he has no proof of a 40+ story burning building being "pulled". He has been caught in a lie, and cannot back out of it now.

 

[MikeW]

As always, the question remains, If the "truthers" don't understand such a simple concept, why don't they?

They do understand it. But they'll take whatever "anomalies" they can get (or generate). It's just the same as pretending that "our purpose was to document the event" implies foreknowledge, that Barbara Olson asking "what shall I tell the pilot" means he was sitting with her in the back of the plane, that Andrews AFB having "combat ready" fighters on 9/11 means they were available on alert. It's desperate word parsing, where they place their own interpretation on a sentence and base an entire argument on the meaning of one or two words, and it's at the heart of many truther arguments.