|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 22, 2007 23:36:50 GMT -4
I suppose that all the emergency doors leading to the roof were locked, in violation of the fire codes, was just an innocent mistake too.
And I suppose that when it was done, a few months after the 93' bombing, it was really in preperation for the '01 attacks and not as claimed, to prevent people from landing on the roof and accessing the buildings through the roof doors.
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Feb 22, 2007 23:40:54 GMT -4
I suppose that all the emergency doors leading to the roof were locked, in violation of the fire codes, was just an innocent mistake too.And I suppose that when it was done, a few months after the 93' bombing, it was really in preperation for the '01 attacks and not as claimed, to prevent people from landing on the roof and accessing the buildings through the roof doors. Wow, that's a good one. Why then, would they lock the doors from the inside? And yes, the full security of the towers (including door locks) was handled by Securacom, a principal of which was Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother. The company was backed by KuwAm, a Kuwaiti-American investment firm on whose board Marvin Bush also served. According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down." Also from whatreallyhappened.com: Dan Baumbach, 24, a software engineer from Merrick, was stunned to find that building officials in One World Trade Center were telling workers not to evacuate even after the first jet struck. "You can try it, but it's at your own risk," he quoted one official as telling a group of 100 people on the 75th floor. Many chose to follow that advice; Baumbach continued his descent from the 80th floor and survived, but only after braving the debris that fell when the neighboring tower collapsed. "The reason we got out was because we didn't listen," he said.
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Feb 23, 2007 0:44:28 GMT -4
Russo related how Rockefeller knew precisely what the event would lead to and which countries would be militarily targeted by the elite. It would have been a lot more impressive if he had predicted it before it happened. Last I saw, Iraq was selling the oil to whoever would buy it. Yes, as I recall, the Iraqis were running an elaborate smuggling network trying to get as much oil as possible to the world market, and the Americans and British were trying to prevent their oil from reaching the market.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 23, 2007 2:56:23 GMT -4
Wow, that's a good one. Why then, would they lock the doors from the inside?Well how would you have locked them? There was no way off the roof, so they could hardly lock them from the outside. Not only that, even if the door weren't locked, it still wouldn't have helped, becuase after '93 and the choppers landing on the roof the two precautions they took were locking the doors and adding a large number of obstructions onto the roofs to prevent choppers landing on them. The belief was that the threat of a terrorist accessing the buildings from the roof was greater than the chance of needing to evacuate people off the roof. Yes they were wrong, but the decidsion was made 8 years before 9/11. And yes, the full security of the towers (including door locks) was handled by Securacom, a principal of which was Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother. No, he was a Director up until June 2000 when he resigned and sold his shares. That is over a Year prior to the attacks. He had neither ownership nor a position with the company on 9/11. Other people claim that Wirt D. Walker III is a Bush cousin, but there is no evidence of that claim. I have a feeling that they weren't responsible for all of the the Tower's security anyway, though I can't find the reference for the moment. I beleive that they were only responsible for the Electronic Security, ie cameras and such. According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down."It's a bit hard to provide it after the buildings fell down. Many CT's interpret his comments to mean that the contract was to end that day, an unlikely senario because contracts general finish at the end of a month or week. The more likely meaning is that with the buildings destroyed, they no longer had any job to do and so the contract was ended. Dan Baumbach, 24, a software engineer from Merrick, was stunned to find that building officials in One World Trade Center were telling workers not to evacuate even after the first jet struck.He wouldn't have been the only one surprised. In fact there was a lot of confusion. The Building Authorities were telling people to get out, but at the same time a recorded message was tell people to remain calm and stay in their office. Even the emergency people in the buildings were getting conflicting messages. Strange thing, when things aren't planned and there is a surprise, there is a lot of confusion as people attempt to adjust to the situation and decide what to do. It's easy for us to sit here today 6 years down the track and say what they should have said and done, but at the time people had to react to what was a highly unusual situation, they weren't going to get it right first time. Of course your ideas on this again increases the number of people in on this hoax. So far we have: - The Whitehouse
- Norad
- Silverstein and his staff
- Guiliani and his staff
- Those operating the remote controlled planes
- Those that outfited, fuelled and serviced the planes
- Those that set up the demolision charges
- Those that set them off
- Those that planted the wreckage at the Pentagon
- Those the planted the wreckage at Shanksville
- The NYFD
- The NYPD
- The NY EMT's
- The NY/NJ Port Authority
- The WTC Security
- The Logans and Dulles secutiry, baggage handlers, check-in staff
- The FAA
- FEMA
- NIST
- Most Structual Engineers worldwide, including the ones in China, Korea and Iran
- United Airlines
- American Airlines
- The Eastern US ATC
- The Montgomery County Fire Response Teams
- All of the demolisions teams at Ground Zero
- All the witness near the Pentagon that claimed to have seen a passager plane
- All the witnesses near Shanksville that saw a plane
- The Crew and passangers on the business lear jet sent to look for Flight 93 who became the "mystery white plane"
- The crew of the KC-30 that followed Flight 77
- The editors of an investment magizine that suggest buying futures in American and Unites Airlines
Anyone else you'd like to add to the list of people who were in on it?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 23, 2007 4:15:05 GMT -4
Wow, that's a good one. Why then, would they lock the doors from the inside? What a bizarre question. If they didn't, as PhantomWolf pointed out, how would they get down? Besides, correct me if I'm wrong, here, but isn't it generally easier to open a door on the side it's been locked from? I mean, if it's easier either way.
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Feb 23, 2007 22:30:24 GMT -4
Wow, that's a good one. Why then, would they lock the doors from the inside? What a bizarre question. If they didn't, as PhantomWolf pointed out, how would they get down? Besides, correct me if I'm wrong, here, but isn't it generally easier to open a door on the side it's been locked from? I mean, if it's easier either way. Apparently you and Phantom are not familiar with at least 99% of the emergency exit doors on public buildings. They can be opened from the inside, but are locked from the outside. That would still slow down those nasty terrorists from getting inside (about a minute until they shot out the locks.) More importantly, it would follow the fire code by allowing innocent people to get to the roof in the event of a fire on a lower floor.
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Feb 23, 2007 22:43:22 GMT -4
Well how would you have locked them? There was no way off the roof, so they could hardly lock them from the outside. Not only that, even if the door weren't locked, it still wouldn't have helped, becuase after '93 and the choppers landing on the roof the two precautions they took were locking the doors and adding a large number of obstructions onto the roofs to prevent choppers landing on them. The belief was that the threat of a terrorist accessing the buildings from the roof was greater than the chance of needing to evacuate people off the roof. Yes they were wrong, but the decidsion was made 8 years before 9/11.They could have rescued people by dropping ladders from choppers if roof landings were infeasible, had people been able to get to the roof. BTW fire exits are supposed to be locked from the outside and spring loaded to stay closed. No, he was a Director up until June 2000 when he resigned and sold his shares. That is over a Year prior to the attacks. He had neither ownership nor a position with the company on 9/11So he resigned before the sh*t hit the fan. No surprise there. Don't all these "coincidences" and unlikely connections raise your suspicions, even a little? Or do you really think the world is run by basically good intentioned people who aren't tempted and corrupted by power and money? I have a feeling that they weren't responsible for all of the the Tower's security anyway, though I can't find the reference for the moment. I beleive that they were only responsible for the Electronic Security, ie cameras and such.No they had a full contract to handle 100% of the building's security and also Dulles Airport. You can look it up in a google search if you don't believe me. It's a bit hard to provide it after the buildings fell down. Many CT's interpret his comments to mean that the contract was to end that day, an unlikely senario because contracts general finish at the end of a month or week. The more likely meaning is that with the buildings destroyed, they no longer had any job to do and so the contract was ended.The quote simply means that they were responsible for the towers security immediately prior to the attacks. It happened on their watch. Of course your ideas on this again increases the number of people in on this hoax. So far we have:
- The Whitehouse
- Norad
- Silverstein and his staff
- Guiliani and his staff
- yada yada yada
Anyone else you'd like to add to the list of people who were in on it?[/size] 99% of those people listed wouldn't have to know anything about the scheme. They would just have to believe the cover story like everyone else.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 23, 2007 23:41:27 GMT -4
Apparently you and Phantom are not familiar with at least 99% of the emergency exit doors on public buildings. They can be opened from the inside, but are locked from the outside. Oh! You're just not familiar with the meaning of the term "locked from the inside"! It has nothing to do with whether or not you can get in or out on the inside; it means "the lock was turned on the inside." As in, when I leave my apartment, I can lock the door from the outside; when I come back home again and lock it behind me, I am locking it from the inside. Sorry; confusion alleviated. I don't think that is part of the fire code, actually. Either way, it avails them naught to get there. There was no system with which to evacuate them; do you know how long it would have taken? (Okay, I don't remember exactly myself. Longer than the buildings had left, at any rate.)
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Feb 24, 2007 18:19:58 GMT -4
Oh! You're just not familiar with the meaning of the term "locked from the inside"! It has nothing to do with whether or not you can get in or out on the inside; it means "the lock was turned on the inside." As in, when I leave my apartment, I can lock the door from the outside; when I come back home again and lock it behind me, I am locking it from the inside.
If you really want to quibble about semantics, "locked" can have different meanings, depending on the context. In my example, "locked" obviously means firmly fastened or secured against opening. I don't think that is part of the fire code, actually.You think the NYC fire code allows emergency exit doors to be locked, preventing escape to the outside? You're wrong. Either way, it avails them naught to get there. There was no system with which to evacuate them; do you know how long it would have taken? (Okay, I don't remember exactly myself. Longer than the buildings had left, at any rate.)The point is the doors should have been opened. That they weren't is another indication that the towers were set up to be death traps by the 9-11 conspirators. Had they been opened, at least some of the people trapped above the fire could have made it to the roof and been rescued by helicopters before the remote-controlled collapse.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Feb 24, 2007 18:38:18 GMT -4
The point is the doors should have been opened. That they weren't is another indication that the towers were set up to be death traps by the 9-11 conspirators. They should have worked on their timing, then. Had they been opened, at least some of the people trapped above the fire could have made it to the roof and been rescued by helicopters before the remote-controlled collapse. Someone's been watching old Irwin Allen films again. A helicopter rescue would have been a lot of fun to watch, but it wouldn't have saved many people. (And why, exactly, wouldn't the conspirators detonate the buildings while the helicopter was still loading? Seems kind of wishy-washy to me. I call it the "Goldilocks Clause" of the 9-11 crowd; killing too few people wouldn't start a war, but killing too many -- such as, say, nuking lower Manhattan, would be too much. Only dropping the towers AFTER allowing a long mass evacuation was "just right.")
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Feb 24, 2007 18:48:49 GMT -4
A helicopter rescue would have been a lot of fun to watch, but it wouldn't have saved many people. If you were one of those people, I don't think you'd care about numbers. Again, the goal was to hit the towers and collapse them. That alone was enough pretext to give Bush & Co. all the justification they needed for invading Afghanistan (making it safe for petroleum and heroin) and launching the phony war on terror and the very real war on freedom. The loss of life was not the primary goal. Why is that so hard to understand?
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Feb 24, 2007 19:09:06 GMT -4
No, you are the one deciding that the conspiracy made sure to lock the doors.
So they kill thousands in the collapse of the towers....but oh, no, 23 people got out via helicopter! The plan is ruined! Now we'll never get to invade Iraq!
Especially since they could set the detonators off twenty minutes earlier and kill another thousand, easy.
So locking the doors is pointless.
Further, the Evil Overlord points out that locking the fire doors is the LAST thing you want for your plan. I mean; imagine the pathos of those poor people trapped on the roof; out there, visible, where TV cameras and helicopter news teams can see them?
Or better yet; me, if I were one of the Evil Conspiracy I'd plan the rescue helicopter and have it warmed up. Then just when things look darkest for humanity, our mighty Armed Forces helicopter shows up in blazing red, white and blue and shows those pesky terrorists just how American technology and willpower can beat the odds and still bring our people home alive. Then when our puppet president propounds the war plans we'll be speaking to an American public that doesn't _just_ believe that "terrorists" can hurt us, but also believes that we can, with the public will and the congressional funding behind us, hurt them back.
Why exactly was the goal to collapse the towers? Burning them isn't enough? Blowing them up is wrong? Why allow them time to evacuate? Why "drop them neatly" (as the 9-11's keep harping) when you could with a lot less effort and cleverness let them fall across six other buildings and REALLY make a spectacle?
You can't simple assume this goal without defending why it makes sense as a goal.
Oh, yeah. I am an American. A member of the sheeple Bush Co is trying to reach. In my mind, then, "fallen building in New York = go to war with ragheads in some country I can't find on a map?"
Naw. "New York" in my mind is Broadway. If you asked me, before 9-11, to list spectacular symbolic buildings of the New York skyline my tops would be the Statue of Liberty, the Empire State Building, the Chrystler Building. "World Trade Center?" I'd never even heard the name. I knew there was a pair of glass-bricks somewhere because I'd seen them in a King Kong movie.
Boy, striking at those things really got MY heart and mind!
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Feb 24, 2007 19:34:52 GMT -4
Significant loss of life was at least a secondary goal to a dramatic, semi-plausible terrorist attack on a US target. They knew the buildings couldn't be collapsed immediately, even if that would give them a higher body count. It had to look like the fires had weakened the steel frame enough to cause a pancake collapse. That could only be half-plausible if they waited at least an hour. They could have waited even longer, but by then most people would have escaped. So they compromised, risking the perceived improbability of two steel frame buildings collapsing from small smoldering fires in such a short period of time. But there was already enough loss of life from the passengers in the plane and those in the towers hit by the plane, that more wasn't necessary to achieve their goals.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 25, 2007 4:44:11 GMT -4
If you were one of those people, I don't think you'd care about numbers. No? Unfortunately, I cannot remember the man's name, nor can I find it in a quick search. However, he survived the collaps of the Cypress Street Viaduct during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. I saw him on a Discovery Channel show perhaps two or three years ago. He was still trying to work out why he survived, and only a few dozen others died, not a few hundred.
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Feb 25, 2007 17:18:41 GMT -4
If you were one of those people, I don't think you'd care about numbers. No? Unfortunately, I cannot remember the man's name, nor can I find it in a quick search. However, he survived the collaps of the Cypress Street Viaduct during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. I saw him on a Discovery Channel show perhaps two or three years ago. He was still trying to work out why he survived, and only a few dozen others died, not a few hundred. Most people prefer survival to its alternative. So you believe as a matter of principle that in the event of a catastrophe, if only a few lives can be saved, it's not worth the effort? That's a cruel and unusual philosophy. I believe that if you were in that situation and were one of those few who could have been saved, you'd think differently.
|
|