New article published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies

We have a new article today, from Professor Graeme MacQueen, entitled –

“Waiting for Seven: WTC 7 Collapse Warnings in the FDNY Oral Histories.”

Here are a few excerpts.

“In the debate over the collapse of World Trade Center 7, warnings of the building’s collapse have come to play an important role. In addition to the numerous collapse warnings mentioned in written documents, such as those I will be using in this article, we have seen a growing number of videotape fragments and interviews in which people appear to have been told in advance of Seven’s collapse. Many proponents of the controlled demolition hypothesis take these cases, both written and video, as evidence that the building’s collapse was brought about deliberately.”

“But those who think that Seven’s fall was natural rather than deliberate have not shied away from the collapse warnings. They have simply interpreted them in a different way. In essence, they have said that the warnings were rational and expected given the severe damage Seven had sustained.”

Just did a CTRL-F

In the document for Hess and Jennings but got no results!

I would argue that's a very big omission that could possibly make his paper outdated. I haven't read it yet,
so I can't say for sure.

January 11/08 MP3: Bev Harris & Albert Howard on the Alex Jones Radio Show -- vote fraud and recount in NH

Good point, but...

The author did his research on FDNY interviews only. Hess and Jennings are not part of FDNY, so their testimony can't be counted in that batch -- although obviously important.

Barry's statements are in conflict with each other

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"
[start at 6:20. WARNING: audio very loud, turn down volume]

Barry Jenkins "Me and Mr. Hess ..... We made it to the 8th floor. Big explosion!
Blew us back into the 8th floor."
Removed by Youtube

June 2007
Barry Jenkins: When we reached the 8th, or the 6th floor, the landing that we were standing on gave way. There was an explosion and the landing gave way. I was left there hanging.[1] I had to climb back up and now I had to walk back up to the eighth floor.

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”[2]

[footnote 380 pg 109 [163 on pg counter] - from interviews, spring 2004]
When they got to the 6th floor, WTC 1 collapsed, the lights went out in the staircase, the sprinklers came on briefly, and the staircase filled with smoke and debris. The two men went back to the 8th floor broke out a window and called for help.
[No mention of the landing giving way]

[1] If he were “left there hanging”, that would have been the most traumatic part of the experience.
He would not describe it as “Blew us back into the 8th floor.”

[2] Dr. Michael Guttenberg, NYC Office of Medical Affairs
The way we got into the loading dock [of WTC 7] was not the way we were getting out. It was obstructed.
Q. The door was blocked?
A. Yeah, and we found our way -- we walked across the loading dock area, and we found there was another door. We went in that door, and from there we were directed to -- I really guess it was like a basement area of the building, but we were directed to an opposite door.
We found our way out one of the back doors of No. 7 and came outside.

Firefighters don’t knock holes in walls if they don’t have to.

I've never seen evidence of the "severe damage" WTC-7 is

said to have sustained. On the contrary, WTC-7 was about 350 feet from the nearest tower, and from what I've seen, it sustained superficial damage, especially compared to many other WTC buildings that were much closer to the towers, yet didn't collapse.

Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here:

For what it's worth

The evidence for the '10 story gouge':

NIST Appendix L pg 18 [22 on pg counter]

"middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out from floor 10 to the ground"

Evidence that the '10 story gouge' was a misinterpretation of the actual damage

pg 18
"No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed."
[a gouge floor 10 to the ground would have left a pile of heavy debris in the lobby 60 to 80 feet wide from the south facade to the elevators]

“debris damage across ¼ width of the south face, starting several stories above the atrium [ground to floor 5], noted that the atrium glass was still intact"
[cannot co-exist with – gouge, floor 10 to the ground]

The atrium, ground to 5th floor, is the area between the promenade on the left and the pedestrian bridge on the right.

FEMA Chapter 5 pg 20
“According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WCT 1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the south west corner."

Oral Histories: Chief Frank Fellini
[in charge of operations at West and Vesey]
“When it fell [WTC 1] it ripped steel out from between the third and the sixth floors.....”
[Do you think he did not notice a gouge, 120 feet high, 60 to 80 feet wide, and 30 to 40 feet deep, in the middle of WTC 7 ?]

NIST ignored the two statements on the same page that were in conflict with the "middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out from floor 10 to the ground" and the statement in the FEMA report.

They then showed this 'damage' in the graphic on pg 23 as "Possible region of impact damage" and again on pages 31 & 32 as "Approximate region of impact damage"

In the Summary item 3) they describe the damage attributed to this gouge [columns 69, 72 and 75] as Possible components that may have led to the failure of columns 79, 80 and/or 81.

2 fire chiefs thought 7 would collapse

I have researched this oft repeated claim.

Chiefs Fellini and Hayden thought 7 might collapse.
Chief Norman did not.
Chief Nigro took the advise of Fellini and Hayden.
All the rest heard about it thru the grapevine.
One firefighter said "We all thought...."

Source: Norman & Hayden: Firehouse Magazine
Fellini & Nigro: Oral Histories

Hayden summed it up rather eloquently:
"Fuck 'em all. Let'em burn. Just tell the guys to keep looking for guys. Just keep looking for the brothers."

From statement by Lieutenant William Ryan in
Mark Roberts: World Trade Center Building 7
and the Lies of the 9/11 “Truth Movement”

My take is:
They knew that hundreds of their brothers were dead.
Given the circumstances, their decision was prudent if not well founded.

ETA: Captain Goldbach and Chief Nigro did not personally assessed the damage.

Ray Goldbach: Oral Histories pg 14
A ........... There was a big discussion going on at that point about pulling all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center. Chief Nigro didn't feel it was worth taking the slightest chance of somebody else getting injured. So at that point we made a decision to take all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center because there was a potential for collapse.
Q. It was on fire, correct, Captain?
A. Yes, it was on fire at that time. Then *they said* it suffered some form of structural damage.

Chief Nigro: Oral Histories pg 9-10
At some point after I was briefed, I took command of the operation from the Chambers Street post and was told that Chief Fellini was at the forward operations post at West and Vesey, ....... I walked back down to the area where he [Ganci] was and sometime after that they found Chief Ganci. ....... The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our embers, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldn't lose any more people.

Errors and ommissions

On pg 3, quoting Ryan Mackey;
c. Not a single FDNY member expressed doubts about what they were told

Battalion Chief John Norman:
I looked at 7 World Trade Center. There was smoke showing, but not a lot and I’m saying that isn’t going to fall.
I never expected it to fall the way it did as quickly as it did, 7.

[pg 5: Kevin Howe's statement is inconclusive]

Pg 6: "creaking, leaning and bulging in WTC 7"
Creaking and bulging but NOT leaning.
A guy who worked nearby and a firefighter 3 blocks away thought WTC7 was leaning.
No one at the scene said WTC7 was leaning.
FEMA did not say WTC7 was leaning.
NIST did not say WTC7 was leaning.
WTC7 was NOT leaning.

Appendix C
1) Cassidy grossly overstated the fires.
"The flames were coming out of every window of that building"
“It was fully engulfed. That whole building"
[he could only see the south and west sides]
"the corners of the building missing and whatnot."
[only the SW corner was damaged]

This photo was taken about 3:30 p.m. There is smoke coming from nearly every floor on the south side at the south west corner but there only a few fires on the west side at the south west corner.

2) * Fellini thought WTC 7 might collapse based on his observations.
“The major concern at that time at that particular location was number Seven, building
number seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel
out from between the third and sixth floors across the façade on Vesey Street. We were
concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing."

3) Goldbach: "Chief Nigro didn’t feel ...." .. "they said it suffered some form of structural damage."
He did NOT say he based his belief on personal observation.

4) Kelty: "There was concern." .. "
He did NOT say he based his belief on personal observation.

5) Massa: "they weren’t letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down."
"We had no idea what was going on on the east side.
"They were concerned about seven coming down"
He did NOT say he based his belief on personal observation.

6) Nigro: “The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members"
He did NOT say he based his belief on personal observation.
He did say he was 'briefed' at another location.
He was the area commander and subordinates reported to him.

7) * McGlynn thought WTC 7 might collapse based on his observations.
“Just when you thought it was over, you’re walking by this building and you’re hearing
this building creak and fully involved in flames. It’s like, is it coming down next? Sure
enough, about half an hour later it came down.”

Not listed: * Hayden thought WTC 7 might collapse based on his observations.
"Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors."

The summary on pg 6 - 8 is excellent.

I did not know about the disinterest in WTC7 on the part of the interviewers. [pg 8 - 9]
Very interesting.

I don't mean to slight MacQueens work. I just think that accuracy is essential.

Debris damage and fire progressioin

MacQueen pg 9:
"There should be a comprehensive study of the progressive damage sustained by
WTC 7 on 9-11, taking into account all forms of evidence available and all sides and
floors of the building. Of course, NIST’s final report on Seven should include such a
study, but not all of us are confident NIST will do the job responsibly. In any case, why
wait for NIST?"


There was no debris damage in the area of the initiating event* that led to the implosion of WTC 7.

* NIST Apx. L pg 31 – 34 [35 – 38 on pg counter]

Debris damage:

- Southwest corner damage extended over Floors 8 to 18 [NIST L-18]

- Damage starting at roof level…5 to 10 floors…near south west corner [NIST L -18]

- Large debris hole near center of the south face around floor 14 [NIST L -18]
- [just west of center*]

- South face damage, middle 1/4 - 1/3 width south face, floor 10 to ground [NIST Final 4-5-05 pg 15]
[note they changed "gouged out" to "damage"]

- No heavy debris in lobby area [NIST L -18]

- debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium, noted that the atrium glass (ground to 5th floor) was still intact
[NIST Apx. L pg 18 - rephrased for clarity]

- The only damage to the 9th floor south face occurred at the southwest corner
[FEMA 5 -20]

Other damage
- 8th or 9th Floor…2 elevator cars ejected into hallway north of elevator shaft, visible portion of south wall was gone...…possibly damage extending to the west [NIST L -18]

Explosion heard on floor 8
Start at 6:20 min.
[Warning: audio very loud and distorted, turn down volume before viewing]

* Steve Spak photograph with location of perimeter columns and floors added graphically by Winston Smith.

Looking from southeast corner of the south face:
Fire was seen on floor 12 on the south face; the face above the fire was covered with smoke. [NIST L -24]
[the face below floor 12 was not covered by smoke]
No debris damage [other that above the atrium] to east half of south face was reported.

There is no serious damage east of center in the area that can be seen in this photo.


NIST Appendix L
[note: pg 18 is pg 22 on the page counter]

NIST Final 4-5-05

FEMA Chapter 5

Fire progression:

NIST L 22–26
11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.:
fire on floor 22 on south side
fire on floor 12 burned west to east across the south side
[there were no other fires reported in the east half of the south side]
2:00 to 2:30 p.m.: fires on floors 11 and 12 at SE corner, progressing north

About 3:00 p.m., fires on floors 7 and 12 near the center of the north face
The fire on floor 12 spread in both directions, eventually reaching the NE corner

Sometime later, fires on floors 8 and 13
Fire on floor 8 eventually burned to NE corner and moved to east face

Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires floors 7, 8, 9 and 11 near the middle of the north face.
The fire on floor 12 had burned out by this time
[NIST did not publish this photo]

The south west corner had fires on nearly every floor.
The smoke [screen] obscures the south face.

These fires had nothing to do with the implosion that began at the other end of the building.