This guy admits something big, but falls short, why?

originally posted by: scottyirnbru
a reply to: kaptabs316

Because he's not talking about knocking the building down!!!!!!!!! He says pull it as in pull the guys out of the way. Pulling it is not a demolition term. I'm amazed that we are actually having this conversation. Why would he admit to blowing up his own buildings on tv? I honestly can't believe that you actually think that is a rational and reasonable belief.

Silverstein's Quote:"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."

Pull it = remove people from area.

since when do u refer to multiple people as a singular "it"?

wouldnt it be "pull them out" or at least "pull them"?

the fact he said "it" proves he is talking about a singular inanimate object

aka building 7

geez

originally posted by: Another_Nut

originally posted by: scottyirnbru
a reply to: kaptabs316

Because he's not talking about knocking the building down!!!!!!!!! He says pull it as in pull the guys out of the way. Pulling it is not a demolition term. I'm amazed that we are actually having this conversation. Why would he admit to blowing up his own buildings on tv? I honestly can't believe that you actually think that is a rational and reasonable belief.

Silverstein's Quote:"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."

Pull it = remove people from area.

since when do u refer to multiple people as a singular "it"?

wouldnt it be "pull them out" or at least "pull them"?

the fact he said "it" proves he is talking about a singular inanimate object

aka building 7

geez

I'll ask you the same question.

Why doesn't the FDNY admit that they pulled it for safety reasons?

Nobody would fault them for that.

a reply to: lexyghot

because there were no safety reasons

its all a big lie

now i answered u how about u answer me?

originally posted by: Another_Nut
a reply to: lexyghot

because there were no safety reasons

its all a big lie

now i answered u how about u answer me?

So then the FDNY knocked down a building for no reason at all?

That's an odd view, to say the least.

Why would they do that?

"The next one will be worse." That one line is enough to make me believe. How can hundreds of thousands of survivors make up the same lie? Why? What would even be the point?

originally posted by: lexyghot

originally posted by: Another_Nut
a reply to: lexyghot

because there were no safety reasons

its all a big lie

now i answered u how about u answer me?

So then the FDNY knocked down a building for no reason at all?

That's an odd view, to say the least.

Why would they do that?

i didnt say no reason...i said no saftey reason

now

why dont u quit avoiding my question ?

why would soneone refer to multiple people as a singular inanimate object?

just answer

originally posted by: Another_Nut

originally posted by: lexyghot

originally posted by: Another_Nut
a reply to: lexyghot

because there were no safety reasons

its all a big lie

now i answered u how about u answer me?

So then the FDNY knocked down a building for no reason at all?

That's an odd view, to say the least.

Why would they do that?

i didnt say no reason...i said no saftey reason

SO the FDNY is not only in the business of controlled demolition, but covers it up? And no one seems to know this but a few 9/11 truthers?

That's even nuttier.

I have no interest in discussing Larry. I already gave the "you" the point that he decided to have 7 "pulled".

I'm merely interested in examining the logic chain that tells you that the FDNY is in the business of blowing up buildings, but NOT for safety reasons, and what you think their motive is for both doing it and keeping quiet about it.

Do you have a chain of logic, other than a circular one, that led you to this conclusion?

Cuz I can't see one.

a reply to: lexyghot

but u wont examine the logic of

"pull it" means people?

troll is as troll does

good day

originally posted by: Another_Nut
a reply to: lexyghot

but u wont examine the logic of

"pull it" means people?

troll is as troll does

good day

I'm giving you that cuz it can be misconstrued to be whatever you want it to mean. There's no point in argueing it then.

But the other part of the claim is crystal. the claim is that the FDNY pulled 7.

originally posted by: lexyghot

originally posted by: Another_Nut

originally posted by: scottyirnbru
a reply to: kaptabs316

Because he's not talking about knocking the building down!!!!!!!!! He says pull it as in pull the guys out of the way. Pulling it is not a demolition term. I'm amazed that we are actually having this conversation. Why would he admit to blowing up his own buildings on tv? I honestly can't believe that you actually think that is a rational and reasonable belief.

Silverstein's Quote:"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."

Pull it = remove people from area.

since when do u refer to multiple people as a singular "it"?

wouldnt it be "pull them out" or at least "pull them"?

the fact he said "it" proves he is talking about a singular inanimate object

aka building 7

geez

I'll ask you the same question.

Why doesn't the FDNY admit that they pulled it for safety reasons?

Nobody would fault them for that.

Are you serious? FDNY won't admit that for the same reason that the Pentagon won't admit there was no 757 in their front yard--it would formally acknowledge the hoax.

FDNY knows (but few discuss) that a building cannot be rigged for CD in just an afternoon. It takes days or weeks or even more. They know it would be absurd to suggest that they rigged it in less than a day.

• SO the FDNY is not only in the business of controlled demolition, but covers it up? And no one seems to know this but a few 9/11 truthers? That's even nuttier.
  

Why is it so nutty that they would cover it up? Especially with the gov backing them up.

a reply to: scottyirnbru

Silverstein's Quote:"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." Pull it = remove people from area.

That's preposterous. They made the decision to pull it. Why would he refer to a bunch of people as an "it"? I don't even understand how you could be so blind. I'd take "they made the decision to pull it" as a way of saying pull out, give up on trying to save the fire.

originally posted by: PageLC14

• SO the FDNY is not only in the business of controlled demolition, but covers it up? And no one seems to know this but a few 9/11 truthers? That's even nuttier.
  

Why is it so nutty that they would cover it up? Especially with the gov backing them up.

It's nutty to believe that only a handful of internet sleuths believe that the FDNY demolishes buildings.

So do you think that they demolished it for safety reasons?

Or for no reason other than to kowtow to TPTB?

originally posted by: Salander


Are you serious? FDNY won't admit that for the same reason that the Pentagon won't admit there was no 757 in their front yard--it would formally acknowledge the hoax.

So then you also believe that the FDNY is inonit, eh?

FDNY knows (but few discuss) that a building cannot be rigged for CD in just an afternoon. It takes days or weeks or even more. They know it would be absurd to suggest that they rigged it in less than a day.

We agree on this. So does the rest of the world.

However, the rest of the world says it's nutty to think that buildings have explosives preplanted in them, just in case a fire breaks out.

Your argument would be much better if you wanted to use the accepted fact that an actual CD company was there prior to 7's collapse, advised the FDNY on how to do it or volunteered to do it themselves, and then ran with the idea that they blew col 79, since NIST has publically stated that blowing that single column would collapse 7.

Doing this would avoid all the erroneous statements, based on incredulity, that we see from truthers today.

a reply to: lexyghot

It seems likely that ELEMENTS of FDNY were in on it. That is, certain high ranking individuals. The rank and file members were NOT in on it, and that's why there are so many candid statements from rank and file members, statements that tend to contradict the official story. "It looked like a foundry" being but one of those statements.

Just as certain individuals at American Airlines and United Airlines were in on it, not the rank and file members.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: lexyghot

It seems likely that ELEMENTS of FDNY were in on it. That is, certain high ranking individuals.

That's unlikely, since many of these high ranking guys had sons and brothers die in the collapses.

a reply to: lexyghot

Certain individuals, not all individuals.

Somebody within the command structure had to know, because they were announcing its imminent collapse for perhaps several hours.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: lexyghot

Certain individuals, not all individuals.

Somebody within the command structure had to know, because they were announcing its imminent collapse for perhaps several hours.

You're living in a fantasy world.

the FDNY does not demo buildings.

You have an outrageous claim. You need extraordinarily strong evidence to make an argument that should even be considered.

Innuendo and supposition does not cut the mustard.

Your claim fails.

where are these pic's?