Originally posted by moles
This is absolutely laughable. I'm almost 100% certain neither tower had a roof observatory and even if there was some sort of observation deck inside the tower, why would they even sell a ticket just for it to say closed on it.

This is just a bad attempt at making a hoax that half the retards on this forum actually fall for. ATS is seriously just getting filled with all this garbage nonsense and has lost tons of its credibility in the past few years.

LOL

BEGIN RANT

Dude, ATS is still... *ahem*... STILL the #1 place on the internet for alternative news and discussion, and one of the most frequented message boards of any kind. ATS has millions of posts in thousands of threads, unique member podcasts, upcoming video services, increasing member upload space, upcoming blog upgrades, productions with The Discovery Channel, and the ATS MIX internet radio show.

You simply cant say that ATS has lost its reputation in recent years. It just isn't true.

Also, the towers certainly did have roofs and observation decks. If you are 100% certain they did not, please post your undeniable sources here.

The tickets weren't sold just to say "Closed"... they were sold for access to the observation deck, and just not the roof. Did you read the earlier posts about that?

At this point, I really do not think you should be shouting hoax... I mean, the content of the above post tends to degrade your credibility and likability. And you call US retards? Certainly not a good way to make friends.

You are right, ATS does get some garbage in it sometimes... usually from posters that don't have anything constructive to say, and discredit all and everyone around them. Make sure you aren't one of these people, and everything around here will stay peachy keen.

END RANT

So, welcome to ATS - Home to thousands of rational, respectful minds. As long as you post credible, constructive, and tactful information, you will be appreciated by our members. Continue to post as you did above, and expect more posts like this one from me.

Thanks for reading, and for your understanding.

This is absolutely laughable. I'm almost 100% certain neither tower had a roof observatory and even if there was some sort of observation deck inside the tower, why would they even sell a ticket just for it to say closed on it.

As for having a roof observatory, they had access to the roof, but not far from the looks of it.
No observatory? I think the picture of it rather indicates they did. I'm imagining at this point you should claim it's a photoshop, right?

But your claim that ATS has lost any credibility has no merit. After all we have you on it, don't we?

Relax man, we're just talking about it, no ones freaking out and yelling conspiracy. Believe it or not, we don't do that here. At least not that Ive been able to tell.

I saw it posted, but I was thinking the same thing, so I'll say it too..

The "roof closed" stamp makes no sense. If it's closed, why issue a ticket? And if they're going to use the ticket and get turned back around because it's suddenly closed, why stamp it? Why not just turn the people back around?

I think it's manipulated.

I'm a firm believer in 9/11 "alternative theories" too, but that's no reason to accept every little thing as truth no matter how ridiculous it is.

Perhaps we shouldn't rely on this image of a ticket that's been manipulated, and rely more on trying to find out if the roof truly was closed on that day through articles or press releases from the World Trade Center.

[edit on 7/17/07 by NovusOrdoMundi]

here's my guess as to why it was stamped "roof closed"...

He could have gone earlier to buy the ticket, like a day or two previous, then the day he got there it was closed, so rather than say "sorry", they stamped the ticket "roof closed" so that he could use it another day.

That seems the most logical. Behind it being photoshopped, but someone (I can't, not at home, on vacation ) should check for seperate pixelation issues around the stamp, if its uniform with the rest of the image then it s a lot less likely to be photoshopped. My 2 cents.

Edit:

Can anyone find if it was possible to reserve tickets ahead of time? Or anyone know? If so then my explanation is plausible, if not, then I'm as confused as everyone else.

[edit on 17-7-2007 by Vinci]

HELLO ?? The oberservation deck was more than likely CLOSED because of all the RAIN that was falling on the 10th. Please read the thread!!

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
HELLO ?? The oberservation deck was more than likely CLOSED because of all the RAIN that was falling on the 10th. Please read the thread!!

it says roof closed...not observation tower....but the roof would be closed to unauthorized people anyways due to the antennas on one and the helipad on the other.....

it says roof closed...not observation tower....but the roof would be closed to unauthorized people anyways due to the antennas on one and the helipad on the other.....

The observation deck was on the 107th floor of south tower. The roof was
several floors above it. Access to roof was restricted -only Port Authority
people with special badges were allowed there. Even then there was video
camera and would need security to unlock door. Observation deck was
open from 9:30 am. Don't think on Sept 11 observation deck would be
open for business - first plane hit the other tower at 8:45

I've no idea what the policy was in 2001, but I'll never forget standing on the very top of that thing, circa late '70s.

The south tower contained the observation deck. While it is true that no one could get onto the roof itself (except for workers), there was the observation deck. So I don't get what is so laughable?

I've been to the observation deck a few times and yes it does get closed due to weather. You can still go up, you just can't go outside. However as far as I recall, they usually post a sign stating so. I don't ever recall them stamping the ticket as there would really be no need to. If its closed its closed. Then again I went there about 15 years ago.



[edit on 18-7-2007 by DerekJR321]

Originally posted by 0ivae
I've no idea what the policy was in 2001, but I'll never forget standing on the very top of that thing, circa late '70s.

Esdad said he's been there too on the last page of this thread.

Everyone saying that the roof was off-limits -- can you please post your sources?

If this is true then I'd be interested to know when they made that change.

Originally posted by thedman

Roof Evacuation

•A preliminary evaluation indicates that the PANYNJ’s standard occupant evacuation procedures and drills required the use of stairways to exit at the bottom of the WTC towers. The standard procedures were to keep the doors to the roof locked with a key being required to gain roof access. The PANYNJ reports that it never advised tenants to evacuate upward.

This is evacuation procedure, even headed "Roof Evacuation", not day-to-day activities.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by thedman

Roof Evacuation

•The standard procedures were to keep the doors to the roof locked with a key being required to gain roof access.

This is evacuation procedure, even headed "Roof Evacuation", not day-to-day activities.

Once again, this is evacuation procedure.

Roof Evacuation

•A preliminary evaluation indicates that the PANYNJ’s standard occupant evacuation procedures and drills required the use of stairways to exit at the bottom of the WTC towers. The standard procedures were to keep the doors to the roof locked with a key being required to gain roof access. The PANYNJ reports that it never advised tenants to evacuate upward.

Show me where they're talking about day-to-day tourist activities here.

I see, "Roof Evacuation", "standard occupant evacuation procedures and drills", "standard procedures", and "evacuate". I wonder what they're talking about. The whole thing is headed, again, "Roof Evacuation". Do a Google search for "context clues", somebody.

Now if there's another part of the report that elaborates on when the roof was usually locked or open, or when/if it closed to the public permanently, etc., that would be different.

[edit on 18-7-2007 by bsbray11]

What part of "door to roof locked" do you tin foilers not understand or
is that not clear enough. The roof at both WTC towers was severely
restricted for security reasons. In fact the floors above 107 were
used for mechanical purposes (North tower 106 was WINDOWS On WORLD
resturant, South tower 107 was observation deck).

tow-MAY-tow

Originally posted by bsbray11
Once again, this is evacuation procedure.

I see, "Roof Evacuation", "standard occupant evacuation procedures and drills", "standard procedures", and "evacuate". I wonder what they're talking about. The whole thing is headed, again, "Roof Evacuation". Do a Google search for "context clues", somebody.
[edit on 18-7-2007 by bsbray11]

tow-MAH-to
what i see is that they practiced using the stairwell and going down to the bottom....because standard practices required the door to be locked....now you wouldnt want to practice evacuating the top if it was locked right?

During the 1993 World Trade Center incident some people climbed up to the roof of the World Trade Center and were picked up there by helicopter. There was television footage of this as I remember. The newspapers specifically the New York Times I believe afterwards reported of a dispute between the fire and police department over how that was done. After that my understanding is that it was decided that the roof should be locked in order to settle this dispute between the fire and police departments over who had the job of rescuing people from the roof, it seemed that both departments wanted it. My understanding is that the roof would have been locked ordinarily and there would have been noone let up on the roof due to this policy that was reported in the papers. There was an observatory/restaurant, the Windows of the World up by the top which was a restaurant/club at around the top floor of the Trade Center, but it was not the roof.

what i dont understand is why didnt they just land some transport helicopters on the roof with some cutting equipment or even a bit of c4 to take down the door and rescue people. They didnt know the towers were going to fall so why didnt they even attempt this? Surely they wanted to save lives which is what this would have done.

Originally posted by lawler_09
what i dont understand is why didnt they just land some transport helicopters on the roof with some cutting equipment or even a bit of c4 to take down the door and rescue people.

Simple. Because the 9-11 cabal orchestrators wouldn’t allow it. It’s well documented that “authorities” wouldn’t allow helicopters anywhere near the twin towers.

Why? Because they didn’t want anyone to “see” what was really going on inside the buildings. Had any rescue workers entered from the top of the buildings they would have discovered oil-fog smoke machines, demolition and incendiary devices but no traces of planes or big fires. This is why they had to “pull the plug” on the south tower once the firefighters reached the “crime scene” after climbing 79 stories.

The cabal’s motto on 9-11 was that “no one gets out alive” (of the upper floors). Except for Stanley Praimnath of course. What I would give to be able to “interview” him on live television…

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods