This is how normal people discuss 9/11

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
reply to post by whatsecret

 

Yes I have, years ago. I wanted to know if there was a site of information confirming that it was indeed a 24/7 operation there, 365 days a year. Like an official source.

It's not that I disbelieve Mr. Jennings at all. My purpose was for the sake of fully clarifying and understanding the full nature of the operation and its relevance to the events of 9/11.

According to Jennings, when he came in there were half eaten sandwiches and still hot coffee on people's desks. But I don't know when everybody left. When it was built they said it was supposed to be staffed 24/7, but I'm not sure if it was.

Wasn't it a really good idea to built the OEM for managing terror attacks and other disasters right next to the known terror target?

Silverstein must have donated some change to the Giuliani campaign for this to happen.

Luckily FEMA was in town that day, so they used their commend center not too far from ground zero but in a safe area. If it wasn't for FEMA who knows how long it would take them to set up another commend center...

reply to post by whatsecret

According to Jennings, when he came in there were half eaten sandwiches and still hot coffee on people's desks. But I don't know when everybody left. When it was built they said it was supposed to be staffed 24/7, but I'm not sure if it was.

I dont have a source for this, its just off to top of my head but....

the Head of OME was at a town meeting when he heard about the 9/11 attacks in City hall he got a page form the OME to attend but rather than going to the OME he linked up with the Fire-Fighters at the north tower. Shortly after the second plane hit OME received intelligence that another plane was heading for New York so they evacuated. WTC-7 was empty by 09:44 and so was the OME.

There were still some people left in the building, we know that there was a TV cameraman inside and a few other people including a guy form the Secret Service but the OME was evacuated.

That means Jennings and Hess must have got to to the OME some time after 09:44.

After OME evacuated they took up office's first in a police station, then in a library and eventually they used a where house on a pier that was supposed to be used for Operation Tripod the next day and that's were they eventually set up their command post. I belief that they stayed in that where house for months.

And yes i would agree that WTC-7 in hindsight was a terrible place to house the OME

reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

3. Was the center normally manned 24/7, 365 days a year, or had it changed in the recent past?

I found the answer to this question here.

Watch Command, which was located at the OEM Offices in 7 World Trade Center, acted as the eyes and ears of the City. Twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, it monitored all emergency services frequencies, New York State and National alert systems, weather systems, and local, national and international news

And this one..

1. Was the center abandoned before the planes hit, or did people evacuate after they hit? If they left after the attacks, it could be that the staff were concerned that the area was no longer safe to run a command center in, and left. If they weren't even there before the planes hit, that would be highly weird.

Almost instantly after the South Tower had been hit, I contacted the EOC to confirm that air support was on its way to New York. At that time, the EOC informed me that that there were still planes unaccounted for that may have been heading for New York. I relayed this information to the command post in the North Tower lobby. At the same time, OEM evacuated the EOC. The rest of 7 World Trade Center had been evacuated earlier, but after the report of a possible third plane, we had to get our people out of the building.

Originally posted by whatsecret
What other researchers were allowed to conduct an extensive field study at the disaster site? And who other then NIST could get significant participation and/or coordination by other federal agencies?

I asked for a specific example of evidence that is withheld and prevents experts from making models. You failed at naming something specific. Does this evidence really exist or did you make this up for the sake of your argument?

The square root of 2 is 1.4142135623730951. I used a Square Root Calculator to get this result. Don't believe me? Calculate it yourself and check if I'm wrong.

The square root of two being an irrational number, you are obviously wrong. But you are not a mathematician so I do not blame you for you being wrong.

That is also probably the reason that you do not know that mathematics and science is not the same, so your example is meaningless. Feynman is always a good source for explanations www.youtube.com...

I was getting an impression that you consider yourself to be more on a scientist side, but now I think you might actually be a psychic. Prove me wrong.

We should first establish what you will accept as proof. The reason I think this will happen is because this is what I have seen happen over and over in the past. I can see a very clear pattern.

I use NIST. You keep bringing up all the other people for some reason...

It was you who wrote "Honestly, all the information on architects and engineers for 9/11 truth website seems lagit to me".

The reason I bring them up is because they are relevant to the subject at hand. At one point it seems you agreed as you mentioned them too.

reply to post by totallackey


If you can determine whether something is in freefall or not just by looking at it you either have superhuman abilities are you do not know what freefall is.

reply to post by totallackey


If you can determine whether something is in freefall or not just by looking at it you either have superhuman abilities are you do not know what freefall is.

reply to post by -PLB-

I asked for a specific example of evidence that is withheld and prevents experts from making models. You failed at naming something specific. Does this evidence really exist or did you make this up for the sake of your argument?

I don't know, why don't you tell me if the classified information exist or did NIST make it up?

The square root of two being an irrational number, you are obviously wrong. But you are not a mathematician so I do not blame you for you being wrong.

I told you what model (calculator) I used to get my result, and I told you how to check of its the right result. Something that isn't possible to do with the NIST model.

Lol, you'll never get it.

was you who wrote "Honestly, all the information on architects and engineers for 9/11 truth website seems lagit to me".

I see a very clear pattern of you taking one sentence out of context and expect me not to notice. We went trough this once in this thread already, remember?

The reason I bring them up is because they are relevant to the subject at hand. At one point it seems you agreed as you mentioned them too.

Well, if that's how it seems to you after so many times I tried to explain my position... There's nothing I can or want to do about it. So, I guess we're done here.

reply to post by -PLB-


I believe you first posted this...:

I don't really get this fixation with free fall. I have never seen evidence that demolition charges cause free fall. It seems more like one of those 911 truth memes.

...indicating you have never seen evidence that demolition charges cause free fall. Indicating (by deduction) you have no concept of what is typically meant by the term free fall.

Hence, my reply to you:

Either you have seen no videos of any controlled demolition, or you have assigned a different meaning to the term, "free fall." If you watch any videos of any controlled demolition, you will see what is meant by the term, "free fall."

So now, in response, I receive this reply:

If you can determine whether something is in freefall or not just by looking at it you either have superhuman abilities are you do not know what freefall is.

Assuming the word after the term "superhuman abilities," is meant to be the word, "or," rather than "are," you are clearly stating that now:

1) I have no clue of what the term free fall means;
2) You have suddenly become an expert regarding free fall.

The point is, you made a statement. In my reply, I allowed for semantics and provided you with source material (i.e., videos of controlled demolitions), in order to come to a mutual understanding of a simple term. While I clearly understand this may be an appeal to numbers argument, I do not believe my understanding of the term free fall (as applied to a building's destruction) is inaccurate and it is in line with many others view. In response, I receive overt derisiveness.

Since this is the case, I see no further need to engage you in any further enlightenment as your entire approach to this simple discussion has been shown to be disingenuous.

reply to post by whatsecret


Thank you. Then it seems they evacuated after the planes had hit, due to uncertainty about the intentions of a third plane. Sadly Mr. Jennings never got the message. Nice communications for an emergency command post.



I agree building 7 was about the dumbest location for such an operation. I've always thought this. Long before 9/11, the WTC was already a well known target of terrorism, and a skyscraper would have been a poor choice for a number of reasons. Fortifying one single suite in a 47 story building is really not the brightest of ideas, the rest of the building is still vulnerable. Making it in city hall, or someplace close and easier to secure would have made more sense.

Just...stupid on so many levels. Who knows. Maybe Silverstein did encourage the choice. Wouldn't surprise me, money talks in politics.

reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

I agree building 7 was about the dumbest location for such an operation. I've always thought this. Long before 9/11, the WTC was already a well known target of terrorism, and a skyscraper would have been a poor choice for a number of reasons. Fortifying one single suite in a 47 story building is really not the brightest of ideas, the rest of the building is still vulnerable. Making it in city hall, or someplace close and easier to secure would have made more sense.

You were not the only one even before 9/11. I remember when Giuliani ran for president there were many people that came out and said that they were trying to convince him to reconsider the location. But he wouldn't listen. One of them was the former OEM commissioner Richard Sheirer. He even said that at the 9/11 hearing. Silverstein did host a fundraiser for Giuliani, if I'm remembering right.

Originally posted by totallackey

I have no clue of what the term free fall means;

Do you know what the term 'momentum transfer' means ?

Originally posted by whatsecret

I don't know, why don't you tell me if the classified information exist or did NIST make it up?

You are claiming that experts are not able to make models because they miss critical evidence withheld by NIST. You provide zero evidence for this claim. It seems to me you made it up.

I told you what model (calculator) I used to get my result, and I told you how to check of its the right result. Something that isn't possible to do with the NIST model.

Lol, you'll never get it.

And I didn't need to check your "model" at all to know you were wrong. Something you don't seem to get.

Well, if that's how it seems to you after so many times I tried to explain my position... There's nothing I can or want to do about it. So, I guess we're done here.

If you do not want to discuss anything that is outside your comfort zone then we are done indeed.

reply to post by totallackey


Its the usual truther nonsense.You take a random term and you give it whatever meaning you like it to have. Terms like "free fall" or "footprint" are completely raped. I don't care that much about this kind of nonsense.

reply to post by waypastvne

Let me get this straight...you quote mined a very tiny portion of my response to another ATS member to arrive at another question. Well, I will play along. Anyone reading the entire response will surmise what I was attempting to communicate. I must say, however, I have seldom seen such a desperate attempt on the part of OS (even though there is truly no OS) defenders to obfuscate the real point of contention; mainly the NIST refusing to provide the input and result data from their models.

The meaning of momentum transfer: I am unsure; however, I think it describes one of those things dealing with the kind of result you see from one of those desktop playthings. The kind consisting of a lineup of suspended ball bearings. You pull one out, let it go, and after it crashes into the remaining group of ball bearings, the opposite side ball bearing is sent flying.

reply to post by -PLB-

If you do not want to discuss anything that is outside your comfort zone then we are done indeed.

Now that's interesting, and I would love to discuss comfort zones. First lets establish what do you think my comfort zone is? And then tell me what is yours?

reply to post by whatsecret


I can understand why you want to discuss comfort zones instead of posting evidence for what you claim. I don't care about comfort zones though.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by whatsecret

 

I can understand why you want to discuss comfort zones instead of posting evidence for what you claim. I don't care about comfort zones though.

edit on 27-8-2013 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

I don't understand why you want me to keep posting the same thing over and over again. At this point comfort zones seem more interesting to me. Something new at least.

reply to post by whatsecret


Sure, babbling about comfort zones is more interesting than providing actual evidence to support your claims about this cover up conspiracy. I can understand how that subject makes you uncomfortable.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by totallackey

 

Its the usual truther nonsense.You take a random term and you give it whatever meaning you like it to have. Terms like "free fall" or "footprint" are completely raped. I don't care that much about this kind of nonsense.

edit on 26-8-2013 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

Dammit, -PLB-.
Are you that uncivic and decorumless now, to start using such derogatory insults also?
That's very bad debating style, inherited from JREF. And it used to be forbidden here at the cost of losing your account. As usual, slack is slowly introduced again for this behavior. I still wonder why.

By the way, when is one of you, oficial theory liners, at last reacting on this long list of evidence of wrongdoing by the US government and its Institutions?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You all suspiciously avoid to address anything on my list intrinsically as the Plague.

Originally posted by LaBTop
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


It's highly advisable for all non-believers of the official 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST Reports' investigations into the events on 9/11/2001,
and also very beneficial for this ATS 9/11 Forum its internal PEACE,
to counter any further threads- and posts disturbances, by well known disturbers who never answer 9/11-Conspiracies evidence-loaded posts by LINKING THIS POST as a STANDARD ANSWER to these "simple- or one liner" posts disturbers :

LaBTop : WTC destruction, the Leftover candidates, Pro&Contra Arguments.
ANSWER THIS POST BEFORE POSTING ANY FURTHER THREAD-DISTURBING UNSUBSTANTIATED POSTS.

The subject of the WTC 7 truly-freefall period ( 2.3 seconds) is covered extensively in there.

reply to post by LaBTop


It always surprises me how easily people can be insulted. But anyway, your list is a waste of time. Example, point one, not all building collapse the same. I don't care enough about your list to waste any more time on it.