British Democracy Forum - View Single Post

youcanhandlethetruth · 15-02-2008, 05:27 PM

It's still very confusing to me.

Sorry to bore you with examining the evidence comprehensively, but it's very important we don't just accept it without looking closer at these websites claims. Ok here we go..........

I agree with the second paragraph, but if we accept they were in the Verizon building as you say, then the first paragraph sounds like it contradicts it because it says:

"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."

Anyone reading that paragraph, would naturally assume he is referring to WTC7.

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."

Ok so are they implying there was a raging inferno in WTC7 ?
Not according to the website author who says:

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]

Also if you look at the following quote too from the .pdf doument:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...gion/20050812_
WTC_GRAPHIC/9110313.PDF

"We made searches. We attempted to put some of the fire out, but we had a pressure problem. I forget the name of the Deputy. Some Deputy arrived at the scene and thought that the building was too dangerous to continue with operations, so we evacuated number 7 World Trade Center."
If you examine that .pdf document what you don't see quoted is the whole story:

"we attempted to search and extinguish, at the time which was small pockets of fire in 7 World Trade Center. We were unaware of the damage in the front of 7, because we were entering from the northeast entrance. We weren't aware of the magnitude of the damage in the front of the building.
We made searches. We attempted to put some of the fire out, but we had a pressure problem. I forget the name of the Deputy. Some Deputy arrived at the scene and thought that the building was too dangerous to continue with operations, so we evacuated number 7 World Trade Center."

So
a) They're saying that a fire could spread like wildfire that quickly within what appears to be a very short space of time ? from what he's saying it's almost like it went from "pockets of fire" to inferno in the space of 1 or 2 hours.

b) Even if it was a raging fire,as it says in this article:
Madrid's Towering Inferno & The 9/11 Building Collapse Cover-Up

"In fact before September 11th, 2001, no building had ever collapsed as a result of fire alone. In past events, high-rise buildings burned for as long as six days before the fires were extinguished and yet remained standing."

c) In any event, we've all seen the photos on the website. Hardly a raging inferno - I mean come on !

Also note the website says further down:

"What we do have for sure:

10) Silverstein denies "Pull" means "Controlled demolition". He said it means "Pull" the teams out of "the building."
12) Another fire fighter used "Pull" to describe the decision made to get him out of "the building.""

Again, not only are they using multiple terms for "pull" but they are talking as if "the building" is WTC7 - it just doesn't make sense.......

I suspect what actually happened is this......

As you say, there were no firefighters in WTC7 and they were probably in the Verizon building, but when asked about WTC7's collapse, Silverstein makes the gaff that he says they "pulled" it, and when realizing his mistake, pretended that he meant "pull" the firefighters out of the building.

The website also attempts to cover it's tracks up but debunks itself by using multiple terms for "pull"

Not only "pulling the firemen out" but the website says:
"Pull" is used when they "Pull" a building away from another with cables during demolition as was the case with Building Six where they quote:
"Yes, that worker certainly does say they’re getting ready to “pull” building six. "

I don't want to go round in circles and bore you anymore on one particular point but in summary, do we really believe it collapsed in perfect symmetry because of damage and a few fires ? Especially when there is proof of controlled demolition (see Steven E Jones)

9/11 First Responder Heard WTC 7 Demolition Countdown

Even if you're not convinced about WTC7 there are far too many other co-incidences and inconsistencies to believe the official story.

911truth.org ::::: THE TOP 40

15-02-2008, 05:27 PM	#102 (permalink)
youcanhandlethetruth Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 2,180	It's still very confusing to me. Sorry to bore you with examining the evidence comprehensively, but it's very important we don't just accept it without looking closer at these websites claims. Ok here we go.......... I agree with the second paragraph, but if we accept they were in the Verizon building as you say, then the first paragraph sounds like it contradicts it because it says: "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." Anyone reading that paragraph, would naturally assume he is referring to WTC7. 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." Ok so are they implying there was a raging inferno in WTC7 ? Not according to the website author who says: 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] Also if you look at the following quote too from the .pdf doument: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...gion/20050812_ WTC_GRAPHIC/9110313.PDF "We made searches. We attempted to put some of the fire out, but we had a pressure problem. I forget the name of the Deputy. Some Deputy arrived at the scene and thought that the building was too dangerous to continue with operations, so we evacuated number 7 World Trade Center." If you examine that .pdf document what you don't see quoted is the whole story: "we attempted to search and extinguish, at the time which was small pockets of fire in 7 World Trade Center. We were unaware of the damage in the front of 7, because we were entering from the northeast entrance. We weren't aware of the magnitude of the damage in the front of the building. We made searches. We attempted to put some of the fire out, but we had a pressure problem. I forget the name of the Deputy. Some Deputy arrived at the scene and thought that the building was too dangerous to continue with operations, so we evacuated number 7 World Trade Center." So a) They're saying that a fire could spread like wildfire that quickly within what appears to be a very short space of time ? from what he's saying it's almost like it went from "pockets of fire" to inferno in the space of 1 or 2 hours. b) Even if it was a raging fire,as it says in this article: Madrid's Towering Inferno & The 9/11 Building Collapse Cover-Up "In fact before September 11th, 2001, no building had ever collapsed as a result of fire alone. In past events, high-rise buildings burned for as long as six days before the fires were extinguished and yet remained standing." c) In any event, we've all seen the photos on the website. Hardly a raging inferno - I mean come on ! Also note the website says further down: "What we do have for sure: 10) Silverstein denies "Pull" means "Controlled demolition". He said it means "Pull" the teams out of "the building." 12) Another fire fighter used "Pull" to describe the decision made to get him out of "the building."" Again, not only are they using multiple terms for "pull" but they are talking as if "the building" is WTC7 - it just doesn't make sense....... I suspect what actually happened is this...... As you say, there were no firefighters in WTC7 and they were probably in the Verizon building, but when asked about WTC7's collapse, Silverstein makes the gaff that he says they "pulled" it, and when realizing his mistake, pretended that he meant "pull" the firefighters out of the building. The website also attempts to cover it's tracks up but debunks itself by using multiple terms for "pull" Not only "pulling the firemen out" but the website says: "Pull" is used when they "Pull" a building away from another with cables during demolition as was the case with Building Six where they quote: "Yes, that worker certainly does say they’re getting ready to “pull” building six. " I don't want to go round in circles and bore you anymore on one particular point but in summary, do we really believe it collapsed in perfect symmetry because of damage and a few fires ? Especially when there is proof of controlled demolition (see Steven E Jones) 9/11 First Responder Heard WTC 7 Demolition Countdown Even if you're not convinced about WTC7 there are far too many other co-incidences and inconsistencies to believe the official story. 911truth.org ::::: THE TOP 40