a question that haunts me

[Rich Hunt]

A couple of years ago, when they were having all of those two-year documentaries on 9/11, there was one thing that particularly haunted me : why the second tower wasn't evacuated after the first tower had been hit.

Here is an eyewitness account from someone who was in tower two:

At about five minutes to nine there was an announcement by the Port Authority within our building. First the strobe lights flashed, as they did during their normal fire drills. The alarm system gave a little bit of a whoop whoop, you know, to alert you to an announcement about to be made. Then the very familiar voice, the one we heard all the time, came over the system and said, "Building Two is secure. There is no need to evacuate Building Two. If you are in the midst of evacuation, you may return to your office by using the re-entry doors on the re-entry floors and the elevators to return to your office. Repeat, Building Two is secure...."



"'Building Two is secure. There is no need to evacuate Building Two.'"

And they went through the whole story again. So this was reinforcement that there was no need to evacuate. I am strictly guessing but I would think we were perhaps down to about 25 people left on our floor at the time of the announcement. (I had gone for a walk through our office.) Now, as I say, the pressure was off, and there wasn't a panic, although we were greatly concerned about what was going on in Tower One.

If you went to the north wall windows, you could look up and see the flames and the smoke and regrettably people now starting to jump, because of heat, smoke, or whatever it was. I'm only telling this secondhand because I personally could not take myself to the window to view that. I just didn't want that image burned in my brain, and I'm forever grateful that I didn't go and take in that sight.

One girl in particular -- Susan her name was -- turned from the window when she noticed the first person for her jump. She hadn't noticed it before, and she spun around in tears almost frantically, ran to me, and said "Oh, Brian, it's terrible. People are dying." I said, "Susan, it's a terrible tragedy," and I put my arms around her, and I said "Come on, let's get you more composed," and we walked out of the trading floor down the hall. In the building the center core was crossed hallways. There was a north-south hallway and an east-west hallway. I walked with her from the east side through the center core to the west side, where the ladies room was, and she went into the ladies room. (Regrettably, Susan did not survive the eventual collapse of the building.)

It just does not make sense that a building would not be evacuated when the one nearby has been hit by a plane.

As you can see from this account, most people left the offices.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/above.html

According to the documentaries, lots of people had made it all the way downstairs, and were told to go back up.

Why does no one address this?

[FreedomAngel82]

1. It proves to me once more

of MIHOP and people were behind this who were involved in the government. They wanted this attack. They needed it and they got it. It's purely murder.

[LARED]

2. Because hind-sight is 20/20

Do you think the people responsible for evacuating the towers thought plane number two was on its way and said nothing?

[Rich Hunt]

3. it has nothing to do with that

Come on - the building next door to you is on fire and in a shambles, people are jumping and...you don't allow them to evacuate?

I mean, I've been in places where there's been a fire next door and we still evacuated.

It's just common sense. It really isn't safe, with the fires and falling debris and all, and expecting people to watch their neighbors jumping from the building.

If I saw people jumping from the building next door, I'd get the fuck out of there.

Besides, who the FUCK would want to stay at work in those conditions? What kind of mentality expects THAT?

Sorry, but it is ludicrous.

"Oh yeah, people are dying next door and jumping from the building and all...but you're okay - keep working, people!"

Right.

[LARED]

4. Didn't ALLOW them to evacuate?

No one did that.

Read the quote

'Building Two is secure. There is no need to evacuate Building Two.'

I think it works like this. Building 1 in attacked, building 2 has suffered no damage. No one is expecting building 2 to be attacked. Hence there is no reason to evacuate building 2. In fact, building security at the moment in time probably believed it was best not to evacuate building 2 because it would interfere with first responseders at building 1.

[Rich Hunt]

5. yeah, and it doesn't make sense

And when people went downstairs and wanted to get out, they were sent back up. I would call that 'blocking' them. What's the rationale for that?

The point is that none of it makes sense.

It does not make sense for people to not leave when the identical building nearby has suffered significant damage - to the extent that people were dying and jumping.

No, it does not make sense. It's a big building - you find a way to get them out of there.

Keep in mind that this wasn't the first attack on the WTC, either.

Since when is 'building security' a substitute for law enforcement or the fire department? They should not be the final authority in this.

Jesus, where was the common sense?

[LARED]

6. I would call it common sense to

tell people to back to work if the building secure. Of course perhaps it make sense to some people to have tens of thousand of people streaming out of both buildings potentially interfering with the response to the actual problem. Standard emergency response protocols have people staying in place if secure, rather than adding to a problem. Of course 15 minutes later everyone knew it was going to be a even worse day.

I do love how you frame it though

And when people went downstairs and wanted to get out, they were sent back up. I would call that 'blocking' them.

Unless you have some evidence people were prevented from leaving, rather than just being given bad directions, they were not being blocked. You're barking up the wrong tree

[philb]

7. If a tall nearby building were on fire & damaged enough that it might fall

and could fall and hit your building, who was in a position to decide that WTC2 was safe and there was no danger that WTC1 could fall and affect WTC2?

And since authorities knew that this was a hijacked plane that hit,
why would they not worry that another might be hijacked as well.

Note that WTC7 was evacuated and abandoned about this time. Just on the speculation that another plane might be coming apparently.

And it might have been known by this time that a 2nd was hijacked?

[LARED]

8. Hind-sight is indeed a wonderful thing

"If a tall nearby building were on fire & damaged enough that it might fall" and could fall and hit your building, who was in a position to decide that WTC2 was safe and there was no danger that WTC1 could fall and affect WTC2?

Let me try this one more time. I believe the decision to not evacuate building two was based on the idea that the building was secure, and under the present conditions it was safer to remain in place. I have seem no evidence that anyone thought the building would collapse in the first 10 or 15 minutes.

And since authorities knew that this was a hijacked plane that hit,
why would they not worry that another might be hijacked as well.

Are you claiming that the authorities that knew planes had been hijacked were the same authorities that said no evacuation was needed?

Note that WTC7 was evacuated and abandoned about this time. Just on the speculation that another plane might be coming apparently.

What does about the same time mean? I don't believe what your saying is true.

And it might have been known by this time that a 2nd was hijacked?

You have very high expectations for the various authorities ability to communicate with each other, even though they are distinct and unknown to each other.

[Rich Hunt]

9. that's what THEY said!

The people in the documentaries said that people went downstairs, only to be told to go back up.

I would consider eyewitness testimony - on NOVA and on A&E's Investigative Reports to be 'evidence'. They really did say that - they got all the way downstairs and were sent back up.

You can't seriously tell me that two megaskycrapers went up without the anticipation that they might have to be completely evacuated at some point. I mean, I live in Chicago - I am SURE the Sears Tower has such a plan. There are probably codes or something that mandate allowances for that sort of thing...ergo, it does not make sense.

I mean, there was even a schlocky disaster movie about this in the seventies - The Towering Inferno. Surely such an event was anticipated in people's consciousness. When you have a disaster of that magnitude, why don't you clear the area? I mean, I haven't visited it, but I'm sure it's a massive space - there must have been some way for everyone to get out of both buildings!

"barking up the wrong tree" - oooo, I'm so intimidated! No, I've never heard that kind of coded talk before!

What do we know about disaster drills and anticipation of a catastrophic event with regard to the WTC? That might be a fruitful area for research.

[LARED]

13. Please clarify something

Are you saying they were physically prevented from leaving or that they were told to go back to work because there was no evacuation?

[Rich Hunt]

17. why DO you ask?

The documentaries showed people talking who said that people had made it all the way down to the lobby, but were told to go back up. I told you which documentaries, yet you insist on making things personal. To your legal detriment, I might add. Avail yourselves of this information if it troubles you that much. I honestly can't see any reason for your scarcely contained hostility and obvious 'grilling' tactics. You aren't going to frame me for shit. You pursue me to your detriment.

I'm sorry if you couldn't read that the first time - I don't think I could make it any clearer, but if you're addicted to my posting, you should know that I have a goddamned life and don't have to 'keep posting' so you and your brethren and their lawyers can keep constant tabs on me.

You pulled this shit with me on another board and you pulled it for years on usenet - I give my sources, and you pretend you didn't see them. I am NOT going to post the same things over and over again when it's clear enough the first time.

I cannot believe how DUMB you people are. I mean, if you've got crap to hide, doesn't it make more sense to stay the hell offline?

[hack89]

18. "you people" ?

"To your legal detriment, I might add"

"so you and your brethren and their lawyers can keep constant tabs on me."

"yet you insist on making things personal."


Why the attitude? You are coming across as belligerent and a little paranoid.

[Rich Hunt]

23. why this personal interest in me?

People give away their true intentions by how they write. Sorry, when thousands of people are dead, I'm not going to play dumb and allow people to make vague threats and insinuations and stay silent.

Cut the crap.

Paranoid? You have no grounds for saying that if you haven't lived my life.

Do let's get back on topic. The topic is people who shouldn't have been killed on September 11th. The topic is not me or my mental health.

[LARED]

20. What are you talking about?

I don't know you from Adam and I have never used the usernet.

I am not taking things personally, I don't have any lawyers, and I'm not grilling anyone. If you are bothered by me by all means use the ignore function, or just don't response to anything I post.

I am merely asking for clarification about your position, as it seems to indicate you believe some people were prevented from leaving the towers.

[mirandapriestly]

22. see #21 nt

[laruemtt]

10. the crime of murder happened the moment

the government knew other planes had been hijacked and they didn't get those people out of building 2 pronto. LIHOP, MIHOP - whatever you want to call it - it's outright murder.

[laruemtt]

11. my niece worked on the 56th floor, tower 2 -

thank god she got out of there. we were visiting up there a couple of weeks before 9/11 and i was talking to her about the magnificent view she had from her desk.

[petgoat]

14. I once worked at a big machine shop where there was a power

failure. Security normally had two shifts overlapping when the shifts
arrived and departed, but because of the power failure they had only one
shift to check everybody out. They hated it because everybody knew the
chaotic departure was an opportunity for the workers to steal tools.
WTC Security could have had the same motivation. They had their hands
full trying to evacuate WTC1, and they didn't want people streaming out
of WTC2 uncontrolled with their tape backups and floppy disks and files.
Also offices empty-but-open are a tremendous security risk.

Brian Clark, the subject of the OP, just walked into empty law offices
on 31 and started making phone calls.

On the other hand, my daughter-in-law tells me that when they had to
Chicago Loop tunnel flood of 1992, they evacuated the entire loop. They
didn't know which buildings might have weakened foundations.

[Rich Hunt]

15. fair enough...

but why were the people who were out of the offices told to go back upstairs? That's what the A & E documentary said - that people made it all the way down and were told to go back up.


You'd have to be crazy to be poking around for loot in the area of a disaster.

[pauldp]

16. "No you must go back to your desk and watch people jumping

to their deaths for the rest of the day"

May not mean anything ultimately but it sure seems bizarre.

[hack89]

19. Perhaps it was merely low skill rent a cops

mindlessly carrying out an stupid order given by someone who lacked the judgment to make the right decision. Stupid people make stupid decision everyday - not everything has to be a conspiracy.

[Rich Hunt]

24. "every day"

9/11 is not 'every day'.

Are you telling me that even rent-a-cops don't have some basic common sense? Because I don't know - common sense tells me that you immediately try to get as many people out of the area as possible.

[JHB]

26. "9/11 is not 'every day'"

True, but in those first 15 minutes or so, it wasn't "9/11" either. It was a lot of rumor and confusion and the only thing they knew for certain was that they had a big fire to handle in the North Tower. And falling debris. According to the documentary some people were apparently blocked from exiting, but from which exits? That wasn't said. It's very likely the doors to the plaza were blocked to prevent people from exiting where they might be hit by debris. People could (and did) still leave by exiting below ground into the mall level.

Under those circumstances "common sense" for the security people may very well have been telling people to stay put.

[musette_sf]

12. A personal acquaintance

(actually my scumbag ex-brother-in-law, before he was the ex) worked in one of the World Financial Center buildings. He hauled ass out and uptown on foot, no gawking, no lingering, as soon as the first plane hit. I have to say that I would have done the same, announcement or no announcement.

I also have to admit that when the transformer blew up in downtown San Francisco several months ago, I was out of the building and on BART ASAP. You don't have to do very much to get my attention.

[mirandapriestly]

21. No excuse for this to have happened

Norad Knew 175 had been hijacked at 8:43
and was heading toward New York City. The public announcement was made at 8:55 telling people to stay in the South Tower because it was secure. WHY didn't Norad get the information to the WTC? (from David Griffin)

[Rich Hunt]

25. "because it was secure"

What does it mean to say a twin tower is 'secure' when the other one has been hit by a plane, not an infiltrator from below?

What on earth does that mean - 'it's secure'? I mean, how can someone have any way of knowing that. The announcement makes no sense.

[LARED]

28. Secure

means the context of emergency management is that the building was not damaged, and that it was safer to stay in the building than to leave into the chaos in the streets.

No one knew or believed another plane was on the way.

[Rich Hunt]

29. what if the fires spread?

What if tower one partially or wholly collapsed.

I saw the fire in tower one before the second plane hit - that was some severe damage. I remember the news people speculating about the plane - I looked at it and said, that was no small plane.

It still makes no sense to me.

[LARED]

27. So you (and Dr Griffin) are expecting

NORAD to within 12 minutes inform every large building within striking distance of wherever flg 175 was at the time they confirmed it was hijacked.

Just a guess but given the position of 175 at 8:43 that would include NY city, Newark, DC, Baltimore, and Philly. Even if they thought a particular target existed, I sorta doubt NORAD had the knowledge or procedures set up to warns anyone in 12 minutes.

What I find interesting is that a guy with the CV of Griffin actually asked this question. In my mind it's only more confirmation he's more interested in propaganda than truth.

[petgoat]

30. The WTC was an obvious target. The '93 bombers had

promised to try again. They'd already hit one tower; WTC2 was the ONE
place that could reasonably be assumed MIGHT BE a target.

The either-or reasoning you guys use gets kind of tiresome. You
couldn't warn every large building within a hundred miles and therefore
you shouldn't warn the one obvious one?

You say: "I sorta doubt NORAD had the knowledge or procedures set up to
warns anyone in 12 minutes."

How 'bout somebody just take a walk fifty feet down the hall and ask a
secretary to phone WTC security? Now maybe she wouldn't get through,
but you claim Dr. Griffin's integrity is impugned because he thinks they
should have tried.