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 TrickoftheShade
1 Experts on the scene - as shown in your video - looked at the building and surmised it was about to collapse. This information filtered out and led to the early reporting
Originally posted by REMISNE
Actually since they were worried about fire jumping to other buildings, as stated by Chief Hayden the incident (fire) commander decided to bring down the building.
It is possiable the plan to bring it down leaked out and lead to the media making a early reporting.
[edit on 8-4-2010 by REMISNE]
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Where does Hayden say this?
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
But absolutely nothing about bringing the building down.
Originally posted by REMISNE
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
But absolutely nothing about bringing the building down.
Thats not what i was saying.
Chief Hayden made a statement to Firehouse Magazine that he was worried about fire jumping to other buildings.
One reason why the incident commander decided to bring down the building.
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Where is your evidence that the incident commander decided to bring down the building. Hayden et al do not agree with you on this, so I note you're willing to believe their testimony about some things and not about others.
Originally posted by REMISNE
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Where is your evidence that the incident commander decided to bring down the building. Hayden et al do not agree with you on this, so I note you're willing to believe their testimony about some things and not about others.
Well according to the official story, Silverstein made the statement that the fire commander decided to PULL IT, which could only mean the building since the firemen were out of the building before the call was made.
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Or Silverstein is mistaken or lying, perhaps trying to inflate his role in proceedings.
yet unwilling to take into account their statements that refute your version?
Originally posted by REMISNE
So you agree the official story has a lot of problems and thats why research has to be done to find the truth.
Please show me the statments that refute the firemen being out of the building before the call was made.
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
What's that got to do with what I asked? Hayden's interview - the one you pointed me to - rejects the idea of demolition. Why do you believe him about one thing but not another?
Originally posted by REMISNE
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
What's that got to do with what I asked? Hayden's interview - the one you pointed me to - rejects the idea of demolition. Why do you believe him about one thing but not another?
How does it reject the idea of demoltion? To begin with i never stated he said anything about demolition, only when the firemen were evacuated from the building and that he was worried about fire jumping to other buildings.
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Read it. He specifically says that the building collapsed and that by 2pm he and others in the FD were pretty sure it was going to.
I'm increasingly uncertain that you understand how to use primary evidence.
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Originally posted by REMISNE
So you agree the official story has a lot of problems and thats why research has to be done to find the truth.
I've answered this above. But to be honest I think there are more important things to think about than that.
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Why do you believe Hayden on the issue of Silverstein's involvement but choose not to believe him when, mere sentences later, he completely refutes your version of events?
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
This kind of BS sentiment is getting really old on these 9/11 threads. Debunkers, why is it that when you agree with a truther you always fall back on "But there are better things to worry about" or "That is not the most important thing to worry about anymore" or even "More important things to think about than that?" You agree that the official story does not add up but there are more important things to worry about. OK, so why are any of you in these threads at all?
You have the time and energy to argue on the side of the government but when real concerns pop up, it is not important. Am I the only one that finds people stating they have other things to worry about confusing when they are still here worrying about it?
Originally posted by REMISNE
What involvement by Silverstein?
Lets look at the facts once again of what happened that day.
1. The fire commander called Sivlerstein to tell him what was going on wht his building. Silverstein had no authority of what was going on.
2. The fire commander decided to bring down the building and Silverstein agreed since it would save more live and damage.
3. Chief Haden DID NOT refute the fact that the fire commader made the call to bring down the building.