Samalla lailla käy kuin kaikelle muullekin höpinälle
"For the 38th time, yes the term pull was used. However, since none of you except me has ever worked with the FDNY, I'll clarify YET AGAIN what all your "website" sources are ignoring. When a building is burning at an intensity where it is unsafe for firefighters to enter it, and it is impractical to attempt to put it out from outside as well, a decision has to be made. The risks facing the firefighters on scene are weighed against the risks of letting the building burn itself out. Being that no one was stuck in the building caught on fire, and the danger level was to the point where firefighters would have been roasted alive by entering, the decision was made to PULL all personnel out of the building, stand down, and let the fire burn out.
I don't really care what any web guru has to say about this. I was wearing a FDNY radio, and I was within a few blocks of the building throughout the time. I was not inside, but in the adjacent area.
Frankly your efforts at determining what the landlord said are irrelevant. He is not FDNY personnel, he does not give orders to anyone wearing an FDNY uniform, and if it makes you happy to think he does, god bless, you must have a lot of time on your hands."
"For the 38th time, yes the term pull was used. However, since none of you except me has ever worked with the FDNY, I'll clarify YET AGAIN what all your "website" sources are ignoring. When a building is burning at an intensity where it is unsafe for firefighters to enter it, and it is impractical to attempt to put it out from outside as well, a decision has to be made. The risks facing the firefighters on scene are weighed against the risks of letting the building burn itself out. Being that no one was stuck in the building caught on fire, and the danger level was to the point where firefighters would have been roasted alive by entering, the decision was made to PULL all personnel out of the building, stand down, and let the fire burn out.
I don't really care what any web guru has to say about this. I was wearing a FDNY radio, and I was within a few blocks of the building throughout the time. I was not inside, but in the adjacent area.
Frankly your efforts at determining what the landlord said are irrelevant. He is not FDNY personnel, he does not give orders to anyone wearing an FDNY uniform, and if it makes you happy to think he does, god bless, you must have a lot of time on your hands."
Vastaukset 6
Vanhimmat
linkin kyseiseen tekstiin?
alvariinsa asiallisia juttuja jotka panevat hörhöt ihan hiljaisiksi...uusi taktiikka, yrittävät vaikenemalla vaientaa totuuden.
However, according to FEMA's report there were no manual firefighting operations in Building 7, so there would not have been any firefighters to "pull".
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc7northface.html
näyttääkö hallitsemattomalta tulipalolta?
Lausunto samalta dokumentilta, missä Larry käyttää Pull-termiä:
." we're getting ready to PULL the building six."
Building 6 was one of the badly damaged low-rise buildings in the WTC complex that had to be DEMOLISHED as part of the cleanup operation.
Mikä nyt kenenkin mielestä on hallittua ja mikä ei.
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/wtc7-1.JPG
kuvastasi pari seikkaa:Figure 5-17(kyseinen kuva) is a very strange photograph. It has a number of features which immediately stand out as wrong.
* Firstly, we are told that there were fires on the floors 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 19, 27 and 28, but the photo seems to have smoke pouring out of the windows on almost every floor.
* Secondly, the corner offices (except for the 27th and 28th floors) show no indication of fire on the west face of the building, but these very same corner offices appear to belch smoke from their south face windows.
* Thirdly, the north side of WTC 7 has few (if any) visible signs of fire at this time (for example, see Figure 5-20 below) so it seems quite impossible that the south side should be ablaze to the extent that the above photo would indicate.
All, in all, I think it quite clear that either this photo has been faked, or it is actually a picture of the dust cloud from the collapse of WTC 1. I think the second option is more probable, as it fits all the facts and allows the "oh, it looks like we made a mistake, so sorry" excuse. The dust cloud has been given its peculiar shape by the breeze channeling through the gap between the Verizon building and WTC 7.
oli laittaa edellinen nimimerkin *kansalainen* viestin jatkoksi