Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
it was September the 20th. Not such a rush, really, and no, US airspace was not closed by then.
So who approved the flights? Richard Clarke, who said it was the right decision and he'd do it again. As he's now a major Bush critic it's hard to argue that he'd want to cover up for the President on this point.
The family members weren't simply allowed to leave, either. The 9/11 commission pointed out:
Quote:
Quote:
"Twenty-two of the 26 people on the Bin Ladin flight were interviewed by the FBI. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about terrorist activity... The FBI checked a variety of databases for information on the Bin Ladin flight passengers and searched the aircraft".
What's more, by opting to fly the family members volunteered to go through this process. Had they driven across the border to Canada instead, they could have flown home from there with no questions at all.
There were no apparent suspicious circumstances, then, no information incriminating any of these people, and none has appeared since.
it was September the 20th. Not such a rush, really, and no, US airspace was not closed by then.
So who approved the flights? Richard Clarke, who said it was the right decision and he'd do it again. As he's now a major Bush critic it's hard to argue that he'd want to cover up for the President on this point.
The family members weren't simply allowed to leave, either. The 9/11 commission pointed out:
What's more, by opting to fly the family members volunteered to go through this process. Had they driven across the border to Canada instead, they could have flown home from there with no questions at all.
There were no apparent suspicious circumstances, then, no information incriminating any of these people, and none has appeared since.
Does that make sense to you? I think there was a timeline that made it pretty clear what he meant.
Put the timeline aside for a minute and think about context.
Silverstein is a real estate developer. His whole life is demo/build. Using the phrase "pull it" as in get the responders out of there doesn't make much sense.
It's the equivalent of a baseball player saying he's going to ride the pine and literally mean he's going to pull out a piece of wood, in this case pine, and mount it for amusement. No, it means he's going to get benched and not play in a game.
Also, responders usually use "evacuate" as their word to retreat. Either that or a number code. Even if you want to use the term "pull" you would end it with an "out" and not "it".
Finally, it's not up to Silverstein (or maybe it is) to decide when emergency personnel decide to call it quits on the scene of an incident. NYC FD and PD aren't his personal emergency services.
Put the timeline aside for a minute and think about context.
Silverstein is a real estate developer. His whole life is demo/build. Using the phrase "pull it" as in get the responders out of there doesn't make much sense.
It's the equivalent of a baseball player saying he's going to ride the pine and literally mean he's going to pull out a piece of wood, in this case pine, and mount it for amusement. No, it means he's going to get benched and not play in a game.
Also, responders usually use "evacuate" as their word to retreat. Either that or a number code. Even if you want to use the term "pull" you would end it with an "out" and not "it".
Finally, it's not up to Silverstein (or maybe it is) to decide when emergency personnel decide to call it quits on the scene of an incident. NYC FD and PD aren't his personal emergency services.
It's hinkey, to say the least.
Correct - for him to misuse the phrase makes no sense and it's not up to Silverstein to make any decisions about what the NYFD did with regard to going in or abandoning additional effort.
Hinkey, indeed.
This thread illustrates how governments get away with all that they get away with. KoolAid drinkers galore.
So WTC 7 comes down in it's own footprint in a matter of seconds. Similar structures of the exact same size have been completely engulfed in flames and have still retained a standing skeleton. But the corner was damaged! And there was diesel fuel in the building! Fire is already excluded, as the fires burning were minimal in comparison to fires that have engulfed similar structures. And if the corner was damaged enough to bring down this building, why did it collapse vertically in its own footprint?
Then you have the neocons, on the same day of the attack, saying Hussein was behind it. Were these talking points prearranged? I can still remember, vividly, James Woolsey, being interviewed on September 12, 2001, and telling Tom Brokaw that all indications pointed to Saddam Hussein.
Then you have the Bush crime family making sure none of the Saudi diplomats were even interviewed by the FBI before being secreted out of the country before American airspace was even reopened.
One can certainly dig deeper, but that convinces me of the nefariousness of the Bush regime, and my 100% lack of trust in their description of events. They are pure evil, on the scale of Al Qaeda.
I'll only focus on the bold because I believe you once argued with me over this before...or something along the lines.
The rubble was a crime scene and as a crime scene it wasn't processed to any standard by federal, state, or local government. You can find those guides, specifically detailed, online now. Back then they were on file inside police departments and other government agencies.
On that point there is no debate. You then wailed, previously, that it was toxic and had to be removed immediately.
I'm not implying anything. I'm only stating the fact that for whatever reason the crime scene wasn't processed to protocol. That being the case, any individual facing charges stemming from the incident would/could rightfully have their case dismissed on these grounds alone.
It doesn't matter that it was toxic. That only means you must quarantine off the area per the processing procedure and then conduct forensics. There are no exceptions whether it's lower Manhattan or a cornfield in Iowa.
It was the most shocking thing to me, as someone who was relatively young in his criminal justice career, to see such a blatant disregard for procedure. I will not make any claims either way but there is no debate that the U.S. government failed to uphold its own rules/laws (shocking).
What a bunch of BS. Search and rescue always takes precedents over a criminal investigation. I’m sure the 11 people pulled alive out of the rubble are sure glad you weren’t in charge with your incorrect theories.
So WTC 7 comes down in it's own footprint in a matter of seconds. Similar structures of the exact same size have been completely engulfed in flames and have still retained a standing skeleton. But the corner was damaged! And there was diesel fuel in the building! Fire is already excluded, as the fires burning were minimal in comparison to fires that have engulfed similar structures. And if the corner was damaged enough to bring down this building, why did it collapse vertically in its own footprint?
Then you have the neocons, on the same day of the attack, saying Hussein was behind it. Were these talking points prearranged? I can still remember, vividly, James Woolsey, being interviewed on September 12, 2001, and telling Tom Brokaw that all indications pointed to Saddam Hussein.
Then you have the Bush crime family making sure none of the Saudi diplomats were even interviewed by the FBI before being secreted out of the country before American airspace was even reopened.
One can certainly dig deeper, but that convinces me of the nefariousness of the Bush regime, and my 100% lack of trust in their description of events. They are pure evil, on the scale of Al Qaeda.
What a bunch of BS. Search and rescue always takes precedents over a criminal investigation. I’m sure the 11 people pulled alive out of the rubble are sure glad you weren’t in charge with your incorrect theories.
Removing physical evidence in a S&R mission doesn't mean you send it across state lines to be melted down in a recycling center.
Last edited by No_Recess; 09-11-2019 at 09:03 PM..
Claims he meant for the responders to abandon their efforts/retreat out of the building and not initiate a demo.
Exactly. "Pull it" is firefighter lingo which means retreat. Withdraw.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
