Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[johnny karate]

What RedIbis claims Silverstein said (emphasis mine):

What about the best thing to do is pull, so we made the decision to pull and watched the bldg fall down, etc etc?

What Silverstein actually said (emphasis mine):

I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

Silverstein never claimed to be a part of the decision to "pull".

You know Red, when accusing others of lying, it helps if you're not caught in a lie yourself.

 

[johnny karate]

Although if asked, I'd say he's probably lying. Somebody is because Nigro said he didn't consult anyone and it was his decision alone to make.

Then that person lied to Silverstein because Nigro said it was his decision alone.

I tend to believe Nigro over Silverstein, especially considering the following:
1) Nigro said it was his decision alone
2) He says he didn't speak with Silverstein, and why would he have to to make that decision?

All the above points are predicated on your lie that Silverstein claimed to be involved in the decision-making process. He didn't. Therefore, your dishonest argument is rendered moot.

 

[johnny karate]

Firefighting was never started in WTC 7 so what was there to pull?

Let's allow Chief Nigro to address that question, since you seem inclined to believe what he says (emphasis mine):

The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely.

Answer your question Red?

 

[johnny karate]

So Red, its been demonstrated that firefighters were "pulled" from WTC7, and that Silverstein never actually claimed to be part of the decision to do so.

Now, remind me again, what was the lie that Silverstein told?

*cue the flapping wings of a fleeing bird*

 

[RedIbis]

So Red, its been demonstrated that firefighters were "pulled" from WTC7, and that Silverstein never actually claimed to be part of the decision to do so.

Now, remind me again, what was the lie that Silverstein told?

*cue the flapping wings of a fleeing bird*

Obviously Larry was including himself in the decision making process when he offered what he thought the smartest thing to do was.

Most people who understand conversational English understand this pretty clearly.

What was the FDNY pulling after consulting Larry? They weren't pulling anyone from the perimeter that had been set up for hours.

 

[johnny karate]

Obviously Larry was including himself in the decision making process...

No, he wasn't. Thus the use of "they" and not "we".

...when he offered what he thought the smartest thing to do was.

Offering an opinion and making a decision are not synonymous terms.

Most people who understand conversational English understand this pretty clearly.

Can you give another example of "conversational English" in which someone might use "they" but really mean "we"? Because most people who know how to use pronouns understand those two words mean completely different things.

Not that I think you actually believe this crap you're slinging. If you did, you wouldn't have lied about Silverstein saying "we" in the first place.

What was the FDNY pulling after consulting Larry?

See my quote from Chief Nigro above.

They weren't pulling anyone from the perimeter that had been set up for hours.

Another lie. See my quote from Chief Nigro above. The evacuation order wasn't even given until an hour and a half before the collapse.

So tell me again Red, what was the lie that Silverstein told?

 

[apathoid]

Boy, that sure back-fired on ya Red. Now I see why you always flee from debate; you quickly get fact-slapped and have to make even more ridiculous assertions like this one:

"Obviously Larry was including himself in the decision making process when he offered what he thought the smartest thing to do was."

This is yet another perfect example why you, as well as 99.99% percent of truthers here, are treated with such disdain. When faced with either admitting you're grossly mistaken or lying, you opt to do neither and defend your utterly false claims with even more silly rhetoric.

...
Most people who understand conversational English understand this pretty clearly.

Is English your first language? Usually, when people say "they" in conversation, they are referring to one or more persons besides themselves. By usually, I mean 99.99999% of the time.

Because Larry suggested something means he was part of the decision making process....really?

 

[RedIbis]

Another lie. See my quote from Chief Nigro above. The evacuation order wasn't even given until an hour and a half before the collapse.

Does Nigro's claim square with other witnesses to the scene as to when the collapse zone was established or did other FDNY personnel put the order much earlier?

And while we're discussing pronouns. I bet you can come up with a situation in which the word "it" is used but you will claim it means "they."

Figure it out yet?

 

[BasqueArch]

What about the best thing to do is pull, so we made the decision to pull and watched the bldg fall down, etc etc?

You guys have already "debunked" that Silverstein was talking about taking down the bldg, so it had to be the ff operation, right?

Maybe there's a third possibility for what he's talking about?

The Pull It Whack-A-Mole​

The firefighters were pretty sure WTC7 was going to collapse and they pulled the guys back, not the building.

From Firehouse Magazine April 2002 - Hayden interview​

"... but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. 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.
...

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. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that’s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that’s a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn’t seem so bad. But that’s what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didn’t want to lose any more people that day.

Silverstein vindicated
FDNY pulled people back not building down​

 

[DGM]

Does Nigro's claim square with other witnesses to the scene as to when the collapse zone was established or did other FDNY personnel put the order much earlier?

And while we're discussing pronouns. I bet you can come up with a situation in which the word "it" is used but you will claim it means "they."

Figure it out yet?

I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

Unless your willing to implicate the FDNY (or find some proof that Silverstein lied and never spoke to anyone) "it" could only mean the firefighting efforts.

 

[johnny karate]

Does Nigro's claim square with other witnesses to the scene as to when the collapse zone was established or did other FDNY personnel put the order much earlier?

You tell me Red. According to the quote from Chief Nigro you provided, he was the sole person in charge of giving the evacuation order.

And while we're discussing pronouns. I bet you can come up with a situation in which the word "it" is used but you will claim it means "they."

No, because I don't need to. "It" could have meant, among other things, "operation".

Figure it out yet?

The only thing I haven't figured out is the lie you think Silverstein told. Because for some reason, you won't just come out and tell us what it was.

 

[RedIbis]

Unless your willing to implicate the FDNY (or find some proof that Silverstein lied and never spoke to anyone) "it" could only mean the firefighting efforts.

As has been explained to you multiple times, there was no firefighting operation in WTC 7.

 

[triforcharity]

Red, what do you call firefighting operations??

If you mean that we were not fighting fire, than yes, because we couldn't.

If you mean we weren't there? Than you are wrong.

Care to elaborate on that?

 

[RedIbis]

Red, what do you call firefighting operations??

If you mean that we were not fighting fire, than yes, because we couldn't.

If you mean we weren't there? Than you are wrong.

Care to elaborate on that?

Alright, I'll play along with another one of your games. When were you in the bldg, when were you told to leave the bldg, and where did you wait for the bldg to collapse?

 

[johnny karate]

As has been explained to you multiple times, there was no firefighting operation in WTC 7.

See my quote from Chief Nigro upthread. There were most certainly FDNY personell in the vicinity of WTC7. Whether or not you prefer to call them a "firefighting operation" is a silly game of semantics.

 

[RedIbis]

See my quote from Chief Nigro upthread. There were most certainly FDNY personell in the vicinity of WTC7. Whether or not you prefer to call them a "firefighting operation" is a silly game of semantics.

I'll try to word it another way. Firefighting was never started in WTC 7. Better?

 

[DGM]

As has been explained to you multiple times, there was no firefighting operation in WTC 7.

It's clear that the FDNY had personnel in the area. What they were doing is irrelevant to a statement that obviously concerned the safety of the firefighters (collapse zone).

 

[johnny karate]

I'll try to word it another way. Firefighting was never started in WTC 7.

Irrelevant to the discussion. We know there were firefighters in the vicinity of WTC7. Whether or not they were literally "fighting fire" is immaterial.

 

[triforcharity]

Alright, I'll play along with another one of your games. When were you in the bldg, when were you told to leave the bldg, and where did you wait for the bldg to collapse?

No, I was not in the building, but I do know that people had searched the building to verify that it was empty. That is a firefighing operation.

After the OOS (officer on scene) told the other members of FDNY to get back.

About 4 blocks awaay from my understanding.

Now, who do you think that FDNY backed away? Because we were afraid? Yes, of having another building fall on more of our men.

 

[RedIbis]

Irrelevant to the discussion. We know there were firefighters in the vicinity of WTC7. Whether or not they were literally "fighting fire" is immaterial.

Obviously there is a misapprehension to clear up when someone says this:

Unless your willing to implicate the FDNY (or find some proof that Silverstein lied and never spoke to anyone) "it" could only mean the firefighting efforts.

Shocking that you wouldn't address this mistake.