How do the people you know feel about 911

The other amusing thing about the article you posted is that it doesn't think there was anything suspicious about the collapse. It in fact goes on to provide some explanations. By your logic the very article that you're using as evidence must also be in on the conspiracy.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

I'm going from what they actually said. You're producing a secondary source. A source which even says "most" discussion focused on a partial collapse, so by that definition some discussion must have focused on a full collapse.

Look at you dance.... So now you finally get it?

I haven't been able to find a single testimony which talked about concerns of a full collapse.

But if you actually read their testimony you'll see that they thought a total collapse eminently possible, and one article published later - that doesn't even entirely disagree with the notion of a full collapse being on the cards - is hardly as good as the words that they themselves spoke.

Please post that testimony.

However, let's pretend that you're right for a moment. Why is a partial collapse possible from fire, but a full collapse impossible? And why did some of the firefighters discuss a full collapse? Why are fire chiefs who were on the scene not surprised now by what happened, or members of the conspiracy community? Why do they not agree with you that it was "impossible"?

You should stop pretending that you're right actually.. How do you know that they disagree with me? Do you know any FDNY Chiefs?

The other amusing thing about the article you posted is that it doesn't think there was anything suspicious about the collapse. It in fact goes on to provide some explanations. By your logic the very article that you're using as evidence must also be in on the conspiracy.

It doesn't say that it was suspicious and it doesn't say that it was expected either. that's what you couldn't understand, remember?

Originally posted by maxella1


Look at you dance.... So now you finally get it?

I haven't been able to find a single testimony which talked about concerns of a full collapse.

This is the only source I've seen that makes the distinction. All the material from the fire chiefs and other personnel talks merely about a "collapse", or the building being "in danger" or "about to come down". I've never seen the word partial used.

So unless you automatically assume that they mean a partial collapse when they say "collapse" all their testimony predicts a catastrophic collapse. If you do automatically assume that they mean a partial collapse then you're being biased. But you wouldn't do that, would you?

As to getting it, all you've done is produce a single article. There is reams of primary source evidence that proves the fire chiefs in many cases expected a full collapse. What's more they remain unsurprised by it.

Why do you think that is? If it's such an impossible event why have they not said so?

Please post that testimony.

Nigro:

A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt. I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone.

A collapse zone that surrounded the whole building. He obviously thought it might come down entirely. And weirdly he never uses the word partial. Only the word "collapse".

Fellini:

We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex. Eventually around 5:00 or a little after, building number seven came down

They wouldn't let firemen work "anywhere near" Seven. Wow, sounds like they were abit worried that there might be a major, complete collapse.

And note how he doesn't say "and we were totally amazed when the whole thing fell down". Nope, just reports it matter of factly. Another senior fire officer unsurprised by a collapse that he forecast.

Still, of course you know better.

Cruthers:

it was not too conservative of a decision to establish a collapse zone for that building, move the firefighters out of the collapse area, and maintain that strategy.

They assessed the likely type of collapse and created a collapse zone around the whole building. Odd then that it was only in danger of a partial collapse.

Hayden:

we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Wow. He doesn't seem at all amazed by the kind of collapse and extent of it either. He even implies in the final sentence that it was the kind of fall they anticipated, the kind they had known would occur since 2pm.

You should stop pretending that you're right actually.. How do you know that they disagree with me? Do you know any FDNY Chiefs?

No, but I've read a lot of direct testimony from them.

You seem to have forgotten to answer my questions, so I'll repost:

Why is a partial collapse possible from fire, but a full collapse impossible? And why did some of the firefighters discuss a full collapse? Why are fire chiefs who were on the scene not surprised now by what happened, or members of the conspiracy community? Why do they not agree with you that it was "impossible"?

Go on, have a try at answering.

It doesn't say that it was suspicious and it doesn't say that it was expected either. that's what you couldn't understand, remember?

It's demonstrable that it was expected. But once again you've employed an article that debunks many of your suspicions while enforcing only a few in a rather weak manner.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


although they are talking about the WTC1 and 2 here it still demonstrate that a complete collapse of the buildings came as a surprise to many. Considering that WTC 7 didn't have a jet slammed into it you can assume that a complete collapse of that building also came as a surprise. I didn't have enough time to look up statements about WTC 7 but I will soon.

9-11 Attack in New York

At about 9:00 a.m., Chief of Department Ganci took over as Incident Commander (IC), but for the FDNY alone. Incident Command doctrine calls for the IC to have authority over all responding organizations, with deputies handling the specific operations of specialized agencies and units. Ganci moved the Incident Command Post from the lobby of WTC 1 to a spot across West Street, an eight-lane highway, because of falling debris and other safety concerns. Various witnesses say that the leadership considered partial collapses, but total building failure was not discussed

Distortion of Fact, by Andrew Burfield

A number of things are immediately apparent from this statement. Firstly, he doesn’t say they were told either building was going to suffer a total collapse. Some firefighters reported that they felt a partial collapse of the upper floors was likely in a few hours.

FDNY Fire Operations response on September 11

At approximately 9:00 a.m., the Incident Commander moved the Incident Command Post from the lobby of WTC 1 to the far side of West Street (an eight lane highway) opposite WTC 1, because of the increasing risk from falling debris within and around the lobby and other safety concerns. Chief officers considered a limited, localized collapse of the towers possible, but did not think that they would collapse entirely.

9.1 PREPAREDNESS AS OF SEPTEMBER 11

The specifics of the mission were harder to determine, as they had almost no information about the situation 80 or more stories above them.They also received advice from senior FDNY chiefs that while the building might eventually suffer a partial collapse on upper floors, such structural failure was not imminent. No one anticipated the possibility of a total collapse.59

When the South Tower collapsed,firefighters on upper floors of the North Tower heard a violent roar, and many were knocked off their feet; they saw debris coming up the stairs and observed that the power was lost and emergency lights activated. Nevertheless, those firefighters not standing near windows facing south had no way of knowing that the South Tower had collapsed; many surmised that a bomb had exploded, or that the North Tower had suffered a partial collapse on its upper floors.160

Staff Statement No. 14
Crisis Management

The best estimate of one senior chief, provided to the Chief of the Department sometime between 9:25 and 9:45 a.m., was that there might be a danger of collapse in a few hours, and therefore units probably should not ascend above floors in the sixties. We did not see any evidence that this assessment had any impact on operations before the collapse of the South Tower effectively disabled every FDNY command post. Even after the South Tower collapsed, another senior chief reportedly thought that the North Tower would not collapse because its corner frame had not been struck.

NYPD aviation did not foresee the collapse of the South Tower, though at 9:55 a.m., four minutes before the collapse, a helicopter pilot radioed that a large piece of the South Tower looked like it was about to fall. Immediately after the collapse of the South Tower, a helicopter pilot radioed that news. This transmission was followed by others, beginning at 10:08 a.m., warning that the North Tower might collapse, beginning at 10:08, 18 minutes before the building fell. These calls reinforced the urgency of the NYPD’s evacuation of the area.

reply to post by maxella1


No, after watching both towers collapse, and observing the damage to WTC 7, they weren't surprised it collapsed. They figured it would come down too, hence the evacuation zones, the fire department saying it's going to come down etc.....

You shouldn't assume.

I think first we have to remember the poor people killed...they were mums, dads, sons and daughters and they were murdered....

Now the free thinking people of this world will always look at the big picture and not just be feed the bull s**t by the worlds media.

Personally i don't think the US was behind it, but i don;t think they are not to blame...i think it opened alot of doors for them to go to war.

E

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1

 

No, after watching both towers collapse, and observing the damage to WTC 7, they weren't surprised it collapsed. They figured it would come down too, hence the evacuation zones, the fire department saying it's going to come down etc.....

You shouldn't assume.

I dont assume. I was told by firefighters who were there that they were really confused about why building 7 collapsed the way it did. But you wont believe me, so im saying you can assume.


Deputy Chief Nick Visconti

I was getting some resistance. The common thing was, hey, we’ve still got people here, we don’t want to leave. I explained to them that we were worried about 7, that it was going to come down and we didn’t want to get anybody trapped in the collapse. One comment was, oh, that building is never coming down, that didn’t get hit by a plane, why isn’t somebody in there putting the fire out? A lot of comments, a bit of resistance, understandable resistance.

Collapse zones were set up around multiple buildings because they were damaged, they didnt want more firemen getting killed or injured or trapped in the rubble. To this day i never heard any firemen, police, or ems say that wtc 7 Collapsed as they thought it would. Same goes for the twin towers.

Did WTC 7 collapse at free fall speed? if they "pulled" the building down due to safety reasons i think that would have been fair enough and people would have thought that's the right thing to do.

But if the powers that be are saying WTC 7 collapsed due to damage then you have to ask why they would lie?

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1

 

Read this and then get back to me.

www.mefacts.com...

Thanks, I didn't know about it..

What is your opinion regarding This, This, This,
And this ?

reply to post by maxella1


First link.....Yep, they overplayed the reality of the situation in regards to the Kuwaiti hospitals, and chose the wrong way to start bringing some of the issues to light. However, even in that story, there were kernels of truth, not to the extent of what was testified about, but some babies were left to die when equipment was taken from the hospitals. Saddam still needed to be thrown out of Kuwait.

Second link.....Again, chose the wrong idiot to rely on. Does not change the facts that we did find over 500 chemical weapons (which he was not supposed to have), we found a base with EVERYTHING needed to make thousands of chem weapons (which he was not supposed to have), and we found a bunch of terrorists that he was supporting (again, something he was warned not to do)

Third link...Not sure why you are including the story about Pat Tillman, UNLESS, its to illustrate that even the US military has spin doctors.


Fourth link....Jessica Lynch. That is a whole other post (and board) to deal with gender politics and the US military. Women MUST be presented in a positive light no matter what to avoid giving ammunition to those critics who think it is morally wrong for women to be in combat occupations.

Kara Hultgreen....F-14 pilot...her instructor tried to have her washed out of training when it was evident that she was not going to make it as a pilot. His superiors overruled him and she became a F-14 pilot. She died when her Tomcat suffered a malfunction while in the landing groove and she made a serious rookie mistake, crashed and died. They tried to blame her instructor for allowing her to pass flight training. He, had kept copies of every memo in which he had recommended washing her out.

Paula Coughlin....Naval Aviator....accused several men of assaulting her at the Tailhook Convention. Her accounts led to a witch hunt throughout the US Navy, where even officers who had not attended the Convention had their careers ended. Overlooked by almost everybody, the night before her "assault" she had asked another officer to shave her legs and trim her pubic region in a room full of witnesses. She was never charged for her offenses.

Okay, fourth link...really doesnt fit into 9/11 conspiracies..

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1

 

First link.....Yep, they overplayed the reality of the situation in regards to the Kuwaiti hospitals, and chose the wrong way to start bringing some of the issues to light. However, even in that story, there were kernels of truth, not to the extent of what was testified about, but some babies were left to die when equipment was taken from the hospitals. Saddam still needed to be thrown out of Kuwait.

Second link.....Again, chose the wrong idiot to rely on. Does not change the facts that we did find over 500 chemical weapons (which he was not supposed to have), we found a base with EVERYTHING needed to make thousands of chem weapons (which he was not supposed to have), and we found a bunch of terrorists that he was supporting (again, something he was warned not to do)

Third link...Not sure why you are including the story about Pat Tillman, UNLESS, its to illustrate that even the US military has spin doctors.

edit on 16-7-2012 by vipertech0596 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-7-2012 by vipertech0596 because: (no reason given)

Can you remind me why we should trust them again please?

reply to post by maxella1


Trust who? The politicians? The lawyers? The spin doctors ?

reply to post by vipertech0596

Third link...Not sure why you are including the story about Pat Tillman, UNLESS, its to illustrate that even the US military has spin doctors.

They lie to avoid embarrassment and consequences for their actions. They lie even about things like friendly fire accidents in a war. Something that really sucks but understandable that it can happen during a firefight.

Okay, fourth link...really doesnt fit into 9/11 conspiracies..

No it doesn't. but it shows that they exaggerate and flat out lie in order to keep people supporting war. even if it is completely unnecessary. They could have told the truth but they chose to lie instead.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1

 

Trust who? The politicians? The lawyers? The spin doctors ?

The people who tell us why we need to go to war.

reply to post by maxella1


Which persons? Which war? Which lies? You (and by extension many others) keep making a case that the "government" speaks with only one voice and has only one opinion on all matters.

We never mention it in company. We are a divided nation here in the US. Those that know the truth are silent for fear of being associated with lunatics. Thanks lunatics, you ruined our debates. We keep our mouths shut, and some out of fear of being killed for treason.

reply to post by earthdude

We never mention it in company. We are a divided nation here in the US. Those that know the truth are silent for fear of being associated with lunatics. Thanks lunatics, you ruined our debates. We keep our mouths shut, and some out of fear of being killed for treason.

The idea that you think that you can be killed for treasons for publically discussing "9/11 inside job" kind of just reinforces the lunatic segment of your statement.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by maxella1

 

Which persons? Which war? Which lies? You (and by extension many others) keep making a case that the "government" speaks with only one voice and has only one opinion on all matters.

No they pretend to disagree on things but at the end they convince people that we really need to do something for our own good. They disagreed on Iraq war, but they made things up or looked the other way and pretended that they have reliable Intel. All while knowing that they never confirmed that information. They sit behind closed doors and come up with a story and then send small amount of people to go on TV and tell the people what is going on and what we need to do about it.

So why should anybody trust these people who tell us [usually in one voice] on TV that they know what to do?

reply to post by maxella1

So why should anybody trust these people who tell us [usually in one voice] on TV that they know what to do?

Sounds like you're working overtime to find some pretext to ignore things that don't confirm your little bias. And I have never, ever heard the government of the US speak with "one voice". No matter who the President is and no matter what he may say, I can almost gaurantee I can find some other elected official to disagree. And visa versa. Its more like you're only hearing what you want to hear.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by maxella1

 

So why should anybody trust these people who tell us [usually in one voice] on TV that they know what to do?

Sounds like you're working overtime to find some pretext to ignore things that don't confirm your little bias. And I have never, ever heard the government of the US speak with "one voice". No matter who the President is and no matter what he may say, I can almost gaurantee I can find some other elected official to disagree. And visa versa. Its more like you're only hearing what you want to hear.

Working over time huh? You're a funny guy. No hooper its not what im doing.

Do they address that nation together or do they decide who will address the nation as a representative ? We vote them in to represent us, they go and vote on our behalf, and then they send somebody to tell us about it. Or no?