Truthers and the FDNY

[johnny karate]

Basilly, anyone's a troll who would have the temerity to question, to debate and present an alternative view.

Incorrect. Trolls are those that post merely to illicit a reaction and/or refuse to engage in honest debate.

Like for instance, when someone implies the FDNY are either cowards or dupes in an attempt to explain their lack of support for controlled demolition hypothesis, gets openly challenged, and then refuses to further address the issue.

Or when someone makes an implication that a construction company was involved in the supposed controlled demolition of the WTC towers, gets proven wrong, and then refuses to further address the issue.

These would be examples of trollish behavior.

Which begs the question why you would even post in such a forum.

Entertainment.

 

[johnny karate]

Its just too bad i can post facts and evidence to support what i post.

I can also show the research i have done to find the truth, you cannot.

In the seven months since you claimed a commander from the FDNY ordered the controlled demolition of WTC7, you've yet to provide a shred of fact or evidence to support this outlandish claim. You have also failed to provide facts or evidence that explain why the FDNY have since denied this ever happpend. Feel free to do so at anytime.

 

[johnny karate]

What exactly is the alternative view you present? I can't figure out what you actually believe.

We know the following:

RedIbis believes controlled demolition was involved on 9/11.

RedIbis possibly believes a construction company that does not actually perform controlled demolitions, or have any particular expertise or knowledge in that field, was involved in the controlled demolition(s) on 9/11. (Why he would believe something so incredibily stupid has yet to be explained as he refuses to discuss it further.)

RedIbis believes the FDNY are either dupes too stupid to recognize a controlled demolition happening right in front of them, or cowards who were coerced into silence after the fact. He refuses to specify which, or further explain exactly what role the FDNY did play on 9/11 if it wasn't one of the above.

 

[RedIbis]

Incorrect. Trolls are those that post merely to illicit a reaction and/or refuse to engage in honest debate.

You mean like this:

Like for instance, when someone implies the FDNY are either cowards or dupes in an attempt to explain their lack of support for controlled demolition hypothesis, gets openly challenged, and then refuses to further address the issue.

Or when someone makes an implication that a construction company was involved in the supposed controlled demolition of the WTC towers, gets proven wrong, and then refuses to further address the issue.

These would be examples of trollish behavior.

Indeed.

 

[johnny karate]

Wrong again. Those would be examples of someone trying to elicit a discussion. I am willing to discuss these topics openly and freely. You clearly are not.

 

[FineWine]

I have posted lots of facts, its not my fault if you do not want to accept them or admit to them.



If you had a reading comprehension level higher then 5th grade you would have known that the document is being reviewed by agencies to declassify it.

I'd bet heavily that my reading comprehension is superior to yours. You haven't presented a single fact since I've been here.

 

[FineWine]

We know the following:

RedIbis believes controlled demolition was involved on 9/11.

RedIbis possibly believes a construction company that does not actually perform controlled demolitions, or have any particular expertise or knowledge in that field, was involved in the controlled demolition(s) on 9/11. (Why he would believe something so incredibily stupid has yet to be explained as he refuses to discuss it further.)

RedIbis believes the FDNY are either dupes too stupid to recognize a controlled demolition happening right in front of them, or cowards who were coerced into silence after the fact. He refuses to specify which, or further explain exactly what role the FDNY did play on 9/11 if it wasn't one of the above.

Well, that would explain why he goes to so much trouble to avoid saying anything.

 

[CORed]

ULTIMA1,

I have to ask this, why exactly would the FDNY blow up the building anyway? It doesn't make any sense.

Well, it's been said many times before, but whether they believe that the FDNY somehow improvised a controlled demolition in a matter of a few hours because Larry Silverstein (who we all know can give orders to the fire department 'cause he's a Joo) told them to pull it, or whether they believe that demolishing WTC7 was part of the plot from the beginning, nobody has come up with a convincing explanation of why anybody would want to demolish WTC7. Now, whether it was Al Queda, or the minions of the NWO, the Zionist conspiracy or the Bush Administration trying to implicate Al Queda to further their evil plots, knocking down the twin towers, two of the tallest buildings in the world and symbols of decadent American capitalism and imperialism, makes sense. But WTC7? A nondescript office building that nobody ever heard of? And demolish it without flying a plane into it and exposing (at least in the minds of truthers) your nefarious plot? Give me a break!

 

[ULTIMA1]

Well, it's been said many times before, but whether they believe that the FDNY somehow improvised a controlled demolition in a matter of a few hours

No one stated it was the FDNY that set up the demolition.

because Larry Silverstein (who we all know can give orders to the fire department 'cause he's a Joo) told them to pull it,

Larry Silverstein did not have any authority to do anythign that day.

It was the fire commader that stated PULL IT not Silverstein.

or whether they believe that demolishing WTC7 was part of the plot from the beginning, nobody has come up with a convincing explanation of why anybody would want to demolish WTC7. !

As stated and proven Chief Hayden was worried about debris if the building collapsed and fire jumping to other buildings.

 

[Gavron]

As stated and proven Chief Hayden was worried about debris if the building collapsed and fire jumping to other buildings.

Hang on....why would they be worried about the building collapsing, when you keep saying no building has ever collapsed from fire before?

Are you now saying a building can collapse from fire?

 

[ULTIMA1]

Hang on....why would they be worried about the building collapsing, when you keep saying no building has ever collapsed from fire before?

Why don't you read the post i stated IF. Do you know what IF means?

 

[Gavron]

...but if a building had never collapsed from fire before, then there would be no if. Are you saying now that buildings can collapse from fire?

 

[ULTIMA1]

...but if a building had never collapsed from fire before, then there would be no if. Are you saying now that buildings can collapse from fire?

Maybe becasue thier was other causes besides or together with fire that might bring the building down. Maybe you should do more research.

 

[beachnut]

...
It was the fire commader that stated PULL IT not Silverstein.
...

PULL IT? What?

The term pull it means they pulled the fire support. Like pulling your security clearance for breaking COMSEC rules.

Ultima1 was leaking classified so we, pulled it, his security clearance.

You got more failed delusion on 911.

 

[Gavron]

Maybe becasue thier was other causes besides or together with fire that might bring the building down. Maybe you should do more research.

You mean a combination of events? Like a plane impact, and resulting fires, that could start a chain of events leading to eventual collapse?

 

[FineWine]

No one stated it was the FDNY that set up the demolition.



Larry Silverstein did not have any authority to do anythign that day.

It was the fire commader that stated PULL IT not Silverstein.




As stated and proven Chief Hayden was worried about debris if the building collapsed and fire jumping to other buildings.

And since "pull it" is firefighter jargon for "get the men out of danger," and NOT a demolition term, you agree that all this talk about demolition is nonsense.

 

[ULTIMA1]

PULL IT? What? The term pull it means they pulled the fire support.

And since "pull it" is firefighter jargon for "get the men out of danger," and NOT a demolition term, you agree that all this talk about demolition is nonsense.

But in this case when he stated PULL IT the firefighters had already long since been evacuated from the building, as stated by Chief Nigro (who became the fire commander).

So he could have only been talking about the building.

 

[Gavron]

...so they decided to send in a demolition team into a burning building, they feel is going to collapse, with no regard to their safety? with explosives? and they wired the whole building to fall in a controlled manner in short time?

where are these men? They should be heroes then...protecting the buildings around and risking their lives to do that.

Please, Roger, show us an interview with one of those brave brave demolition men.


Also, please show us when that has ever been done before. It should be easy for you to find one example of them bringing down a burning multi-story building with a demolition team...after the firefighters have declared it unsafe.

 

[beachnut]

But in this case when he stated it the firefighters had already long since been evacuated from the building, as stated by Chief Nigro (who became the fire commander).

So he could have only been talking about the building.

No the "pull it" refers to fire support and if you think otherwise it proves you are not an analyst but just a 911Truth liar, hearsay repeater, failed delusion weaver, no conclusion fraud, and you can't understand 911 given all the evidence you have to ignore and lie about.

 

[FineWine]

But in this case when he stated it the firefighters had already long since been evacuated from the building, as stated by Chief Nigro (who became the fire commander).

So he could have only been talking about the building.

But he can't have been talking about the building because "pulling" a building MAKES NO SENSE. The conversation between the fire chief and Silverstein is incredibly simple. The rep for the fire department says that the building is dangerously unstable and rescue efforts are going to be, or already have been, stopped. The owner of the building expresses his agreement with that assessment. That's it! Really! There is nothing more to it.