Truthers and the FDNY

[funk de fino]

Go right ahead and quote an FDNY member saying that the fire in 7 was "among the largest the FDNY have (sic) ever dealt with".

If there are witness reports that say what I have said above, are they correct?

Why only snip one part of my question?

 

[RedIbis]

If there are witness reports that say what I have said above, are they correct?

Why only snip one part of my question?

Because I don't think you can come up with the quote.

 

[T.A.M.]

I think I know how to find an email address when I need one. This foolish debunking tactic, which we might call the 'why doncha go ask him' challenge looks to deny existing testimony.

Do you want to explain to me how requesting that you actually ASK THE APPROPRIATE PERSON the answers to your questions is some how a "debunking tactic"?

Seriously.

TAM

 

[funk de fino]

Because I don't think you can come up with the quote.

What about the rest?

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] ose any more people

Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it
was tremendous, tremendous fires going on

We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors

Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames.

At this point Seven World Trade was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody
was expecting that to come down.

Because it really got going, that building Seven, saw it late in the day and like the first Seven floorswere on fire. It looked like heavy fire on seven floors. It was fully engulfed, that whole building.

 

[RedIbis]

Do you want to explain to me how requesting that you actually ASK THE APPROPRIATE PERSON the answers to your questions is some how a "debunking tactic"?

Seriously.

TAM

Because these people have already gone through the lengthy and understandably difficult process of giving their widely accessible testimony. It's this testimony which is at the center of the discussion.

 

[RedIbis]

What about the rest?

First of all, post the names, it's public information and makes it possible to follow up. Secondly, admit that you embellished and were unable to provide one quote where a member of the FDNY called WTC 7 "among the largest the FDNY have (sic) ever dealt with".

You made that up, admit it.

 

[funk de fino]

First of all, post the names, it's public information and makes it possible to follow up. Secondly, admit that you embellished and were unable to provide one quote where a member of the FDNY called WTC 7 "among the largest the FDNY have (sic) ever dealt with".

You made that up, admit it.

You've never seen those quotes before then? If I give you names for them you will admit they are true and that WTC7 did indeed have large and heavy fires?

First hand statements, given at the time, is the emphasis or your argument thus far.

Please read my question again.

The nitpick strategy is another twoofer tactic eh?

Lets take the one I gave a name for? Is Nigro incorrect?

 

[bonavada]

First of all, post the names, it's public information and makes it possible to follow up. Secondly, admit that you embellished and were unable to provide one quote where a member of the FDNY called WTC 7 "among the largest the FDNY have (sic) ever dealt with".
You made that up, admit it.

I remember seeing a first responder quote (from memory) "the [WTC 7] fire was the worst that New York had seen" It may have been from Gravy's gargantuan opus.

BV

 

[A W Smith]

Go right ahead and quote an FDNY member saying that the fire in 7 was "among the largest the FDNY have (sic) ever dealt with".

"you know we can handle just about everything, This is beyond" (shakes head)

 

[RedIbis]

You don't think he's making that comment in the context of the entire day, do you?

 

[RedIbis]

You've never seen those quotes before then? If I give you names for them you will admit they are true and that WTC7 did indeed have large and heavy fires?

First hand statements, given at the time, is the emphasis or your argument thus far.

Please read my question again.

The nitpick strategy is another twoofer tactic eh?

Lets take the one I gave a name for? Is Nigro incorrect?

I've read the firefighter testimonies. That's why I asked you specifically for that one since I don't contest the fact that some FDNY did report a fully involved bldg. Some even said that every floor was involved. But since the NIST report, we know that's not accurate. Is he a liar? Not at all, that's why a range of reports must be considered.

But what you are not doing is admitting that no one called the WTC 7 fire, "among the largest the FDNY have (sic) ever dealt with".

 

[johnny karate]

Hmm... suddenly RedIbis is concerned about being precise in interpreting firefighter testimony? That's a big turnaround from earlier in this thread when he would just make up his own version of what they said.

 

[RedIbis]

Hmm... suddenly RedIbis is concerned about being precise in interpreting firefighter testimony? That's a big turnaround from earlier in this thread when he would just make up his own version of what they said.

Total BS. Quote me making up my own versions of what anyone said.

 

[WildCat]

Has RedIbis found a firefighter yet who thought there were bombs, only to change his mind later after being told what to think?

 

[johnny karate]

I've read the firefighter testimonies. That's why I asked you specifically for that one since I don't contest the fact that some FDNY did report a fully involved bldg. Some even said that every floor was involved. But since the NIST report, we know that's not accurate. Is he a liar? Not at all, that's why a range of reports must be considered.

Seems reasonable enough. Unless of course you expect RedIbis to apply this same principle to his own arguments, in which case he has this to say:

Sure, weeks, months, maybe years later, these people were informed of what the source of their initial descriptions were, but as any detective worth his/her salt knows, it's always the first interview which is most important. How people choose to interpret their experience later on is often of little consequence compared to the value of that first, unadulturated account.

For those of you playing along at home, here's what we have so far according to the RedIbis method of applying glaringly inconsistent logic to one's thinking:

Possibly suspicious events at WTC7 that may indicate a controlled demotion: It's the initial, uninformed reports that serve as the ultimate authority.

Judging the size and scope of the fires at WTC7: We cannot trust the initial, uninformed reports. It's only later after all the information has been gathered that we can determine the truth.

Try not to get whiplash keeping up with him.

 

[A W Smith]

You don't think he's making that comment in the context of the entire day, do you?

No he was not, he was commenting on building 7 specifically.

addtionally the title of that video is

Firefighter comments on WTC 7 on 9/11

You would have to be a dunce to miss that.

 

[johnny karate]

Total BS. Quote me making up my own versions of what anyone said.

Sure thing, sport.

When asked this:

So how come the FDNY knew that WTC7 was going to collapse?

You answered with this:

Because as Capt. Currid explains, the OEM had passed the word to the street.

And yet, what Currid actually said was this:

According to Captain Michael Currid, the sergeant at arms for the Uniformed Fire Officers Association, some time after the collapse of the North Tower, he sees four or five fire companies trying to extinguish fires in Building 7 of the WTC. Someone from the city’s Office of Emergency Management tells him that WTC 7 is in serious danger of collapse.

Currid never says or even implies that the OEM "passed the word to the street" regarding the collapse of WTC7, nor does he say or even imply that the OEM is the FDNY's source of said knowledge.

He said one thing. You tried to make seem as if he said something else.

I now expect you to retract your slanderous "BS" accusation.

 

[RedIbis]

No he was not, he was commenting on building 7 specifically.

addtionally the title of that video is


You would have to be a dunce to miss that.

Fair enough. We disagree. We also agree that some firefighters said that every floor in WTC 7 was on fire.

Do you think this is accurate?
Does NIST support this observation?

 

[RedIbis]

Sure thing, sport.

When asked this:


You answered with this:


And yet, what Currid actually said was this:



Currid never says or even implies that the OEM "passed the word to the street" regarding the collapse of WTC7, nor does he say or even imply that the OEM is the FDNY's source of said knowledge.

He said one thing. You tried to make seem as if he said something else.

I now expect you to retract your slanderous "BS" accusation.

We went over this already.

But I appreciate your reminding us that Currid received word of the collapse from the OEM.

 

[johnny karate]

Fair enough. We disagree. We also agree that some firefighters said that every floor in WTC 7 was on fire.

Do you think this is accurate?
Does NIST support this observation?

But wait... what about when you said this:

Sure, weeks, months, maybe years later, these people were informed of what the source of their initial descriptions were, but as any detective worth his/her salt knows, it's always the first interview which is most important. How people choose to interpret their experience later on is often of little consequence compared to the value of that first, unadulturated account.

Why wouldn't you apply this crack method of investigation in determining the size and scope of the WTC7 fires?