Re: If WTC 7 came down from fire and debris ..

[[email protected]]

TRUTH wrote:
> then why did the leaseholder say....
>
>
> "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling
> me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and
> I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to
> do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the
> building collapse

Because he had decide to abandon any attempt to preserve the
building and was willing to pull any efforts to do so.

> http://www.911blogger.com/files/video/wtc7_pbs.WMV
>
> WTC 7, a 47 story steel framed building built in 1987, collapsed
> completely, near freefall speed.

That's how they tend to collapse.

> WTC 7 housed the Secret Service's LARGEST field office
> www.g4tv.com/techtvvault/features/27904/Ground_Zero_for_the_Secret_Service.
> html
>
> Would the SS have an office in a building that could collapse like that?

Yes. They aren't civil engineers ya know. I'd bet several dollars
that
none of the occupants knew of the Rubegoldberg foundation structure
that building sat upon.

[Michael]

These posts just crack me up! This is like my uncle saying he was safe
from hurricanes since he lives near Cape Kennedy. "NASA would not have
built all this here if it could be wiped out by a hurricane."

ROTFLMAO

Keep up the posts. I need my morning comic relief!

[TRUTH]

" > wrote in
oups.com:

> TRUTH wrote:
>> then why did the leaseholder say....
>>
>>
>> "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander,
>> telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain
>> the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe
>> the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to
>> pull and we watched the building collapse
>
> Because he had decide to abandon any attempt to preserve the
> building and was willing to pull any efforts to do so.


"Pull" is an industry term that means professionally demolish, as is
confirmed by this clip from the same PBS documentary:
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/video/wtc7/pull_wtc6.wmv





>> http://www.911blogger.com/files/video/wtc7_pbs.WMV
>>
>> WTC 7, a 47 story steel framed building built in 1987, collapsed
>> completely, near freefall speed.
>
> That's how they tend to collapse.


When taken down by pre-positioned explosives.



>
>> WTC 7 housed the Secret Service's LARGEST field office
>> www.g4tv.com/techtvvault/features/27904/Ground_Zero_for_the_Secret_Ser
>> vice. html
>>
>> Would the SS have an office in a building that could collapse like
>> that?
>
> Yes. They aren't civil engineers ya know. I'd bet several dollars
> that
> none of the occupants knew of the Rubegoldberg foundation structure
> that building sat upon.
>

[Dan]

TRUTH wrote:
> " > wrote in
> oups.com:
>
>> TRUTH wrote:
>>> then why did the leaseholder say....
>>>
>>>
>>> "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander,
>>> telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain
>>> the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe
>>> the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to
>>> pull and we watched the building collapse
>> Because he had decide to abandon any attempt to preserve the
>> building and was willing to pull any efforts to do so.
>
>
> "Pull" is an industry term that means professionally demolish, as is
> confirmed by this clip from the same PBS documentary:
> http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/video/wtc7/pull_wtc6.wmv
>
>
No matter how you spin it neither the leaseholder nor the fire chief
were in the demolition business so what they meant is not likely the
same thing.
>
>
>
>>> http://www.911blogger.com/files/video/wtc7_pbs.WMV
>>>
>>> WTC 7, a 47 story steel framed building built in 1987, collapsed
>>> completely, near freefall speed.
>> That's how they tend to collapse.
>
>
> When taken down by pre-positioned explosives.

Which you still haven't explained HOW they got there, who did it nor
how preparations, taking weeks, were made without anyone noticing. You
have to be able to explain that if you want us to believe there was a
demolition such as you keep trying to foist on us.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Johnny Bravo]

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 01:03:53 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:

>"Pull" is an industry term that means professionally demolish, as is
>confirmed by this clip from the same PBS documentary:
>http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/video/wtc7/pull_wtc6.wmv

The fire department is the controlled demolitions industry?

Bull****.

"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 we watched the building
collapse."

-he was talking to the fire commander

-the fire commander is not in the demolition business

Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:

"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department
Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr.
Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to
contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important
thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary,
to have them withdraw from the building."

He could be lying right? But here is the corroborating evidence...

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade
Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of
the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner
of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade
Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I
just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled
us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were
really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped
everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody
back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in
the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't
really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people
that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ski_Richard.txt

Here is more evidence they pulled the teams out waiting for a normal collapse
from fire...

"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" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...igro_Daniel.txt

"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both
impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a
concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A
collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected
collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was
considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building
and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the
type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...IC/Cruthers.txt

"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going
to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the
main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a
half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were
there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like
crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire
there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from
all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a
while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed....
Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got
a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...yan_William.txt

WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after
the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene.
Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into
Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse
Magazine, 8/02]

According to Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, "there is a bulge in the southwest
corner of the building between floors 10 and 13."[Firehouse Magazine, 4/02]

Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you
could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]

Deputy Chief Nick Visconti also later recalls recounts, "A big chunk of the
lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side." Captain Chris Boyle
recalls, "On the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the
building, with fire on several floors."[Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]


But you go right on believing that the New York Fire Department executed a
controlled demolition of a smoke filled burning building in less than 90 minutes
like some squad of demolition wizards with wands of building destruction.

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Thu, 16 Mar 2006 01:03:53 GMT,
TRUTH attempted to say .....

> " > wrote in
> oups.com:
>
> > TRUTH wrote:
> >> then why did the leaseholder say....
> >>
> >>
> >> "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander,
> >> telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain
> >> the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe
> >> the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to
> >> pull and we watched the building collapse
> >
> > Because he had decide to abandon any attempt to preserve the
> > building and was willing to pull any efforts to do so.
>
>
> "Pull" is an industry term that means professionally demolish, as is
> confirmed by this clip from the same PBS documentary:

How is that a professional term in the fire fighting industry ?

Because that is who said it, a firefighter, not a demo expert.


>
> >> http://www.911blogger.com/files/video/wtc7_pbs.WMV
> >>
> >> WTC 7, a 47 story steel framed building built in 1987, collapsed
> >> completely, near freefall speed.
> >
> > That's how they tend to collapse.
>
>
> When taken down by pre-positioned explosives.

Back to this silliness again.
Do you trust pre positioned explosives to go off as planned when there is a
rather large raging fire in the structure ?

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[mrtravel]

TRUTH wrote:

> " > wrote in
> oups.com:
>
>
>>TRUTH wrote:
>>
>>>then why did the leaseholder say....
>>>
>>>
>>>"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander,
>>>telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain
>>>the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe
>>>the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to
>>>pull and we watched the building collapse
>>
>> Because he had decide to abandon any attempt to preserve the
>>building and was willing to pull any efforts to do so.
>
>
>
> "Pull" is an industry term that means professionally demolish, as is
> confirmed by this clip from the same PBS documentary:
> http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/video/wtc7/pull_wtc6.wmv


Pull has multiple meanings.
YOUR meaning makes no sense in the context of his sentence.
Clearly what ever "pull" he was talking about, he was talking about it
after the event. He wasn't indicating it to be the cause.

[Roger]

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 03:27:32 GMT, Tank Fixer
> wrote:

<silliness Snip>
>
>Back to this silliness again.
>Do you trust pre positioned explosives to go off as planned when there is a
>rather large raging fire in the structure ?

There was a good documentary on this with engineers explaining how the
building design failed under unexpected circumstances and did so in a
plain language explanation even the most diehard conspiracy theorist
would have difficulty explaining away. However there are those who
make up their minds and do not want to be confused with facts.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[TRUTH]

mrtravel > wrote in news:7z8Sf.56908$Jd.7047
@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:

> TRUTH wrote:
>
>> " > wrote in
>> oups.com:
>>
>>
>>>TRUTH wrote:
>>>
>>>>then why did the leaseholder say....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander,
>>>>telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain
>>>>the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe
>>>>the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to
>>>>pull and we watched the building collapse
>>>
>>> Because he had decide to abandon any attempt to preserve the
>>>building and was willing to pull any efforts to do so.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Pull" is an industry term that means professionally demolish, as is
>> confirmed by this clip from the same PBS documentary:
>> http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/video/wtc7/pull_wtc6.wmv
>
>
> Pull has multiple meanings.
> YOUR meaning makes no sense in the context of his sentence.
> Clearly what ever "pull" he was talking about, he was talking about it
> after the event. He wasn't indicating it to be the cause.
>


It makes perfect sense. And if you heard it in any situation other than
9/11, it would make sense to you to. You need to put all the information
into context

[TRUTH]

Roger > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 03:27:32 GMT, Tank Fixer
> > wrote:
>
> <silliness Snip>
>>
>>Back to this silliness again.
>>Do you trust pre positioned explosives to go off as planned when there
>>is a rather large raging fire in the structure ?
>
> There was a good documentary on this with engineers explaining how the
> building design failed under unexpected circumstances and did so in a
> plain language explanation even the most diehard conspiracy theorist
> would have difficulty explaining away. However there are those who
> make up their minds and do not want to be confused with facts.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com
>



They obviously did so without examining all the evidence.

[[email protected]]

TRUTH wrote:
> Roger > wrote in
> :
[snip]
> > There was a good documentary on this with engineers explaining how the
> > building design failed under unexpected circumstances and did so in a
> > plain language explanation even the most diehard conspiracy theorist
> > would have difficulty explaining away. However there are those who
> > make up their minds and do not want to be confused with facts.
[snip]
>
>
> They obviously did so without examining all the evidence.

Nothing could be further from the TRUTH.

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Thu, 16 Mar 2006 03:01:07 -0500,
Roger attempted to say .....

> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 03:27:32 GMT, Tank Fixer
> > wrote:
>
> <silliness Snip>
> >
> >Back to this silliness again.
> >Do you trust pre positioned explosives to go off as planned when there is a
> >rather large raging fire in the structure ?
>
> There was a good documentary on this with engineers explaining how the
> building design failed under unexpected circumstances and did so in a
> plain language explanation even the most diehard conspiracy theorist
> would have difficulty explaining away. However there are those who
> make up their minds and do not want to be confused with facts.
>

So very true.


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:54:59 GMT,
TRUTH attempted to say .....

> Roger > wrote in
> :
>
> > On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 03:27:32 GMT, Tank Fixer
> > > wrote:
> >
> > <silliness Snip>
> >>
> >>Back to this silliness again.
> >>Do you trust pre positioned explosives to go off as planned when there
> >>is a rather large raging fire in the structure ?
> >
> > There was a good documentary on this with engineers explaining how the
> > building design failed under unexpected circumstances and did so in a
> > plain language explanation even the most diehard conspiracy theorist
> > would have difficulty explaining away. However there are those who
> > make up their minds and do not want to be confused with facts.
>
>
> They obviously did so without examining all the evidence.

In your opinion.






--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Roger]

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:54:59 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:

>Roger > wrote in
:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 03:27:32 GMT, Tank Fixer
>> > wrote:
>>
>> <silliness Snip>
>>>
>>>Back to this silliness again.
>>>Do you trust pre positioned explosives to go off as planned when there
>>>is a rather large raging fire in the structure ?
>>
>> There was a good documentary on this with engineers explaining how the
>> building design failed under unexpected circumstances and did so in a
>> plain language explanation even the most diehard conspiracy theorist
>> would have difficulty explaining away. However there are those who
>> make up their minds and do not want to be confused with facts.
>>
>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>>
>
>
>
>They obviously did so without examining all the evidence.

I rest my case <:-))

And as there is no reason to follow this any farther.
<Thread Plonk>

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com