You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
So Silverstein "pulled" his buildings so he could go broke rebuilding them?
- Thread starter Travis
- Start date
-
- Tags
- larry silverstein wtc
...
No, we are saying you are lying.
Why are you calling the fire chiefs liars?
Stundied!
You did not read Chief Haydens statement, if you did you would have seen the following. They were worried about fire spreading.
I did, and it is absolutely clear his main worry was the safety of his men.
So this is what you claim was the reason for taking it down deliberately?Also common sense and basic intelligence states that if the building would have collapsed on its own it would have collapsed to the side that was damaged. Also casuing more damage to other buidlings and spreading fires.
In the Hayden quotes you gave me, "to pull" clearly is used to refer to the firefighters.
Yes, the firemen were pulled put of the buidling early in the day before the call, so when the fire commender stated it in the call he was talking about the building.
Do you understand the difference?
Also, you still need to show me what was the emergency to take down the building.
As stated by Chief Hayden, they were worried about fire spreading and they did not have the water supply to fight more fires.
[and it is absolutely clear his main worry was the safety of his men.
Yes thats why they were pulled out early in the day BEFORE the call.
So this is what you claim was the reason for taking it down deliberately?
Its not my claim its the facts per the fire chiefs.
Why are you calling the fire chiefs liars?
David Brent: How old would you say I was, if you didn't know me?
Employee: Forty?
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0315041/ David Brent: No, how old do you think I look?
Employee: Ummm... thirty-nine?
David Brent: Most people think I look about thirty.
Employee: Definitely not.
David Brent: Oh, are you calling them liars?
Its not my claim its the facts per the fire chiefs.
It is your claim and you're a liar.
Yes, the firemen were pulled put of the buidling early in the day before the call, so when the fire commender stated it in the call he was talking about the building.
The quotes you gave me say nothing of the sort.
As stated by Chief Hayden, they were worried about fire spreading and they did not have the water supply to fight more fires.
Yes thats why they were pulled out early in the day BEFORE the call.
Assuming this is true, this means the reasons for taking WTC7 down weren't nefarious. So why cover this up and lie about it?
Why not just come out and say this is what they did to avoid more damage? Why mislead everyone, and involve NIST in their lie?
It is your claim and you're a liar.
So your calling the fire chiefs liars too, ok.
The quotes you gave me say nothing of the sort.
Chief Hayden gives the time when the firmen wre pulled back.. Its hours before the buidling was brought down.
Assuming this is true, this means the reasons for taking WTC7 down weren't nefarious. So why cover this up and lie about it?
Don't ask me ask the people that were there.
So your calling the fire chiefs liars too, ok.
This is a serious question: Do you have some sort of mental disability?
You know, the only other person that I know who purported the theory that they pulled WT7 for "humanitarian" reasons is Pd'oh.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75954&highlight=aphelion
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75954&highlight=aphelion
Chief Hayden gives the time when the firmen wre pulled back.. Its hours before the buidling was brought down.
And when do you claim the Silverstein call was made?
It doesn't make any sense.Don't ask me ask the people that were there.
You understand it has to make sense to be a valid theory?
Last edited:
And when do you claim the Silverstein call was made?
It had to be after the firemen were pulled out becasue of Chief Nigro stating he did not talk to anyone (including the fire commander).
Let me make it simple.
If Chief Nigro pulled the firemen before talking to anyone that means he did not get an order from the fire commender to pull the firemen after talking to Silverstein. That means the fire commander could have only been talking about the building when he stated pull it becasue the firemen were already out of the building having been evacuated by Chief Nigro and Chief Hayden.
You understand it has to make sense to be a valid theory?
It makes perfect sense if you look at the facts.
Last edited:
It had to be after the firemen were pulled out becasue of Chief Nigro stating he did not talk to anyone (including the fire commander).
And where is your evidence for that?
If Chief Nigro pulled the firemen before talking to anyone that means he did not get an order from the fire commender to pull the firemen after talking to Silverstein. That means the fire commander could have only been talking about the building when he stated pull it becasue the firemen were already out of the building.
All you gave me is Hayden's quote, where he repeatedly says they had to pull their men to avoid further loss of life, which oddly mirrors Silverstein's comment.
It makes perfect sense if you look at the facts.
No it doesn't, there is zero motive to lie about it, and involve the NIST.
It makes perfect sense if you look at the facts.
Actually, the facts destroy your insane, libelous "theory." Your insane, libelous "theory" only makes sense in your fantasy, pretend NSA world.
And where is your evidence for that?
Chief Nigros own statment. You really should learn how to do research.
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.
All you gave me is Hayden's quote, where he repeatedly says they had to pull their men to avoid further loss of life, which oddly mirrors Silverstein's comment.
But according to Chief Hayden it was Chief Nigro who ordered him to pull the firemen out. Chief Nigro gave that order before talking to anyeon incldung the fire commander that would be talking to Silverstein.
The lose of life comment was talking about the buidling collapsing and casing more damage and spreading more fire.
Chief Nigros own statment. You really should learn how to do research.
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.
He could have made the decision and then called Silverstein, Silverstein did say "And they made the decision to pull...".
"They made the decision" implies he wasn't part of the decision.
So? The call to Silverstein could have been made anytime after the decision was made, what does it matter? Nigro made the decision, and then called his chiefs to pull everyone out. Where's the problem?But according to Chief Hayden it was Chief Nigro who ordered him to pull the firemen out. Chief Nigro gave that order before talking to anyeon incldung the fire commander that would be talking to Silverstein.
You don't know that, it mirrors perfectly Hayden talking about his men.The lose of life comment was talking about the buidling collapsing and casing more damage and spreading more fire.
And again, what could possibly be the motive to make this all secret, and cover this up?
He could have made the decision and then called Silverstein,
But he does not state that, he stated he did not talk to anyone when he made the decision.
Silverstein did say "And they made the decision to pull...".
"They made the decision" implies he wasn't part of the decision.
He was talking about the fire commander and incident command. Silverstien had no authority of what was gong on, it was the fire commanders call as far as what to do, he just gave Sivlerstein a courtesy call.
Nigro made the decision, and then called his chiefs to pull everyone out. Where's the problem?
Problem is then that since the firemen were out of the buidling before the call was made then PUL IT could not have meant pulling the firemen, they were already pulled out.
Last edited:
But he does not state that, he stated he did not talk to anyone when he made the decision.
He was talking about the fire commander and incident command. Silverstien had no authority of what was gong on, it was the fire commanders call as far as what to do, he just gave Sivlerstein a courtesy call
OK, it's a done deal, Silverstein wasn't part of the decision making process. So what? Why are you babbling on about his quote for?
Problem is then that since the firemen were out of the buidling before the call was made then PUL IT could not have meant pulling the firemen, they were already pulled out.
You just showed an interview with Hayden where he repeatedly uses the word "pull" to refer to the firefighters.
We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety. [...]
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.
Last edited: