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.

 

911 Firemen Demand Investigation

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Hey Howard, I think you missed my post:


The photos they show alleging buckling from heat don't show anything even near equivalent to the structural loss that would've been required to initiate a collapse. Then they show photos of crooked perimeter columns from after WTC2 had already started to collapse? Wtf is up with that?


I think that's a pretty big problem with the report, don't you?

[edit on 18-4-2006 by bsbray11]




posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Yes, Griff, that is exactly what I am saying. FDNY and NYPD were not designed to talk to one another, and neither are the PA mikes. This is not as simple as going to Nextel and getting a phone. If you ask many of the firefighters they purchased upgraded equipment and then were not able to use them because they were not FDNY issued. They use Motorola. You might find this article interesting.




The portable radios in the north tower did not work, even though there was an antenna
installed to enhance fire radio transmissions. Radios do not work in high-rise buildings because of
the massive amount of steel and concrete in the structures. There are approximately 850,000
buildings in New York City. They are mostly what we call low-rise buildings.
I believe up to 5,000 of the 850,000 are high-rise buildings. The fire radios transmit messages OK
in 845,000 buildings, the low-rise buildings. Radios cannot transmit messages in the 5,000 highrise
buildings. Even today, in high-rise buildings and below-ground areas, tunnels and subways
firefighters have to improvise communications. Fire officers must use a booster command radio, a
high-rise repeater radio, a radio relay system positioning firefighters on intermediate floors or a
wire system unraveled down a stairway.


www.nyfd.com...

This post is relying on a one statement quote from one firefighter.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 01:43 PM
link   
So, maybe the NYFD should go down to the local RadioShack and buy some communication equipment then? They have walkie talkies that can go 5-10 miles away. I still can't believe they couldn't communicate. I mean come on. If I was a firefighter and had faulty equipment that would hinder my survival....I don't think I'd be a firefighter for very long.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   
FDNY was caught in politics and this was the result.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   
OK..I can buy that. Figures that the red tape of buerocrats would cost the lives of some very brave individuals.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71

Many of them were to the point of exhaustion and stopped in one of the skylobbies, not more than 20 flights up. There were other first responders along with PA personnel who were rescuing people.


The FDNY is also a very proud bunch, and I equate this to Marines that come home and complain about killing. Those heroes knew when they went that day into that building that they man not come out, and they went in anyways. That is a true hero.



All firefighters are a proud bunch and I am sorry but you seem to be reading and listening to rhetoric and do not understand how the fire-service works my friend. Are you going to rely on radios in steel high rise buildings when you and your friends lives are on the line? We have hand signals, alarms, the blasting of all fire apparatus horns the communication of hand signals because we never go alone is quite fast and can follow up a building quickly. Anyway it wasnt communication that killed that many it was because the FIRE was not big enough to make ANYONE think in your wildest dreams would cause a global collapse.

A dead firefighter can not help anyone on a scene.

An injured firefighter is priority on scene and creates more problems on that scene.

Scene safety is not a question of courage it is called tactics.

You mention how many of them were on the 20th floor, it is called staging. They had to hump those stairs with full turnouts, SCBA, and hose-packs. We carry hose packs that are made up of 50 to 100 feet of 1 and a half inch line, a nozzle, and tools and fittings for a stand-up pipe placed in the stairwells on each or every other floor. It is quite heavy and only requires a certain amount of teams to do the task.

The only ones that have to go to the firefloors are the fire attack team and a rit team to back each attack team. So if you read an aritcle about something that is out of context with how we do things it can become very different than how it works in the real world.

If the teams that got to the fire floors, had just a feeling there was a hot enough fire fore collapse they would of pulled the plug and regrouped. Come on guy FDNY had helicopter up the works.

That building was sound. Thats why there were 343 on the inside during the collapse!



Edit: Cripes I'm tired still from yesterday, I hope I made sense, after reading it I wonder.







[edit on 18-4-2006 by LoneGunMan]



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 08:04 PM
link   
I read a book that explained just how it occured, along with firefighters who survived and based on communcations they had with each other, and how difficult it was to coordinate the rescue effort.

I know it was a staging area, but the bottom line is that it was poor communication that caused more death than necessary. They were not prepared just as they were not prepared properly in 93.


What are they demanding is investigated? The gov't involvement, the poor construction or the uncoordinated interdepartmental attempt at rescue?



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
I read a book that explained just how it occured, along with firefighters who survived and based on communcations they had with each other, and how difficult it was to coordinate the rescue effort.

What are they demanding is investigated? The gov't involvement, the poor construction or the uncoordinated interdepartmental attempt at rescue?



Its called the fog of war, and it alway difficult, your missing the point.

The building did not collapse due to fire, I dont know how it collapsed that is just speculation The FIRES were not hot enough or intense enough to trip off an evacuation of all personel that were not needed. We know when to haul but out and the sheer number of personel inside means that some of the best fire departments in the world were not in the least bit concerned with structural failure.

They knew what was burning, they knew how hot it was with thermal imaging they knew where it was and how big.

They bet 343 mens lives that baby was sound.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 10:54 PM
link   
PA workers knew that the struture would collapse due to visula confirmation, and reported shortly after the second plane hit. They had made their way to the floors that were destroyed, and could see the column damage.

This information was never relayed to the FDNY because of the non-communication between all the departments. The warnings were never conveyed, so they kept going up...



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 11:51 PM
link   
Since I no longer trust my government or my president, I believe the firefighters were murdered by the U.S.



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
PA workers knew that the struture would collapse due to visula confirmation, and reported shortly after the second plane hit. They had made their way to the floors that were destroyed, and could see the column damage.

That's very interesting. Exactly which floors and how much of the damaged floors did they inspect? Based on what observations and expertise did they surmise that the structure was going to collapse? And how did they inspect the damaged areas through the raging, allegedly 1000C+ inferno?

What is your source for this? Can you please post a link?

[edit on 2006-4-19 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 09:03 AM
link   
It is within the book 102 minutes. It was a WTC/PA supervisor who saw the damage. I strongly suggest this book as it is non partisan, and tells the story of the rescuerers and those who died in the towers.

It gives alot of insight into the actual disaster itself, not the conspiracy that surrounds it.

This is a good article i found that explains the communcation problem.

www.digitaljournalist.org...



[edit on 19-4-2006 by esdad71]



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 09:18 AM
link   

It is within the book 102 minutes. It was a WTC/PA supervisor who saw the damage. I strongly suggest this book as it is non partisan, and tells the story of the rescuerers and those who died in the towers.

It gives alot of insight into the actual disaster itself, not the conspiracy that surrounds it.


esdad71, I appreciate your contribution here, but you seem to be more and more simply posting things from this minutes book as if they were gospel; not just in this thread but in every 9-11 thread, and when asked for sources or for evidence, you simply state, It's in this book, 102 minutes, you should read it, it's really good. Your last post reads just like an ad for the book. I'm beginning to wonder if you are not affiliated with the author!


I'm sure that if the book is worth more than the paper it's printed on, it cites sources. In future when you reference material in this or any other book, it would be great if you could type out some excerpts so that we can evaluate the material beyond "a book said A and B", and more importantly, post the author's sources so that we can research further into it ourselves. I've only seen once where you were pressed to post the actual content, and as it turns out there were gross errors in what little we saw.

Cheers.


So can you please answer the questions I posted in my last post in this thread if you have time? =>

Exactly which floors and how much of the damaged floors did they inspect?

Based on what observations and expertise did they surmise that the structure was going to collapse?

How did they inspect the damaged areas through the raging, allegedly 1000C+ inferno?



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Yes, in fact there are over 15 pages of sources cited. I wonder why it seems that when I quote NIST,FEMA,9/11 commission or even a book, people state that it is not true and question it's legitimacy.

I am sorry if I don't want to take the time to quote entire chapters of a book, but that is why I suggested reading it. Obviously you have not read it so what is the reason to question me about my research?

If you quoted to me a fact from a book you had read or told me to read a book on a subject, i would at least read it before I threw it aside. I have the book at home, so I will look up the worker who saw the damage and post it.


As far as 102 minutes, I had referenced it in other threads but I do not use it in every WTC arguement, you are going a little over with that bs. I can think of 2 very good threads I wrote about flight 93 and the airliner crash over Queens regarding 9/11 that are not linked in anyway. You seem to be trying to make my contributions seem unworthy and one sided, so I think you may want to check your facts again yourself.

cheers back at ya


[edit on 19-4-2006 by esdad71]



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 11:28 AM
link   

esdad71 wrote:
Yes, in fact there are over 15 pages of sources cited.

Excellent.



I wonder why it seems that when I quote NIST,FEMA,9/11 commission or even a book, people state that it is not true and question it's legitimacy.

Because the material is free and readily available on the Internet, and they can therefore conveniently access it and directly question its legitimacy based on the actual content, rather than hearsay.


I am sorry if I don't want to take the time to quote entire chapters of a book, but that is why I suggested reading it. Obviously you have not read it so what is the reason to question me about my research?

There are a thousand books out there on 9-11 extolling the virtue of both sides of the debate, every facet in between, and on either extreme; it's a veritable license to print money for publishers, and you can't realistically expect us to read every book there is on the subject, whether you recommend it or not. That's why we have the Internet, and that's why we're here sharing information and research rather than starting a book club. I believe you can quote up to three paragraphs, credit the source, and be within the bounds of "fair use". And in doing so, you might even convince us that from amongst the millions of other 9-11 books, your book is worth shelling out $xx.95 for.


You seem to be trying to make my contributions seem unworthy and one sided, so I think you may want to check your facts again yourself.

That's what you're reading into it. Maybe you need to take a break. I am interested in what you have put forth, but it is impossible to discuss and analyze specifics of the important information you raise when you simply refer people to the book every time when queried on it.


I have the book at home, so I will look up the worker who saw the damage and post it.

Cheers.




[edit on 2006-4-19 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   
External Source:
www.cbsnews.com...
There was particular confusion over warnings that the towers might collapse. For example, one worker called 911 to report that, "90-something floor was collapsing." But the 911 operator misreported that warning to the police, and the NYPD dispatcher also erred in reporting it to police at the scene. The message police eventually received was "106th floor is crumbling.

and as far as the evacuation...

"Firefighters who received these orders lacked a uniform sense of urgency in evacuation," perhaps because the evacuation order did not mention that the south tower had collapsed.

The commission reported that the communication problems were compounded by a lack of clear lines of authority, partly due to a "longstanding rivalry between the NYPD and FDNY." "




The above exchange is explained a little more in detail in the book. He could see the damage to the columns and from the landing he was at, and the information was not relayed properly and dismissed.



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   

The former director of the World Trade Center told the commission that he knew nothing of Osama bin Laden's terrorist network until the summer before the attacks, and was never privy to FBI intelligence that Islamic terrorists might hijack U.S. planes.


Source: www.cbsnews.com...

I found this interesting. He knew nothing about Osama Bin laden?


Osama bin Laden, widely believed to have been the mastermind of the August 1998 attacks on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, would seem a natural candidate to support the WTC bombing, but to date none of the government indictments against him indicate a connection to the incident.


Source: cns.miis.edu...

Yes, that source says that Osama Bin laden wasn't involved in the '93 bombing, but the former director of the world trade center hadn't even heard of bin Laden? I say LIAR!!!!!!! We can see that they wanted to pin the '93 bombing on bin Laden but couldn't. So, the former director should have been at least aware of Osama. How can we trust anyone who blatantly lies?



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Thanks for that esdad71, and thanks for remaining civil.


The worker mentioned wins the award for the most obvious statement ever in the history of the universe. "A passenger plane has just hit the building at 500mph. There are damaged columns and floors! Whodathunkit?!"


But does the fact that yet another witness saw what we already knew mean that the fires reached enormous steel-softening temperatures, despite the physical evidence to the contrary? That enough of the columns were destroyed to overcome the redundancy of the structure, despite that assumption being refuted by simple observation and by NIST's very own damage projections? That the building was doomed to collapse because one worker, who, I might add, was mysteriously not burned to a crisp by the alleged "1000C" fires, saw some damaged floors?

No.





[edit on 2006-4-19 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
I might add, was mysteriously not burned to a crisp by the alleged "1000C" fires, saw some damaged floors?


No one has ever claimed that the fire reached maximum intensity instantaneously.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 08:36 AM
link   
1. As Stated Silverstein would not have any authority over any firefighters movement. If the fire chief thought the scene was getting unsafe he would PULL the firefighters out and not have to call Silverstien for permission. The only reason the fire chief would want Siverstiens advise is if the on scene commander thought they shuold PULL the building.

2. External Source:
killtown.blogspot.com...


Just what I thought, he gives the "pull out the firefighters" response! "It" referred to "the contingent of firefighters"??? Yeah right! If that was the case, Silverstein would have said "pull them out", not "pull it". No one misspeaks that bad. The word "it" clearly refers to the building (singular), not a "contingent of firefighters" (plural). How condescending that he would refer to a contingent of firefighters as "it".

Also, it's already been reported that the FDNY never sent any firefighter "contingency" inside the WTC 7 and this order was made at 11:30 am...


"With the collapse of both towers by 10:30 a.m., larger pieces of the twin towers had smashed parts of 7 World Trade and set whole clusters of floors ablaze. An hour later, the Fire Department was forced to abandon its last efforts to save the building as it burned like a giant torch.

Falling debris also caused major structural damage to the building, which soon began burning on multiple floors, said Francis X. Gribbon, a spokesman for the Fire Department. By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons." - New York Times (11/29/01)

and then FEMA reported that the FDNY never even attempted to fight the fires in the 7...


"In addition, the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers. Hence, the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded by automatic or manual suppression activities.

It appears that the sprinklers may not have been effective due to the limited water on site and that the development of the fires was not significantly impeded by the firefighters because manual firefighting efforts were stopped fairly early in the day.

WTC 7 collapsed approximately 7 hours after the collapse of WTC 1. Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY." - FEMA (05/02)

So there is a conflict of facts here with the Silverstein spokesperson saying the Fire Commander called in the "afternoon" to say firefighters were attempting to contain the fires in the building and the news and FEMA reports saying the firefighters never attempted to put of the fires and had already been called back in the late morning and not "later in the day" as the spokesperson claims.

3. And Maybe someone can explain to us that if thier was so much damage to the side of building 7 how come it came straight down and did not fall to the side.


1. FIREFIGHTER Tapes
www.americanfreepress.net...

2. Video 70.84.33.210...

3. Lost Tapes
www.firehouse.com...

[edit on 22-4-2006 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 22-4-2006 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 22-4-2006 by ULTIMA1]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join