Which FDNY called Larry?

Originally posted by GenRadek
Explosives create an initial detonation of high velocity which decreases exponentially immediately afterwards. They never explode and then pick up speed after detonation, explosives do not work this way.

Please clarify this statement for me. I really have no idea how you determine an exponential decay after an explosion?

What 'velocity' are you referring to? Matter, blast wave?

reply to post by tezzajw


I want you to remember his words which are the one's he copied from the debunker website. When I release my video, he's going to be sorely mistaken!

reply to post by _BoneZ_

It's cool, Bonez. GenRadek may have accidentally left a few key words out of his sentences. I'll give him the chance to explain himself.

He once claimed that there was jet fuel that flowed down the elevator shafts in the towers, yet he could never prove how much of it there was.

Besides, discussing the 'velocity' of the 'explosions' might be his off topic way of avoiding the question in the OP. Which FDNY called Larry? It's easier to derail a thread, rather than attempt to honestly answer the question.

I'll be looking forward to your movie. Screening at all non-NWO cinemas, no doubt!!!

Originally posted by rhunter

Oh, so you are merely making off-topic (non-Larry Silverstein related) logical fallacies then. Thank you for clarifying that point for us Dave.

Hardly. Pointing out that the truther movement is putting out gigantic amounts of bad information is a relative topic in all of these threads.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Pointing out that the truther movement is putting out gigantic amounts of bad information is a relative topic in all of these threads.

Bad information? This from someone who purposely put out bad information:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Then your common sense may be skewed because in the very same documentary a few minutes after Larry said "pull it", they were talking about "pulling" WTC6. Since "pull" is a demolition term and was used as such in the documentary, you would contact a demo company, not a fire department.

Then, you only contradict yourself yet again, since you yourself admit Silverstein should have been discussing "pull it" with a demo company, not a fire department.

Either fire departments are involved in demolitions or they aren't. You can't have it both ways as it suits your purpose.

Furthermore, there's quite a bit more to the 9/11 truth movement than "a bunch of college students making internet flicks". That statement shows how unresearched and naive you really are. Or you are just flat-out attacking, which is what debunkers like to do when their "evidence" gets debunked.

I have yet to see anything even remotely resembling evidence from the conspiracy people, only innuendo, quotes taken out of context, outright falsehoods, and never ending chains of Conspiracies covering up conspiracies within conspiracies.

You yourself have all but admitted that most, if not all, of your conspiracy stories hinge entirely on the necessity that Silverstein's "pull it" comment first has to mean something different from what he says it means. Do you really, and I mean really think this is "evidence"?

There is the possibility that Larry was trying to give an explanation as to why it was so obvious that WTC7 fell exactly like a controlled demolition. The documentary was well before the "official" explanation.

Your penchant for inserting make believe to fill in the gigantic gaps in your stories doesn't exactly convince me of anything. You should know that.

Wow, you really are either trying to be blatantly untruthful or you didn't read anything in this thread and are just posting to see your words on the screen. As I mentioned above, after Larry said "pull it", several minutes later in the same documentary, they talk about pulling WTC6. That doesn't sound like "only truthers" are insisting.

Bait and switch. They "pulled" WTC6 literally, as in with cables, not controlled demolitions. It wasn't lingo of anything, it was an explicit description of what they did. Unless you're now attempting to claim WTC7 was pulled down with cables, the only person being blatantly untruthful here is you.

Care to take back your statement above? Only disinfo artists purposely peddle false information. It's been shown more than twice that "pull it" is a demolition term and nowhere other than your own text has it been shown to be anything else.

Ahem. We can either accept the context that Silverstein wanted to pull out the firefighters to save lives, as his own office confirmed later, or we can accept some bizarre and convoluted scenario where Silverstein asked the fire department to blow up a building despite the fact that fire departments don't blow buildings up, which would save lives in some inexplicable way, but would only risk Lives by sending fire fighters in to rig demolitions, and yet Silverstein later tried to conceal that he tried to save Lives, with the assistance of thousands of people to keep it all secret.

Dude, if you're so hard core devoted to defending this convoluted alternative story which only gets even more convoluted the more you try to defend it, then whatever your motives are, the earnest search for the truth certainly ain't it.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Then, you only contradict yourself yet again, since you yourself admit Silverstein should have been discussing "pull it" with a demo company, not a fire department.

Prove that Silverstein discussed the 'pull' with any fire department.

That's the whole point of this thread, isn't it? Which FDNY called Larry?

Will someone be able to conclusively prove which FDNY called Larry? Was there even a phone call made? Who did Larry speak to?

Until that can be established, then there's no basis to believe that Larry is being honest about the call.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
or we can accept some bizarre and convoluted scenario where Silverstein asked the fire department to blow up a building despite the fact that fire departments don't blow buildings up

I again post EMT Ingra Singh's testimony where the fire department is again associated with controlled demolition:

"The fire department. And they did use the words 'we're gonna have to bring it down' and for us there observing the nature of the devastation it made total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility..."

Larry uses demolition lingo with the fire department, EMT Indra Singh said the fire department was considering bringing down the building, both instances concerning WTC7. Either they're both lying, or maybe some of those firemen weren't really firemen and could have been agents disguised as firemen.

Until you figure out why at least two people are associating controlled demolition with firemen at WTC7, and WTC7 indeed fell exactly like a controlled demolition, then anything you say is just conjecture or opinion only.

Here's three links that I think are interesting:

"About 40 Bay City residents are homeless today when the fire department was forced to have a burning three story apartment house demolished to quell the blaze."
www.mybaycity.com...

"However, demolition workers have been knocking down large parts of the building to make the area safe so we hope to have the fire out as soon as possible."
news.bbc.co.uk...

"He said firefighters wanted to control which way the building would fall to prevent any damage being caused to a nearby electricity sub station and to put the blaze out more quickly."
news.bbc.co.uk...

Then three of my questions are: Was the NY Fire Department willing to risk WTC7 becoming totally engulfed in flames? Were they prepared to allow the fire to spread to adjacent buildings i.e. the Verizon building and the Post Office building? What plans, if any, did they have if this were to have happened?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Bad information? This from someone who purposely put out bad information:

Oh, really? What, exactly, in that post was "purposely bad information"? Silverstein's office did confirm he was referring to the fire fighters safety when he made that interview. WTC 6 really was demolished by pulling it down with cables. Plus, it certainly doesn't make any sense whatsoever for Silverstein to try to cover up demolishing a dangerously unstable building in order to save Lives. Where is the bad information in any of that?

If *that* is all you can come up with to refute my own claim that the truthers are themselves putting out bad information like "no planes hit the wtc", "Laser beams from outer space", "nukes in the basement", etc., then your desperation is certainly showing. At what point will it dawn on you that the more absurd that defending these conspiracy scenarios are forcing you to become, the more obvious it should be that these conspiracy scenarios are wrong.

Originally posted by NIcon
"About 40 Bay City residents are homeless today when the fire department was forced to have a burning three story apartment house demolished to quell the blaze."

Dude, are you being serious? I Looked at this Link, and not even a few lines down, I see...

"Former tenants of the 25-unit apartment building stood by Thursday watching their home be torn down "bite by bite". Dore & Associates Contracting, Inc. which specializes in demolition and other environmental services, was called to duty to bring in their equipment and tear down the apartment building.

"We were called in because tearing her down was the only way to get oxygen to the pockets of fire caused by the collapse", said Art Dore, CEO of Dore & Associates, Inc."

Therefore, it wasn't fire fighters who did the demolition, it was a professional demolition crew, and they didn't try to keep it concealed, everyone was standing around watching them. There couldn't have been any demolitions at wtc7 because fire fighters don't do demolitions, no demolitions company were ever in the vicinity at the time, and there wouldn't have been any coverup even if there were.

Without meaning to, you just proved everything I had been saying all along about how unrealistic these conspiracy stories are. Thank you.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Dude, I'm completely serious. The whole point of the post was to show that it may be a possibility that the fire department decided to take the building down. Also, I would like you to notice at no time in this post do I refer to "no planes hit the wtc", "Laser beams from outer space", "nukes in the basement" since you do seem inordinately preoccupied with those lines of thinking.

My main line of questioning of that post was: were the fire department concerned with the danger to the other buildings and would it have been possible for them to determine to take it down before the fire became out of control. The links were there to show that other fire fighters have used this method to control fires.

Now as for no demolition teams being in the area, you may be correct or you may be incorrect. I would like to refer to a paper that I would rather not link to (my fingers are cringing just typing this) but as a lot of people take credence to what this paper says, I will. If you take a look at www.jod911.com... and go to page 9 of 11 (???) on point 5 you will clearly be able to read "5. Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC7 from within a few hundred feet of the event." So were they there? I don't know as I don't trust this paper. But it's a good question. (Also, would this paper be a case of "truthers" putting out bad information? Or would this be "debunkers" putting out bad information? Or is it bad information at all?)

And also I'd like to point out once again, no where in this post am I in anyway referring to "no planes hit the wtc", "Laser beams from outer space", "nukes in the basement." Thank you.

Edited: be a "debunker" to be "debunkers".... I might as well discredit them all for the act of one.... isn't that how it's done here?


[edit on 3-5-2009 by NIcon]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Larry uses demolition lingo with the fire department, EMT Indra Singh said the fire department was considering bringing down the building, both instances concerning WTC7. Either they're both lying, or maybe some of those firemen weren't really firemen and could have been agents disguised as firemen.

Now, you see? This is exactly why your claims of Conspiracy are patently absurd. You have all but admitted yourself that to fill in the gigantic gaps in Your conspiracy claims you have to insert make believe stories of secret agents, collaborators, and cover ups all over the place, and the more you try to flesh out your Conspiracies, the more secret agents there necessarily has to be.

The gov't is in on it. Silverstein is in on it. The fire department is in on it. The police are in on it. The NY port authority is in on it. NIST is in on it. FEMA is in on it. MIT is in on it. By the time you're through, you're accusing tens of thousands of people who are in on it, for a conspiracy that I can't even fathom could ever be "secret", to secretly rig occupied buildings with demolitions in the first time in recorded history, all entirely based upon the weight of one person claiming she heard, "We're going to have to bring it down".

Do I really have to tell you that you're stretching, and mighty badly, at that?

reply to post by NIcon


Explain how demolishing an old factory building correlates to a 47 floor,
1 million sq foot skyscaper?

If you read the story find that the building was already gutted by fire and
was ordered torn down by FD to uncover hidden pockets of fire - structure
was too unsafe to enter.

Just last week neighboring city demolished 5 houses after fire destroyed
them during general alarm fire.

Buildings are often ordered demolished after fire to remove hazard and
prevent subsequent fires.

reply to post by thedman

thedman, I'd be mighty happy to explain my line of thought here, but first you must check out my third link because it has the quote that started this train chugging along. I'll post it just in case you don't want to check it out. It's the quote that's shown under the nice picture of Simon Nash and it says "It [demolition] is the only way that we're going to put this fire out properly."

So just thinking out loud now: The firemen were aware that WTC7 was on fire, but did they know how bad the fire would get? They couldn't adequately fight it as there was little to no water pressure, but I assume they would not want it to get worse. They also thought it was possible it could collapse, but did they know when? Or how bad the fire would be at that time? Did they know if and when it collapsed in which direction it would fall? Would it fall into the Post Office causing that to start fire? Would it fall into the Verizon building starting that on fire? If any of those two scenarios happened, what would they have done seeing as they had little to no water pressure? Did they perhaps forsee conditions spreading throughout lower Manhattan so they maybe thought demolition before things got worse?

So I'm just wondering if they may have had this man Simon's quote run through their head on that day. Pure speculation on my part I'll admit, but it's interesting. At least I think it is.

Somehow you missed the point - FF do NOT demolish buildings! The
incident commander will call in the building inspector to determine if
structure is unsafe - then either have owner demolish it or call in
demolition company to do it and bill owner.

Problem is you CANT demolish a 47 floor structure in a few minutes - it
takes months to prepare and rig a building for demolition - even then in
Manhattan it is illegal to use explosives to bring down a building

The fire chief had no way to know if, when and where WTC 7 would collapse - they pulled their men back to watch and wait to see what would
happen . The chief wanted to get he men out of the way of the collapse
zone - buildings can be replaced, people can not

Many of my friends were across the street at World Financial Center 3
fighting fire started by debris from WTC 1 (North Tower) collapse - they
were pulled back out of collapse zone. I heard the orders being given
to the battalion chief in command over the radio - was listening on scanner
to them. Our department was on standby in case needed at scene.

I show three links where fire fighters have had buildings demolished to help contain and/or put out a fire. Then in my second post I show that "several" demolition crews may have been at the scene. And all you can say is FF do not demolish buildings, that they usually get demolition companies to do it? Please, I need a little more input than that.

So somehow you are missing the point of my train of thought. My main question is: did they ever consider by them just standing back and waiting to see what happened to WTC7 that the situation could have gotten a whole lot worse? Did they consider by just standing back that other buildings could be destroyed? Did they consider since supposedly they had little to no water pressure that a chain reaction of burning buildings could occur from just standing back and seeing what happens to WTC7?

And you are correct it usually takes months of planning to take down a building, but what you are forgetting is on September 11, 2001 there was a set of extra extra extra extra extra extra ordinary circumstances. This was no run of the mill Tuesday, I'm sure what ever officials monitor the use of explosives in NYC would surely have looked the other way on that day. What if the fire department did go to these demolition crews which may have been there and said "Now listen boys, we need to take this down before we have the Great Fire of Chicago on our hands. We think it's clear up to the 6th floor, here's the plans, so get to work." Would they not have found the volunteers to "save Manhattan"? Would it be possible to take it down in a few hours to "save Manhattan"?

Admittedly, this would have been a great gamble, but wasn't it a gamble just sitting back and waiting, too? Without water, who knows what may have happened. My point being they may have been in a position of they were durned if they do and durned if they don't. It's just thoughts, but I know I would not want to be in the position to have to make that decision.

Here's a good rebuttal to myself: That's all fine and dandy NIcon, but did you ever consider that they may have thought about a demolition, but seeing as they had no water pressure, maybe they ruled it out because if something went tragically wrong, they would still not be able to do anything about it.

Then I'd rebut: Good point NIcon, I'll have to consider that. But would their consideration of a tragic outcome override the chance of success? They may have foreseen that which ever action they took it could end up in exactly the same way. But which course of action would be most likely not to go wrong? Thanks for your input.

Then I'd respond: No problem NIcon. I have no idea what may or may not have gone through their minds.

Then I'd respond back: Me neither.

Originally posted by NIcon
Here's a good rebuttal to myself: That's all fine and dandy NIcon, but did you ever consider that they may have thought about a demolition, but seeing as they had no water pressure, maybe they ruled it out because if something went tragically wrong, they would still not be able to do anything about it.

Nah, that's not a rebuttal I would use, myself. *My* rebuttal would be...

Imagine you're a demolitions engineer. You're standing at the WTC complex and you just saw two gigantic skyscrapers collapse, killing thousands. The whole place is all smashed up and it looks like Berlin at the end of WWII, fires are burning left and right, and you can't even see beyond 25 yards from all the smoke and dust fillign the air. WTC 7 has a huge gouge in it from where one of the towers fell on it. It too has fires, and it's such a death trap that the fire fighters themselves were ordered to get the heck away from it. THEN, someone tells you that becuase WTC 7 is so dangerous and can fall down any minute, you'll need to go inside and set demolition charges to bring it down.

Question- would you respond with ...

a) "Sir, yes sir!", or,

b) "[censored] you and the horse you came in on, I ain't going in there!"

I'm sure I speak for all these supposed secret agents when I say that they don't relish the idea of getting squished, either. I think *that* is about the best rebuttal to these conspiracy stories of all.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

I would most definitely respond with option B. Thank god there weren't too many people like me on D-Day. But then I have seen amazing things done by amazing people, some of which we saw on that very day of 9-11.

I also wonder if I were to somehow get out of my chicken-poop body and take the place of a demolitions engineer standing at Ground Zero and someone came up to me and said "We're in deep doo doo.... we can't put out the fire and it may spread throughout Manhattan destroying everything. Can you help?" What would be my reaction.

But that's only something I can imagine. We need to get more grounded in some sort of reality here. Did everyone agree with the Firemen's assesment of WTC7? I don't think so. If you take a look at this document: media.nara.gov... and scroll to page 2 of 6 it says:

"However, at 4:15 p.m., Con Ed employee Fred Sims had spoken to the fire department and told Con Ed headquarters that they thought WTC 7 would collapse. The fire department asked Con Ed to shut down the power to WTC 7 which they did. This cut off power to Park Place, Battery Park City and Cortlandt. They were able to shut this down remotely from the West End Avenue. Con Ed decided, however to leave the transmission line open to service Fulton Street because they were not positive the building would fall and it was servicing Beekman Hospital which they thought may have been needed to care for casualties. When WTC 7 finally did collapsed at 5:20 p.m., it severed cables and collapsed the other two substations."

Why did they go against the firemen's wishes? Why did the firemen only at 4:15 contact them to shut down the power, if the building was poised to collapse at anytime from 10:30 to 4:15? What happened around 4:15 to spur this decision? Just more questions.

Also, what secret agents are we talking about? I could have sworn that what I'm referring to is the demolition crews that may have been there at 3:00 p.m..... that is if that Brent Blanchard is not trying to blow smokem up all of our rumpuses with his paper.

Edit: added an "is"



[edit on 4-5-2009 by NIcon]