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

[stateofgrace]

But i have posted evidence that the firemen were out of the building BEFORE the call.

So what time was the call made?

 

[FineWine]

But i have posted evidence that the firemen were out of the building BEFORE the call.

You do not know when, or if, the call to Silverstein was made, so you cannot possibly state that anything happened earlier or later. You are comparing something to nothing.

 

[FineWine]

Last post on thie issue..


IF YOU CANNOT POST ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE FIREMEN WERE IN THE BUIDLING WHEN THE CALL TO SILVERSTEIN WAS MADE OR THAT THE FIRE CHIEFS WERE LYING ABOUT THE TIME THE FIREMEN WERE OUT OF THE BUIDLING THEN YOU MUST ADMIT THE FIRE COMMANDER MEANT THE BUIDLING WHENHE STATED PULL IT.

See post #669. More importantly, see a doctor.

It is not possible to "pull" a skyscraper. The concept makes no sense. "Pulling" does not refer to explosives. The FDNY does not do demolitions.

Finally, for something you can understand--

YEEHAH!!!!!

 

[ULTIMA1]

It is not possible to "pull" a skyscraper.

Are you sure, i mean even one that is severly damaged and unstable according to reports?

The concept makes no sense. "Pulling" does not refer to explosives. The FDNY does not do demolitions.

I never stated anything about explosives.. There is more then 1 way to bring down a building, specailly one that is already unstable.

 

[stateofgrace]

I never stated anything about explosives.. There is more then 1 way to bring down a building, specailly one that is already unstable.

Name them.

 

[ULTIMA1]

Name them.

Cutting beams with mechanical or chemical cutters just for 1 other way.

 

[stateofgrace]

Cutting beams with mechanical or chemical cutters just for 1 other way.

And this is relevent to "pull it", how ?

 

[FineWine]

Are you sure, i mean even one that is severly damaged and unstable according to reports?




I never stated anything about explosives.. There is more then 1 way to bring down a building, specailly one that is already unstable.

You must stop.

NOBODY connected with the FDNY ever said anything about "bringing down" WTC 7. You have been caught lying.

You keep trying, insanely, to compare the time the last firefighter left the collapse zone (approximately 3:30 PM, according to Chief Hayden's estimate) with the time of the courtesy call to Silverstein. BUT YOU DON'T KNOW THE TIME OF THE CALL!!

You CAN'T compare a known time to an unknown one.

And it makes no difference in any case.

 

[Pardalis]

Name them.

Let it collapse on its own is one.

 

[ULTIMA1]

NOBODY connected with the FDNY ever said anything about "bringing down" WTC 7. You have been caught lying.

So fun and easy to prove you wrong with facts.

http://researchris.blogspot.com/2008/12/fdny-lieutenant-admitted-plan-to-take.html
FDNY lieutenant David Rastuccio in an interview with MSNBC stated there was a plan to bring down buidling 7.

 

[Pardalis]

Are you sure, i mean even one that is severly damaged and unstable according to reports?
I never stated anything about explosives.. There is more then 1 way to bring down a building, specailly one that is already unstable.

BTW, I just picked up on another little nugget of logical inconsistency in your theory.

If the building was unstable and dangerous, and you contend that the firemen were worried about further loss of life, then why would they risk the demolition experts lives to put charges or whatever device they would have to use against the beams? That would have been an extremely hazardous thing to try to do, as you seem to agree.

Wouldn't the best way to avoid any more loss of life be... Tadaaa, let it collapse on its own?

 

[ULTIMA1]

Let it collapse on its own is one.

Then it would of collapsed to the side that was damaged and casued mor damage and spread more fires that the firemen could not fight.

 

[ULTIMA1]

BTW, I just picked up on another little nugget of logical inconsistency in your theory.

If the building was unstable and dangerous, and you contend that the firemen were worried about further loss of life, then why would they risk the demolition experts lives to put charges or whatever device they would have to use against the beams? That would have been an extremely hazardous thing to try to do, as you seem to agree.

But fire rescue teams go into unstable buildings all the time to rescue people.

Wouldn't the best way to avoid any more loss of life be... Tadaaa, let it collapse on its own?

You mean let it collapse and cuase more damage amd more fires putting more lives in danger?

 

[Pardalis]

So fun and easy to prove you wrong with facts.

http://researchris.blogspot.com/2008/12/fdny-lieutenant-admitted-plan-to-take.html
FDNY lieutenant David Rastuccio in an interview with MSNBC stated there was a plan to bring down buidling 7.

The clip doesn't say that at all. He just said it would have to be taken down, eventually.

BTW, we don't hear any demolition charges on the video.

 

[stateofgrace]

Then it would of collapsed to the side that was damaged and casued mor damage and spread more fires that the firemen could not fight.

Are you on something pal, Two massive buildings had just collapsed, or don't you think they noticed that? Are you accusing the firemen of bringing down WTC 7? As a damage limitation exercise?

They brought down a empty building to save lives?

Are you being serious?

 

[Pardalis]

But fire rescue teams go into unstable buildings all the time to rescue people.

But this time there were nobody left in and around the building, risking people's lives to destroy the building would have been unnecessary.

You mean let it collapse and cuase more damage amd more fires putting more lives in danger?

We don't know how it would have collapsed. The area was cleared.

And again, why cover it up? The question isn't going away.

 

[DGM]

Then it would of collapsed to the side that was damaged and casued mor damage and spread more fires that the firemen could not fight.

Actually it would have caused less damage that way. I'll let you figure out why if you can.

 

[Pardalis]

Are you on something pal, Two massive buildings had just collapsed, or don't you think they noticed that? Are you accusing the firemen of bringing down WTC 7? As a damage limitation exercise?

They brought down a empty building to save lives?

Are you being serious?

And for some reason they decided to covered this up, they mislead the public and the 9/11 Commission, and involved the NIST in their cover up, which in turn for some other unfathomable reason they accepted and falsified their report.

It makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[ULTIMA1]

They brought down a empty building to save lives?

They brought down a building on fire and was unstable to keep it from causing any more damage and more fires that the firemen could not fight. As supported by Chief Haydens statements.

 

[A W Smith]

So fun and easy to prove you wrong with facts.

http://researchris.blogspot.com/2008/12/fdny-lieutenant-admitted-plan-to-take.html
FDNY lieutenant David Rastuccio in an interview with MSNBC stated there was a plan to bring down buidling 7.

no he didn't. they were not that far along. IF the building didn't come down on its own. which everyone expected. then it would have to be taken down. That's not "a plan". Furthermore he states it came down on its own. which debunks your assertion that it was demolished

"We had first reports that the building was unstable and that it was best for it to come down on its own orit would be taken down, I would imagine that it came down on its own."