It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by gavron
Actually we welcome all information, since it keeps proving the official story correct.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Only in your mind. Like most beleivers you only believe what you have been told to believe and do not accept any evidence that questions the official story.
Originally posted by exponent
These agencies compromise the bulk of the official story and all of them have made mistakes that have been located and shown.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So you still want to stand by these agencies even with the known mistakes?
And do not forget the evindece shnown that questions the official story.
Originally posted by exponent
This evidence has either been addressed, or is without merit as far as I am aware. .
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
In statements and opinions only, not addressed with proper evidence.
Do you think the FBI only being at the Pentagon crimse scene for 5 days is without merit?
Originally posted by exponent
By your standards the "evidence" challenging the official story is "statements and opinions only".
I fail to understand the question. How would this challenge the "official story" in any way?
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But i have posted facts and evidence that questions the official story.
Well it seems to state the FBI did not do a good crime scene investigation.
I mean this was the biggest attack on America and it was an important crime scene. Why would they only spend 5 days on it?
Originally posted by exponent
By your own standards you have not.
Presumably the agents involved felt that their job was done.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Just becasue you do not accept them does not mean i have not.
Please explain how long it should take to do a proper crime scene on one of the most important buildings in the US that has been attacked?
How long do the FBI work normal crime scenes like this?
Originally posted by exponent
It is not my acceptance you require, you have clearly shown that you are taking an inconsistent approach to what you consider "evidence".
I am not an FBI crime scene investigator, so I am not qualified to answer this question.
This is the first time in history this has occurred,
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by exponent
It is not my acceptance you require, you have clearly shown that you are taking an inconsistent approach to what you consider "evidence".
My evidnece is as good or better then most people pot on here.
I am not an FBI crime scene investigator, so I am not qualified to answer this question.
So why try to answer a question you know nothing about as you did above ?
This is the first time in history this has occurred,
So if this is the first time in history this has occured why didn't the FBI take longer?
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
My evidnece is as good or better then most people pot on here.
So why try to answer a question you know nothing about as you did above ?
...
So if this is the first time in history this has occured why didn't the FBI take longer?
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I mean this was the biggest attack on America and it was an important crime scene. Why would they only spend 5 days on it?
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So you still want to stand by these agencies even with the known mistakes?
At 9:06, the NYPD Chief of Department instructed that no units were to
land on the roof of either tower. At about 9:30, one of the helicopters present
advised that a rooftop evacuation still would not be possible. One NYPD hel-
icopter pilot believed one portion of the North Tower roof to be free enough
of smoke that a hoist could be lowered in order to rescue people, but there was
no one on the roof. This pilot's helicopter never attempted to hover directly
over the tower. Another helicopter did attempt to do so, and its pilot stated
that the severity of the heat from the jet fuelladen fire in the North Tower
would have made it impossible to hover low enough for a rescue, because the
high temperature would have destabilized the helicopter.
148
At 9:51, an aviation unit warned units of large pieces of debris hanging from
the building. Prior to 9:59, no NYPD helicopter pilot predicted that either
tower would collapse.
HELICOPTER RESCUES
Grandstanding. An ugly word. But that, according to a front-page Oct. 23 Wall Street Journal story, is exactly how the daring February 1993 police helicopter rescue of 28 people from the top of the World Trade Center was characterized at the time by officials of the fire department.
A bomb that exploded in the garage beneath the towers, killing 6 people and injuring 1,042, had sent smoke up through both towers. People who fled up the towers, rather than down, were successfully rescued after police helicopter crewmen chopped up roof-top antennae and broke through locked doors.
Yet instead of becoming a model for rooftop rescues, the police helicopter rescue was dismissed as dangerous and unnecessary, says the journal. The Association of Fire Chiefs harshly denounced the rescue as a "cheap publicity stunt" in a letter to the mayor.
Standard firefighting rationale is with the chiefs. Whenever possible, firefighters fight up to a fire, while always securing a line of retreat. The most dangerous fire is the one that is below the firefighter, such as a basement fire. Thus in normal firefighting experience, encouraging people to move to the roof--especially one reachable only by helicopter--is directing them in exactly the wrong direction. And the firefighters below would be concerned that a helicopter, caught in the wild updrafts of an intense fire, might itself crash, compounding the danger to anyone below.
Officials of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, then-owner of the World Trade Center, agreed with fire chiefs and officials not to plan for future helicopter rescues. Indeed, for security reasons the Port Authority chose to lock the two sets of heavy metal doors leading to the building's only roof exit--a violation of city building codes. As a state agency, the Port Authority is exempt from code.
Could some people have been rescued from the roof of the north tower on September 11? (The south tower held no hope. It was hidden in a 100-foot layer of dense smoke.) No one knows for sure. Fire department officials are certainly right that smoke and flames usually rise, and that people are generally best off going down rather than up. But 700 people were trapped above the 93rd floor, the point of impact where the jet hit the tower. They had no prospect of being rescued by going down.
Veteran helicopter-rescue pilots quoted by the journal say a rescue of a few dozen people would have been difficult but possible. Police helicopters hovered nearby, but were ordered away.
Fire Commissioner Thomas Van Essen called the Wall Street Journal story--and its implication that some people might have been rescued--"hurtful."
New York's refusal to plan for helicopter rescues is not unusual. Among American cities, only Los Angeles--whose fire department owns six helicopters--requires high-rise buildings to build helipads. Conventional wisdom says people are better off heading down and not up.
And conventional wisdom may well be right. But September 11 should be forcing all uniformed services to rethink their procedures. Bureaucratic wrangling is unseemly in terrible times, and both police and fire officials have been careful to refrain from criticizing one another. Yet serious issues of command and authority underlie some of the historic tensions between the two departments. The next mayor is going to have to resolve them.