Micah Mileto
-
Posts
2,020 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Micah Mileto
-
-
42 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:
Micah,
The scientific research of the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is very substantial, and quite convincing to anyone with a basic knowledge of physics and chemistry.
The World Trade Center skyscrapers were, obviously, demolished by explosives on 9/11. That is now a well established scientific fact.
So, why do most people in the U.S. still not realize that fact?
The answer is that the perpetrators of 9/11 have aggressively controlled the mainstream and social media in the U.S. for the past 20 years to suppress and mis-characterize all of the damning evidence about the 9/11 op. This includes a wide array of websites that surface at the top of Google searches about 9/11, with skillfully-crafted names like, "Rational Wiki, 9/11 Myths, Metabunk," etc. They are the 9/11 equivalent of disinformation websites like Mcadams.edu in the JFK assassination field.
And, as in the case of the bona fide JFK assassination researchers, the 9/11 Truth researchers are independent, poorly-funded, non-government scientists and scholars who have been blacked out of the mainstream media and denigrated on government-funded social media as kooky conspiracy theorists.
The most striking recent example of this was the orchestrated U.S. mainstream media attack on Spike Lee for interviewing the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth in his new HBO documentary. It was like something out of Stalinist Russia or Orwell's 1984.
The M$M also completely blacked out any coverage of the University of Alaska engineering study that debunked the Bush-Cheney NIST Report on 9/11.
The U.S. M$M has also blacked out any stories about Cheney, Rumsfeld, Scooter Libby, and the Project for a New American Century for the past 20 years, and their 2000 PNAC strategizing about needing a "New Pearl Harbor" event to mobilize popular U.S. support for military interventions in Central Asia and the Middle East.
The Project For a New American Century
Not denying any of that. But, there are more people on forums actively discussing the evidence surrounding JFK on 11/22/1963 than there are for 9/11.
-
Just now, John Butler said:
Somebody should look into the Las Vegas massacre.
There used to be quite the number of Youtube videos on Vegas, but then Google was Google and a lot of that content is either lost or forgotten now. Blackstone Intelligence did this amazing short film interviewing homeless people in the underground Vegas tunnels, but that was deleted.
-
Why does the JFK assassination seem to STILL TO THIS DAY have a robust community of people who research and discuss the primary sources and hone their skills, while it seems like very few people in the world are spending an equal time on other issues like 9/11, etc?
Non-JFK conspiracy theories popular today are mostly just style over substance.
-
Hard seeing some of the woke crowd making fun of truthers, as if the drama surrounding 9/11 truth is anything compared to the painful situation with qanon or the anti-vaxxers.
-
13 minutes ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:
There is a part of this article I don't think anyone has touched on yet : The suggestion is that Perry was called during the Autopsy or very soon after (before the autopsy conclusions certainly). It is not in dispute that the Surgeons spent time trying to fathom out where the low wound on the head came out (Boswell, Ipsey for two). It always struck me as odd they didn't leap to the conclusion it was through the Trach wound. The article may suggest they had already been told about Perry's statement that the Trach wound was an entrance point. They were thus initially forced to try and find an alternative exit, and then forced to bully Perry.
I touched on that, here is a link: https://www.rareddit.com/r/JFKsubmissions/comments/ds3q7h/discussing_jfks_torso_wounds_contents/
parts 8-27 deal with the claim that the pathologists couldn't identify a bullet wound in the throat until after the autopsy.
-
On 5/24/2021 at 10:38 PM, James DiEugenio said:
I really don't have to describe this article.
Except, as one will see, I owe the climactic info in it to Rob Couteau and Bob Tanenbaum.
The cover up was being enacted in about 90 minutes. That is how fast they knew, Tanebaum says it was probably an hour, and I cannot argue with that.
https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-ordeal-of-malcolm-perry
Besides the KAK article, is there a primary source for the following quote:
But it was not just Moore—and it was not just a couple of weeks later. As Horne stated during that FFF conference, Nurse Audrey Bell testified that Perry told her he was getting calls that evening directing him to alter his testimony.(DiEugenio, p. 169) This is now backed up by a startling piece of evidence surfaced by author Rob Couteau. Martin Steadman was a reporter at the time of the JFK assassination. Couteau discovered a journal entry by Martin that is online. Steadman was stationed in Dallas for several days after the assassination gathering information. Some of it got in print and some of it did not. From all indications, the following did not.
One of the witnesses he spent some time with in Dallas was Malcolm Perry. Steadman was aware of what Perry had said at the press conference about the directionality of the neck wound. Steadman wrote that, about a week after the assassination, he and two other journalists were with Perry in his home. During this informal interview, Perry said he thought it was an entrance wound because the small circular hole was clean. He then added two important details. He said he had treated hundreds of patients with similar wounds and he knew the difference between an exit and entrance wound. Further, hunting was a hobby of his, so he understood from that experience what the difference was. And he could detect it at a glance.
Steadman went on to reveal something rather surprising. Perry said that during that night, he got a series of phone calls to his home from the doctors at Bethesda. They were very upset about his belief that the neck wound was one of entrance. They asked him if the Parkland doctors had turned over the body to see the wounds in Kennedy’s back. Perry replied that they had not. They then said: how could he be sure about the neck wound in light of that? They then told him that he should not continue to say that he cut across an entrance wound, when there was no evidence of a shot from the front. When Perry insisted that he could only say what he thought to be true, something truly bizarre happened. Perry said that one or more of the autopsy doctors told him that he would be brought before a Medical Board if he continued to insist on his story. Perry said they threatened to take away his license.
After Perry finished this rather gripping tale, everyone was silent for a moment. Steadman then asked him if he still thought the throat wound was one of entrance. After a second or so, Perry said: yes, he did.
What is so remarkable about this story is that it blows the cover off of the idea that the autopsy doctors did not know about the anterior neck wound until the next day. Not only did they know about it that night, they were trying to cover it up that night.
What "journal entry" found online? This is the part of the case I've been trying to gather everything on. I'm trying to make a 2.0 of the "discussing torso wounds" thing I made before., and I'm trying to make an ultimate medical evidence folder to share online.
-
3 hours ago, Anthony Thorne said:
To my knowledge, Stone still hasn't had a public moment in the sun disputing the official 9/11 story. Which I don't mean to note as a slam against him, as it's been that way for a while. But if he's ever said anything beyond the above, I missed it. And even Spike Lee managed a paragraph or two of dissent against the official story before his documentary took a hit.
Stone's movie "World Trade Center" may or may not have snuck in references to explosives being used in the collapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPCt2BBqR2k
-
On 3/8/2021 at 3:46 AM, David Lifton said:
Are you aware of this interesting bit from Gorge Michael Evica's 1992 video Research Vs Witness: Questioning The Facts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKp88UKvaP0&t=100m22s
George Michael Evica: I have never talked about forgeries, Francis X. O'Neill. Only you have talked about forgeries and doctored photographs.
O'Neill: Because I heard you say it, George.
George: Not on this show, Francis.
O'Neill: Probably not on this show.
George: Nor on any other show.
O'Neill: Probably- probably up in New Hampshire when we were discussing afterwards-
George: We talked about doctored photos- oh, I also-
Francis: Ohh...
George: Want to talk about afterwards, Francis? That you talked to six lawyer- interns at the Franklin Pierce Law Center and you admitted there was a decoy ambulance to them when I was standing next to you?
O'Neill: Did I say that?
George: Yes you did.
Francis: (inaudible)
George: But that was off camera, Francis.
O'Neill: Do you have it on record, George?
George: Do you have it on record, Francis?
O'Neill: No, I have nothing on record-
George: Now can I ask you the question again?
-
I am also looking forward to when Bart Kamp eventually releases all of the medical evidence in his Livingstone collection.
-
Is there an audiotape or transcript or other documentation of Rick Russo's 1992 Pittsburgh conference with Floyd Riebe, Dennis David, Paul O'Connor, and James Jenkins? That would really help complete the collection of medical videos available on the internet.
-
-
4 hours ago, Matt Allison said:
Look at the angle. How do you get a shot from behind the fence without there being an exit wound somewhere on the left side of Kennedy's skull.
Maybe a tangential wound, or as some have suggested, a bullet entering the right temple and making a small exit in the left temple.
-
Pat Speer's five chapters on the Dealey Plaza mention "smoke" every time there is a "smoke on the knoll" witness, and his chapters have the best cataloging. It wouldn't be hard to use CTR+F to tally up every known smoke witnness.
-
On 3/6/2011 at 5:04 PM, David Lifton said:
DVP:
I have news for you. If Bugliosi had any real command of the facts in the medical area, he wouldn't have had to issue a written apology to Paul K. O'Connor (now deceased) the Bethesda medical technician who said that when the body arrived, the cranium was empty. (See Chapter 26, Best Evidence, "The Recollections of Paul K. O'Connor)" Mr. Bugliosi had to issue such a written retraction--right there at the bottom of a page of Reclaiming History, because he stupidly confused inaccurate statements that O'Connor made during the TV program, The Trial of Oswald (where Bugliosi plays the role of prosecutor) with the reality of what O'Connor actually witnessed on the night of November 22, 1963, at the Bethesda morgue, and as related not only to the local Florida newspapers, after the military gag order was rescinded, but to the HSCA as well. As O'Connor told the HSCA, circa 1977, after the military gag order was rescinded, the President's body arrived in a body bag, inside a shipping casket, and the cranium was empty. O'Connor then repeated the same thing to me on August 25, 1979, in a telephone interview; and then again in a filmed interview in October, 1980--which was broadcast repeatedly all over America during my various book tours for Best Evidence, after its publication in January, 1981. (And those clips are today on YouTube).
Furthermore, if you have any doubt that the body arrived with a largely empty cranium, just look at the handwritten notes of FBI Agent James Sibert, who was there, and who has written, in a file of papers turned over to the ARRB: ""Brain had been removed from head cavity." [see ARRB medical document MD-216] (And the late Francis O'Neill, Fr., said essentially the same thing, to his businessman friend Wayne Cooke: "Wayne, there was no brain. The cranium was empty." I personally arranged for that material to be sent to the ARRB, and it is now at the National Archives.)
Mr. Bugliosi repeatedly misrepresents the record on facts pertaining to the invalidity of the Kennedy autopsy, and hides ignorance behind an easily pierced shield of arrogance.
And again, sorry if these facts cause you bladder problems.
Autopsy fraud is at the heart of the false case against Oswald, and provides the key to the truth about what happened in Dealey Plaza; and what was done to Kennedy's body to conceal it.
DSL
3/6/11
In the 1992 VHS tape Witness Vs Research: Questioning the Facts by George Michael Evica, Wayne Cooke appeared on a panel discussion that included Francis X. O'Neill. His name is spelled C-O-O-K-E there.
-
1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:
Micah,
The precise opposite is the case. I used to tutor undergrads in physics when I was in college, and one of the things I liked about physics is its mathematical precision.
The physics of the WTC demolitions is actually quite simple. If a rock, or a steel skyscraper, collapses in a free fall, (i.e., at the acceleration of gravity) the resistance to collapse must, necessarily, be zero. Any resistance would interfere with free fall acceleration.
In other words, something that could demolish steel had to abruptly, symmetrically demolish all of the massive steel sub-structures of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 on 9/11. All three buildings collapsed symmetrically into their foundations at virtual free fall acceleration.
Trickling jet fuel "weakening" steel beams on a few upper level floors would not have sufficed to abruptly demolish the entire lower level steel substructures, as observed. (Besides, you can readily observe the explosive pulverizations of WTC1 and WTC2 on film.)
The NIST Report was a fraudulent, multi-million dollar government cover up-- a putative computer "simulation" of the WTC demolitions for which the government authors refused to publish the parameters they used in their "simulation." It's an approach to computer simulations that a friend of mine from the RAND Corporation used to jokingly call, "MOT"-- the "Modified Output Technique." You insert the parameters that you need, however unrealistic, to achieve a desired outcome.
Again, if you're truly interested in learning about the science of the WTC demolitions, study the "Evidence" articles at the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth website.
Lord knows, you want ever learn about it in the U.S. mainstream media... 🤥
https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/evidence-overview
When it comes to convincing other people that this issue is worth a government re-investigation, I'd say go with the "nobody knows" approach, especially since it is not good to come off like it's downplaying the complexity of a technical subject.
-
6 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:
There is just too much disagreement among the relevant experts, I think it's better for people to view the physics behind this issue as "nobody knows". The physics of collapsing buildings is an obscure and complex subject.
Compare this to how it might be easy to create a model of a flat piece of paper, but even computers have had trouble explaining how a piece of paper can be crunched up into a ball.
-
I don't think the raw opinions of any "expert" should be considered in the debate around the collapse - the dynamics behind this kind of stuff seems to be at the limit of human knowledge. Multiple, contradictory theories of how the Towers naturally collapsed have been published, so the answer to most of the physics questions seems to be "nobody knows".
-
Misadventures on InternationalSkeptics.com, dubious claims of knowing the identity of the special engineer
The issue of the special engineer was brought up on InternationalSkeptics.com, the former James Randi Educational Forum, a site with a long-standing history of users debating mostly in favor of the official 9/11 story. A user only known as "Crazy Chainsaw", who says he is engineer of some kind, claimed to know the person described by FDNY Chief Hayden as correctly predicting that WTC 7 would collapse "in about five or six hours". The conversation goes as follows:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=307442&page=19
Micahjava to tfk:
It is very strange that any person would try to predict such a thing in the first place, even if he was wrong. Are you saying he was right from sheer luck?
tfk to Micahjava:
I'm saying that it is EXTREMELY doubtful that anybody made any such prediction at all.
And absolutely nobody made any prediction with any sort of the certainty that you are (stupidly) suggesting.
I'm saying that, just like the myth that "the towers were designed to withstand jet impacts", this story grew after the fact.
There is absolutely zero way that any competent technical person would make any sort of prediction like that.
He'd say, "let me watch it for awhile, to see if the leaning stops, stays increasing at a constant rate, or accelerates. I'll keep you posted as I gather information."
There is absolutely ZERO doubt that the FDNY officials kept in touch with this guy as the afternoon progressed, getting updates.
Apparently, he had gathered enough information by the time that they ordered everyone out of, and back away from, the building, to suggest to him that the building was in danger of collapse.
And that's it.
There is no way for anyone to have predicted, at 11:30 AM, when the building would collapse.
And I don't believe that anyone did.
LOTS of stories grow, and morph, over time.
You, Micah, have not shown any new information about this. The only thing that you've done is behave like the most incompetent reporter/researcher: assuming that a couple of very specific statements must be precisely, exactly true, as stated.
That is NOT the way the real world works.
And now, this little theory of yours, has become "your baby". That you will defend at all costs, no matter how baseless, or untenable, that defense becomes. Extracting these quotes, writing these posts, assuming that your throwing your made-up precision onto other people's casual statements, makes you look like a biased idiot.
If you've got the bit between your teeth on this absurd little anomaly, then start acting like a REAL researcher & start making phone calls to the people involved.
If you speak to them respectfully, and not like a Twoofer Dick, perhaps they'll talk to you.
If they hang up on you, you can blame all the previous Twoofer Dicks who have harassed them over the years.
Good luck. Let us know how it goes. Take really, really good notes. Stay away from leading questions. __
PS. After you're done, you still have precisely zero evidence whatsoever, that WTC7 was brought down by CD.
You'll have to gather that evidence completely separately.
Crazy Chainsaw to tfk:
Actually he did predict that if the fires were unfought there was a (chance) the building (could collapse) in 5-6 hours after that the fires would die down, and the steel would cool reducing collapse probability. Give you a clue only one Engineer was on site at that date.
Micahjava to tfk:
Peter Hayden recalled almost the same thing when he was on the 2008 Conspiracy Files program: "We were concerned of the possibility of collapse of the building. And we had a discussion with one particular engineer there, and we asked him, if we allowed it to burn could we anticipate a collapse, and if so, how soon? And it turned out that he was pretty much right on the money, that he said, In its current state, you have about five hours."
I'm sure you are also aware of the handful of testimonies that say that the first evacuation of WTC 7 came around 5+ hours before it collapsed.
Shayam Sunder has also spoken about this unidentified engineer person.
I'm not holding out hope that FOIA requests of NIST's interviews will be granted, but if they are I'll post them.
Micahjava to Crazy Chainsaw:
What are you talking about?
Crazy Chainsaw to Micahjava:
Unless you know the engineer, and what he actually said, that is he based the probability of collapse in 5-6 hours on the fuel load in the buildings not on Physical damage to the building, after six hours the fires would not have produced enough heat to weaken the steel. Some of us here have actually spoken with the engineer personally.
tfk to Crazy Chainsaw:
What can you show me about his original statement? __
Here's my problem with the quote, as it is portrayed.
If I'm taking that measurement, and I the building has fires & unknown amounts of internal damage (but significant damage visible from the outside), and I know that all tall buildings are unique designs ...
... and I see from the transit measurements that the building is unstable ...
... and my best guess is 5 to 6 hours from now ...
... then there is absolutely no way that I'm going to tell anybody "I think that it'll collapse 5 to 6 hours from now."
Because some management dufus might report to somebody, "tfk said it's going to collapse between 5 & 6 hours from now." And based on that, some other dufus might decide, "well, let's fight the fire for another 3 hours. That'll give us a 2 hour margin to pull everyone out before it collapses."
I'm instead going to be REALLY clear, and say, "It might collapse any minute. It's unstable. But, if forced to make a guess, I'd guess 'sometime between 5 & 6 hours from now'."
I can easily see how the first part of the statement might be dropped in the re-telling of the story.
Now, perhaps I'm wrong about this. Perhaps this guy has some tilt angle that his experience tells him is the critical angle. Perhaps this angle is the same for differing building heights (although I seriously doubt this). >Perhaps he's got some chart of "critical angle vs. building height", although I kinda doubt this too.
Perhaps he was able to do some calculation of tilt rate, current angle & "time to reaching critical angle". But I doubt that, also.
Maybe he was going just by his gut.
But I believe it to be incredibly dangerous for him & for others to have said, "I think that it'll collapse between 5 & 6 pm."
Even if that is exactly what I thought would happen.
And I'm a guy who loves to take chances. That's not one I'd take.
Crazy Chainsaw to Micahjava:
What he actually said and did.
Micahjava to Crazy Chainsaw:
This completely contradicts what you have said earlier when you postulated that the "5-6 hour" prediction came from measuring creep on the building.
If you can provide the identity of this person, along with a statement by him, and any number of firefighters who were there who can verify his identity, I will drop the CD stuff on a dime.
Crazy Chainsaw to tfk:
What he said was the building could collapse from damage and (fire with in 5-6 hours) After that the fuel for the fires will be exausted., and the fires will die down, the building although damaged will then likely survive.
Crazy Chainsaw to Micahjava:
The creep was only one factor the other was the fires, no engineer would solely look at just one factor.
As the creep and fire continued everyone knew the building was going to collapse.
Micahjava to Crazy Chainsaw:
Crazy Chainsaw, you have made an extraordinary claim and I ask for extraordinary evidence.
tfk to Micahjava:
So, let's see if I've got this straight...
ALL of your "WTC7 was a CD" hangs on this one, trivial little nit???
Do you accept that the towers were not a CD?
There are literally hundreds of the world's best structural engineers, who have assured everyone that this was not, could not possibly have been, a CD. That the evidence proves unequivocally that it was NOT a CD.
There is a friggin' encyclopedic body of work (the NIST report & the several independent reports done by other engineers) that conclude that it was not a CD.
But because of this one unknown statement by some unknown person, you've decided that they all might be wrong. Or fraudulent & evil.
Keerist on a bicycle, kid... Have you ever heard the expression, "chasing an anomaly"??
tfk to Crazy Chainsaw:
Ahhhh, thank you.
This is a completely different message than "the building will collapse between 5 & 6 hours from now."
Micah, you seem to be the person all driven atwitter by this quote.
Please post the exact quotes that you have, from the several people, along with links to their original quotes (NOT links to truther sites, please).
Micahjava to tfk:
I already posted two quotes from Chief Peter Hayden and one from Firefighter Michael Currid.
On 8/25/2008, Graeme McQueen and Shayam Sunder had a half-hour discussion on Ontario Radio, and at some time Shayam briefly mentions the existence of this engineer person.
However, Crazy Chainsaw is claiming that he has literally spoken to this person and now I'm not satisfied without proof.
Crazy Chainsaw to Micahjava:
Why is the fact I know the engineer, extraordinary, I know lots of people, my fiend Thomas W. Eagar I believe, was the one who gave me his email address, I promised to keep his name and email confidential.
I have also shaken hands with Jay Leno, and was on his show, so what?
Life is experiences, where you go and who you meet on the journey.
Micahjava to Crazy Chainsaw:
Naaaah, I don't want to go emailing Mr. Eagar and have him ignore me. I'm wondering if you're lying. You claim to have personally spoken with the walking, talking holy grail of CD debunking.
Crazy Chainsaw to Micahjava:
I have talked with a lot of people on 9/11 after the news article in 2006 featuring me so what?
PS. I have also talked personally with Steven Jones, Dr.Frank Greening, Fetzer, and many others so what?
People respect and respond to you when your truthful and respectful.
Micahjava to Crazy Chainsaw:
Why should I believe you?
Crazy Chainsaw to Micahjava:
I really do not care if you (believe me or not), up to you, oh incidently there is a joke hidden in that sentence for the old timers here who know me. Something About why I have the name I have on my avatar. I also happen to be some what famous as a one of a kind.
PS. I can tell you the engineer your looking for had detailed knowledge of building 7 his firm built it.
Tony Szamboti to Crazy Chainsaw:
It sounds like you meant his firm designed it, and that the engineer was Irwin Cantor himself or someone from Cantor Engineering.
Crazy Chainsaw to Tony Szamboti:
I can't tell you exactly who but you're close, you want the person with the most knowledge of the existing building too make a call like that, he has to also know what is stored in the building to know the fuel loading. The fuel load being critical to determination of the time of most risk of collapse. I didn't understand that myself until the engineer explained it to me.
Micahjava to Crazy Chainsaw:
Why did Michael Currid say that the engineer came from the Office of Emergency Management?
jaydeehess to Micahjava:
Have you checked that no engineers with OEM had previously worked for the firm that designed WTC7?
Micahjava to jaydeehess:
I'll have to call WTC 7 to see what records they have
edit: ****
Crazy Chainsaw to Micahjava:
Are you saying the office of emergency management would not subcontract an engineering firm? Usually that is how it works, you don't need emergency management engineers all the time, best to subcontract, to an engineering firm.
Micahjava to Crazy Chainsaw:
When and where did this engineer show up?
Micahjava to Axxman300:
What basis was there at 11:30 AM to judge if and when the building would collapse?
Crazy Chainsaw to Micahjava:
He was already at the training exercise that morning.
Micahjava to Crazy Chainsaw:
Yeah, for all I know you're playing games. It seems like your claim about knowing the engineer Peter Hayden spoke to is about as credible as Beverly Oliver saying she's Babushka Lady.
Crazy Chainsaw to Micahjava:
It was on fire and the fires were not being extinguished.
Crazy Chainsaw to Micahjava:
As I said I don't care what you believe. What is, is what was ,was.
-
2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:
Below is a summary of why the foreknowledge of WTC 7's collapse can be considered evidence of, not against, the controlled demolition hypothesis. I would consider it some of the best evidence. One does not have to discuss physics or fire dynamics to argue that WTC 7 was demolished intentionally.
These are the problems with the events on 9/11/2001 between the time of the second Twin Tower collapse (North Tower, WTC 1) at 10:28 AM and the collapse of Seven World Trade Center at 5:20 PM.
The time of the first evacuation of WTC 7
11:07 AM - CNN, New York reporter Allan Dodds Frank provided the following information:
Two or three minutes ago, there was yet another collapse or explosion. I'm now out of sight, a Good Samaritan has taken me in on Duane street. But at a quarter to eleven, there was another collapse or explosion following the ten thirty collapse of the second tower, and a firefighter rushed by us estimated that fifty stories went down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiGxI5WxZ0U
It is ambiguous if this counts as the first reference to the forty-eight story WTC 7 being in some structural danger.
According to FDNY spokesman Francis X. Gribbon in the 11/29/2001 New York Times article Engineers Have a Culprit in the Strange Collapse of 7 World Trade Center: Diesel Fuel by James Glanz, the first evacuation from WTC 7 happened at 11:30 AM:
Falling debris also caused major structural damage to the building, which soon began burning on multiple floors, said Francis X. Gribbon, a spokesman for the Fire Department. By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons.
As we will see from the following statements, 11:30 AM is probably correct. Several statements from first responders indicate at least 4 hours foreknowledge of WTC 7's collapse.
12/3/2001 World Trade Center task force interview of FDNY Chief Frank Fellini:
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 facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing.
So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex. Eventually around 5:00 or a little after, building number seven came down.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110217.PDF
12/7/2001 World Trade Center Task Force interview of FDNY Lieutenant Anthony Mancuso:
Civilians were coming out. We helped them across West Street and told them to head north. Then it got pretty -- like there was nobody coming out of the north tower. I'm not really sure if we got a transmission to stay away from the north tower or it just so happens I backed up north again up West Street and I was probably right about Vesey Street or probably just a little north of Vesey Street when the second tower came down.
Again, after that came down we knew we had all our members. We went back to some of the rubble from that and we had worked in that area for a short time and then we were told to keep feeding a couple of the tower ladders they had in front of 6 World Trade. They just didn't want anybody operating there. I think they were fearing about 7 World Trade coming down. So then we kept augmenting tower ladders and staying away from that collapse area.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110271.PDF
Again, the foreknowledge of WTC 7's collapse starting very shortly after the North Tower collapsed.
10/11/2001 World Trade Center Task Force interview of FDNY Lieutenant William Melarango:
A. The second building came down. I didn't go back down to -- I didn't go back down to Church Street after that. I went up to Broadway by City Hall Park. There was a couple of municipal ambulances there which set up a temporary treatment area. There were a lot of firemen coming to us with debris in their eyes.
Q. What was this location?
A. It was right across the street from City Hall Park on Broadway by the Duane Reade store. I'm not sure what the street is.
There were two ambulances there, two municipal ambulances there. We set up like a little mini treatment area. We had several firemen come up to us, several police officers. We flushed their eyes out, put them on oxygen if they were having some trouble breathing.
After I think maybe about 30, 45 minutes EMS citywide came up on the air and requested a supervisor, if there were any supervisors on the air. They made the request several times. Nobody answered. I came up on the air and told them I was available.
They asked me to report to -- establish a staging area at West Broadway and Chambers, which I did. I went up to Broadway and Chambers. When I got there, there was approximately maybe 20, 25 ambulances there mixed: municipal, voluntary, volunteer ambulances. We started establishing a treatment area there.
A few minutes after that a police officer came up to me and told me that the facade in front of Seven World Trade Center was gone and they thought there was an imminent collapse of Seven World Trade Center. I felt the location we were at was too close to Seven World Trade Center.
So we advised citywide we were moving the staging area to North End and Greenwich Street.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110045.PDF
Other first responder's statements indicating an evacuation 4+ hours in advance of WTC 7's collapse include Anthony Salerno, Christopher Patrick Murray, William Melarango
The special engineer
FDNY Chief Peter Hayden is quoted in Dennis Smith's 2002 book Report From Ground Zero:
We were concerned about additional collapses, stability of the hotel and the rest of the facade there; plus, we still had 7 World Trade Center, which was burning also. We were worried about that collapsing, and it did collapse, about six hours later. There was a conscious decision to let that building burn and just keep everybody clear.
download ebook for free here or here.
And a more specific statement from Hayden appears in the 2013 court document Aegis Insurance Services, Inc. v. 7 World Trade Center Company, L.P.:
Chief of Department Peter Hayden consulted with an engineer:
We posed to him the question that considering the structural damage that was obvious to the – to the building on the southwest corner, and the amount of fire damage that was occurring within the building, could we anticipate a collapse and if so, when. He said yes and he gave an approximate time of five to six hours, which was pretty much right on the money because the building collapsed about 5 o’clock that afternoon
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/11-4403/11-4403-2013-12-04.html
It is not known where this quote by Hayden originates.
Hayden said much of the same in the BBC's 2008 special The Conspiracy Files: The Third Tower (note: the previous version of this documentary, similarly titled The Truth Behind The Third Tower, contains a scene where Shyam Sunder of NIST erroneously denies that freefall occurred in WTC 7):
We were concerned of the possibility of collapse of the building. And we had a discussion with one particular engineer there, and we asked him, 'if we allowed it to burn could we anticipate a collapse, and if so, how soon?' And it turned out that he was pretty much right on the money, that he said, ‘In its current state, you have about five hours.’
So we have Peter Hayden establishing the existence of a person identifying themselves as an expert who somehow made the precise forecast that WTC 7 would collapse in "about five or six hours".
5:21 PM - 5 hours = 12:21 PM
5:21 PM - 6 hours = 11:21 AM
5:00 PM - 5 hours = 12:00 PM
5:00 PM - 6 hours = 11:00 AM
The second Twin Tower (WTC 1, North Tower) collapsed at 10:28 AM. This prediction of WTC 7's collapse happened only an hour after the North Tower collapsed. How could ANYBODY predict then with such accuracy that WTC 7 would collapse? the official story is that WTC 7 fell due to office fires, but we know that the fires couldn't have even been that bad by 11:30-12:00 PM. Because, as NIST pointed out in their WTC 7 report, there is no photographic evidence of fires in the building until 12:10 PM.
In a 8/25/2008 discussion with Graeme McQueen and Shayam Sunder on CKNX talk radio, Shyam briefly spoke of the existence of the special engineer:
The July sixth BBC program also explained some of the other aspects about advanced knowledge, the only issue about the advanced knowledge was the fact that there was a technical advisor or engineer who was called by- who was providing advice to city agencies on nine-eleven about the condition of buildings, and particularly building seven. And it has his or her judgment- I believe it was a 'him'- it was his judgment that he was hearing creaking sounds, which is entirely appropriate, consistent with fires causing damage to connections and members. And he was hearing such sounds that would suggest that the building may come down. And he of course was observing the fires of the building as well, so based on that advice, the fire department decided around mid-morning, mid-afternoon, around two-thirty in the afternoon to decide to abandon fighting the fires in that building. So, it is something that people were expecting could happen based on what they were seeing and hearing.
Mp3 file, quote appears at 28:34: https://web.archive.org/web/20091011071330/http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/macqueen-sunder-8-25-2008.mp3
In the book September 11: An Oral History by Dean E. Murphy, firefighter Michael Currid is also quoted speaking of 'someone from the Office of Emergency Management' who is probably this same 'engineer' fellow:
Someone from the Office of Emergency Management told us that this building was in serious danger of collapse. The consensus was that it was basically a lost cause and we should no lose anyone else trying to save it. Rich, a few other people and I went inside to the stairwells and started yelling up "Drop everything and get out!" It didn't collapse until much later in the afternoon, but we felt it was better to get everybody out.
In an attempt to gather more information about this "special engineer", I tried filing FOIA requests for the transcripts of a few interviews of FDNY fire chiefs conducted by NIST for their World Trade Center investigation. I only got back a rejection stating the issue had to do with 'privacy concerns'. So I tried filing a FOIA request for a simple list of names of people interviewed by NIST. I only got back a burned CD with a spreadsheet of REDACTED names.
In the NIST WTC 7 Final Report, the only acknowledgement of the advanced knowledge of it's collapse reads as follows:
2.2.3 10:29 to 5:21 p.m. EDT
The emergency responders quickly recognized that WTC 7 had been damaged by the collapse of WTC 1. A number of fire teams entered WTC 7 to examine the damage, locate fires and possibly extinguish them, and search for occupants.
As early as 11:30 a.m., FDNY recognized that there was no water coming out of the hydrant system to fight the fires that were visible. With the collapses of the towers fresh in their minds, there was concern that WTC 7 too might collapse, risking the lives of additional firefighters. Within the next two hours, serious discussions were underway regarding the cessation of any efforts to save WTC 7, and the final order to cease was given at about 2:30 p.m. The Con Edison substation was shut down at about 4:33 p.m. (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Chapter 6).
Now that we have seen that the advanced knowledge of WTC 7's collapse started with this "special engineer", let's see how certain the first responders became of Seven's imminent demise as a result of this prediction. It certainly was more than a vague "concern".
The absolute certainty that WTC 7 would collapse.
1/22/2002 World Trade Center Task Force interview of firefighter Timothy Burke:
The rest of the day we were unloading trucks. We were just doing whatever little things we could do, but they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to fall. I didn't call my wife until 4:00 o'clock that afternoon to tell her I was okay.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110488.PDF
1/17/2002 World Trade Center Task Force interview of firefighter Thomas Donato:
We came around, I think we took Murray Street down the west side, and we stopped the rig and pulled over to the side and we all got out of the rig. We were standing, waiting for seven to come down. We were there for quite a while, a couple hours.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110471.PDF
12/29/2001 World Trade Center Task Force interview of firefighter James Wallace:
After that as time went on, we just kept searching. They were saying building seven was going to collapse, so we regrouped and went back to our rig. We went to building four or three; I don't know. We were going to set up our tower ladder there. They said no good because building seven is coming down.
We waited for building seven to come down. Then we went around the corner with our tower ladder, set that up and shot water on it until about 12:30 at night. We got relief finally. Then we went to the hospital, got our eyes washed out.
That's about it.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110409.PDF
11/9/2001 World Trade Center Task Force interview of EMT Joseph Fortis:
A. When the third building came down, that's where we were. We were actually -- they pulled us all back.
Q. Yeah, Stuyvesant is all the way up here just north of Chambers.
A. They had some boats over here. Actually they pulled us all the way back that far at the point because they didn't want any -- they didn't want us anywhere near it. Everyone was just running around. When the third building came down, we were on that corner in front of the school, and everybody just stood back. They pulled us all back at the time, almost about an hour before it, because they were sure -- they knew it was going to come down, but they weren't sure. So they pulled everyone back, and everybody stood there and we actually just waited and just waited and waited until it went down, because it was unsafe. They wouldn't let anyone next to I guess the two piles, we would call them, where one and two was. We stood back. We waited.
Then after the building came down and the dust and everything settled, everybody actually went back. Everybody was just moving things, and we were actually picking up a lot of body parts and putting them in red bags and just having them shipped to the morgue and this and that. We did that for a couple hours, and it started to get dark.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110200.PDF
12/4/2001 World Trade Center Task Force interview of firefighter Vincent Massa:
But they weren't letting guys too close. At this point Seven World Trade Center was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down.
We hung out for hours. We went into the American Express building. We looked around there. We searched around for a while, but you could see guys were already in there. We pretty much did that on our own because we were right there and the door was there and we just walked in.
I remember later on in the day it was getting close that they were more concerned about seven coming down. We had no idea what was going on on the east side. We were all on our side. On the west side it was pretty clear. The wind was blowing from west to east, I believe.
I remember later on in the day as we were waiting for seven to come down, they kept backing us up Vesey, almost like full block. They were concerned about seven coming down, and they kept changing us, establishing a collapse zone and backing us up.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110222.PDF
10/9/2001 World Trade Center Task Force interview of firefighter Matthew Long:
Because they were just adamant about 7 coming down immediately. I think we probably got out of that rubble and 18 minutes later is when 7 came down. So I watched -- we watched. There was a command station right here on Vesey. We were here with a whole group of guys. We watched 7 come down and then we went through, I guess this is the morgue now, Merrill Lynch, we went through that building there and there was an atrium we came through to go back on the other side and try to get back in to help.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110021.PDF
Unknown first responder(s) on street from CNN footage of 9/11/2001:
The building is about to blow up, move it back.
...
We are walking back 'cause the building is about to blow up- flame and debris coming down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU_43SwWD9A
Note: this is not to imply that this person had any knowledge of any plan to demolish the building with explosives, it is just illustrated that the first responders were so sure of WTC 7's imminent demise that it would be appropriate to use the common idiom "[that thing] is about to blow up".
The following account especially stresses the issue of certainty:
1/17/2002 World Trade Center Task Force interview of firefighter Edward Kennedy:
That was the only Mayday that I remember, and to tell you the truth, the only guy that really stands out in my mind that I remember being on the radio was Chief Visconti. I remember him talking and giving directions and this and that. But this is as the day was going on and, of course, there were so many transmissions going over. I remember him screaming about 7, No. 7, that they wanted everybody away from 7 because 7 was was definitely going to collapse, they don't know when, but it's definitely going to come down, just get the hell out of the way, everybody get away from it, make sure you're away from it, that's an order, you know, stuff like that.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110502.PDF
And this one is a real clincher:
10/11/2001 World Trade Center Task Force interview of EMT Decosta Wright:
Q. Were you there when building 7 came down in the afternoon?
A. Yes.
Q. You were still there?
A. Yes, so basically they measured out how far the building was going to come, so we knew exactly where we could stand.
Q. So they just put you in a safe area, safe enough for when that building came down?
A. 5 blocks. 5 blocks away. We still could see. Exactly right on point, the cloud stopped right there. Then when that building was coming down, the same thing, the same rumbling. That's why I like, for a couple of weeks, every little sound that I heard. It was unreal.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110054.PDF
It is true that there was a five-block perimeter made around WTC 7 for safety reasons, but here we can see that they were fully preparing for WTC 7 to completely collapse into a large dust cloud just like the Twin Towers.
THIS is the reason why there were at least three false media reports that WTC 7 collapsed in the hours and minutes before it actually did. Not some cockamamie conspiracy involving the mainstream media!
Was WTC 7 leaning? What about the bulge in the perimeter the firefighters saw?
There is this clip of a firefighter named "Miller" saying on the scene before WTC 7 collapsed that you could see the entire building leaning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XImQ6a-VrnA
In Firehouse Magazine, April 2002, FDNY Chief Peter Hayden explained the following:
Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. 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. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
Here we have a statement indicating that the "bulge" on the side of the building was noticed some time around 2:00 PM or shortly before, which is after the prediction of WTC 7's collapsed had already been made. This can not be considered an indication that the entire structure was in danger, this was most likely an insignificant portion of the building's perimeter warping from the heat of the fires. The same thing can be said about the "leaning" claim. The movement noticed on the surveying transit by the fire chiefs could just be an insignificant portion of the perimeter warping from the heat of the fires. NOT an indicator of an imminent collapse like the Twin Towers.
So why does that firefighter in the video claim that you could tell the entire building was leaning at the time? This was most likely a psychological trick or an optical illusion caused by the building not being next to the Twin Towers any more. NO photographic study by NIST, or any photographic expert, or even a layman, has presented evidence that the entire building was leaning.
There is a similar confusion with the North Tower. Here is how Wikipedia describes the condition of the North Tower:
After the South Tower collapsed, NYPD helicopters relayed information about the deteriorating conditions of the North Tower. At 10:20 am, the NYPD aviation unit reported that "the top of the tower might be leaning", and a minute later reported that the North Tower, "is buckling on the southwest corner and leaning to the south". At 10:28 am, the aviation unit reported that "the roof is going to come down very shortly". The North Tower collapsed at 10:28 am, after burning for 102 minutes.
Gee, that sucker was hanging on a thread. Whoever thinks it was a demolition must be bonkers! But wait, there is NO photographic study which provides evidence that the entire top portion of the North Tower was leaning. We do have photographic evidence showing that some perimeter columns eventually started bowing slightly inward, but again, what happens to a few perimeter wall units can not be used to explain the North Tower's core-led collapse. The perimeter wall units bowing bowing inwards probably created an optical illusion that may have made the top look uneven.
Further information, compiled statements from first responders on WTC 7
3/26/2011 presentation by Graeme MacQueen - Foreknowledge of Building 7's Collapse [1:20:07]
website World Trade Center Building 7 and the Lies of the "9/11 Truth Movement" subsection Eyewitness accounts of withdrawal and hold back from WTC 7 due to danger, also see Accounts of WTC 7 Damage and Eyewitness Accounts of WTC 7 Fires (Please note: this site was created by Mark Roberts, a defender of the official story on internationalskeptics.com, the former James Randi Education Forum)
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html
Consensus 9/11 - Point WTC7-7: Foreknowledge of the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7
ReThink911.org - Foreknowledge of Collapse
Shoestring 9/11 - How Did They Know Building 7 Was Going to Collapse?
Wtc7.net - Eyewitness Accounts of Foreknowledge of WTC 7's Collapse
-
7 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:
I hope Spike isn't forgetting the basic fact that ordinary fires can weaken steel. If not, he should know how bad it sounds to phrase his argument like that. Makes truthers look bad. There's plenty of actually legit information and questions to put in a big-budget 9/11 documentary.
-
I don't know, it does take years to grasp the forensic evidence of the case, at least as of right now because so much information is scattered and hard to access. Not a lot of journalists can do that. Our barriers here can include challenges in research in addition to political challenges.
-
1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:
Extreme legal action or acquiesce of the Kennedy family, both highly unlikely imho.
What would "extreme legal action" enatil if somebody could present physical, scientific hard evidence (not just document or witness evidence) against the autopsy findings?
-
What would it take a legally force an exhumation of JFK's gravesite?
-
Bill Hicks was right?
The Ordeal of Malcolm Perry
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
From the online journal Eve's Magazine, 2013, 50 Years from that Fateful Day in Dallas... by Martin J. Steadman:
The meeting with Dr. Perry occurred the evening of December 2. Fred and I were joined by Stan Redding, a first-class crime reporter for the Houston Chronicle. I’d taken a liking to Redding as soon as I met him; he was my kind of reporter. Speculation and suspicion and insinuation were never part of his game. He was interested in facts, only facts. But he was a keen political observer as well as a seasoned police reporter. It was no secret in Texas that the President and the First Lady had come to their state because Texas polls showed Kennedy was in trouble for re-election in 1964. Arizona GOP Senator Barry Goldwater held a comfortable lead, despite the fact Vice-President Lyndon Johnson was a Texan. And the Goldwater edge in the polls also applied to other states in the South and Southwest at that time. Stan Redding spoke softly when he allowed an opinion, but I’ll never forget what he said: “Those three bullets shot Barry Goldwater right out of the saddle.” He was noting that Texan Lyndon Johnson was now the President, and Senator Goldwater would be matched against a man of the South in the new polls. How bright was Redding’s political crystal ball in November 1963? Johnson led Barry Goldwater in the first wave of new national polls, and Johnson buried Goldwater in November 1964, in a landslide.
Our meeting with Dr. Perry was after dinnertime at his home, and I remember a little girl playing with her toys on the living room floor as the three reporters and her father talked about how he tried to save a President’s life. She was oblivious to the gravity of the conversation, playing quietly with her toys throughout.
Dr. Perry had become a controversial figure in the assassination story--to his dismay. With the President lying on his back on a gurney, fighting for breath in his dying moments, Dr. Perry tried to create an air passage with an incision across what he believed to be an entrance wound at the front of Kennedy’s neck. The President was pronounced dead soon after, but the doctor’s incision at the throat had forever foreclosed a conclusion that the wound was an entrance wound or an exit wound.
Late that Friday afternoon, the Parkland Hospital officials held a news conference for the hundreds of reporters who had descended on Dallas. Dr. Perry spoke of his efforts to save the President and his belief that his incision was across an entrance wound. The controversy didn’t erupt until government officials in Washington later said all three shots at the President had been fired from a sixth floor window of a building behind the President’s limousine.
So little more than a week later, three reporters were speaking quietly to the surgeon at the center of the dispute. As far as I know, it was the first and only such private interview with Dr. Perry. None of us in his living room that night took out a notebook or a pencil. It was a conversation with a clearly reluctant surgeon who had done his best in a crisis and who had agonized about it since.
Dr. Perry said he believed it was an entrance wound because the small circular hole was clean, with no edges. In the course of the conversation, he was asked and answered that he had treated hundreds of gunshot victims in the Emergency Rooms at Parkland Memorial Hospital. At another point he said he was a hunter by hobby, and he was very familiar with guns and ammunition. He said he could tell at a glance the difference between an entrance wound and an exit wound with its ragged edges.
But he told us that throughout that night, he received a series of phone calls to his home from irate doctors at the Bethesda Naval Hospital, where an autopsy was being conducted, and the doctors there were becoming increasingly frustrated with his belief that it was an entrance wound. He said they asked him if the doctors in Dallas had turned the President over and examined the wounds to his back; he said they had not. They told him he could not be certain of his conclusion if he had not examined the wounds in the President’s back. They said Bethesda had the President’s body and Dallas did not. They told Dr. Perry he must not continue to say he cut across what he believed to be an entrance wound when there was no evidence of shots fired from the front. When he said again he could only say what he believed to be true, one or more of the autopsy doctors told him they would take him before a Medical Board if he continued to insist on what they were certain was otherwise. They threatened his license to practice medicine, Dr. Perry said.
When he was finished, there was only one question left. I asked him if he still believed it was an entrance wound. The question hung there for a long moment.
“Yes,” he said.
Ultimately Dr. Perry appeared as a witness before the Warren Commission. In substance he testified that he realized he had no proof the bullet hole in the President’s neck was an entrance wound, and he conceded that the Bethesda doctors who autopsied the President would know better because they had all of the forensic evidence and he had but a fleeting recollection.
I can’t fault Dr. Perry for his testimony before the Warren Commission. Surely it occurred to him there was no point in holding out for a belief that couldn’t be proved. And just as surely, this 34-year-old surgeon with an exemplary record and a brilliant future knew his life would be forever shadowed by conspiracy theories that relied heavily on a bullet fired from the front. He testified only as he most certainly had to testify. But I’ll never forget what he said to three reporters that night in Dallas.
The interview in Dr. Perry’s living room was the most memorable moment, but there were other disturbing bits and pieces of information from my time in Dallas.