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.

 

Chief Hayden

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 





Now that is very interesting! Why oh why, if there's nothing to hide, would he not reveal the name of the engineer. You can't just go around saying that somebody predicted that a steel-structured highrise was going to collapse without giving that somebody's name. That is highly suspicious. Especially when that particular somebody predicted the collapse and the approximate time when no steel-structured highrise has ever collapsed from fires before in our entire history.

I may just end up contacting Mr. Hayden myself for my documentary to see if he will release the name of this engineer after all these years.



Probably to spare him and his family years of harassment by the
paranoid truther fringe

Like what happened to Valerie Mc Clathchey after photgraphing smoke
cloud from Flight 93 crash




But Mrs. McClatchey's fame has recently taken a sour turn. The real estate agent has recently become a target of bloggers calling themselves "9-11 researchers," who are seeking to prove that the U.S. government was complicit in the attacks that brought down the Twin Towers, pierced the Pentagon and crashed United Airlines Flight 93. "The End of Serenity" has turned out to be their smoking gun.

The smoke plume doesn't line up right, they say. It is too large in the frame. The smoke is characteristic of an ordnance blast, not a jet fuel fire, further evidence that the government shot down Flight 93. They analyze wind direction, debris patterns and camera trajectories, all in the service of the theory that the crash was faked.

They have visited Mrs. McClatchey's office and called her at home, posting satellite maps of her property and accusing her of digitally altering her photo to insert a fake smoke plume. The bloggers have picked apart her story, highlighting inconsistencies in different news accounts and questioning her motives. Others have described her as "surly," "hostile," "irate" and "defensive." People have called her at home, accusing her of being anti-American and of "holding the photo hostage."

On a simple Google search, Mrs. McClatchey's name now pops up in the same sentence as "total fraud."

"Val McClatchey has made it unmistakably clear to us that she intends to milk her 9-11 claim to fame for all it's worth, truth be damned," writes Lisa Guliani, of WingTV (World Independent News Group), who traveled to Stoystown to interview Mrs. McClatchey.



Read more: www.post-gazette.com...



So what are you and the nut fringe going to do? Start harassing him, call
him a fraud, gubmint stooge, etc.




posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


What's also ironic, is that after whining about how "it's never happened before, therefore 9/11 was an inside jobby job"....

We can point to harassment from truthers against real witnesses, proving that it HAS happened before, and very likely WILL happen again if the guy's identity is revealed to the public.

This will have zero effect on them.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
about an engineer that may wish to remain anonymous

Firstly, nowhere does it say that he chooses to remain anonymous. Hayden just said he was not going to release the name.

Second, if you are going to make an extraordinary "prediction" that a steel-structured highrise was not only going to collapse, but when, when it has never happened before in history, you better damn well be ready to be scrutinized.

But, since there is no name, then it's just hearsay, period.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Actually Silverstein said he talked to a "fire department commander" and considering that probably every fire department officer in the FDNY was on site that day, it could of been any one of them.


As per usual i see you know nothing about emergency incident command.

Only the fire commander would have been the one talking to Silverstein.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
Actually Silverstein said he talked to a "fire department commander" and considering that probably every fire department officer in the FDNY was on site that day, it could of been any one of them.


As per usual i see you know nothing about emergency incident command.

Only the fire commander would have been the one talking to Silverstein.



Right. Prove it. This should be interesting. So no one else associated with the FDNY would have called Silverstein, huh? Only this one guy, right?



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Right. Prove it. This should be interesting. So no one else associated with the FDNY would have called Silverstein, huh? Only this one guy, right?


So are you saying then that the offical story is wrong yet again and that Silverstlen lied when he stated he was talking to the fire commander?

Please try to understand, i know its hard when you do not know anything about emergency incident command but the only person that would have been talking to Silverstein would have been the fire commander. No one else would have the authority to talk to him and give commands

I strongly suggest you do research before posting about something you know nothing about.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
Right. Prove it. This should be interesting. So no one else associated with the FDNY would have called Silverstein, huh? Only this one guy, right?


So are you saying then that the offical story is wrong yet again and that Silverstlen lied when he stated he was talking to the fire commander?

Please try to understand, i know its hard when you do not know anything about emergency incident command but the only person that would have been talking to Silverstein would have been the fire commander. No one else would have the authority to talk to him and give commands

I strongly suggest you do research before posting about something you know nothing about.



That's pretty funny, thank you. The only one, huh? I'll just take your word for it, why not your are such a trusting soul and I know you believe everything everyone says. Post some facts and evidence please.

Also, please post those commands that Silverstein was given by the one and only "fire department commander" that was on the scene that day.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


Show the source for emergency incident command procedure that you're using please. It should be a 2001-vintage operating standard as procedures will likely have changed since then.

Perhaps you should also realise that the "Official Story" does not guarantee that everybody tells the truth. People have different agendas and reasons for pushing their own versions of the facts. It's only someone who already believes there is a conspiracy - ie someone with bias - who thinks that finding a discrepancy between what someone says after the fact and what happened is de facto evidence of that person departing from an "official" script.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooperAlso, please post those commands that Silverstein was given by the one and only "fire department commander" that was on the scene that day.


Well according to the official story Silverstein stated that the fire commander decided to PULL IT. Meaning the building since the firemen were already out of the building.

And yes there was only one fire commander who that day was in charge of the situation according to even the 9/11 commission.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Originally posted by REMISNE
Originally posted by hooper


Well according to the official story Silverstein stated that the fire commander decided to PULL IT. Meaning the building since the firemen were already out of the building.


First, "pull it" does not mean the building, second please explain how informing Silverstein as to their intent to pull the last firefighters out of the building constitute a command to Sileverstein.


And yes there was only one fire commander who that day was in charge of the situation according to even the 9/11 commission.


So there was only one fire department commander on site that day? Nobody but you said he/she had to be "in charge". Silverstein said a "fire department commander", not "the fire department commander in charge". Stick to the facts please.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Show the source for emergency incident command procedure that you're using please. It should be a 2001-vintage operating standard as procedures will likely have changed since then.


Always fun and easy to post facts to support what i post, others on here should try it.

www.9-11commission.gov...

The Fire Department of New York. The 11,000-member FDNY was headed by a fire commissioner who, unlike the police commissioner, lacked operational authority. Operations were headed by the chief of department- the sole five-star chief.19


In July 2001, Mayor Giuliani updated a directive titled "Direction and Control of Emergencies in the City of New York." Its purpose was to eliminate "potential conflict among responding agencies which may have areas of overlapping expertise and responsibility." The directive sought to accomplish this objective by designating, for different types of emergencies, an appropriate agency as "Incident Commander." This Incident Commander would be "responsible for the management of the City's response to the emergency," while the OEM was "designated the 'On Scene Interagency Coordinator.'"29

As the highest-ranking officer on the scene, the battalion chief initially was the FDNY incident commander. Minutes later, the on-duty division chief for Lower Manhattan arrived and took over. Both chiefs immediately began speaking with the former fire safety director and other building personnel to learn whether building systems were working.

Challenges Experienced by First Responders The Challenge of Incident Command. As noted above, in July 2001, Mayor Giuliani updated a directive titled "Direction and Control of Emergencies in the City of New York." The directive designated, for different types of emergencies, an appropriate agency as "Incident Commander"; it would be "responsible for the management of the City's response to the emergency." The directive also provided that where incidents are "so multifaceted that no one agency immediately stands out as the Incident Commander, OEM will assign the role of Incident Commander to an agency as the situation demands."203

To some degree, the Mayor's directive for incident command was followed on 9/11. It was clear that the lead response agency was the FDNY, and that the other responding local, federal, bistate, and state agencies acted in a supporting role.


Perhaps you should also realise that the "Official Story" does not guarantee that everybody tells the truth.


So you would agree then that proper research needs to be to find the facts of what happened.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
First, "pull it" does not mean the building, second please explain how informing Silverstein as to their intent to pull the last firefighters out of the building constitute a command to Sileverstein.


The incident commander (fire commander) called Silverstein (after the firemen had been evacuated) to let him know that they could not save the building and decided to bring it down.


So there was only one fire department commander on site that day?


Yes as shown in the above post with sources from the 9/11 commission.



[edit on 8-4-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

In July 2001, Mayor Giuliani updated a directive titled "Direction and Control of Emergencies in the City of New York." ...


None of that proves what you claim. Silverstein could have spoken to several different commanders. Your source even suggests that the guidelines were not followed to the letter and I don't think Silverstein is specific in his wording or indeed particularly reliable.

All your source shows is that if regulations were being properly followed Silverstein should have spoken to X. Whether he did or not remains unclear. And largely unimportant in the grand scheme of things.



So you would agree then that proper research needs to be to find the facts of what happened.



Yeah. But not for the purpose of proving an "inside job" that I've already made up my mind occurred. Rather I'd like to ensure that something like this is less likely to catch everyone off guard, that agencies combine effectively and lessons are learned. Boring stuff, but rather more vital than fiddling about pretending that paint is Thermite.

Mind you, I don't live in the US, so I'm not that bothered.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Second, if you are going to make an extraordinary "prediction" that a steel-structured highrise was not only going to collapse


So I guess it bugs you that somebody in the FDNY mayknow more than you?


but when,


sharpshooter fallacy....


when it has never happened before in history


again, you trot out the standard truther canard. pathetic...

,

you better damn well be ready to be scrutinized.


Don't you mean harassed. Vilified. Burned in effigy. Etc?

Cuz that's what truthers do. And yes, it HAS happened before, so therefore it is reasonable to expect it to happen again.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
None of that proves what you claim. Silverstein could have spoken to several different commanders.


No, because only the fire commander would have called him to tell him what was going on. Do you have training in emergency incident command, becasue i do?

Do you have a source that Silverstien lied about talking to the fire commander?

Do you have a source that chief Nigro lied about evacuating the firemen before talking to the owner?


[edit on 8-4-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


Do you really think on 9/11 they were going strictly by the book? They had hundreds of dead firefighters and you think they were sitting there trying to interpret the proper communication protocol according to your so-called emergency incident pamphlet?



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Do you really think on 9/11 they were going strictly by the book? They had hundreds of dead firefighters and you think they were sitting there trying to interpret the proper communication protocol according to your so-called emergency incident pamphlet?


An emergency is the most critical time to follow your training and carefully follow the orders of your higher-ups.

So what's up with Hayden refusing to give the name of this genius "engineer" in his little hearsay piece?

I say let's have him subpoena'd over it. Silverstein too. Man, we're bound to get all of these guys contradicting each other and themselves based on these contradictory statements they've already made to the media! Who knows what they might spill under pressure.

[edit on 8-4-2010 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Is it at all relevant to compare 9/11 to the incident at the Empire State Building in 1945? A B-25 ran into it accidentally, took out about 14 office workers, but only damaged one floor. Obviously it was a much smaller airplane with a lot less fuel, but it seems interesting that it only left a fairly big hole but nothing more.

en.wikipedia.org...

The pictures can easily be found on Google Images:
images.google.com...:en-US
fficial&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N &hl=en&tab=wi

[edit on 8-4-2010 by kiwasabi]



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
First, "pull it" does not mean the building,

Um, say it over and over in your head:

pull IT, pull IT, pull IT

"It" means the building. There were no other "it's". He did not say pull "them". He did not say pull "everyone". He did not say pull "back". He said pull the building (pull IT). Clear now?



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
again, you trot out the standard truther canard. pathetic...

Is that so? How about you do us a favor and show us one steel-structured highrise that has collapsed totally and completely from fires.

If you can't find one, then you'll apologize and deal with this fact.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join