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: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwasabi
 





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.


B25 was travelling at 1/3 the speed of the 767's which hit towers, it also
weighted less than 1/10 that of 767

If do the math (1/2 MV Squared) find energy of the B25 was about 1/100
(1%) that of the 767's

Outer wall of ESB was also solid masonry which was more resistant than
lattice work of WTC.

Even then plane punched 18 by 20 foot hole in ESB. On the motors
smashed completely through building and ended up on roof of adjacent building



At 9:49 a.m., the ten-ton, B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building. The majority of the plane hit the 79th floor, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high. The plane's high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor.





One of the engines and part of the landing gear hurtled across the 79th floor, through wall partitions and two fire walls, and out the south wall's windows to fall onto a twelve-story building across 33rd Street. The other engine flew into an elevator shaft and landed on an elevator car. The car began to plummet, slowed somewhat by emergency safety devices. Miraculously, when help arrived at the remains of the elevator car in the basement, the two women inside the car were still alive.


Fuel load on plane was only small fraction of 767 and back in 1945 was lot less fuel load to ignite and burn (no plastic/synthethics)


Comparing apples to oranges ....




posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
B25 was travelling at 1/3 the speed of the 767's which hit towers, it also
weighted less than 1/10 that of 767


Why do you guys always compare the size of the planes but always forget or ignore to comapare the size of the buildings?


Fuel load on plane was only small fraction of 767 and back in 1945 was lot less fuel load to ignite and burn (no plastic/synthethics)


People either ignore or do not know the fact that high octane avgas burns hotter then jet fuel.


Comparing apples to oranges ....


Only in your mind, not for someone with basic common sense and intelligence.

[edit on 9-4-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Pull it refers to the firefighting team. Sorry. I know that this particular straw looked a lot like a gold ring in the truth movement but it is going nowhere. People have been trying to sell that one for going on 9 years now and no one is buying it. "Pull it" does not mean the building.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Pull it refers to the firefighting team.


Maybe you can answer the question i have been asking for years and you and others keep refusing to answer.

How can PULL IT refer to the firefighting team when they wre already out of the building as testified to by Chief Nigro and Chief Hayden?

Chief Nigro stated he evacuated the firefighters BEFORE talking to the owner. Which means BEFORE talking to Siverstein.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
Pull it refers to the firefighting team.


Maybe you can answer the question i have been asking for years and you and others keep refusing to answer.

How can PULL IT refer to the firefighting team when they wre already out of the building as testified to by Chief Nigro and Chief Hayden?

Chief Nigro stated he evacuated the firefighters BEFORE talking to the owner. Which means BEFORE talking to Siverstein.



You better talk to BoneZ because I thought Nigro didn't talk to the owner. You also repeated that contention. Now you are saying he did talk to him, and not only are you saying Nigro talked to Silverstein you are also advising us of the timeline.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE


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?


Yeah, I do. Loads of it.

Come on, this is the internet. I could tell you I'm Chief Nigro himself and you've got no way to prove or disprove it.

That said, your training - even if it exists - is of little relevance. Also - your own source above suggests that the incident protocol was not followed to the letter.


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?



I think that what occurred during what was, let's face it, quite a busy day for all concerned, along with its psychological impact, may have affected some people's recollection of the exact order of events.

You think that some outlandish plan involving the senior officers of the NYFD and shadowy demolition teams was executed and then covered up for no reason.

I'm just employing common sense, really.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
You better talk to BoneZ because I thought Nigro didn't talk to the owner. You also repeated that contention. Now you are saying he did talk to him, and not only are you saying Nigro talked to Silverstein you are also advising us of the timeline.


You might want to learn more about what happend on that day, instead of just repeating what the media stated or what you have been told.

Lets look at more facts yet again.

1. Chief Nigro stated that he evacuated the firemen BEFORE talking to the owner Silverstein.

2. By the time the call was made to Silverstein Chief Nigro was the fire commander.

3. Silverstein stated that the fire commander (Nigro) decided to PULL IT, which could ony mean the building since the firemen were already out of the building.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE


1. Chief Nigro stated that he evacuated the firemen BEFORE talking to the owner Silverstein.

2. By the time the call was made to Silverstein Chief Nigro was the fire commander.

3. Silverstein stated that the fire commander (Nigro) decided to PULL IT, which could ony mean the building since the firemen were already out of the building.





There are several other explanations.

For example, Nigro could have begun to pull the men out of the building, then called Silverstein. As the firefighters gathered at the foot of the stricken WTC 7, they could have decided between them to end the operation and pull them away completely.

Both men, within the acceptable limits of expression, could thus be telling the truth.

Call me mental, but I find this more likely than your not-secret-then-secret demo teams.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Yeah, I do. Loads of it.


What law enforcement schools have you been to?


I think that what occurred during what was, let's face it, quite a busy day for all concerned, along with its psychological impact, may have affected some people's recollection of the exact order of events.


But that is why you have an emergency incident command to keep control of things.


You think that some outlandish plan involving the senior officers of the NYFD and shadowy demolition teams was executed and then covered up for no reason.


No i am stating the facts, i never stated their was a plan involving the senior officers. I am stating the fact the fire commander has the autority to bring down a building in an emergency and their were demo teams on site.


I'm just employing common sense, really.


Well so far i have not seen much common sense.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
For example, Nigro could have begun to pull the men out of the building, then called Silverstein.


Do you think Chief Nigro would have left his men, if he thought they were in a dangeruos situation to call Sivlerstein?


Call me mental, but I find this more likely than your not-secret-then-secret demo teams.


What was secret about the demo teams? We have facts and evindence that there were demo teams on site by 3PM.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE


What law enforcement schools have you been to?


I did a correspondence course from the University of Cornwall.




But that is why you have an emergency incident command to keep control of things.


Who, according to your own source, were not able always to keep to the protocols.




No i am stating the facts, i never stated their was a plan involving the senior officers.




You, in another thread, said that the incident commander




probably discussed it with other experts or superiorers in the incident command group


Which sounds an awful lot like you do think senior officers were involved.




I am stating the fact the fire commander has the autority to bring down a building in an emergency and their were demo teams on site.


Right. And what use is that information to anybody?



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE


Do you think Chief Nigro would have left his men, if he thought they were in a dangeruos situation to call Sivlerstein?


No. That's my point. I'm suggesting that his call to Silverstein came after he began the withdrawal. Knowing this would take time, he makes what amounts to a courtesy call, and between them they 'decide' to pull back the men.

It's just conjecture. But allowing for a bit of Silverstein's ego in his later pronouncements, it makes sense to me. More sense than a legal demolition that then had to be covered up for no reason.




What was secret about the demo teams? We have facts and evindence that there were demo teams on site by 3PM.



According to your fanciful logic their actions in demolishing the building are secret now. That's what I mean - although obviously I completely disagree with your theory.

This is becoming frustrating.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I did a correspondence course from the University of Cornwall.


Well i went to the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. Also spent 12 years as a federal police officer.


Who, according to your own source, were not able always to keep to the protocols.


That maybe be so but as stated only the fire comander would have called Silverstein, only he had the final authority to decide what to do with the building.


Which sounds an awful lot like you do think senior officers were involved.


Involved in what? So they decided to bring down a building that they have the authority to do,, nothing illega about it.

You make it sound like it was some sort of secret illegal conspiiracy.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


I'm exploring your logic, or trying to.

You think:

that several senior FDNY officers decided to demolish a burning building. Thus decided, and despite the danger, they sent a demo team into an inferno to perform a previously unheard of "demolition", the details of which remain utterly obscure. They then kept this fact secret for NO REASON. And no one from the demo team has come forward.

I think:

there may have been some confusion over phone call timings.



Really, in your heart of hearts, which is more likely?



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You think:

that several senior FDNY officers decided to demolish a burning building. Thus decided, and despite the danger, they sent a demo team into an inferno to perform a previously unheard of "demolition", the details of which remain utterly obscure. They then kept this fact secret for NO REASON. And no one from the demo team has come forward.


Well lets look at the facts again.

1. There were no raging fires by that time.

2. There were no fires on the lower floors as comnfirmed by the fact the EPA had recovered a majority of the fuel in the tanks.

3. We had the twin towers collapse that was previously unheard of in a steel building. So what is wrong with having demo teams do a unheard of job?



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE
So what is wrong with having demo teams do a unheard of job?



Jeeze.

Maybe cuz it would be ridiculously unsafe?

And why exactly would any demo team go in there in the first place, especially after being informed that the FDNY has evacuated a collapse zone?

What kind of fantasy world do people live in to even give this any merit.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Maybe cuz it would be ridiculously unsafe?


You mean like the fire fighters and fire rescue teams were already doing?



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Well lets look at the facts again.

1. There were no raging fires by that time.

2. There were no fires on the lower floors as comnfirmed by the fact the EPA had recovered a majority of the fuel in the tanks.



No raging fires....no fires on lower levels. If the fires weren't raging, then why the fear that they would jump to other buildings?



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
No raging fires....no fires on lower levels. If the fires weren't raging, then why the fear that they would jump to other buildings?


Gee. you do understand that fire is still fire?

You do understand that they were running out of water to fight the fires?

Why does it seem like its really getting hard to get basic information through to peope like you?



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE
Gee. you do understand that fire is still fire?



Well, you seem to be confused about this. One one hand you say the fires were burning out, then you say they were large enough to spread to other structures (which would mean they were NOT burning out).

Perhaps you need to take a moment, decide whether these fires were burning out or not, then let us know how you feel....because right now, you seem to be playing on both sides of the fence.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join