Gene Hackman Joined: 07 Feb 02
Replies: 2071 27 Sep 10 23:01   
Imagine if I had been in the area of the Pentagon on 9/11:If I was to have come forward,together with 50 others,and say I thought it was a missile,what would have happened?
Do you think the TV and press would report it?

Yes.
In fact you'd have got a live TV and/or radio slot to do it in.

Nah. I've had enough of talking to you now. You do show serious signs of some kind of paranoia and I don't want to add to any issues you may have. Good luck with your view of the world.
Forget the numbers thing. It doesn't matter.

how did they know that WTC7 was about to fall.

They had been expecting it to fall all afternoon.

hey backed me off the rig because Seven was in dead jeopardy, so they backed everybody off and moved us to the rear end of Vesey Street. We just stood there for a half hour, 40 minutes, because Seven was in imminent collapse and finally did come down. –Firefighter Thomas Smith   
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110246.PDF

2.  Chief Nigro directed me to continue monitoring conditions at the site. Specifically to monitor number 7 World Trade Center. We were very concerned with the collapse potential there, and to do whatever I could do to ensure site safety in that no additional people became injured. –FDNY Deputy Chief Harold Meyers  http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110382.PDF

3.  We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing.  So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex.  –Chief Frank Fellini http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110217.PDF

4.  We made searches. We attempted to put some of the fire out, but we had a pressure problem. I forget the name of the Deputy. Some Deputy arrived at the scene and thought that the building was too dangerous to continue with operations, so we evacuated number 7 World Trade Center. –Captain Anthony Varriale  http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110313.PDF

5.  I remember him screaming about number 7, No. 7, that they wanted everybody away from 7 because 7 was definitely going to collapse, they don't know when, but it's definitely going to come down, just get the hell out of the way, everybody get away from it, make sure you're away from it, that's an order, you know, stuff like that.  –Firefighter Edward Kennedy http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110502.PDF

6.  Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area --

Q. A collapse zone?

A. Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed. They shut down the power, and when it did collapse, the things that they were concerned with would have been [sic]. That's about it. –Chief Frank Cruthers
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110179.PDF

7.  There was concern. I had gone up to take a look at it, because I knew that the telephone company building, which is 140 West Street, was next to 7 World Trade Center, and there was a concern that if 7 World Trade came down, what would happen to this building? We went in there, we checked it out. There were some people in there. We made them evacuate and I went in the back to see what was happening.  I went back and I reminded whoever the chief was, I don't know if it was Chief McKavanagh or Chief Blaich, that with 7 World Trade Center in danger of collapsing, you had to be careful, because Con Edison had big transformers in the back that supplied the lower half of Manhattan. So we had to be concerned about electricity, that this may be energized or not be energized. –Firefighter Eugene Kelty Jr.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110261.PDF

8.  "We heard reports all day long of 7 World Trade possibly coming down. ...We heard that all day long, all the warnings." –Firefighter Christopher Patrick Murray
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110327.PDF

9.  It could have been an hour, hour and a half we were doing that before we were ordered to move away from that part of Tower No. 1 because there was an imminent danger of collapse of World Trade Center No. 5 and 7.  –Firefighter Vandon Williams

Hayden: 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.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

Ok Gene. You need a doctor and a mathematician, in that order - but since you've finally answered the numbers gig you deserve a reply - then I'm leaving you to it.

I've already pointed out that the only way vast numbers of people don't know of the conspiracy if the load drops are significant, is if passengers have booked and are then turned away, (or advised against flying as you put it), or are in the process of booking and are refused a seat.

And yet again, as in every other issue we've discussed - evidence that this has happened = nil. Not a single passenger; not a single ticket stub; not a single document; not a single computer file; not a single anything on any plane. That's leaving aside the strange deal where lots of passengers on 2 planes were warned, a couple of passengers on the third flight get the same treatment but on flight 4 more passengers get on.

So you can go with the paranoia or you can go with the real solution which is simple, unremarkable, mundane statistical variance.
Don't see just 4 flights. See 4 from a large series of flights. Every September Tuesday since flights began if you like. Then do the poker hand analogy I showed you earlier. It's dull and I know you prefer a good story but in the words of The Stones, "You don't always get what you want."

I would like to continue to contribute to this thread up to post 1999, when I think it's only fair Orioles steps in but in terms of direct Q&A with you Gene - this is the end, the final curtain. Good luck.

Didnt the majority of delegates remain and Ahmedinejad receive a standing ovation?... INTERESTING

How come you only joined on July 10th Pandy?
I never see you on any other thread either.

I applaud you on that thorough experiment Pistol - almost as water-tight as Dewdney's. Did you try an Airfone too?


There's enough information and quotes from top mobile technology gurus out there on the net without making a list here. Mobile phone calls can be made from aircraft but are unreliable and depend on altitude, nature of the ground underneath, as in urban or not and the type of phone used.
On Flight 93, and this is from memory, I think about 19 out of 40 attempted calls were successful and most that did connect were from Airfone.

But all of that pales into insignificance really compared to donks using the anonymity of the internet to accuse people who unquestionably lost loved ones, as being, in effect, complicit in their murder.
There is one guy - some American politician - over whom there must be doubts as to his veracity. But the rest - including the recorded call by Cee Cee Lyles?
As Mandy says above - get real.

[:x]Is Pandy a dis info pro ?

I'd be a very poor one Angel - there hasn't been any dis.
But I do think it's important that paranoia is kept well fed and maintained.

I do think it's important that paranoia is kept well fed and maintained.

come on dont stop

US Government censorship for sure

Great sporting moments - England winning the World Cup in 1966? Come off it. If you believe that, you'll believe anything.

http://newsarse.com/2010/06/21/nasa
-faked-england-1996-world-cup-win/

There's colour film of the "win".
We all know that until 1972 it was impossible to record sporting events in colour.

And how did Kenneth Wolstenholme know it was all over - before it had finished?

100.000 people just happen to turn up on the day England win the World Cup.

A year later England, the supposed World Champions,  were beaten by a team of Jocks.

Apart from Cliff's.

Jules Rimet Trophy is an angram of Theorem Split Jury.
The conspiracy theorum no doubt, and the chances of prosecuting NASA.

The Canadian G20 one is also interesting, Gene. The use of agents provocateurs was also strongly suspected at the WTO in Seattle and G8 in Genoa (and no doubt there are other cases). It's a classic state tactic used to deny peaceful and legitimate protest and dominate the media's coverage of the protesters. The purpose is twofold: to prevent a meaningful debate of the protesters' concerns; and to damage legitimate voices of dissent by association with violent thugs. It's easy to get a few gung ho policemen (or paid nutters) to torch a car, throw some rocks and break a few windows. Then the issues can be forgotten and the news is hijacked by a harmless distraction and everyone can go back to sleep.

You may like this one as well:
.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1925114769515892401#

The website of the film is here:
.
www.orwellrollsinhisgrave.com

Come on back on track lads, i enjoy reading the stories etc