Originally posted by septic
I've been lurking for some time and haven't seen your thread. Got a link?
The original article was an interview with Deputy Chief Peter Hayden for Firehouse Magazine, but the link I have is broken so the firehouse magazine
website probably archived it. You can almost certainly find it if you look through their site.
However, the actual text of the article can be found HERE:
Link to Peter Hayden
interview
The key statement by Hayden is: "Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered.
We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the
Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse.
Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going
to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but
by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse. "
This is the very quote where the often quoted "firefighters knew in advance WTC 7 was going to fall" came from. You will ntice the original says
something completely different from what the conspiracy mongors are saying.
Have you ever considered many in the FDNY were involved in 911? That's a taboo subject on ATS, but not eleswhere:
Not in the least because:
a) accusing the NYFD of being involved in the coverup is necesaarily accusing them of covering up the deliberate murder of 343 of their brother
firefighters with absolutely nothing to back the claim up. It's taboo for the simple fact that making false accusations of murder is reprehensible
and ignorant. I shouldn't have to tell you this.
b) it makes you truthers look like liars because up until now you've been insisting on religiously relying on eyewitness accounts word for word, and
now you're turning around and telling us we really shouldn't listen to eyewitness accounts. Do we listen to eyewitness accounts or don't we listen
to eyewitness accounts?
This is again wrong for reality, but right for spreading payoff money, heavy at the top. Buy up the top dogs with the slickest retirement plan
ever. There is simply no explanation for the fact that 1 out of every 4 Firemen lost were Ranked.
How about the fact that firefighters is a brotherhood, not a 9 to 5 job, and the officers would necessarily want to put the safety of their boys over
their own safety...which leads me back to the "reprehensible and ignorant accusation with nothing to back it up" scenario all over again.
