Support 911Blogger


FDNY 9/11 Reports: WTC 7 'Collapse' Foreknowledge

These are quotes that reveal foreknowledge of the collapse of WTC 7- from FDNY reports in the 9/11 Commission records, in Box 18 of the Team 9 (aka Team 8)/New York City Series.

"Ordered to evacuate 7 WTC because of collapse hazard." (pg 2)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17627275/NY-B18-Division-8-Fdr-Operations-Summary-121

"Ordered to assist with hose stretch and operation in 7 WTC until ordered out of building due to possible collapse." (pg 2)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17627436/NY-B18-Reserve-Apparatus-Fdr-Summary-Operations-Reports-126

"Lad. 85 then ordered to West & Vesey for extrication duties.Ordered to evacuate this
position due to 7 WTC instability. Lad. 85 took a standby position pending this collapse
on West St. Upon collapse of 7 WTC Lad.85 deployed on Greenwich St. extingushing
numerous auto & debris fires making a way to the north side (see page 2)" (pg 45)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17627299/NY-B18-Division-8-Fdr-Report-of-Services-Company-Operations-Reports-111

"We supplimented with another hydrant and supplied TL 119 in extinguishing the fire @ 5 WTC Until 7 WTC was in danger of collapsing" (pg 7)

"Operated until instructed to evacuated due to 7 WTC collapse." (pg 25)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17627204/NY-B18-Division-1-Fdr-Company-Operations-Reports-107

In an Oct 15, 2008 interview with Allan Rees (following the release of the NIST WTC 7 report), Dr. Shyam Sunder (lead investigator) responded to a question about the evidence of foreknowledge of the collapse of WTC 7 by saying that they were “aware that an engineer or a technical expert or a technical advisor was providing advice to the city agencies with regard to the condition of building 7”, and that they had been hearing creaking noises and the area was cleared about 2:30 pm. He refused to name this person, and then implied it may have been more than one “advisor”.
http://www.ae911truth.org/info/39

WTC 7 Collapse Foreknowledge: Reports of Foreknowledge of the Collapse of Building 7 in the Oral Histories
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/b7foreknowledge.html

Waiting for Seven: WTC 7 Collapse Warnings in the FDNY Oral Histories
Prof. Graeme MacQueen
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200701/MacQueenWaitingforSeven.pdf

Foreknowledge of WTC 7's Collapse (Witnesses and News reports)
http://www.wtc7.net/foreknowledge.html

Daniel Nigro...

"I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed."

He said the reasons given were that "the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse", "the collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7", "WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels", and "numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them."

Who spoke to Larry Silverstein? Can someone refresh my memory... what time did Barry Jennings say that explosions took place in WTC7, and when did WTC1 collapse? I haven't seen Dylan's new movie yet.

Good job Erik.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

IMO and FYI

This part is reasonable:
"He said the reasons given were that "the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse"

This is bullshit:
"WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels"

WTC 7 had 81 columns. Only columns 76, 77 and 78 had their weight transferred to other columns to leave the atrium free of columns. None of these columns were near the debris damage from WTC 1.

Larry said he was talking to a fire chief as I remember. The "pull it" remark may have been a Freudian slip but neither man had the authority to make that decision. It takes weeks to rig a building for CD so the decision to demolish it had been made at least that long before 9/11.

Barry Jennings said the explosions in WTC 7 happened before the towers fell at 9:59 [south tower] and 10:28 [north tower].
However, there are several ridiculous things he said in his interview with Dylan which make his whole story questionable. Furthermore, the only thing he said that is confirmed by another source, Michael Hess, is that there was an explosion and they were trapped on the 8th floor. This is also highly questionable because there were 2 stairways and they were in sight of each other. Floor 8 was cubicles so it was sunlit.

I highly recommend we not quote Larry or Barry. They are both red herrings IMO.

I will go with Barry Jennings on his eyewitness account.

"This is also highly questionable because there were 2 stairways and they were in sight of each other. Floor 8 was cubicles so it was sunlit."

Could you show some documentation? Maybe you could provide us with a floor plan diagram of the 8th floor of WTC 7. Maybe you could show us a picture of the sunlit cubicles. Could you show us the documentation of the fireproof stairwells having windows?

"However, there are several ridiculous things he said in his interview with Dylan which make his whole story questionable."

This is a powerful allegation.

Please elaborate on what Barry Jennings said as an eyewitness that you, as a non eyewitness, consider ridiculous. Maybe you could use a different tone of language. I don't think Barry Jennings had a malicious motive. My assessment of his testimony is that he was telling what he remembered from that day. He seemed to be a reasonable man in control of his faculties. He kept his job for over 30 years. I detect some disdain from your choice of the word ridiculous and from your blanket discounting of Barry Jennings' eyewitness account.

You sound pretty cocksure. Please back it up with some documentation.

I know this is an unpopular view but . . .

9/11/01 Michael Hess: I was part of the emergency management crew on the 23rd floor and when all the power went out on the building, another gentleman and i walked down to the 8th floor where there was an explosion! and we were trapped on the 8th floor. Smoke, thick smoke wrapped(?) around us for about an hour and a half"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4428218863301790151
9/11/01 Barry Jenkins "Me and Mr. Hess ..... We made it to the 8th floor. Big explosion!
Blew us back into the 8th floor."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxAuN5lKLio [@ 0:15]
The only thing that can be said with any certainty is that both men said there was an explosion and they were trapped on the 8th floor.

Barry's interview with Dylan and Jason contains absurd statements like:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/16573

"The firefighter that took us down kept saying "Don't look down." and I kept saying why."
"You know you can feel when you're stepping over people."
Do you really believe that he stepped over bodies and never looked down? Have someone lay on the floor 6 feet in front of you, look straight ahead, you can still see them.

Officer: "You'll have to run."
Barry: "I can't run, my knees are swollen."
Officer: "Then you'll have to get on your knees and crawl then." [a police officer would not say that]
Barry: ". . . and that's when I started crawling."
[If your knees are swollen and you have to move as fast as possible, do you walk, or crawl on your swollen knees?]

"When I got to that lobby, the lobby was totally destroyed.
It was so destroyed they had to take me out through a hole in the wall”
http://www.prisonplanet.com/audio/190607clips2.mp3
The south and west sides were blocked by debris but the north and east sides had exits.
http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/8717/doorineastsidesmlo7.png
Dr. Michael Guttenberg, NYC Office of Medical Affairs:
"We found our way out one of the back doors of No. 7 and came outside."
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/...

Firemen don't knock holes in walls if they don't have to.

* * * * *
Layout of 8th floor:
http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/1125/fl8layout.png

Photo of 8th floor. Note clearly marked EXIT sign. Both stairways opened onto the same corridor and the EXIT signs were in sight of each other.
http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/998/fl8interioric3.png

Michael and Barry were NOT trapped on the 8th floor.

Wow, you are making some powerful allegations indeed.

Your implication is that Barry Jennings lied when he said he was told not to look down.

Your implication is that he and Hess both lied when they said that they were trapped on the 8th floor.

So they decided to stay there for what reason?

Your floor plan photo is too small and does not clearly illustrate the two stairways that you claim were visible from each other. The best proof of this would be a photograph taken from one stairway to the other and vice versa. Nothing in the way between them? No walls, no plants no cubicles. No doors. No charts. No Artwork.

You said:

"This is also highly questionable because there were 2 stairways and they were in sight of each other."

Now you say the EXIT signs were visible from each other.

Your cubicle photograph appears to be lighted by fluorescent lighting. Is it the 8th floor? How do we know this is the 8th floor of WTC 7?

Granting that this is a picture of the 8th floor of WTC 7 still doesn't prove your point.

How much sunlight would penetrate a room filled with smoke? Would smoke affect a person's vision?

The Guttenberg testimony is a Red Herring. His ability to find a door is not mutually exclusive to Jennings and Hess not having access to a door and exiting through a hole in a wall. Guttenberg's relevant experience was only in part of the first floor, according to the transcript of his testimony.

What was the lighting like on the first floor when Jennings was escorted out by the firemen?

You are implying that Barry Jennings was lying about his conversation with the "officer" urging him to run.

Are you qualified to say anything about which would hurt more, crawling or running, if a person had knee problems? Are you a doctor? What was Barry's knee problem? Was it arthritis? Was it bursitis? Was it a torn ACL?

You may have some valid questions, but your Godlike assertions are extremely repugnant to me.

I wish Barry Jennings was here to defend himself. I am sure he could do a better job of it than I am.

The 8rth floor

Thank you for your comments. In an effort to prove my point I discovered that I was wrong about the stairways being visible from each other. I was also wrong about the interior photo. It shows cubicles in one of the towers but still makes the point that floors with cubicles have plenty of sunlight.
http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/8066/figure18schematicoffloo.jpg

There were some partition walls but plenty of unblocked windows to provide light to both stairway exits.
There was no smoke on the 8th floor when they were rescued according to the firefighters who rescued them.
If the landing on floor 6 had collapsed, they would have to go down the other stairway. If they could find the other stairway they could have just used it and they would not need to be rescued.

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 pg 296-297 [PDF pg 340-341]
At approximately 10:00 a.m., a WTC 7 security manager was concerned that he might still have personnel on the 44th floor and started up the “A” (west) stairway to get his people out of the building. At 10:28 a.m., when WTC 1 collapsed, he had reached the 30th floor, and then continued up the stairway. There was rubble just before the 44th floor landing, and the stairway swayed or vibrated. Smoke or dust was swirling around. During this climb, he opened doors on the 23rd floor to check for OEM staff, and the floor was full of smoke or dust. He also opened a door on the 26th floor to check for occupants and found none. NIST was unable to find any evidence that, by approximately 10:30 a.m., any of the original occupants who intended to leave WTC 7 had not already done so (Chapter 7).

"Your implication is that Barry Jennings lied when he said he was told not to look down."
No, I implied that he was lying when he said he did not look down or see the bodies.
I also implied he was lying when he said firefighters took him out thru a hole they had made in a wall. There was no hole because there was no need to knock a hole in a wall. There were exits and the firefighters knew where they were.

"You are implying that Barry Jennings was lying about his conversation with the "officer" urging him to run."
Yes, and I gave my reasons. You can believe him if you want.

There are more statements like "I was skipping stairs, practically leaping from one landing to the next" or words to that effect. How could a 70 year old man keep up with him?
Some of his statements are so bizarre it occurred to me that he was coerced into taking part in this charade and put them in to let us know it was bullshit. Just a thought.

I apologize for my "godlike assertions" but I have studied all the reports and statements concerning Michael and Barry. The story does not add up.
Your challenge as led me to more evidence to disprove this story, thank you. I will continue if you are not yet convinced.

ETA: Do you have or can you get a conformation of Greta's statement about the countdown. This would add a great deal of credibility to Kevin McPadden's statement.

Please do continue. I want to see all of it.

I don't think he was coerced into saying anything. He may have been wrong about stepping over bodies, but I think that is what he thought he was doing. Are you sure there were no holes in any of the walls of WTC 7? I would like to see documentation of that? Was Barry Jennings paid for the interview? What did he stand to gain by lying?

This is a strong allegation. I would be extremely surprised to learn that Barry Jennings was coerced.

I agree with you on many points and appreciate your hard work for the cause, but your attack on Barry Jennings' credibility took me aback.

I am not above being wrong, but I am not convinced by your arguments so far. Do you know something about him being coerced that we don't know?

If you do, let's hear it.

Additionally, whether they were trapped or just perceived that they were trapped doesn't impugn their credibility in the least.
Being told that they should leave and leave immediately, I am sure that they perceived that they were trapped. I doubt they would have stuck around just to make a good story.

Follow up

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 pg 296 [PDF pg 240]
"At 9:30 a.m., the FDNY Emergency Medical Service (EMS) established a Division at WTC 7 for assisting victims. An EMS triage center was established in the lobby of WTC 7 as occupants from WTC 1 and WTC 6 evacuated through WTC 7. In addition, at about 9:30 a.m., the building engineer mentioned above went up to the penthouse of WTC 7 to get supplies for the triage center. He reported that all mechanical and electrical equipment was operating, and that the building’s air dampers were closed to control dust intake. As the evacuation continued, he had other building staff members check the tenant floors to make sure everyone was out of the building."

The elevators and lights were still working at 9:30 a.m., a half hour after Barry said he arrived.
ETA:
NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 pg 296 [PDF pg 240]
"At 9:59 a.m., the triage center located in the lobby of WTC 7 was expanded. Operations were being set up on the loading dock of WTC 7 when WTC 2 collapsed."

If there were explosions in WTC 7, they would have immediately evacuated the triage center.

* * * * *

"I got there . . . I had to be inside, on the 23rd floor, when the second plane hit."[9:03 a.m.]*

"When I made it to the 6th floor and there was an explosion, the explosion was beneath me. Keep in mind now it's pitch black in there. All the lights went out."*
* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRaKHq2dfCI&feature=player_embedded#

Stairways have battery powered emergency lights that come on automatically when the power goes off.
NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 pg 296 [PDF pg 240]
"When WTC 2 collapsed at 9:59 a.m., light debris from the collapse struck the south face of WTC 7 (Section 5.5). This collapse caused the emergency battery-powered lighting to come on inside WTC 7. In addition, the emergency AC power generators began operating.

So now you are disputing the explosion too?

From your claims about the stairways being visible from each other, which turned out to be dubious, and your cubicle pictures provided that were actually of the towers and not WTC 7, we see that you are not infallible in your arguments. Now you dispute the explosion, which both Barry Jennings and Michael Hess claim to have experienced. Their eyewitness accounts on the day of the event are more credible than a subsequent testimony which may have occurred as long as a year afterward.

Now you say this:

"If there were explosions in WTC 7, they would have immediately evacuated the triage center."

Michael Hess on 9/11/01 corroborating the explosion in WTC 7 and that they were trapped.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e3K9jcPdXc&feature=player_embedded

Barry Jennings on 9/11/01 ABC news interview. Big Explosion!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LO5V2CJpzI

When you say "building engineer" mentioned above, are you referring to the person that you called the "security manager" in your earlier post? This person was going up the stairs, according to your earlier post. If the elevator worked, why was he taking the stairs?

If that is not who you are referring to, then some detail is missing about the "building engineer".

In an earlier post you said:

"There are more statements like "I was skipping stairs, practically leaping from one landing to the next" or words to that effect. How could a 70 year old man keep up with him?

As someone who is about the age of Barry Jennings and even similar in shape, I could come down stairs quite briskly if I believed my life was threatened. It is going up stairs that is difficult. Going down stairs you are helped by gravity.

In a life threatening situation, people can move down stairs pretty quickly. There are many 70 year old men who are still in good physical shape. Some run marathons. Your view of what a 70 year old man can or can't do in an emergency is debatable.

Michael D. Hess graduated from Yale with a BA in 1962. I saw no reference to him serving in the armed services in his bio, so I assume that he did not. If he entered Yale right after high school, and he finished high school at age 18 or possibly 19, that would make him 23 in 1962. That would make him 62 in 2001. I could not find a confirmation of his age so this extrapolation is subject to correction with better information.

Your claim that this quote is questionable....
"When I made it to the 6th floor and there was an explosion, the explosion was beneath me. Keep in mind now it's pitch black in there. All the lights went out."*

Given that there was smoke from the explosion and there may have been a delay before the back up battery systems or generator systems were turned on, assuming that they were 100 percent functional, I could see how it would be pitch black.
He didn't say that it stayed pitch black.

Relevant to you looseness with the language, your earlier statement about Larry Silverstein:

Larry said he was talking to a fire chief as I remember. The "pull it" remark may have been a Freudian slip but neither man had the authority to make that decision.

This in no way resembles a Freudian slip.

A Freudian slip is when something in your unconscious slips out accidentally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freudian_slip

What Silverstein did was, in my opinion, try to provide a plausible coverup story for the destruction of WTC 7. He apparently didn't consider the logistics of setting up a controlled demolition when he concocted the impromptu explanation.
It was not a Freudian slip, however. He knew what he was saying and didn't accidentally slip anything from his unconscious.

Summary

I am willing to admit when I am wrong and correct my errors before they become a mistake. This is what a debate is for. Listening to sound logic and evidence, and changing position when proven wrong. This is a strength yet you use it to doubt everything I say. Some of your arguments are sound and I have altered my evidence points accordingly

Rather than going round and round on every element of each point I will just post this summary for your consideration.

Barry said he was in the OEM just before or just after 9am. and everyone was already gone. That means the OEM was abandoned before the second plane hit the south tower. No one knew it was a terrorist attack right away. The initial reports were that a small plane hit the tower. There was no reason to abandon the OEM immediately. It also means that word had gotten to him, he drove to WTC 7, parked his car, walked to the entrance, went up the escalator to the 3rd floor, took an elevator up to the 23rd floor, went back down to the lobby, found someone who had a key/card [not a cop] to let him in, went back up to the 23rd floor and was in the OEM in 15 minutes.
He said there were cops in the lobby but did not mention anyone else being in the lobby. The building had thousands of people in it. They could not have all have left in 15 minutes. Many people in the south tower did not try to leave right away and the same was probably true for WTC 7.
Barry said he made a few calls and then he and Michael left. The elevators had stopped working so they took the stairs. This would have been about 9:10 to 9:15.

Why would the elevators not be working? What about all the other people still leaving the building?

Barry and Michael walked down 17 flights of stairs to the 6th floor. 15 minutes? The explosion supposedly happened about 9:30. The triage center had just been set up and there were people using the Promenade to exit WTC 6 through WTC 7. No one else reported an explosion. That's the biggest problem with Barry's story about multiple explosions and bodies in the lobby. There is NO collaboration.

There are numerous other problems with Barry's story.
1) On 9/11 both he and Michael said they got to the 8th floor and there was an explosion. Any change in the original story is suspect.
2) Barry did not mention the landing giving way and hanging on for dear life or bodies in the lobby on 9/11. Those would have been the most traumatic parts of his experience.
3) He said he knew he was stepping over people but did not see them. This is absurd. You can see someone on the floor three feet in front of you and you cannot step over them without looking down.
4) He said a [giant] police officer told him to crawl rather than help him out of the building.
5) He said he did start crawling. If your knees were sore, would you walk slowly or crawl?
6) He said the firefighters took him out through a hole in the wall. The south and west sides were blocked by debris. There were exits on the north and east sides and the firefighters knew where they were.
7) The guy Barry introduced as his rescuer on 9/11 lied about the back side of both stairways being blown off.

Barry's story is simply not credible.
Why is everyone adamant about the testimony of this single witness for multiple explosions and bodies in the lobby? Is there reasonable proof that he is right or is it just because he is saying something you want to hear?
Think about it. Be honest with yourself.

Maybe we could find one of Barry's associates or friends,....

who could tell us whether he fits the pathological liar profile that you have assigned to him in your posts.

Your assertions don't leave room for being wrong. You make them as if you have no doubts. This is not a strength when you are dead wrong. Your are making assumptions as if they are facts, and when proven to be wrong, dead wrong, you are not humbled by that fact. It is a matter of presentation. When you show a picture asserting that it is WTC 7 and then it is shown to be one of the towers, doesn't that give you a reason to pause and rethink your approach? Couple that with your cocksure assertion that the stairways were visible from each other. That assertion you then had to back peddle on also.

Do you know that there was no hole in a wall in WTC 7? Just because there were open exits doesn't exclude the possibility that there was a hole in the wall. His witness account about the hole in the wall doesn't indicate how the hole came to be there.

Do you know, for a fact, that Barry Jennings did not talk to a "giant" police officer who told him to run or crawl if he had to?

You also attack the veracity of the statement by the citizen who heard Barry's cries for help and rendered aid as best he could.
You say he lied. You don't say he was mistaken. You say he lied. What would be his motivation to lie? Could it be that we have found some bias within you that is projecting here? Be honest with yourself.

You have problems with the timeline which may be debatable, but these discrepancies could be attributed to honest errors, if they are indeed inaccurate, as opposed to deliberate lies.

If the landing didn't give way, then why didn't they continue down those stairs? Something happened that made the stairway appear impassible. This obstacle was apparently caused by the explosion that both Jennings and Hess reported. Whether he was hanging on for "dear life" or not, is a red herring. It may have been his perception that he was. It may not be that he was hanging from a handrail over some abysmal deep dark hole, but there are many other possible ways to interpret what he said. It could have been that the stairway landing was tilted rather than missing. That would still fit his description, yet not fit what you have apparently visualized.

Your assertions are not that he may have exaggerated in some instances, but that he made things up out of whole cloth.

It isn't that Barry Jennings said what I want to hear. It is that I have not been presented with any reason, at this time, to believe that he was a pathological liar.

I still think Barry Jennings was an honest man and that his account of what happened on 9/11/01 is credible.

The timeline is not debatable

Barry said:
"I was inside when the 2nd plane hit. I was already in the WTC7." [9:03 a.m.]

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 pg 296 [PDF pg 240]
"At 9:30 a.m., the FDNY Emergency Medical Service (EMS) established a Division at WTC 7 for assisting victims. An EMS triage center was established in the lobby of WTC 7 as occupants from WTC 1 and WTC 6 evacuated through WTC 7.
At 9:59 a.m., the triage center located in the lobby of WTC 7 was expanded. Operations were being set up on the loading dock of WTC 7 when WTC 2 collapsed

This proves that the whole Michael and Barry story is false.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this subject.

I have gone back and listened to the interview with Barry Jennings. I still believe what he says is what he experienced. I don't think he fabricated any of it.

As to the timeline, I suspect that all of the stated times could be off, including the ones that you cite. When setting up a division for assisting victims, and an EMS triage center, I would imagine that they were more concerned with other tasks than to make exact notations of the time. I could be wrong, but that is what I think. I know that when I was in the radio business, we were supposed to make meter readings every 3 hours. Sometimes we would forget to do so because we were busy doing other tasks. We would then go back, after the fact, and fill in the readings and the times as if we met the requirements. Fudging times to fill out paperwork is something that I have done. I suspect that radio is not the only place where this is a possibility.

If they were to recall the times from memory, weeks, months or even a year after the fact, I think there would be a high probability that they would miss the exact times.

This will be my last entry on this subject for now. Thanks for the discussion.

Follow up

Mover to wider post below

Follow up

The times were reasonably correct. Here is further conformation.

The stairways were being used by people leaving the building during the time Michael and Barry said there was an explosion and they were trapped.

NCSTAR 1-A pg 49 [PDF 91]
There were no serious injuries or fatalities because the estimated 4,000 occupants of WTC 7 reacted to the airplane impacts on the two WTC towers and began evacuating before there was significant damage to WTC 7. Evacuation of the building took just over an hour. [8:46 to 9:46+]

The occupants were able to use both the elevators and the stairs, which were as yet not damaged, obstructed, or smoke-filled.

Even if you don't believe NIST, and I don't, the facts are self evident. It would take more than 30 min to evacuate WTC 7. People were coming across the Promenade from WTC 1 & 6 and exiting thru WTC 7. The lobby would have been full of people trying to get out of the building. During this time people were being treated for injuries in the lobby. There was no reason for the power to be off and the elevators inoperative.

Revised Summary

Barry said he arrived at World Trade Center building 7 shortly after the first plane hit the north tower at 8:46 a.m. He took an elevator up to the 23rd floor and he was in the Office of Emergency Management when the second plane hit the south tower at 9:03 a.m.

Many people started leaving building 7 when the first plane hit the north tower but he order to evacuate was not made until after the second plane hit the south tower. There were still thousands of people in WTC 7 when Michael and Barry supposedly tried to leave at around 9:10 a.m. If the elevators were not working there would have been a lot of people using the stairways.

Photo of 8th floor

Chris, is this photo:

Supposedly 8th floor of WTC 7

Really WTC 7? Look at the windows and the window spacing, this looks like a photo from WTC 1 or 2 instead.

Compare with the interior of the North Tower:
Interior of North Tower

The windows of WTC 7 look different from the outside, at least:

ETA:The Guardian is filtering the image below with some kind of bandwidth limiter I suspect. Either that or some HTML error I made that I cannot find. The picture seems to show intermittently only. I changed this post to include the link instead of an <img> tag.
link: http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/wtc7-fires-close.jpg

I thought it would be worthwhile to at least raise this concern.


"Leader follows leader from bad to worse, as though by a malign law of nature. One ruler, evil or stupid or violent, breeds another more evil or stupid or violent."Liz McAlister

Foreknowledge

This is a key piece of info. Thank you Loose Nuke!

In an Oct 15, 2008 interview with Allan Rees (following the release of the NIST WTC 7 report), Dr. Shyam Sunder (lead investigator) responded to a question about the evidence of foreknowledge of the collapse of WTC 7 by saying that they were “aware that an engineer or a technical expert or a technical advisor was providing advice to the city agencies with regard to the condition of building 7”, and that they had been hearing creaking noises and the area was cleared about 2:30 pm. He refused to name this person, and then implied it may have been more than one “advisor”.
http://www.ae911truth.org/info/39

The determination that WTC 7 was going to "collapse" was made by technical experts as would be expected. Chief Nigro had just seen two collapses that killed hundreds of his brothers. He did not question the decision to pull everyone back.

WTC 7 did not sustain a great deal of debris damage. That's why Shyam Sunder and NIST lied about a 10 story gouge that supposedly scooped out a large portion of the south side.

The only visible fires at 2:30 were on floors 11 and 12 at the east end of the building.

There was no reason to think WTC 7 would collapse from the debris damage and fires. They knew it was coming down as soon as they fixed whatever went wrong at 10:45 am when it was supposed to come down.

FDNY: "We gotta get back, 7 is exploding!"

Listen closer

"We gotta get back. Shit is exploding."

I hear "seven is exploding"

but anyways, open to interpretation I guess.

There was a debunker who analyzed the location of the clip with the firefighters at the payphone and the results were...the blast was coming from the vicinity of WTC 7. Unfortunately I didn't save the link. Does anybody know it? It involved estimating the time it happened (apparently, around noon or so) by shadow analysis, and identification of the surrounding buildings in the video.

I have this link to contribute, which compares the explosion heard above to a shaped charge explosion.

People should ask themselves why it was so easy to predict the demise of WTC 7, yet extremely difficult to explain by NIST afterwards. How can it be both extremely obvious and extremely not-obvious at the same time? How could foreknowledge exist of a building's destruction while it was (and is) at the same time impossible to explain (e.g. eight storeys of FULL freefall)? Did some party somewhere tell the firefighters to evacuate in anticipation of WTC 7's "assisted" destruction? The same people doing the countdown heard by Kevin McPadden and Gretel Kovach?

After the event, NIST was tasked to come up with a plausible lie. Controlled demolition of WTC 7 is empirical fact, firefighter foreknowledge due to error of judgment or misinformation in the context of two previous impossible "collapses" is to be expected. If on 9/11 anybody tells you a building is unstable you will obviously assume it is true, whether or not you are completely mistaken.

Obviously, none of the firefighter prior knowledge involved NIST's later "explanations". Curious mismatch.

Anyways, all of this is adequately researched by Graeme MacQueen's paper "Waiting for Seven", which I see is sourced above.


"Leader follows leader from bad to worse, as though by a malign law of nature. One ruler, evil or stupid or violent, breeds another more evil or stupid or violent."Liz McAlister

FYI

Here is a version with a better audio track:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I&eurl=

Analysis to establish time and place.
http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/7797/wtc7explosionanaysis.pdf

Who is Gretel Kovach and what it the URL please?

Thanks

  • First of all, the analysis you linked to is much better than the debunker's. It's even more damning because it establishes a time before the NT destruction using two methods (shadows, firefighter watch). (Or maybe this was the analysis, and I got some details wrong)
  • Second, you are right, it was "shit is exploding", not "seven is exploding". Thanks for that too. The improved audio helped.
  • Third, it is 911blogger's own ROBinDALLAS who talked to Gretel Kovach:

She said she knew that the building was imploded. She said it was supposed to be imploded earlier in the day. She said she was there and heard the countdown.

Thanks Chris.


"Leader follows leader from bad to worse, as though by a malign law of nature. One ruler, evil or stupid or violent, breeds another more evil or stupid or violent."Liz McAlister

You're welcome and thank you

for the source of the Gretel Kovach statement. This needs to be confirmed in the first person to be considered valid. Conformation is essential and would back up Kevin McPadden. His statement alone is not very strong but with a second source it would have a great deal more impact.

I'll ETA in my reply to RinD

Wow, snowcrash.

You're an astute archiver.

We should follow up with Gretel Kovach.

Thanks

I think we should follow up. If only we had some die hard investigative reporters on this.


"Leader follows leader from bad to worse, as though by a malign law of nature. One ruler, evil or stupid or violent, breeds another more evil or stupid or violent."Liz McAlister

I contacted Kovach through Facebook.

Here is what transpired:

Rob Wrinkle May 8 at 4:49pm
Hi Gretel,

We met a few years ago at Stabucks Lakewood. At the time you were working on a story for Newsweek about the families of those who had died in the Iraq invasion and occupation.

We discussed the events of 9/11/2001. You said you did a story on Atta. I told you the reason I believed the events of 911 were actually an inside job is because of the controlled demolition of WTC 7. You told me you were in New York on 9/11 and knew WTC 7 was going to come down. In fact you told me that it was supposed to come down much earlier in the day. We discussed that some heard the countdown before the free fall collapse. I believe you said that either you heard, or someone you know heard the countdown. I took copious notes about our conversation because I knew that what you had said was important. I haven't yet followed up on it because I didn't want to impose on your life, but the issue is very important. Now that you see what has come out since, the torture memos, the Wall Street extortion of money to compensate for their greedy mistakes. Would you be willing to be interviewed on the record about your experiences and what you heard and witnessed on 9/11/2001? Before you agree or disagree, I suggest you do some research on Barry Jennings of the NYCHA. I may have told you about him being in WTC 7 on 911. He was a critical witness to what actually happened to WTC 7. Within a few weeks of the official NIST explanation of what happened to WTC 7 (7 years after the fact they said it was a unique instance of "thermal expansion" which caused the building to come down at free fall speed, symmetrically, into its own basement in less than 7 seconds. This explanation is laughable. Just before this report comes out, Barry Jennings supposedly dies. He was 51 or 52 years old. The cause of death was not announced. Even in his obituary on the NYCHA website, they don't say how he died. One of our group members hired a private investigator to find out what happened to Barry Jennings. The private investigator, after doing some checking, refunded the money paid to him and told the client that this is a police matter. He wanted nothing to do with it. NIST is part of the Commerce Department. Since then, there has been a verified discovery. From multiple samples of the dust of both the towers and WTC 7, renown scientists have produced a peer reviewed scientific paper, showing that they have found particles of nano thermite. Thermite is an incendiary, but when reduced to the nano scale it becomes a high explosive. There are only a few places where nano thermite could be developed. http://www.ae911truth.org/info/57. We need to know what really happened to WTC 7. We need to know what really happened on 9/11/2001. It has been the pretext for all that has followed. Your information could help us get a new, genuine, thorough investigation into the events of that day.
The 911 Commission was a cover-up commission directed by insider Philip Zelikow, who had actually written a book with Condoleeza Rice. He worked for George HW Bush. His expertise is in the propagation and impact of "myths" on the population.

Do some research and get back with me one way or the other. This could be your chance to do something of monumental importance. I see that you are highly intelligent and educated. Have you really not had questions about what really happened on 9/11/2001?

Thank you for your time. I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Best regards,

Rob Wrinkle
concerned citizen of the world

Gretel Christina Kovach May 8 at 5:38pm Report
Hello, I am sorry but I can't recall our conversation or the details of what happened to WTC 7 that day, so I am afraid I cannot help you. Please do not mention my name in relation to this subject, because I really cannot verify any facts concerning that chaotic day in New York that I would much like to forget.

Good luck,
Gretel

Rob Wrinkle June 2 at 10:32pm
Hi Gretel,

I can't recall is a famous response, but I must say that I don't believe you. I think you full well recall what happened on that day and our conversation. You didn't realize the logistics involved in setting up a controlled demolition so you didn't realize that you were revealing important information. But the fact is, you did tell me that you knew the building was going come down and that is was supposed to come down much earlier in the day. Look again at the video of the controlled demolition of WTC 7. It is all over youtube.

You can't just wash your hands of this. You are a public figure. You are perpetuating the coverup. This is too important for you to just turn your back and claim that you don't recall. As a reporter, don't you feel any moral obligation to find the truth and report it to the citizens? Are you just a cog in the propaganda machine? Don't you care to know the truth about 911? Don't you want to know who is really responsible for the murders of 911? Are you familiar with the history of false flag terrorism? Are you familiar with Operation Northwoods? Are you familiar with Operation Mockingbird? Are you familiar with the Gulf Of Tonkin? As a reporter, don't you have any curiosity?
I look forward to your honest response.

Best regards,

Rob Wrinkle
Dallas Texas

Well

That was to be expected. I believe you Rob. She told you and now she's lying.


"Leader follows leader from bad to worse, as though by a malign law of nature. One ruler, evil or stupid or violent, breeds another more evil or stupid or violent."Liz McAlister

Thanks for believing me.

I did make an effort, but I wasn't surprised with her response.

I am sure she will be pissed that I posted this, but the Truth about 911 is more important than protecting her. She is a public figure and a professional reporter. She works for Newsweek, among other publications.

Email exchange was from this year.

Since the year wasn't included on the Facebook date I wanted to let people know that it was 2009.

People should ask themselves

People should ask themselves why it was so easy to predict the demise of WTC 7, yet extremely difficult to explain by NIST afterwards.

Brilliant!

Certain before, but uncertain after....???

The fact that many people knew WTC7 was going to collapse beforehand, but after it did collapse everyone seemed clueless as to how, has always struck me as something of an impossibility, at least within the confines of the official story. I used to make that argument frequently with debunkers, but none of them ever had an adequate response.

tanabear: "So how is it possible to have foreknowledge of a building collapse hours before the event occurs, but after the event occurs they have no idea why the building collapsed? Having foreknowledge of the building totally collapsing due to fire(an unprecedented event) is evidence of demolition. When buildings are demolished people are aware of what is going to happen beforehand."

spook: "It’s called he looked at it, used his experience, and determined it would collapse. He was right. It’s called an assesment. It would be like a doctor looking at video of your clogged arteries, and saying you were going to have a heart attack. Then you have one. Uh-HELLO! Would you then be asking “how did he gain such foreknowledge? LOL! You’re a total ignorant loon."

tanabear: "Spook, you don’t to be aware of the point that I’m making. Let’s assume the firefighters did know that the building was going to collapse beforehand, then they must have had some reason for this belief. However, after the building did collapse everyone is unsure as to why it collapsed. So how does someone know the cause beforehand, but not afterwards? If a doctor notices that you have clogged arteries and then you have a heart attack, he knew this because he observed the clogged arteries, so after the heart attack occurs he still knows what caused it, clogged arteries. In the case of building 7 they are still uncertain as to what caused the collapse."

Spook: "The firefighters know what caused it and your quotes have no references."

tanabear: "If the fire fighters know what caused the collapse then how come no one else does? Why is NIST still working on their report over six years after the event happened? Why don’t they just ask the firefighters and mystery solved?"

p.s. This was before NIST released their report on WTC7

Great collection of explosions

I just watched this video for the first time. I thought is was just the phone call explosion.

Thank you very much AAA

There was no reason to think WTC 7 would collapse.

The damage and fires were not that severe. The gouge 1/3 the width and floor 10 to the ground did not exist. Around 2:30 p.m. when the decision was made to clear the area, the fires near the south-west corner had gone out. The only visible fires at that time on the east side of floors 11 and 12.

WTC 7 was never in any danger of collapsing due to debris damage and fire.

Where are the pictures?

Didn't Shyam Sunder and Popular Mechanics say that there were pictures that showed this damage? This is from the Charles Goyette(CG) radio show and his interview with Davin Coburn of Popular Mechanics(PM):

CG: …Building 7 is the first piece of evidence that I turn to. Popular Mechanics…say that a third of the face, approximately 25% of the depth of the building that was scooped out beforehand.

PM: When the North Tower collapsed… there was damage to Building 7…. What we found out was…about 25% of the building's south face had been carved away from it… Each column that you remove that was destroyed by the wreckage from the North Tower…

CG: That would be very persuasive to me if it were true. And it may or may not be true… I go, oh that's interesting…if that's true that would go a long way towards explaining what happened to Building 7. So I turn to the pictures in your book about Building 7 you've got a picture of Building 7, but it doesn't show that. So I'm going, OK, instead of just somebody asserting that a third of the building was scooped away, show me the picture. But you don't show me the picture.

PM: …We have seen pictures that are property of the NY Police Department and various other governmental agencies that we were not given permission to disseminate….

CG: Popular Mechanics got to see them, but the average American citizen can't see them.

PM: Correct.

CG: Well, that's a fine kettle of fish, isn't it? ….What did you see there that I can't see?

PM: Just what was described.

CG: Well it must be something that's dangerous for me as an American citizen or a voter to see. You're publishers, if anybody is concerned about evidence in a criminal case or something, they've done the worst possible thing, they've shown it to a damn magazine publisher!

PM: That was done for the purposes of our background research.

CG: What about my background research? Do you see the source of my frustration here? I didn't know we had different classes of citizens. You can't tell me it's because it's a criminal case because they've shown it to a damn magazine publisher.

PM: ….I can't answer that question.

CG: I know you can't.

Is it likely that such pictures never existed, were faked or something else? Nevertheless, this suggests that Popular Mechanics and NIST were engaged in a fraud to lie about 9/11 and the damage to building 7.

Clearly Davin Coburn was

Clearly Davin Coburn was BS'ing every moment of that interview. Even NIST no longer claims that the structural integrity of 7 was compromised due to falling North Tower debris.

Davin Coburn lied to Charles Goyette

The debris damage from WTC 1 is listed in the final report on pages 183-187.

There was no gouge 1/3 the width, 1/4 the depth and floor 10 to the ground.

Shyam Sunder LIED when he told PM Magazine there was a 10 story gouge that scooped out a huge part of the face of WTC 7 and a fire on the fifth floor and that it lasted for up to 7 hours.

Popular Mechanics March 2005
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5

"NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." "

Shyam Sunder did NOT mention that there were two statements in direct conflict with the 10 story gouge on the same page. He did NOT say "possible damage". He stated it as a fact.
Shyam Sunder LIED about there being 10 story gouge that scooped out a large portion of the front of the building.

His statement is consistent with the damage described on pg 18 and depicted on pg 23 of the NIST Appendix L report as "Possible Region of Impact Damage by WTC1 Debris" and on pages 31 and 32 "Approximate Region of Impact Damage by Large WTC1 Debris".
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

These graphics are fraudulent.

There was no 10 story gouge as described on pg 18 of the NIST L report and reported in Popular Mechanics so called "Debunking" article.
Pages 183 to 187 of NCSTAR 1-9 vol. 1 show the debris damage to WTC 7. There was no gouge 1/3 the width, 1/4 the depth and floor 10 to the ground.
http://nasathermalimages.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_...

"Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time." "

Shyam is clearly talking about the pressurized fuel line feeding a fire on floor 5.
The diesel fuel fire on floor 5 was the "working hypothesis" at the time.

NIST Final 4-5-05 pg 38
"This finding allows for the possibility, though not conclusively, that the fuel may have contributed to a fire on Floor 5."

The "working hypothesis" was a farce. There were no fires reported on floor 5 at any time and there was no reason to think there was a fire in the north-east generator room.

Even if there was a fire in the north-east generator room it would not have been a factor in the collapse.
If the louvers were open smoke would be pouring out. If they were closed any fire would be oxygen starved and could not burn anywhere near hot enough to be a factor. Shaym Sunder and NIST had this information when the NIST appendix L report was released.

NIST abandoned the diesel fuel fire hypothesis in their 12-18-07 Approach Summary.
Pg 6
"The working hypothesis is based on an initial local failure caused by normal building fires, not fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines or fuel from day tanks."

The hypothesis that diesel fuel fires may have contributed to the collapse is a BASELESS FRAUD.

Where's the debris pile?

Not sure if this helps or not but if you look at this photo it shows very little debris on Vesey St between Buildings 6 and 7.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/World_Trade_Center_Si...
It would seem to me that if there was enough debris to gouge a hole 1/4 the depth and 1/3 the height there should be an awful pile of debris, yet the combined debris of both collapses plus that of the remains of building 6 are not that big.
This photo was purportedly taken Sept 23 so it wasn't a lot of time to clean up.

Moot point

But thank you.

Pages 183 to 187 of NCSTAR 1-9 vol.1 show the debris damage to WTC7. There was no gouge 1/3 the width, 1/4 the depth and floor 10 to the ground. All the damage listed on pg 183-187 is above the 5th floor and west of center.

Here is a photo of the debris on Vesey St. after WTC 1 was blown up and before WTC 7 was imploded.
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/1075/pedesrtianbridgewithsou.jpg
[click on image for full size]

NIST was careful not to release a photo clearly showing the area where the 10 story gouge would have been although they surly have one.

The 10 story gouge would have taken out the Pedestrian bridge and the atrium just towards the camera from it.

The 10 story gouge is shown in orange in this graphic:
http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/3061/debrisdamagegraphic.jpg

The inner area is 1/4 the width of WTC 7 and the outer area is 1/3 the width.

Here is a photo of the debris on Vesey St. after WTC 7 was imploded:
http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/5465/debrisonveseyst.jpg

1,2,...3

Many people saw two enormous structures vanish from the Manhattan skyline before WTC7 came down. In a sense, we were primed to expect another event, with or without airplanes. Once a few rabbits are pulled from the magicians hat, a few more does not seem so unusual. This expectation still lingers, otherwise the majority of people would not buy the War on Terror so easily.

WTC7 Count Down Witness Kevin McPadden 911 1st Responder

9/11: WTC 7 "would collapse in a southerly direction"

or "would be taken down".

WTC building 7 collapse captured live on MSNBC. FDNY lieutenant David Rastuccio describes how the building was to be allowed to fall on it's own or "would be taken down".

Things to note

The reporter looks back at WTC 7 very suddenly. Why?

She heard an explosion.

Why don't we hear it?

Run this video thru a good stereo. Turn the bass up all the way and note that there is no change because all the low frequencies have been rolled off.

According to a Silverstein rep...

Oct 23, 2003 Archive.org crawl: Up in smoke By Sara Leibovich-Dar
http://web.archive.org/web/20031023074446/http://www.haaretzdaily.com/ha...

"In the afternoon of September 11, the Fire Department informed [Larry Silverstein] that the smaller 7 World Trade Center building, which he owned, was going to collapse. It did so at 5:30 P.M., followed by buildings No. 4 and 5. Silverstein, who only six weeks earlier had carried out the largest real-estate transaction in the history of New York, was left with nothing. It was also the worst timing ever in American history for a business deal, the press said afterward."

Thanks to Jon for the heads up on this. The article is a really 'interesting' history of Silverstein and his business dealings

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

I know

a lot of the firemen know a lot more. I am sure they were threatened with the loss of their jobs and pensions.
I can't say as i blame them for keeping quite. Especially knowing the power that those who are traitors have.
I am sorry for the loss of there co workers. Real hero's of 9/11. May the opportunity arise for them to see justice.

More info

Additional WTC7 pre-demolition info: http://tinyurl.com/yzn7k9a

I pray for the day when all

I pray for the day when all of this minutia will go away once and for all. It is patently obvious to anyone who can see that B7 was brought down in a controlled manner.

Although this supporting evidence is useful there comes a time when one wonders whether it no longer furthers the cause. It is so frustrating to see such a blatant crime ensnared away from justice.

There is a Taoist saying, 'if you sharpen your knife too much, it will dull.'

What is needed IS being done by the likes of WAC and AE911.

But the debunkers and defenders want to trap you in minutia and catch one on the little details. I recall when it was shown to Jawenko and revealed to him.
He sat there, looked at it, and said, 'oh, that is a controlled demolition.' It was as if he saw a bird fly across the screen and said, 'oh, there goes a bird.' But to a debunker, 'no, that's a blot on the camera lens which looks like a bird...you see how it moves oddly when you pan the camera? its also very black and you really can't tell....etc...etc....'

But back in reality a bird is still a bird and Building 7's destruction was controlled. That's reality. And I won't get caught in the mistake of getting lost in minutia. I look at it. Ask myself what do I see? Does this look familiar? Yes. Answer: Controlled Demolition

Having said that it took a long time to come to that logic because I was severely programmed. I got caught up in the damage and the extra smoke and more fires and doubted what I had evaluated until one day a light went off and I just looked at the event objectively. It also helped to recall some elementary physics.

The truth was revealed as easily and efficiently as the path of destruction for Building 7.

And it is an amazing con that will someday looked backed upon as a time when you could rely on the stupid masses to believe in whatever you told them to believe.

I pray that reality can enter into our consciousness sooner rather than later. For as it is now, much of the populace remain in a dream state of make believe and chief among them are the debunkers, the cowardly scientists, the JREF'ers, and our so-called educated intellectuals.

Minutia

I agree that the free fall acceleration of WTC 7 proves 9/11 was an inside job.

It's just that simple and FFA should be the lead argument.

I also agree that we have too much information and the weak evidence should be discarded.

Barry Jennings' statements are not supported by any other witnesses and some of them don't make any sense.

Larry Silverstein's statement subject to interpretation. It's good for getting someones attention but does not prove anything and it is infinitely arguable.

Note that "debunkers" bring these subjects up. The BBC called Barry our "star witness". That's because he is our weakest witness. There is no collaboration for his story. The 100+ first responders and the survivors interviewed on 9/11, who heard explosions at the WTC, are our strongest witnesses by virtue of numbers.

Coming out of the closet.

Chris, my post below is out of order.

I realize that Silverstein's quote has been interpreted in many ways but that doesn't mean that interpretation was ever really warranted. It wasn't.

I say the following metaphorically: If one uses their "3rd ear" and their "3rd eye" (innate intuition), it's clear that the disinfo. tumblers of his mind we're grinding at that point.

When people really aren't thinking about what they're saying, that's when you hear the truth. All we have to do is listen for it and watch them. There are both verbal and non-verbal clues.

Additional examples of this reality include Rummy and others all "slipping up" (and all in the same way) mentioning that a missile ("oops, plane") hit the Pentagon.

Using only my common sense and all the evidence I've researched, their slipping up only confirmed what I unequivocally already knew: no large commercial jetliner hit the Pentagon. Something did, likely a "disguised" missile or something similar in size, shape, and speed, but no large commercial jet airliner. None.

Coming even further out of the closet regarding my beliefs about 9/11 - only because I'm on a roll here and have been posting on this blog for awhile now without disclosing anything I believe - it is my strong opinion that a flyover is highly-likely at the Pentagon and that pre-positioned explosives of some kind, primarily intended to create heavy, heavy black smoke, blew outward from the building, however triggered.

And, now, going right off the deep end, I will close by saying that common sense further indicates to me - and again unequivocally - that no large commercial airliner ever crashed into the dirt in Shanksville, PA. Ever.

Right in line with my beliefs Monkeyboy

If Not Me? Who? If Not Now? When?
http://www.northtexas911truth.com/

blatantly obvious

"I'm afraid we were misled," Salandria said sadly. "All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time and effort microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy. Don't you think the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They chose not to. Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny.
(http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/Salandria/Salandriabio.html)

Oh my God. That is

Oh my God. That is PRECISELY what I was trying to get at. What an apt quote. I truly believe that there agents which work to foster all of this, the details upon details along with counter details and a dash of confusion.

That is the recipe for stalling and inaction. It serves as a perpetual argument against the backdrop of the blatant truth, the obvious conspiracy.

I would hope that AE 911 & Stephen Jones et al are aware that at some point, however excellent and revealing it is, the research begins to work against them whether they would admit it or not. And I know it is a strange paradox, lord I know...but look at the JFK case.

It's like for every detail provided, a foothold is provided for the opposition to expound upon.

It makes me wonder as to how to defeat the intelligence community and 'the debunkers' because they love to lose sight of the real argument by clinging on to all the little details, the window dressing, the side stories - the minutia.

I'm guessing that you just have to come up with a common denominator type of argument based on fundamental science that is empirical in nature. You would have to defer to the free fall speed as well as the symmetrical nature of collapse I suppose.

I wouldn't even mention the fires of the damage or even the thermite. They are irrelevant in a way. We have seen buildings in far worse shape from fire that haven't collapsed. We know it is a total anomaly of gargantuan proportions.

It is the one thing that cannot be explained away, the manner in which it fell. I don't know I'm just thinking out loud here...but thanks for the quote and link Felix5.

The forces against truth are very formidable indeed...

I have to agree with you, Chris.

I've seen this video clip many times before but never listened closely to the background conversation until now.

Listening attentively to both audio clips that you've posted here, I, too, heard "shit" on the first one and then again on this second one.

That being said, considering all the scientific evidence while using my most dependable intelligence - common sense - I, unequivocally, believe that CT brought down all three WTC buildings.

Watch the video of Barry Jennings on the corner

On the dusty street talking to the reporter. the man that directed firefighters to Mr Jennings ( God rest your soul, I hope your just in a witness relocation program ) Said that the backside of WTC 7 just blew up..does anyone have anymore info on that ?

The guy with Barry in the interview on 9/11 said:

"Both staircases . . . the back side was completely blown away. There was no way to access 'em, we(?) couldn't get to 'em."

This a is a blatant lie.
If the back side of the staircases were blown away and no one couldn't get to them then how did the firefighters get to them later?

Even if any part of this story were true, this part could not be true. And he was part of the beginning of this fairytale.

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 pg 399 [PDF pg 243]
"As the firefighters went up, they vented the stairway and cleared some of the smoke. They first met the security officer on the 7th floor,[above the 6th floor landing] and fire fighters escorted him down the stairs. Other fire fighters from the group continued up the stairs, shined their flashlights through the staircase smoke and called out. The two trapped men on the 8th floor saw the flashlight beams, heard the firefighters calling, and went down the stairway. The firefighters took the men outside and directed them away from the building."

Note also that this official statement ignores the battery operated lights that are required in stairwells.

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 pg
"sometime after 1:00 p.m., OEM and FDNY staff climbed the east stairway
of WTC 7 and did not see much damage on Floors 4, 5, or 6 from their viewing location."

But...wait a minute

Why were they using flashlights at all then? Just the smoke? Maybe that was why Jennings referred to "darkness" too? I'm willing to accept that Jennings' testimony is flawed, but it would be best if somebody got to talk to those firefighters...You never know when NIST is pulling your leg..you know.


"Leader follows leader from bad to worse, as though by a malign law of nature. One ruler, evil or stupid or violent, breeds another more evil or stupid or violent."Liz McAlister

That's the point

The story about the flashlights is BS. Stairways have battery powered emergency lights that come on automatically when the power goes off.

The stairways were never dark.

Has it occurred to anyone

Has it occurred to anyone that none of these quotes point to WTC 7 being blown up? What motive would firemen have for lying about why they cleared the area?

The idea that the firemen secretly know that the building was blown up is about as sound of an argument as the "Ron Paul is a secret 9/11 Truther" argument. Both are based entirely on a hunch.

Justin A. Martell
www.jamartell.blogspot.com

In a soldier's stance, I aimed my hand at the mongrel dogs who teach! Fearing not that I'd become my enemy in the instant that I preach! My pathway led by confusion boats...mutiny from stern to bow!

The firefighters were told WTC 7 was giong to come down

The original post of this thread quotes Shyam Sunder as saying "experts" were advising city officials that WTC 7 was going to fall.

No one is saying the firefighters knew about or had anything to do with the demolition. They had been told the building was in danger of coming down. After what had just happened, no one questioned that.

Criminal investigation

This is exactly the sort of protest I expected (I anticipated it on my comments on the first page) and unfortunately it is based on a straw man argument frequently used by debunkers. Remember, you only need to tell the firefighters to clear a "collapse zone". For context, read Graeme MacQueen's paper "Waiting for Seven".

Furthermore, many firefighters were killed and this is extremely tragic. Yet, if the top of the command structure intimidated some of these firefighters to shut up about what happened, I would like them investigated too. I'm pretty sure Giuliani knew something being foretold of WTC 2's destruction and all. By the way, firefighters despise him. In the end, Giuliani is their boss and he let them die. He was also responsible for the faulty radios they were provided. I'm not afraid of moving beyond Giuliani and see what other top figures in the emergency services were possibly culpable. What we have is a moral taboo, not a logical impossibility. Why is what Giuliani did any different? It is objectively certain WTC 7 was professionally demolished, based on empirical evidence. This evidence is immutable and cannot be refuted, although you or anybody else may try to do so.

In the hierarchy, firefighters at the bottom are bullied around, especially those with questions about 9/11. One such firefighter (I forget his name, he was interviewed by Dylan Avery) was singled out for a drug test, then found positive for cocaine and discharged. Who ordered him specifically to be tested and not the others who undoubtedly do the same thing but get away with it? I sympathize more with the regular firefighters than with the management. Now let the chips fall were they may, appeals to emotion will not serve as thought stoppers. Neither would any such argument hold in a true criminal investigation.


"Leader follows leader from bad to worse, as though by a malign law of nature. One ruler, evil or stupid or violent, breeds another more evil or stupid or violent."Liz McAlister

The faulty radios

The faulty radios were a critical part of the plot. It was important to hinder the communication between and from firefighters inside the towers, and thus hinder reports of explosions from within the buildings. That's also the reason 343 Firefighters had to die inside the buildings, so they could not tell stories of explosions going off throughout the interior of the towers. 118 first responders testified that explosions were going off at Ground Zero. Imagine adding 343 more first responder witnesses testifying about explosions inside the buidlings. 118 + 343 = 461.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

This just in

Ex-CIA Chief James Woolsey handed down gag-order to 9/11 Firefighters

ETA: Ugh...unfortunately the above story could be disinformation to cover up for any REAL gag order. I know Paul Isaac slash NYsentinel, the source, to be a disinformationist. I'll wait how this one plays out. Comment continues below.


That's what I meant when I said:

"Yet, if the top of the command structure intimidated some of these firefighters to shut up about what happened, I would like them investigated too."
(...)
"I'm not afraid of moving beyond Giuliani and see what other top figures in the emergency services were possibly culpable."
(...)
"In the hierarchy, firefighters at the bottom are bullied around, especially those with questions about 9/11."


"Leader follows leader from bad to worse, as though by a malign law of nature. One ruler, evil or stupid or violent, breeds another more evil or stupid or violent."Liz McAlister

Response to

Submitted by ROBinDALLAS on Tue, 10/20/2009 - 3:50pm.

Rob Wrinkle May 8 at 4:49pm
Hi Gretel,

We met a few years ago at Stabucks Lakewood . . . . . We discussed the events of 9/11/2001. . . . . . . I believe you said that either you heard, or someone you know heard the countdown. . . . . . . . Would you be willing to be interviewed on the record about your experiences and what you heard and witnessed on 9/11/2001? Before you agree or disagree, I suggest you do some research on Barry Jennings of the NYCHA. I may have told you about him being in WTC 7 on 911. He was a critical witness to what actually happened to WTC 7.

Change of subject and then back to

Just before this report comes out, Barry Jennings supposedly dies. He was 51 or 52 years old. The cause of death was not announced. Even in his obituary on the NYCHA website, they don't say how he died. One of our group members hired a private investigator to find out what happened to Barry Jennings. The private investigator, after doing some checking, refunded the money paid to him and told the client that this is a police matter. He wanted nothing to do with it.

Translation:
Would you like to be snuffed by the people who murdered 3,000 Americans on 9/11?