A critique of 9/11 first responders.

I can't fine one report of the FDNY getting in the way during the evacuation. Every story I can find from survivors talk about wounded, fragile, exhausted, trapped, scared friends left behind. They recall counting every floor while walking down a seemingly endless stairway to safety. And when they saw the men and women in uniform rushing up the stairs.....they felt hope, for themselves and for the ones left behind as they told those brave souls where to find the people who need them.

Hero fetish? Maybe. It takes a special person to do the things they do. As you put it, no one knew that the buildings were going to fall. Most of the rescue workers had no contact with the outside due to radio failure. One man who's radio was working, heard the call for mayday but refused to leave the building. His last documented words were, "I'm going back up there to see if I could do some good." He knowingly walked into death, for the hope that he could maybe get to one more person. Maybe in the very least he could give comfort to someone as they left the world in a firey inferno.

I say we need more people like this. And some of the things said here about them are very unsettling for me. So if you ever find yourself trapped, with flames coming in all around you......the rational thing for you to do would be to refuse any help from those reckless bastards in black and yellow that's looking for your ass.

 

I think first responders are first responders and we can appreciate their response. They respond themselves for many reasons.

I think the idea of awarding men as heroes is a kind of ritual observance that does nothing more than limit our capacity to appreciate the act of living.

The way to reward behavior is to emulate it.

 

This is a speculative statistic at best.

Respond in what manner. They shouldn't look for persons they may be trapped or disabled while catastrophe continues to unfold? They shouldn't be trying to assess the conditions being faced?

 

There is very little evidence that there was people in the towers except for the public areas. There is a good possibility that there were almost no victims at all that day, certainly no planes, most of the witnesses were plants, etc. This whole thread seems to be people debating about a fictional event.

 

I've asked you twice already where you've found any info or evidence to base this theory on. I call BS. Or Troll. Or Both.

I'm thinking maybe OPs girlfriend cheated on him with a firefighter and he's still bitter about it.

 

The fireighters went upstairs to try to help. They had no idea the building would fall, those buildings had been designed to take a plane hit.

No account I have read says that firefighters got in the way, in fact I read about stairwells that where the equivilent of bumper to bumper pedestrian traffic, nobody getting anywhere, and firefighters helped direct people, carry whellchairs down stairs, etc, and going UP when nobody's making any headway DOWN, with people who clearly understand the need for emergency personell in the building who will make way, does NOT seem like a big slowdown.

Firefighters do not just respond to fires, they do not just show up to a burning building and eat potato chips until they're SURE everyone is out, they actively go in and try to help get people out, assess the damage and necessary fire-fighting measures, provide first aid if there's a quarter mile of people in stairs and you can't evacuate immediatly, provide radio communication to the upper unreachable areas, etc. There is nothing foolish about them getting right on it and doing their job, and saving the potato chips for later.

I think that it's unlikely that there was much, if any, additional death caused by a few hundred fire personel-why not worry about the nypd cops holding people back in the second tower, not ALLOWING them out, even after the first fell? THOSE are the bad guys, not firefighters who died trying to do what appeared to be the right thing.

Yes, if you have a quarter mile of people in stairwells, as you've mentioned, there is no choice but to give aid in a burning building..... a burning building that nobody expected, to fall, and everyone hoped, obviously, would not fall. There's all sorts of aid that can be given, as I detailed above.

I say they risked everything to HELP, and did so without taking up arms, and YOU, who will throw a bitchfit in which you say that blowing up civillians makes you deserve a memorial because the government does it too, have the gall to say "umm okay". What IS an acceptable way to defend your country then..... Back to eating potato chips in the fire truck, until every solitary person has run out of the building?

Additional collateral damage, sure, their own lives.

I don't know how the other thread got deleted, if you did it, or my message to skip, or my report did it..... But firefighters running into a building in not america attacking, and america mourning people who ran in to try to help is also not america attacking. A discussion of how irrationality and adrenaline affect those who run into burning buildings would be fine in a psychology forum, this is nothing to do with america attacking, this is you attacking american civillian emergency workers, and it's in the same vein as saying that mcveigh deserves a memorial, you have not a SHRED of evidence to back up what you're saying, you make broad claims about america and relitivity where very little can be said to refute you because of how little substance there is to your argument, and you seem to have no reason other than making tempers and frustration run high. You also discredit actual cases of america attacking with this bullshit in this forum.

 

This doesn't have anything to do with wether or not they caused more death than they adverted.

This is irrelevant.

Now imagine those crowded stairwells evacuees rushing downward, now imagine a line of firemen carry bulky equipment walking or crawling exhausted against the flow of traffic slowing the escape of hundreds.

You claim to have not read anything on a major news network on this subject, guess what?

The truth hurts and when it came to 9/11 to critique anyone involved even if there is truth to the matter was considered a faux pas, clearly it is still viewed that way today by freedom of speech hating zealots like yourself.

Think whatever you want.

They were both guilty of manslaughter do to poor preparation and mismanagement, an attack on the WTC is something they had all been drilled on and many even responded to the first attack by Ramzi Yousef in 93.

Perhaps they could have apprehended some of the hijackers at the point of impact, evacuation always comes first slowing it in any way(as some of the firefighters no doubt did in reaching the 73 floor) caused the deaths of many people and an effort that saved no one.

More of your anti american anti free speech views, if anyone bitched it was you, this is by your own admission apparently.

It dealt with 9/11 don't go off on a tangent claiming it's in the wrong forum of course debate could be made of such a vague discrepancy but it is just a steer away from the topic.

You sound as brainwashed as a nazi, to put people you never met onto a pedestal and proclaim they cannot be criticized is insane, you go on to say certain subjects that apparently upset you should not be read by others so therefor take it upon yourself to see that no one else read them you have shown yourself to be nothing if censorious and unable to make point counter point conversation instead resorting to gross assumptions on my part.

 

If I can critique the guys at the WTC site it is those who came after the colapse to search through the ruins for the bodies.

Now it seems thay are all claiming disability related to the environmental hazzard at the WTC site and ilness related to exposure to such.

Its all seems a little rich knowing how these NYC services know the ropes of the disability gravy train. They retire early with a nice disability pension. Then you see them in the tabloids running marathons or working somewhere.

 

In order, though maybe with more paragraphs:

Yes, the firefighters not knowing that the building would fall has EVERYTHING to do with them causing or preventing death. If the building had not fallen, it would have been advantageous to have them in it as quickly as possible, and if they had thought it would fall, especially that fast, they clearly would not have entered it.

So no, it's not irellivent, it's as relivent as it gets, because the building falling is the only thing that makes their choice to enter a poor choice.

I don't need to imagine anyone running, I have read accounts on NO ONE MOVING, NOT AT ALL, but they could still move aside for the firefighters to come UP. That same account detailed a firefighter helping an evacuee carry another wheelchair bound evacuee down the stairs, so that firefighter obviously had the right idea about being in the building.

More ad hominem attacks-reading just about ANY of my posts is enough to say that I don't hate freedom of speech, but this is where the "shout fire in a theatre" rule comes into play. You have the freedom to say anything, but you must be able to defend it. You only support your claims with more claims, and with logic that depends on more of your claims.

With your "think whatever you want", well yes, I do, and you obviously think whatever you want, too, though with just about no evidence.

The cops are obviously guilty of manslaughter, and maybe a lesser degree of murder, though I expect those cops themselves died in the collapse. The firefighters are NOT documented to have slowed anything, they helped from the start. These are the people who know the emergency routes, know how te evacuate people, I think some elevators may have been utilized to carry firemen and others with their fire keys, obviously helping (though I'm not positive..... I certainly assume they would have used lower elevators).

It seems doubtful that the firemen caused much slowing, and it seems clear that people where quite happy when they met firemen, I have heard NO report where a survivor faulted a fireman or the FD for slowing evacuation.

And again, more ad hominem attacks, I love america and while I criticize america lots, I resent irrational criticism with no respect for facts or rational debate. You are simply trying to inflame people's emotions as much as you can, with an argument that you can not support, other than by repeating what you started with.

As for dealing with 9/11, that does NOT make firefighters attackers of america, using logic we can legitimately determine that at the very least, there was evidence of the imminent attacks that was ignored, but that does NOT make the response of fire fighters america attacking. Even if the whole thing was an inside job, that makes the firefighters defenders of america.

And again, more ad hominem bull. I never said that firefighters can do no wrong, that they can't be criticized. I mentioned that with the assumption that they worked under, that the building would not fall (or would have done so at the time of impact, or would not do so compleatly, etc) , they made the CORRECT choices. Hindsight is 20/20, and in hindsight, they obviously made the wrong choice, or they could be here today to debate it with you. Again, maybe you could make a thread on psychology, or on the theory of evacuations, or the theory of handling public natural/terrorist disasters, but that's not america attacking and it's not the firefighters wronging anyone, it's the firefighters trying to get to the fire as FAST as possible to fight it and save the building, which would have saved MANY lives even if it had been evacuated before it fell. In fact, if, as you imply, the whole attack was one planned by america, the firefighters did the exact RIGHT thing, because without explosives most would not expect the building to fall whe way it did at the time it did (I doubt that it was demolished, simply because of the difficulty and PITA of doing that, but that's neither here nor there), and they had no reason to assume further attacking after a fucking jumbojet flew into the building.

Because they made a heroic effort does not mean they did no wrong, and I'm not arguing that. But they obviously did their best and did have a sound plan, considering what they knew and what had already happened.

 

Yes to evacuate as soon as possible, not to run head first into the crowd slowing it. Again their actions could at most save no one who could not save themselves. You stated in a your story of the crippled man being hauled down in consequence of all other people for the sheer fact he was disabled, and the fact that that may have happened as justifying the action of the fire crews that day.

No believe it or not most americans are capable of walking down steps and quickly exiting a burning building to save their lives, fire crews disrupted this.

It's your censorious attitude to thoughts you don't agree with that makes you against the concept of free speech. It has nothing to do with your threads, none of which I have read.

More ridiculousness, ok DM what happens next?

Never have I backed away from anything, unlike your cowardly act.

Ok.

To a lesser degree... ridicules.

It is obvious that they would slow evacuation if you can't see this you're in denial and have never walked against a crowd. You need a caption to tell you the sky is blue.

Ok.

Yes you have mentioned this many times, you are incorrect.


I

Well to be fair their not dead.

Great.

Yes, I would like to stir some emotions with my threads, and spread thought to people that may not of had that particular thought alone.

This is a sign of a winning argument.

You said you knew for a fact that the firefighters only helped people and you were prettyt sure that the police officers had committed as you put it "to a lesser degree murder" you are just dredging apologies for the guilty and smearing another party just to make yourself seem moderate instead of against the idea of firefighters causing more death than they rescued that day.

They knew it was possible for the building to collapse, Ramzi Yousef attempted to fell the one tower into the next the thought was not unheard of.

Ok.

Ok.

Is this how you get threads closed now?

It has clear connections with 9/11 if your only gripe is that you feel it's in the wrong forum, trust me things could be worse.

I never implied this.

Why mention it and give bait to the church of conspiracy?

Th Bojinka plot

After the Iranian shrine bombing, Yousef soon began planning the unsuccessful Bojinka Plot. The plan involved assassinating Pope John Paul II while he visited the Philippines, then, with attention focused on the Pope's death, planting bombs placed inside toy cars on United Airlines and Delta Air Lines flights out of Bangkok.

This plot included destroying 11 airliners, a bait and sink attack is nothing new, Last summer in norway a now convicted terrorist detonate da bomb only to use it as a diversion as he committed more terrorist activities.

Yes you are.

I would say no.

 

By offering no proof and ignoring my posts....you are admitting that your claims have no merit, And that you're making it up.

Prove it or gtfo

 

Your whole post if full of two things.

One is irrationality.

The other is answering things that I did not say, or totarry ignoring the point that I made and saying "well you're just wrong". A good example of this is how you don't understand that had the towers NOT fallen, the firefighters would have been acting in the right, to put out the fire and save an untold number MORE from above the impact and from the collapse. The firemen obviously wanted to evacuate, but also to get into position to fight the fire and control the situation as soon as possible.

In view of the fact that they wanted to fight the fire and every second counts, and that the building collapse was not expected, they acted in the right. Again, hindsight is 20/20, but given what they knew, they acted properly.

Also, how dare you tell me that I'm NOT saying what I just clearly said? They're heroes, even if they made mistakes, and yes, I did say that, and no, I did not say they're immune to criticism, just that you're not leveling fair criticism...... I wonder if HF has any firefighters who could chime in?

 

:leaving:

 

Ok.

No.

If they had not fallen the fastest way to get the majority of evacuees out would be to let them exit in an orderly fashion, not to grind against them to the top of the building. that would come after the mass evacuation. You state you want proof that this is the best way to evacuate a large building and I say it is self evident.

Evacuation comes first saving the building would come second.

I would say causing untold additional death and killing themselves in the process is far from proper, you just repeat the same incorrect assumptions over and over.

Plenty of people in Afghanistan and other countries would consider the hijackers the heros, your post is irrelevant, if it makes you feel good to spread misinformation for the sake of staying politically correct fine.

The only reason you're posting in this thread is because the thought of critiquing the methods used for evacuating the WTC apparently offends you.

You say the police should be charged with manslaughter but the firefighters "did their best" your own argument has become so convoluted that whatever point you are trying to make has been drowned in the river of apologetic bullshit that are your posts.

the only thing left for you to do is cry to a moderator that OP hurts your feelings and have it banned, allowing you to hide behind your stance of being anti free speech.

Fine it's your world homie.

Good question but doubtful, besides a firefighter from nebraska is probably trained much different from one in nyc.

 

You're just parroting what Rshack says, consider a response to his posts(which are written slightly better than yours) a response to yours.

The proof is self evident, you want me to link an article from msnbc or some other news agency stating that the rescuers did more harm than good, well thats not going to happen. the media in america is no where near brave enough for such honesty.

 

How is a post like found to be less offensive than critiquing firemen and police officers who had died?

Why does the church of conspiracy seem to get a free ride when it comes to having an opinion other than the mainstream idea of 9/11?

Not trying to go off topic but read this post and would like to know what other contributors to the thread think about it.

 

I don't care what the source is....how bout one report from anywhere?
The proof is not self evident. How wide was the stairs? How many people were coming down the stairs at one time? If the stairs were wide enough for 5 people, but only 3 were coming down to avoid tripping, then there could have easily been enough room to squeeze together to allow the FDNY to pass while still moving downward. Every report I've found from survivors says that the evacuation went very smoothly. That the stairs weren't overcrowded, people were calm, and EVERYONE was happy to see the firefighters. You seem to be the only person on all of the Internet to say otherwise.

Your "self evident" argument is as strong as the world being flat. Just because you say it doesn't mean that it's true. But yet you expect us to believe you against everything else out there despite having nothing to back up your claims.

 

I dismissed it as soon as I read it. Not even worthy of a response

 

..