WTC7 Lobby "Gone"

[mirandapriestly]

The damage that was done to the lower part of wtc7 seems to have been done prior to either tower coming down.

After the initial blast, Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell," Jennings said.
http://www.record-eagle.com/2001/sep/11scene.htm

So there was an explosion in world trade center 7 right after the first "impact".

From 911 research:
Michael Hess, the senior managing director of Giuliani Partners,
Age 46 on 9-11-1, Housing authority worker, reported in to the command center on 23rd floor of WTC building 7 on 9-11-1.
Note: WTC building 7 was evacuated at around 9:00 a.m. on 9-11-1 (while the tower 2 occupants were being told to return to their desks),...
Thus, Barry Jennings’ observation of „another explosion” that devastated the lobby of building was occurred after the 8:46 a.m. initial explosion (impact of the flying object into north wall of north tower) and the evacuation of building 7 around 9:00 a.m.
911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc7.html

Prior to the tower's collapse what was happening in the wtc7?:

Barry Jennings, a city employee on the 23rd floor told WABC-TV, "We're dead. I thought I was going to die. I was thinking about my sons, my wife. I started praying."
www.poconorecord.com/report/wtc/1.htm
and this was in building 7!

Also, why was wtc7 evacuated before wtc 1 and 2? This says immediately after the attack the CIA were looking for secret documents in the rubble, so that means there was rubble from the attacks at wtc7.
Funny that Hess now works for Giuliani, I'm sure he has "forgotten" about the incident.


(The following link carries the article, it cost $5 at the Times archives):
http://www.geocities.com/streakingobject/07CIA.html
The New York Times ---- November 4, 2001

THE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

Secret C.I.A. Site in New York Was Destroyed on Sept. 11

By JAMES RISEN
The C.I.A.'s undercover New York station was in the 47-story building at 7 World Trade Center, one of the smaller office towers destroyed in the aftermath of the collapse of the twin towers that morning. All of the agency's employees at the site were safely evacuated soon after the hijacked planes hit the twin towers, the officials said. The intelligence agency's employees were able to watch from their office windows while the twin towers burned just before they evacuated their own building.

Immediately after the attack, the C.I.A. dispatched a special team to scour the rubble in search of secret documents and intelligence reports that had been stored in the New York station, either on paper or in computers, officials said. It could not be learned whether the agency was successful in retrieving its classified records from the wreckage. A C.I.A. spokesman declined to comment....

[Sinti]

1. Nice, this is new info to me :)

I wonder if 3, 4, 5 or 6 had their lobbies blown up/windows broken, too, as they were closer. Lots of testimony about secondary explosions. I should compile a long list of those, just to give a bit more gravity to the facts. While it doesn't prove who planted them, I can't see how anyone can say they didn't exist.

The second link didn't work for me. The site says they're remodeling or some-such. So I snagged it from Archive.org.

Here's the Wayback Machine version
http://web.archive.org/web/20011115004922/http://www.poconorecord.com/report/wtc/1.htm

[mirandapriestly]

4. Oh, thanks , yes, it's an AP story, and there are many

versions of it on the web in case people are going to try and say it was "misunderstood" or something.:eyes:

[Jazz2006]

8. Tsk tsk.

It's such a shame that when someone gives you the benefit of the doubt and politely explains how you could have been honestly mistaken in light of a very badly written story that was open to misinterpretation, you chose to write a post like that nearly 40 minutes later, pretending to have never seen said post, and pretending to be completely oblivious to facts and reality.

Gee, I wonder how many DUers will see through that.

(My guess is "all of them.")

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Grateful for Hope]

11. "said" posts are only seen

when the ignore function is not used. Food for thought here.

[Make7]

13. More food for thought.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x110134#110244

Please take note of the time of post #26 in the thread linked to above. You might want to compare that to the time of post #3 in this thread.

I just thought these posts also might be worth considering regarding the possible use of the "ignore" function.

- Make7

[Grateful for Hope]

16. Not sure what you are out to prove

but, I hate the ganging up I see here. I was simply offering a possible explanation.

[Make7]

20. I was simply saying those posts were worth considering.

mirandapriestly responded to one of Jazz2006's posts on Thu Aug-24-06 11:01 PM.

Jazz2006 posted the response she was referring to in post #8 of this thread on Thu Aug-24-06 11:02 PM.

I think it is safe to say that as of 11:01 PM last night, Jazz2006 was not on mirandapriestly's ignore list.

It is possible that mirandapriestly added Jazz2006 to her ignore list soon after posting that response to Jazz2006 in the other thread, but it seems rather odd to post something like that and then put the person that you responded to on ignore without waiting a reasonable amount of time for a reply - apparently not even waiting 40 minutes.

My post was a response to the issue you brought up, I was simply offering the reason that I thought your explanation might not be what was actually occurring. Make of it what you will.

- Make7

[Grateful for Hope]

23. You aren't getting it

but, thank you anyway for your explanation.

[Make7]

26. What am I not getting? I'm curious. ( n/t )

[Grateful for Hope]

28. I will PM you.

[mirandapriestly]

15. I agreed to mods that I would ignore

but I'm sure some are going to try to destroy thread anyway.

[Grateful for Hope]

17. Of course. n/t

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Grateful for Hope]

38. I so enjoy conversing with you

your posts are so very pleasant. Thank you so much for this wonderful experience.

:hi:

PS: Have a most wonderful day, and may the sun shine on you.

[Jazz2006]

39. Always a pleasure conversing with you, too.

It is actually a bit overcast and cool here today, but the kindness and sincerity of your sentiments warm my heart and make it feel like a perfectly sunny and beautiful day.

One couldn't ask for or expect more than that out of life on a dreary Saturday afternoon.

:hi: back at you

[Grateful for Hope]

40. Thank you very much!

O8)

[Jazz2006]

50. You are most welcome.

Here, let me polish that halo, though. It's looking a little tarnished in your post #39.

(insert polishing smiley here)

There, that's better.

All fixed. Look: O8)

[Name removed]

45. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Carefulplease]

2. This could have been WTC2 coming down.

The initial story you linked to reports an ambiguous sequence of events.

http://www.record-eagle.com/2001/sep/11scene.htm

It has been reported already (NIST Interim Report on WTC 7) that after WTC2 collapsed, dust covered WTC7 lobby areas at floors 1 and 3. "After the first blast" is imprecise. You assume that it must refer to the first aircraft impact. You also assume that "another explosion" must refer to something else than the collapse of a WTC tower. The story is not precise enough to tell. It does not even report the words of either Jennings or Hess. The writer of the column could have misinterpreted their story. The writer's own interpretation isn't clear anyway.

[mirandapriestly]

5. wtc7 was evacuated at 9AM

so it wasn't the others coming down. This was an AP story spread to a lot of sources, so don't try that.
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/11/tower_scene.htm
...

"I told Hess, `We've got to try to get out of here."' They got to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I thought I was dead. The whole building shook. ... I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell. It was like a bad movie."

and another:

http://www.pecos.net/news/arch2001a/091101p.htm

[Jazz2006]

7. Really? According to whom?

[Jazz2006]

3. I think you're misinterpreting the record-eagle story

but it's very poorly written and easy to misunderstand as it vaguely lumps the impacts, the collapses of both towers and the aftermath all together in the opening parts of the story, and throughout the story, it never is clear on who is where when.

Still, it doesn't say that there was any explosion inside of WTC7, and I have never seen any evidence at all that there were any explosions inside of WTC7.

Moreover, there is no indication in that story of where Mr. Jennings was at the time of the "initial blast" but it says that "after" the initial blast, he reported to the 23rd floor of WTC7, the inference being that he was somewhere other than WTC7 at the time of the "initial blast". Presumably, then, the "initial blast" was either a plane hitting WTC2 or a plane hitting WTC1 (it’s impossible to tell which from the few stories about him that I’ve been able to find but I seem to recall reading something about this in one of the 9/11 related books and that he was either in one of the towers or outside initially - I can't remember exactly, though, and it could have been someone else and not him).

Nonetheless, it seems most likely that the "explosion" that damaged the lobby (and the 3rd floor) of WTC7 was probably the collapse of the south tower. This is consistent with the only other news stories about him that I've found and also with the NIST report:


Pandemonium, horror outside Trade Center as people jump, towers
Source: AP - AP Wire Service
Sep 11, 2001 13:31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By TOM HAYS
Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK (AP) _ Shortly after the first explosion, an elevator opened at One World Trade Center. A man stood inside, engulfed in flames. It was just one of the horrific sights at the scene of the terrorist attack on New York's tallest buildings.

Kenny Johannemann, a janitor, said he and a second person grabbed the man, put the fire out, and dragged him outside. Then Johannemann heard a second explosion _ and saw people jumping from the upper stories of the Twin Towers. ``It was horrendous; I can't describe it,'' Johannemann said as he
stood, shellshocked, outside the building afterward.

Clemant Lewin, a banker who works across street, said that after the initial explosion, he looked out the window and also saw people jumping from the building from as high as the 80th floor, including a man and a woman holding hands as they fell. ``I'm traumatized for life,'' Lewin said. ``Someone needs to take responsibility for this. This was somebody's father, this was somebody's sister, somebody's mother. We should have seen this coming. I'm disgusted.''

As most people fled the area, others were drawn to it, desperate for information about friends and relatives who worked there. ``I don't know what to do,'' a weeping Alan Rivera said as he stood behind barricades, hoping for word about his niece, who worked in the Trade Center. ``I can't get through to her on the phone. ... No one can tell me anything.''

Seen from West Broadway through billowing brown and black smoke, Tower 2 tilted across the street. Ash, 2 inches deep, lined the streets. Scores of police and firefighters emerged from the sealed-off area, gasping for air.

(Note: that seems to indicate that it was after the south tower fell, since before that time, there weren't inches of dust covering the streets or firefighters 'emerging' and gasping for air.)


After the initial blast, Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel.

They were the only ones there. They felt and heard another explosion, probably the collapse of one building. He broke a window and screamed for help. Then they went down a stairwell.

"I told Hess, `We've got to try to get out of here.'" They got to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I thought I was dead. The whole building shook. ... I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell. It was like a bad movie."

Though covered in soot, Jennings was not physically injured. He said Hess escaped safely as well.

AP-ES-09-11-01 1317EDT

http://www.wpi.edu/News/TechNews/wtc.shtml

Terrorist attack collapses World Trade towers, shakes the nation
By Larry McShane, Associated Press, 09/11/01

Eyewitness Kenny Johanneman was inside One World Trade Center when the nightmare began. He helped rescue one burning man from an elevator before running outside, where he saw people plunging from the upper floors. "It was horrendous," he said. "I can't describe it."

The attack, eight years after a car bomb in the towers' basement parking garage, focused on the top of the buildings. Clyde Ebanks, an insurance company vice president, was sitting in a meeting on the 103rd floor of the south tower when his boss said, "Look at that." He turned to see a plane slam into the other tower shortly before 9 a.m.

A few minutes later, the second plane slammed into his tower.

Ebanks managed to walk down to safety, emerging from the building with tears running down his face and ash in his hair. "I worry about some of my co-workers," he said.

Outside St. Vincent's Medical Center, paramedics stood in the street soliciting blood donations. Nearby, on the Brooklyn Bridge, thousands of people stood transfixed, staring in disbelief at the endless smoke.

Three inches of thick gray ash covered the streets around the destroyed buildings. City Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, was in a city command center on the 23rd floor of a neighboring Trade Center building during the second explosion.

He and city Corporation Counsel Michael Hess made it downstairs, where the lobby was just gone. "I thought I was dead," Jennings said. "It looked like hell."

http://www.boston.com/news/daily/11/world_trade_center.htm

It’s tough to tell which explosion was which, but given that there were two to three inches of dust on the streets, that would seem to indicate that the south tower had fallen, don’t you think?

And, assuming you’ve read the NIST report on WTC7, you already know that damage to the building 7 was reported on the lower lobby floors by the collapse of the first tower, although it was the collapse of the second tower that did the serious damage later, right?

Edit to fix bolding.
Edit again to fix stupid mistake.

[Ferry Fey]

32. Barry Jennings breaks bullet-and bomb-proof window?

After the initial blast, Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel.

They were the only ones there. They felt and heard another explosion, probably the collapse of one building. He broke a window and screamed for help. Then they went down a stairwell.

"The 23rd floor of Building 7 had received 15 million dollars' worth of renovations to create an emergency command center for then-Mayor Rudolf Giuliani. The features of the command center include:

Bullet- and bomb-resistant windows
An independent, secure air and water supply
The ability to withstand winds of 200 mph"
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/wtc7.html

Barry Jennings must be a pretty strong guy to break a bullet-proof, bomb-proof window in Giuliani's bunker.

[Jazz2006]

34. Well, it's an AP story and there are many versions of it on the web

but perhaps they got it wrong. Or perhaps Mr. Jennings was misunderstood. Or perhaps he was lying. Or perhaps he broke a window that was not bullet proof and bomb proof.

I have no idea which is the case. Do you?

By the way, while the conspiracy site link that you posted claims that the windows were bullet proof and bomb proof, the citations it lists as supposed proof of those claims do not say that the windows were bullet proof or bomb proof. Perhaps they were, but your link does not provide any proof of that claim.

[mirandapriestly]

52. It doesn't say where he was when he broke the window. eom

[Jazz2006]

60. Well, to be fair to Ferry Fey, and I think you should be,

To be fair to Ferry Fey,and I think you should be, your post didn't say where he was when the initial blast occurred either, which was pretty much the point above from the outset of this thread.

So you probably shouldn't be so critical of Ferry Fey in the circumstances, since she's done nothing different than what you did yourself - that is, citing an incomplete and unsubstantiated website/story.

Glad to see that you understand that point now, though.

Newspaper accounts, particularly those that are badly written and unsourced like the one you cited in your opening post, and websites that similarly do not properly cite sources that support what they claim, like the one that Ferry Fey cited in her post, are not the kind of evidence that can be relied upon to try to prove a point.

That said, this guy is probably listed in the white pages. You could just call him up and ask him directly what he has to say about what happened that morning if you're really interested in finding out. I'm surprised that none of the truthiness seekers have done so to date, almost five years later.

Btw, there is still no credible evidence whatsoever that there were any explosions or bombs or anything resembling same in WTC7, and no evidence that it was evacuated at 0900 either. I'm guessing that if you call this man up, you might get answers to all of the questions you have about what happened there that morning. It's worth a phone call, don't you think?


Edit to fix subject line and move text

[Ferry Fey]

70. I didn't feel that Miranda was being critical of me or unfair.

I didn't feel that Miranda was being critical of me or unfair.

The basic sequence of actions taken by Jennings and Hess is described consistently in the Tom Hays, Helen O’Neill and Larry McShane Associated Press articles:

Hays:
1/ Jennings and Hess were at “a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center.”
2/ “They felt and heard another explosion, probably the collapse of one building. “
3/ Jennings “broke a window and screamed for help. “
4/ “Then they went down a stairwell.”


McShane:
1/ Barry Jennings “was in a city command center on the 23rd floor of a neighboring Trade Center building”
2/ ”during the second explosion.”
3/ He and city Corporation Counsel Michael Hess made it downstairs, where the lobby was just gone.

O’Neill:
1/Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel, when
2/ they felt and heard another explosion.
3/ First calling for help,
4/ they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it.

Jennings and Hess in Giuliani bunker. BOOM #2. They go downstairs.

By the way, while the conspiracy site link that you posted claims that the windows were bullet proof and bomb proof, the citations it lists as supposed proof of those claims do not say that the windows were bullet proof or bomb proof. Perhaps they were, but your link does not provide any proof of that claim

It is at least more substantive than what you present to refute the idea of Jennings breaking unbreakable windows in the bunker. There isn’t much in the way of primary sources that I could locate that could confirm that the windows at Giuliani’s bunker were unbreakable, but these two descriptions from the New York Times and The Telegraph should be adequate for our purposes:

Administration officials also said it could survive some bombs, would be impenetrable to gunfire and have a closed air circulation system to prevent the influx of gas. Its telecommunications equipment, they said, could operate even after a nuclear blast. — KIT R. ROANE “Mayor Defends Plan to Build Crisis Center” NY Times June 14, 1998 http://graham.main.nc.us/~alanb/Clips/nyt/nycris.html

“The 23rd-floor, 46,000 sq. ft. complex, near the World Trade Center in Manhattan, can house up to 100 of the city's most senior employees and is protected behind a wall of bullet-proof glass.” — James Langton, “NEW YORK CITY SETTING UP EMERGENCY COMMAND CENTER,” The Telegraph (London), 4/18/1999

Whether Jennings is lying or confused about whether he broke a bullet-proof window, or whether reporter Tom Hays was lying or confused is probably not a major contradiction that makes or breaks any theory. I just felt the question should be noted. It’s not an issue that warrants phoning 911 survivors, nor would it mean anything if it was undertaken by someone that is not uniformly regarded as being fair and accurate.

[Jazz2006]

74. Like I said

As I said previously,

Newspaper accounts, particularly those that are badly written and unsourced like the one you cited in your opening post, and websites that similarly do not properly cite sources that support what they claim, like the one that Ferry Fey cited in her post, are not the kind of evidence that can be relied upon to try to prove a point.

That said, this guy is probably listed in the white pages. You could just call him up and ask him directly what he has to say about what happened that morning if you're really interested in finding out. I'm surprised that none of the truthiness seekers have done so to date, almost five years later.

Btw, there is still no credible evidence whatsoever that there were any explosions or bombs or anything resembling same in WTC7, and no evidence that it was evacuated at 0900 either. I'm guessing that if you call this man up, you might get answers to all of the questions you have about what happened there that morning. It's worth a phone call, don't you think?

I repeat that only because it fits as well.

As for your post:

It is at least more substantive than what you present to refute the idea of Jennings breaking unbreakable windows in the bunker.

No, it wasn't substantive at all. It was a conspiracy site that purported to link to evidence to support its assertion but when one looks at the links, they didn't support its assertions at all.

And, by the way, it wasn't I who alleged that he broke a window or didn't break a window. When you present a theory, it's up to you to substantiate it. The link you posted did not substantiate it at all. Pretty straightforward, really.

Thus, the part of your post about me refuting the idea that he broke a window is meaningless. I never said he did or didn't.

It’s not an issue that warrants phoning 911 survivors, nor would it mean anything if it was undertaken by someone that is not uniformly regarded as being fair and accurate.

Agreed that the window breaking or non window breaking is a non issue, but hey, I didn't bring it up. I doubt the veracity of lots of news stories because I know how much they edit out and how just plain wrong they get it so many times. I'm not saying that news stories are never a reasonable source for posting support of a point in an online forum, but unless the links actually support the story, they are pretty meaningless. The link you posted didn't support the claims made, simple as that.

The larger point, though, is that I think it's wrong to impugn motives to people and talk about them online without making any effort to ascertain the veracity of the story and/or without making any effort to contact them to see if what you write and insinuate about them on a forum such as this has any basis in fact. (I don't mean "you" as in Ferry Fey personally, but the generic "you" being anyone who posts online about others, casts aspersions about others, insinuates things about others, or impugns bad motives to others, etc.).

So, while I agree with you that it would be odd to call the guy up to ask him whether he broke a window or not, I also wouldn't post something on the internet insinuating that he's was lying without asking him about it. I.e. "how did he break a bullet proof and bomb proof window?" ~ given the paucity of evidence that he did any such thing in the first place, I simply would not have posted it, but if I was going to post it, I'd call him first and ask him if, in fact, the story was true, before putting his name out here on the internet and connecting him personally to the events and the big conspiracy. (On further reflection, were you trying to say that the press accounts might have been inaccurate and your posted links were therefore inapplicable? If so, then obviously, the foregoing two sentences do no apply to your post.)

That said, the assertions made elsewhere on this thread, indeed, the entire premise of this thread which is that explosions were going off in WTC7 (although none have ever been reported by anyone in the past five years), now that is most certainly worth making a phone call to ask the guy what he heard, what he saw, which, if any, of the various news stories were accurate, etc.

I'm surprised that none of the truthiness seekers have tried to call the man about this since if it were true, it would be the smokingest smoking gun of them all for CTers.

[mirandapriestly]

76. Sorry if i was curt

It was very interesting to see the different versions of this story that are around. Sometimes it is changed to make it less damning. Occasionally the part of the explosions while they are on the upper floor are missing. What makes it worth posting is that the lobby was "gone". There is really no other way to interpret that and I think Jennings is credible and he would have no reason to make it up or be mistaken. I have tried to locate him a little bit perhaps he still works for the city and I can email.
I think that the part about the explosion being from the impact of #2 is damage control and I don't think it came from Jennings, it is not in the original AP story. The larger the newspaper, I noticed, the more likely they are to edit that out (for example one of the large Boston paper's edits that out). To me it looks like the explosion resulted in the lobby being "bombed out", I think , but of course the wording is vague so it is hard to prove.
Then there is the Patricia Ondrovic interview (I received an email from her ) where she actually observed what she thought to be explosives in wtc7 & 5.

[DoYouEverWonder]

58. Why would he break a window?

Why would someone in WTC7 do that? Then he screamed for help from the 23rd floor? Who the hell was even going to hear him with everything else that was going on outside? Then he turns around and leaves down the stairwell. Well, then why is he breaking windows and yelling for help when all he had to do was walk down the stairs and out of the building? This guys story makes no sense at all.

[Jazz2006]

59. No idea. People do strange things in strange circumstances, I guess.

But perhaps you should call him and ask him before impugning strange motives to him. He's probably listed in the white pages.

[DoYouEverWonder]

62. But isn't that one of the main things

NOT to do if you are in a fire? I would assume they would cover that sort of thing in the fire drills that they do in these buildings?

[Jazz2006]

80. One would think so.

But in real life, most people do not respond and react in accordance with "what we all think they should". Ever been involved in a real life fire or a real life crime, for that matter? If so, you'll know that people do not typically react in the ways that we'd like them to, nor in the ways that they've been conditioned to, nor in the ways that we would all like to believe that we would.

Sad, but true.

Edit to correct typo re: most, not all.

[greyl]

6. Have you ruled out that some of those accounts

may be referring to damage done when Flight 175 hit the South Tower at 9:03?



edit: added time

[petgoat]

37. Since flight 175 hit the south tower at an angle, it is unreasonable

to think that its wreckage hit WTC7.
The WTC2 core columns stood in the way.

[greyl]

42. Have you ever played pool?

In addition, you seem to be confusing the South Tower with the North.
WTC2 was the South Tower.

[petgoat]

63. Of course I've played pool.

Flight 175 was aimed at the Post Office. Are you maintaining that it
knocked pieces of broken core column into WTC7?

Here's the path of the fuselage according to Don Paul.



Here's the damage to the core columns according to NIST:




Are you maintaining that 767 debris made it through that forest of
core columns and hit WTC7? I don't believe that photos of the N side
of WTC2 show any exit wound consistent with that trajectory, and NIST
shows no perimeter column damage consistent with that. Had a landing gear
or an engine been found in the WTC7 rubble, don't you think someone would
have photographed it?

You guys make unwarranted assumptions supportive of the official story
to protect your complacency. I did the same thing until confronted
with the facts.

Doesn't it seem strange that we get only one landing gear and one
engine, and we don't know whether they were port or starboard? I'd kind
of like to know.

[Carefulplease]

73. This was a fine post Petgoat...

Until the last two paragraphs...

You guys make unwarranted assumptions supportive of the official story
to protect your complacency. I did the same thing until confronted with the facts.

This one was superfluous.

Doesn't it seem strange that we get only one landing gear and one
engine, and we don't know whether they were port or starboard? I'd kind of like to know.

You'd like to know whether flight 175 was flying upright or upside down when it impacted the tower?

[greyl]

85. I'm only maintaining a line of inquiry, not a conclusion.

You have made unwarranted assumptions about a line of inquiry.

The point has already been made that the OP is a misinterpretation of news accounts.

I simply think it's reasonable to suppose that flying stuff from the South Tower impact may have hit WTC7. Can that be ruled out?
I think most attention at that point was focused on the Towers, not WTC7, so I'd expect accounts regarding WTC7 before the Tower collapses will be sketchy.

[TomClash]

41. Interesting exhibit

It would explain why 5 WTC was blazing fire long before 2 WTC collapsed.

But it would not explain why 7 had a hole in it.

[greyl]

46. Why not?

Plus, don't forget that the plane's impact with the South Tower isn't the only reasonable explanation for damage to WTC7.

I'm just trying to be thorough.

1. executed without negligence or omissions: a thorough search.

[TomClash]

61. Well to start with

the exhibit does not have any debris hitting 7.

In reality, 5 was not that close to 7. Neither are the other two impact points in the exhibit. Plus, the bottom floors of 7 were not that easy to hit without seriously damaging other buildings. And it's odd that they pulled 7 and not 140 West Street, which is next door.

[mirandapriestly]

77. Right,. that "hole" was on the bottom of the building

like some debris is going to fall down then move horizontally over and go through the lower window, heh. There were bombs. The next step is why and how...

[greyl]

84. The exhibit is of plane debris that was later located.

I'm not asserting that debris, (building or aircraft) from the plane impact definitely hit WTC7, I'm only trying to see if it can be ruled out as a possibility.

[mirandapriestly]

53. yes, good point.eom

[canetoad]

10. We discussed this graphic

It's from the WaPo archive shortly after 911. Don't know how correct it is, but I found it interesting that the subway tunnel had collapsed alongside WTC7.

[mirandapriestly]

12. Now isn't that interesting

must have been explosions in the lower levels of the building. Thanks for posting that. Maybe it was the result of falling debris from 1 and 2, lol.

[Grateful for Hope]

21. It's got to be a result of not only falling debris from 1 and 2

but also of those raging fires in 7.

:sarcasm:

[canetoad]

24. Time of collapse?

I wonder if the time of the subway collapse was recorded - that particular section. In the never ending hunger for knowledge I've had a look but the graphic above is the only useful thing I have found showing extend of sub-levels damage. Particulary when and where the subway tunnels were damaged.

[Grateful for Hope]

25. Good question

I don't know if that info is available anywhere. I suppose it is possible that the subway collapse by WT7 could have been caused by the collapse of the building itself?

[canetoad]

27. Zactly!

But if it collapsed earlier in the day........

Surely the transport operators would be able to pinpoint the time a section of tunnel collapsed. Has anyone ever asked the question?

[Grateful for Hope]

29. Not that I am aware of

:shrug:

[mirandapriestly]

31. sure isn't much on it

but I found a little snippet of info.

http://www.taylor.org/~regmcd/weblog/tamaro.html

...Parts of two New York City subway lines, the 1 and the 9, have collapsed from the north end of the complex ÷ where columns and beams from 7 World Trade Center have punctured the street and entered the subway ÷ to Liberty Street at the south end, according to David Cacoilo, a Meuser-Rutledge engineer who explored the tunnels on Sunday. He added that the Cortland Street station of the N and R lines, a block east on Church Street, was in good shape, and trains could be running through it (although not stopping) relatively soon. ...

[mirandapriestly]

14. WTC 7 Evacuated - what were they doing on 7th and 8th floors

(where fires were) -I think we all know, although some might not want to admit it.

After 9:03 a.m.: WTC Building 7 Evacuated; Timing Unclear According to a soldier at the scene, WTC 7
is evacuated before the second tower is hit. (Fort Detrick Standard, 10-18-2001)
However, a firefighter who arrived there after the second tower is hit told that the building is being evacuated due to reports of ta third plane, indicating that two planes have already crashed. (Jems And FireRescue Supplement, 3/2002)
9:30 a.m.: Office of Emergency Management is Evacuated The headquarters of New York’s Office of Emergency Management (OEM), which is on the 23rd floor of WTC Building 7, is evacuated. The headquarters was opened in 1999 and was specifically intended to co-ordinate the city’s response to disasters such as terrorist attacks (see June 8, 1999). <9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 283-284> A senior OEM official orders the evacuation after being told by a Secret Service agent that additional commercial planes are unaccounted for. <9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 305> All civilians were evacuated from WTC 7 around the time the second WTC tower was hit (see After 9:03 a.m.). Despite these evacuations though, firefighters reportedly find individuals on the 7th and 8th floors of WTC 7 at around 12:10 to 12:15 p.m., who they then lead out of the building.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a903

[John Q. Citizen]

18. Thanks for this follow up miranda. This is very interesting in that

everyone was evacuated before the collaspe of #1 and #2 except fot some on the 7th and 8th floors.

And the blow out of the lobby in #7 apparently occured prior to the hit on #1

Also, the fires in #7 coundn't have been all that intense at 12:15.

[mirandapriestly]

19. Yes, and if they had the ability to evacuate 7

then why didn't they evacuate 1 and 2? The answer is not very pretty.

[greyl]

30. Do you think it's impossible for debris from the South Tower impact

to have collided with WTC7?

If you "know" why people were still in the building after an evacuation was called for,
why not speculate that WTC7 was damaged at 9:03?

Is it unfathomable why the Office of Emergency Management had people in it up until 9:30?
If the office were empty, I suppose the only reasonable conclusion would be that they were in the basement trying to grab the gold and prepare the demolition, eh?

Is it unreasonable to speculate that the people found by firefighters on the 7th and 8th floors were either
1)injured and/or trapped because of damage done from the WTC impact at 9:03
2)trying to put out a fire in their office themselves
3)trying to recover valuables - (and what the hell is evil about that?)
4)looting

You still haven't addressed the fact that the article you mis-interpret in your OP says that WTC7 was evacuated after the second plane hit the South Tower, and that the explosions were the planes impacting the towers:

Thus, Barry Jennings’ observation of „another explosion” that devastated the lobby of building was occurred after the 8:46 a.m. initial explosion (impact of the flying object into north wall of north tower) and the evacuation of building 7 around 9:00 a.m.

[John Q. Citizen]

35. Sure greyl. Anything is possible.

[greyl]

43. Your reply is no substitute for substance. nt

[mirandapriestly]

22. I'd like to add that the explosions heard/felt on the 23rd floor could

have been from something else, but why was the lobby destroyed? There were reports of unexplained explosions all over the place at this time as can be read in the task force interviews.

[dailykoff]

36. Astonishing.

I wonder what the new spin will be?

[greyl]

44. I'm astonished at the noise RiceKrispies make.

I can barely fucking stand this thread, let me tell ya.
Give me a Pop-Tart and kiss me good bye.

[Carefulplease]

47. Rice Krispies(R) and the Controled Demolition of WTC7

Nice find Greyl!

Rice Krispies(R) contains significant amounts of potassium, sulfur, iron and phosphorus.

http://www.kelloggs.com/cgi-bin/brandpages/fileBlob.pl?md5=757c575f07b4f67c977b6c01f6ff5473

Those are four signature chemicals of thermate. And the stuff makes little explosive sounds when catalized with milk. Coincidence? I think not! Neither NIST nor FEMA tested for Rice Krispies(R) traces in the WTC7 rubble pile.

I shall tell Professor Jones about this immediately.

[greyl]

48. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. We can't rule out the

puffed rice cereal brands other than Rice Krispies® until we sample at least 31% of all puffed rice in Manhatten on 9/11.
Even puffes that weren't in milk.

[salvorhardin]

49. I heard

There were Lucky Charms in the basement of WTC 7. Why haven't we heard about that from the WTC?

[Jazz2006]

75. Don't forget the Keebler Elves. They are alive and well with CTers

such as Judy Wood and friends.

Not quite breakfast cereal, but close enough for rock 'n roll :)

[mirandapriestly]

54. Your reply is no substitute for substance. nt

[greyl]

55. The poignant humor is substantial. I don't get your point. nt

[mirandapriestly]

51. Here are some visuals

I know there was a debate about smoke that was on In Plane Site being attributed to one of the towers collapsing, but this looks to be from wtc7.
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc7dem1/index2.php
(super short video)

[greyl]

56. I don't see evidence of smoke coming from WTC7 in that photo.

Haven't watched the vid yet.

Are you sure smoke hasn't been removed from the photo?

[DoYouEverWonder]

57. Could also be steam

from a manhole cover?

[mirandapriestly]

65. I agree the big photo is not very convincing

the link does look suspicious, though.

[DoYouEverWonder]

66. The pic looks fine

It's just that steam comes up out of these manhole covers all over NYC. My uncle thought his car was on fire once. He ended up running down 2nd Ave screaming at people to get away, while they all were laughing at him because he was over a steaming manhole.

[AZCat]

67. In September, though?

I could be wrong but I don't think steam starts appearing until later in the year.

FYI - it's not the steam you see, but droplets of condensed steam (aka water). Steam itself is transparent. The colder it is outside, the more steam changes phase from gas to liquid.

[DoYouEverWonder]

68. From what I remember

it happens all the time, but I never really considered what time of year it was, it's just one of those things that are part of life there.

The steam is not always the result of warm underground air hitting the cold outside are, but that is part of it. There is all kinds of equipment underground in NYC that release heat that can turn to steam on the way out. Boilers for heat and hot water, that sort of thing.


Here's one with some flowers behind it - so I would guess it wasn't too cold.

[AZCat]

69. Perhaps I wasn't clear.

Steam is merely water in the gaseous phase. It is piped underground all the time, as you said, but steam won't be visible unless some of it changes phase from gas to liquid (or solid, but that's a different story). I don't know how cold it needs to be - I could look it up when I'm back at work tomorrow - but it might depend on the state of the steam. The VA hospital campus here in Tucson always has steam being released somewhere on campus, because they always have a steam trap jammed open. You can feel it when you walk by but you won't see it unless the air is cold enough.

[mirandapriestly]

78. heh. One time in Manhattan, I was walking down Upper Broadway

on the west side. This guy was walking down the street and suddenly a big burst of flame came out of one of those manholes, I don't remember if the cover was on or not. Anyway,this flame comes out of the manhole and is within a few inches of him and about 4 feet tall,at least, I have no idea why. Then he just sort of stepped out of the way and kept right on walking down the street like nothing happened. I never figured out why it did that.

[AZCat]

86. Flames?

That was not steam, but whatever the hell it was I don't know. From your description of his reaction it sounds like it wasn't unusual. Weird...

[mirandapriestly]

64. How did the steel Calder sculpture in front of wtc7

melt? I know it's the web fairy, but it's a photograph,
http://thewebfairy.com/911/h-effect/calder.htm

This was reduced to a pile of melted steel, IN FRONT of the building. now......those must have been some fires!

[Carefulplease]

71. Maybe it was crushed and did not melt.

WTC7 did not fall into its own footprint, you know.

Alternatively, maybe it was rigged with thermite also.

[mirandapriestly]

79. yeah, right wtc7 fell over on top of the sculpture

causing half of it to disappear and leaving scorch marks, that was after all that debris fell down off the towers, jumped over over buildings 5 & 6, then moved over horizontally and went through the lower windows while still in flames.

[Carefulplease]

87. The fact that it was not recovered in its entirety...

...does not mean that the non-recovered part melted away.

[salvorhardin]

72. Oh, now I'm sad

That was one of my favorite sculptures. I didn't know that got destroyed. His sculptures are like visual music to me. Here's another one of my favorite Calders. Big Bird from 1937.

[Grateful for Hope]

81. Kick n/t

[canetoad]

82. You noticed the distractions too?

[Grateful for Hope]

83. that would be a "yes" n/t

[mirandapriestly]

88. Here is Hess on a TV interview

He was with Jennings, it's about half way through. He says there was an explosion on the eighth floor -Hess now works for Giuliani's "risk management" company, he would have no reason to make this up. So, there is no doubt wtc7 was "brought down", it's just too overwhelming.
Thanks to boastOne43
http://agenda911.dk