Micah Mileto

The "psychoanalysis" reminds me of the Penn and Teller episode on conspiracy theories. Can't believe money was spent producing such garbage. I bet some hard answers could be resolved for less than the amount of money spent on those awful TV specials.

On 4/20/2012 at 3:46 AM, David Lifton said:

My last conversation with James Sibert was in August, 1990. He seemed quite supportive of my work. My favorite quote, from that conversation, in which he emphasized the sheer size of the hole in JFK's head, was: " . that’s haunted me for years, this surgery of the head. This part, back on the back there.

“You could look right in there. . “

In the written notes he made, and which are available on the net (in the ARRB's medical section, "MD-216"), he wrote: "Brain had been removed from head cavity."

DDSL

4/20/12 1:50 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

More exclusive information hidden in the depths of forum discussion! Glad I could archive those quotes before they become lost!

13 hours ago, Robert Burrows said:

 

 

On the latest episode of Last Week  Tonight With John Oliver, Oliver had a segment about "conspiracy theories" in which he conflated  JFK assassination "conspiracy theories" with Covid 19 "conspiracy theories".  He dismissed the possibility of a conspiracy in the JFK case by invoking the old canard about people being unable to accept the idea that one small man, like LHO, could change history. I've always enjoyed Oliver's show, but I'll never be able to watch it again without thinking about his willful ignorance. Goodbye John Oliver. 

 

Is there any actual evidence for this bit of psychoanalysis? Or is it a lie that people just repeat to feel superior? I'm betting on the later, because most of psychology is a just harmful pseudoscience made up by idiots.

Is this a teaser for the long-awaited Rapsittie Street Kids: A Bunny's Tale?

13 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

I found this old newspaper article, Boston Globe, Sat Nov 23, 1963. Here it is, right from the beginning: entrance rear occipital, exit throat, the original interpretation from Parkland, before the autopsy occurred.

I don't think the EOP information was known to anybody in the media then, probably a coincidence.

On 7/11/2020 at 9:18 PM, Greg Doudna said:

I have a proposed new solution on the bullets and wounds of JFK which I believe has not previously been proposed, and solicit criticism or counterevidence. My argument proposes to establish two key conclusions. The first is that the stretcher bullet at Parkland came from JFK, not Connally. The second is that the entrance wound of the bullet that exited JFK's throat was the occipital rear entrance wound at the back of JFK's head, and that this bullet, after passing through JFK's throat, then continued into Connally causing all of Connally wounds. This shot occurred at about Z323 or thereabouts, less than a second after the head shot of Z313. In other words, a modified Single Bullet Theory but with a different entrance wound than has heretofore been considered. Following I outline the arguments supporting these two conclusions. But first:

Negative finding of fact: the WC and HSCA Single Bullet Theory, aka the "Magic Bullet" (entrance JFK upper back; exit JFK throat; cause all wounds of Connally; bullet found in nearly pristine condition on the stretcher at Parkland) can be excluded. (As brought out by Dr. Cyril Wecht and others; nothing original here.)

-- The vertical trajectory is wrong, and the near-pristine nature of the stretcher bullet/C399 is incompatible with a bullet that struck the bone in Connally's wrist.

-- However although the Single Bullet Theory of the WC and HSCA is not correct, it was believed that it must or could only be correct by the majority of WC and HSCA on the basis of a perceived inability to explain where the bullet that exited JFK's throat went if it did not go into Connally. (This was the major argument of Bugliosi in defense of the WC single-bullet against Dr. Wecht.) The reconstruction that the bullet went into Connally and caused Connally's wounds seemed to be the best explanation of this point. Arlen Specter said that point was key to his own belief that the single bullet explanation was correct. Perception that the single-bullet explanation must be correct caused pressure to "raise" the location of the entrance wound on JFK's upper back (as in Gerald Ford's famous hand-drawn edit moving higher the position of the entrance wound in JFK's upper back). 

With this negative finding out of the way, I turn to the positive argument.

1. The Parkland stretcher bullet came from JFK, not Connally

-- It can be shown the Parkland stretcher bullet did not come from Connally. First, it was not found on Connally's stretcher and there is no positive reason to link it to Connally. Second, the stretcher bullet was in near-pristine condition inconsistent with a bullet that struck the bone in Connally's wrist and fractured. And third, a fragment of the bullet that hit Connally fell out of Connally's thigh in the operating room, inconsistent with the near-pristine condition of the stretcher bullet which is not missing any fragments of itself. 

-- At the same time, it can be shown the Parkland stretcher bullet did come from JFK. First, there is witness testimony associating a bullet with JFK's body at Parkland. Second, the stretcher bullet was found in the emergency receiving area of Parkland and there were only two known gunshot victims there, one of whom (Connally) is excluded as the source of that bullet on independent grounds, process of elimination argument. And third, the condition of the stretcher bullet--near-pristine--is what would be expected from a bullet matching the specific description of one of the gunshot wounds of JFK, namely the bullet of the upper back entrance wound which did not penetrate very deeply into JFK's body. Fourth, a friend of Secret Service Special Agent Kinney, after Kinney's death, has recounted that Kinney told him he found a bullet that had fallen out of JFK in the presidential limousine while at Parkland, and that he, Kinney, had walked into the emergency area of the hospital and had placed that bullet somewhere there. And fifth--this is the original part of my contribution to this point--a reconstruction of the circumstances of how the bullet came to be on the specific stretcher at the location the bullet was found (not written out here).  

-- Whether the Parkland stretcher bullet was C399 or C399 is a secondary substitution for the stretcher bullet is a distinct issue and not necessary to resolve here. All witnesses report the stretcher bullet was near-pristine, with the only discrepancy being that some witnesses have reported the stretcher bullet was pointed whereas C399 is rounded; also, that persons in the chain of custody refused to corroborate that C399 was the bullet they handled. The present argument is unaffected no matter which way that issue is resolved, since in either case the stretcher bullet was near-pristine and came from JFK, which are the key points here.

2. Modified single bullet theory in which the bullet entered at the rear of JFK's head (not previously considered; changes everything).

-- the throat wound of JFK, seen by some at Parkland before a tracheometry over the bullet hole destroyed the evidence of the wound, was thought to be an entrance wound by some observers, but there is recognition that it is not always easy to be certain whether a given bullet hole is an entrance or exit, and in any case this one was not examined and could not be examined more closely once the tracheometry was done.

-- in fact the throat wound cannot have been an entrance, because there is no exit. The possibility that a bullet entered JFK's throat and did not exit but remained in JFK's neck can be excluded for this reason: at the autopsy from witness reports there was a major attempt to "find the bullet" that was believed to be in JFK's body undiscovered, and X-rays were taken for that purpose. But no bullet was identified in JFK's body from the X-rays.

-- The JFK throat wound therefore was an exit. But an exit wound requires an entrance on the other side of the body and in a trajectory that is possible for a direction of a bullet fired at JFK. There are only two bullet wounds on the rear of JFK, both independently identified as entrance wounds, and so the bullet of the throat wound must be one of those two. That the occipital wound at the back of JFK's head was an entrance wound (and not an exit wound) is established from beveling in the skull at the point of that bullet's entry (cite specifics here). 

-- Because the occipital rear entrance wound of JFK has never been considered possible as the point of entry of the bullet that exited JFK's neck, it was perceived that the upper back entrance wound of JFK must be the entrance of the bullet that exited JFK's neck.

-- The reason the rear occipital wound of JFK's head was not considered as a possible entrance for the bullet of the throat exit wound can easily be reconstructed. Two reasons: first, it was believed that there was only a single head shot, and therefore the immense damage blowing out a major part of JFK's brain cavity required that bullet to do it, and therefore that bullet could not have simultaneously exited the throat. And second, the vertical trajectory is too steep to be compatible with that of a shot fired from a building to the rear of JFK sitting in an upright position. If the vertical trajectory from the 6th floor TSBD is about 16 degrees downward, the vertical trajectory of rear occipital to throat exit of JFK might be in the 30-40 degree range (these are guesses from me, not data or measurements, which I have not undertaken). There is no known time from the Zapruder film prior to the head shot at Z313 which would have JFK in a posture or position which would not have a difference in magnitude of trajectory which excludes it from consideration. For these two reasons, the rear occipital entrance as the bullet which exited JFK's throat--the proposal I argue here--was considered a non-starter at the outset, not even on the table for consideration. It is not that this possibility can be found discussed and then rejected for reasons a,b,c. It has simply never even been brought up for discussion as a possibility in the major discussions. 

-- As seeming airtight as both of those reasons seemed at the time (for excluding an occipital rear head entrance for the JFK throat exit wound), it happens that both objections in fact are illusory, and the piercing of these illusory objections causing them to disappear is key to the present proposal. First, in recent years multiple researchers have argued very convincingly that there were in fact two shots to JFK's head, not just one. I am thinking particularly of the work of Gary Aguilar here. In any case, it is convincing. Two shots to JFK's head is revolutionary, but one important implication of the two-JFK-head-shots finding has been missed until now: it in principle removes one of the two main reasons just cited for why the rear occipital wound was never considered for association with the throat exit wound. It was my noticing that (and following working out my analysis of the Parkland stretcher bullet as coming from JFK) that launched my thinking toward working out the theory of the present outline.

-- The other reason considered to make the rear occipital JFK wound a non-starter (for the throat exit wound)--the vertical trajectory too steep--is decisive in excluding such a reconstruction at all points of Zapruder except at the one point at which independent argument places the timing of the shot that caused that rear-occipital wound of JFK's head, namely ca. Z323 or thereabouts, ca. 0.7 seconds after the head shot of Z313.

-- The head shot of Z313--the shot that blew out JFK's skull and brains--knocked JFK's head rapidly and severely backward and to the left (pivoting backward on the neck like whiplash) and also knocked JFK's body leftward. This dramatic and rapid change in the position of the rear occipital entrance wound compared to the throat wound lowered the angle of the trajectory such that at ca. Z323, the time that blur analysis indicates for the final shot 0.7 seconds after the Z313 head shot--and the angle of the trajectory can now be seen correct. Studies remain to be done--all I have done is look at the Zapruder frames at Z313f many times and try to mentally envision approximate angle of trajectory. But because other grounds call for the rear occipital wound as the entrance for the bullet that exited JFK's throat, I believe this is the solution. The sudden distortion in the positioning of JFK's head and body posture at this precise point in the Zapruder sequence at the time indicated for the final shot brings the vertical trajectory in alignment with a shot fired from a building to the rear. 

-- Many witnesses heard the final two shots very close together, and commented on this phenomenon so specifically that that witness testimony is very compelling. This witness testimony corresponds to blur analysis of the Zapruder frames--blur analysis being the gold standard method for identifying times of the gunshots in Zapruder--indicating the head shot at Z313 and another shot--the final shot--about 0.7 seconds later at ca. Z323. 

-- Since there is convincing argument from medical evidence on independent grounds for two head shots, and since the head shot of Z313 is the one that did the major brain and skull damage to JFK (with good grounds for identifying the source of that shot as the Grassy Knoll), the shot of Z323 was the second head shot, the rear occipital entry at the back of JFK's head.

-- Separately and independently, there has already been argument set forth that Connally was hit after Z313 rather than earlier, based on analysis of his movements and witness testimony (cite, describe, and discuss). Although the timing of the shot that hit Connally is debated, the stronger argument seems to be the post-Z313 argument. WC and HSCA had Connally hit earlier, but ca. Z323 makes better sense on a number of grounds. (Argue specifics and details on this point here.) 

-- The conclusion is a modified single-bullet theory in which at ca. Z323 a single bullet entered the rear occipital of JFK's head, exited JFK's throat, and proceeded to hit Connally causing all wounds to Connally. The bullet fractured when hitting the bone of Connally's wrist and pieces were found under Nellie Connally's seat, hitting the windshield and falling to the front of the limousine, and a piece lodged in Connally's thigh. 

-- With this reconstruction longstanding problems in understanding the JFK shots and wounds may in one fell swoop be solved. With an earlier shot hitting JFK in the upper back, another shot accounting for the street and kerb hit and then Tague (if he was grazed by a fragment of concrete spun his way by that bullet), and the final two shots to the head of JFK with the final one being a single bullet hitting both JFK and Connally, all data can be accounted for in terms of four shots total, with the final two very close together, such that some witnesses might hear the final two as one. 

The shot to JFK's upper back again

-- At the JFK autopsy according to witness testimony there were many attempts to probe the wound in JFK's upper back, attempting to find a path to the throat wound, which were unsuccessful. There were also X-rays with attempts to "find the bullet" suspected to be lodged inside JFK, but none was seen in the X-rays. Humes probed the upper back wound with his little finger and reported the wound was only about an inch deep. This back wound was not connected to the throat wound. Furthermore, the direction of the bullet entering the back wound was found to be somewhat downward, consistent with a trajectory of a shot fired from a rear building sloping downward into JFK's back (rather than the slightly-upward trajectory necessitated if the exit was through JFK's throat). 

-- All of the evidence with respect to the wound of the upper back of JFK is consistent with an entrance wound which the bullet barely penetrated--a wound so shallow, in fact, that the bullet of that wound fell back out, and was found as the stretcher bullet at Parkland.

-- In this reconstruction, JFK's raising of his arms and elbows and appearing to be reaching both hands to his throat, of Zapruder, becomes a reaction not to the bullet of the rear occipital entrance and exiting through his throat--that shot has not happened yet--but rather is a reaction to the shot that hit JFK in the upper back.

There was a conspiracy

-- In the establishment as a finding of fact--from blur analysis and other argument--of two final shots 0.7 seconds apart--it is the timing between shots (not the total time required for all shots) is the key evidence which excludes explanation in terms of a single shooter. The establishment as a finding of fact--from medical analysis and argument--that there were two head shots not one to JFK, also establishes more than one shooter, since the two shots can only have been very close together per Zapruder, too close in time between shots for both to have been done by a single shooter.

-- That (preceding paragraph) adds to the already-known lines of evidence indicating the first head shot, at Z313, came from the right or front. Such evidence includes the reaction of JFK when hit with this shot in Zapruder; the bloody matter from JFK's head splattering motorcycle police officers to the rear and to the left; witnesses hearing a gunshot and smelling gunsmoke near the Grassy Knoll. The explanations offered for JFK's sharp head movement to the rear and to the left at Z313 as caused by a shot from the rear are insubstantial upon examination, and have served only to obfuscate. A witness, the deaf Ed Hoffman, whom I judge credible, saw from a distance the shooter at the Grassy Knoll. The witnesses who encountered an unexplained Secret Service person who has not been identified corresponds with what Hoffman witnessed and suggests the mechanism of that shooter's escape was impersonation of an investigating officer in the moments following the shooting. A shot from the Grassy Knoll establishes more than one shooter, since other shots--the shot that hit JFK's upper back, and that which entered the rear occipital of JFK's head--originated from the rear, in a different location. There was more than one shooter, hence conspiracy (planning by two or more to commit a crime).  

Metacomment 

-- Drawing on Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn, and my study under Martin Bernal who supervised an M.A. for me at Cornell and who analyzed "the sociology of scholarship", along with a fascination I have had with this topic, this comment. After an existing paradigm or theory is established and entrenched, it gathers numerous other points which are interpreted and seen as supporting the theory. After this passes a certain point it is extraordinarily difficult to dislodge a theory simply and only by showing factual refutations of any specific point The human mind--including the scientific mind--will (if honest) acknowledge problems in theories, and look for alternative explanations which will allow the paradigm to remain. If no alternative explanation is at hand, in most cases in the humanities or social sciences (hard physical sciences excepted) theories which have served well and are considered productive and familiar, are rarely overthrown or rejected simply because someone showed a mere key fact to be false. What is required for minds to change in these cases is not only the factual refutation--a necessary but not sufficient condition--but also the presentation of an alternative and superior narrative or story which better accounts for the facts in their totality. (Even then Kuhn showed that scientists rarely change paradigms mid-life; they simply die out and younger scientists gravitate to the newer theory based on its superior explanatory power.)

-- On the matter of the JFK assassination, the bullets and medical wounds establishing more than one shooter is absolutely critical, the difference between a case that is closed and a case that remains open. Although a number of theories of the shots and explanations of the wounds of JFK and Connally have been offered, arguably each have suffered from their own problems if they do not take into account the two points offered here: the stretcher bullet at Parkland as coming from JFK; and the modified single bullet theory in which the bullet entered not in JFK's upper back but entered at the rear occipital of his head, in the second of two head shots which occurred at ca. Z323. 

If this stands, this could not only be satisfying in being correct, but could become seen to be correct by those who have assumed the WC had the best explanatory narrative to account for the facts of the ballistics and medical evidence.

Appeal

The above is an outline only, setting forth the argument obviously in abbreviated form. I sincerely request the strongest possible falsification of any key point of this argument. I am more interested in getting it right than in being right. Thank you in advance for comments!

At this point, why not? Has anybody done an essay long enough to encapsulate all possible knowledge and theories regarding the gurney andgurney bullet?

On 7/7/2020 at 8:58 PM, Pamela Brown said:

For John Butler:  there were no 'massive steel columns' in WTCI and 2.  The buildings had load-bearing walls. There were girders only in the central core.  The widebody 767's, loaded with 20K gallons of fuel, left gaping holes, stories high, in the external structure, which violated the integrity of the walls, and, as a result, the buildings pancaked.  The public is not supposed to figure this out -- hence the 'explosives' rabbit trail.  Those who designed 9-11 knew what they were doing.  They figured out that the structure of the buildings had an Achilles heel...

The core columns held up 60% of the buildings, the exterior columns only help up 40%. The core structure was sturdy enough to have acted like it's own skyscraper if it were left free standing. We know from the photographic evidence that the antenna of the North Tower dipped ~10 feet before the roofline started to move a single foot. This "roof caving in" scinareo is also indicated by the fact that the crown trusses were not found intact at ground zero (a web of connected steel columns on the roofs of both twin towers). Not saying demolition is a fact or anything, but if the twins collapsed naturally, a science-based explanation would have to explain these things. Not aware of any study that has tried to explain these observations that the conspiracy theorists gave been bringing up for over 10 years by now.

I have wondered if the shooting could have been accomplished by one person shooting from behind, but with their gun chamber alternating between low and high velocity rounds.

13 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

You’re ignoring the hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process, which could only have been caused by a front shot to the throat.

There was no exit of the throat shot because either the round was removed prior to the autopsy or, as per the autopsists’ speculation, JFK was hit with a high tech round that dissolved.

When I was looking at sources on this alledged fracture, I found one that said this fracture appeared on the PRE-mortem x-rays. Are we sure that this artifact exists, and it is post-mortem?

On 7/9/2020 at 12:14 AM, James DiEugenio said:

What a good question that is. 

Man, was Buddy Walthers a good detective or what? 

Al Mattox told me that Walthers said Barrett picked up a bullet in Dealey Plaza in that famous picture. Where they are just about next to each other.

What source said that Walthers said that?

Are there any Spanish speakers who would want to type an English transcript of this 2-minute interview?

https://www.wradio.com.co/escucha/archivo_de_audio/lito-porto-medico-colombiano-que-atendio-a-john-f-kennedy-luego-del-atentado/20131125/oir/2023870.aspx

15 hours ago, Pamela Brown said:

With all due respect, this is a scenario that seems to require more definition.  A 707 is not a widebody.  A plane aimed directly into the center of the building will have a different effect from an accidental hit, etc. etc. In addition, I think the assumption that a plane dumping fuel into the building would leave the structure intact is unrealistic, again, considering the load-bearing walls. And a plane that goes through to the center of the building, hitting the girders at its core and severing all access to the area above it is imo a particularly devastating scenario, as it involves both the core of the building and the load-bearing walls, plus fuel.  

 

 

All I feel qualified to say is that a 707 has four engines, while the planes that crashed into the Towers only had 2. In this context, plane engines would act like battering rams to the columns that support the buildings. So it's 2 large battering rams versus 4 slightly smaller battering rams.

59 minutes ago, Pamela Brown said:

A deliberate hit? I think not. 

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.

Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there

A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11

The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact, page 131

https://citizenfor911truth.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/debunking911debunkingwtcwithstand707impact2-1.pdf

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

 

As explained by AE911TRUTH member Tony Szamboti, the pulverization itself is not evidence of controlled demolition. Once the columns have no support, the heavy objects colliding with eachother would have more energy than high explosives placed on every inch of the building. The question is what made those columns have no support in the first place.

I wonder why the researchers haven't spoken out more about how Kennedy's body should be dig up and given another autopsy. Everyone agrees the first autopsy was inadequate, and that is legal precedent. Even if the body tissues were deteriorated, just studying the bones and dust would help to clarify a lot of things.

Shameless self-bump.

Table of contents:

Part 1: Intro

Part 2: Clothing evidence

Part 3: Pre-autopsy witnesses to the back wound

Part 4: Missing autopsy photographs showing the interior body/lungs

Part 5: Where is JFK's brain, and all of the other body specimens?

Part 6: Chest tubes

Part 7: Shallow back wound

Part 8: The pathologists talk to the Warren Commission

Part 9: Dr. Finck and the "throat wound ignorance story"

Part 10: Semi-circular defect on the autopsy photographs

Part 11: The Barnum statement

Part 12: Possible x-rays or photographs showing probes in the body

Part 13.1: Richard Lipsey and Tom Robinson

Part 13.2

Part 14: Admiral Galloway

Part 15: James Jenkins

Part 16.1: Subsequent statements of Humes and Boswell

Part 16.2

Part 17: Timeline of Dr. Perry

Part 18: John Stringer

Part 19: John Ebersole

Part 20: William Manchester, The Death of a President

Part 21: Robert Karnei

Part 22.1: Reevaluating Sibert and O'Neill

Part 22.2

Part 23: Sibert's timeline

Part 24: O'Neill's phantom timeline

Part 25.1: Timeline of the morticians

Part 25.2

Part 25.3

Part 26: More witnesses time the end of the body examination

Part 27: Conclusions

More updates and megaposts to come.

Look, there is simply no way you can tell if someone is lying from putting a recording of their voice through a machine. Anybody who claims they can is a quack. The JFK case has a way of revealing the flaws in a lot of forensic methodology, like it did with fingerprints and bullet lead analysis. Even psychiatric evaluation can not accomplish this - in fact, psychology in general is largely a pseudoscience. I don't see how anyone can fall of something as silly as "voice stress analysis".

27 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said:

The SEC had all of the filings of public companies in WTC #7. The SEC started digitizing filings in about 1994 but priority went to newest filings first, which were constantly coming in. By 2001, they had at best digitized the historical library back to about 1980. 

If anyone wanted to look at the late 50s to early 60s public Financial filings of Zapata, the SEC filings are gone.

Copies would have gone out to shareholders so I’m sure more than a few people have them in some box in an attic. Some institutional investors probably have copies in Long Term storage somewhere.

According to news reports, the SEC had to rebuild a lot of it's own cases because of the evidence that was lost forever in Building Seven.

2 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:

I'm not intending to imply there was no water at all or no ability to fight any fire. Just that there were localized areas and instances with a water supply issue. For whatever reason, building 7 was definitely impacted by a disruption at some point.

As far as leaning, I personally never heard any accounts of building 7 leaning, but I have for 1. I have never been able to see a noticeable lean in building 1 though. 

From what I understand, they could have just attached a water line to the couplings on the outside of the buildings, which were there for the purpose of recharging the water sprinkler system.

There are also videos of the water sprinklers going off on floors that alledgedly had no functioning sprinklers.

There were reports of the top of WTC 1 leaning, but nobody has provided any photographic evidence of that. There is photographic evidence of the exterior columns around the plane impacts bending inward, so maybe that created an optical illusion that looked like the entire top was leaning.

13 minutes ago, Mark Stevens said:

I'm sorry, but I have to say you are mistaken. I believe much of his point regarding water supply can be summed up by his statements here:

I'm really not sure how this disproves (I'm not sure of the number and hazard to take a guess) the amount of eyewitnesses statements from firefighters who connected a hose to a hydrant and no water came out. I'm not sure how it disproves a firefighter turning on a standpipe inside of building 7 and no water coming out.

Regardless of what this guy in the video says, multiple people on site on 9/11 have personal experience with the fact that there were areas and instances of no water availability and the overall difficulty fighting the fires that day. Not only due to the lack of consistent water availability, but also due to reports of other planes, bombs, the amount of debris in the area, visibility conditions, not to mention the need to search for survivors. All of this impacted ways firefighters might react to a lack of available water under normal conditions. Secondary sources which might otherwise be available were also buried under debris, or impacted in some manner. 

Have you read the oral histories of the 500+ included first responders put out shortly after 9/11? These paint a vivid and fascinating picture of 9/11 which helps fills gaps and give insight into some areas and create questions in regards to others. I recommend you, and everyone, read them if you have not.

ETA: I do also have probably as many reports of fires being actively fought (and no report of water supply problems) as I do of water supply problems.

Why are there videos of firefighters using high-pressure hoses to fight the fires in Building five?

This would not be the first time a FDNY member took responsibility for information that did not come from them. There is a video of a firefighter pointing to Building 7 and saying you can see it leaning with the naked eye - even though nobody has ever provided any photographic evidence for the building leaning. Peter Hayden also gave statements which implied he was the one who judged Seven to be a lost cause, even though in other statements he said that judgement was made before he even started dealing with that building.

18 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:

There is though. The report (claim?) below is regard the ability to get water inside of the building. I can get plenty more which state the same thing, there was no water and the fires were "allowed" to burn.

 Lieutenant Rudolf Weindler

 

There are numerous reports of the water system sustaining major disruptions due to the collapse(s). While water could have been pumped in, this was all but unfeasible considering the general condition of the landscape at the time. You really need to familiarize yourself with the reports of the people who were on scene and responded to the disaster.

Unless I'm missing something, I think those reports were based on false information. Skip to 32:15 https://vimeo.com/392066090

1 hour ago, Mark Stevens said:

My thoughts on building 7 are that it was ultimately demolished, but I'm not entirely sure how.

There was extensive damage and fires in building 7 by late afternoon an there was no ability to fight the fires due to water main disruptions. My belief is that it would have ultimately collapsed "naturally," but due to electrical infrastructure underneath building 7 which needed to be kept whole as much as possible the building was "pulled" to control the extent of the damage.

There is no proof for the claim that there wasn't water to fight the fires in WTC 7. There are videos of the firefighters using high-pressure hoses to fight the fires in WTC 6. And they could have used water lines connected to the Hudson river to recharge the sprinkler system (there were water couplings on the outside of the building).

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Micah,

      Here's some visual evidence and witness testimony about the serial explosions that brought down the towers--  e.g.,  "The bombs just started exploding... boom...boom...boom..boom..."

     If you study the film, you can clearly see the serial explosions that were described by multiple witnesses.

     

 

 

 

 

Yes, I am aware of all that. But the WTC collapses were no where near as loud as a typical explosive demolition device. So If the WTC was a demolition, it probably should have involved some rare sophisticated technology.

45 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

The demolitions of WTC1 and WTC2 were accomplished at extremely high, steel-liquefying temperatures-- far in excess of the temperature of burning jet fuel.  But, as you point out, there were also serial explosions.

On film, you can directly observe the melting of steel girders prior to the sequential collapse and explosion of floors, accompanied by high velocity lateral ejections of steel beams and pulverization of tons of concrete into pyroclastic flows.

The sequentially-detonated explosions are visible and audible on recordings, and were also described by numerous witnesses.

It's truly amazing that the obvious audio and visual evidence of the explosive WTC demolitions-- like a well-publicized Zapruder film on steroids-- have been so successfully misinterpreted by the general public for the past 19 years!  Under conditions of shock, people tend to believe what respectable authority figures (e.g., Henry Kissinger, L. Paul Bremer, Ehud Barak) tell them on network television.

We were immediately inundated on 9/11 with the false government narrative about "burning jet fuel," Osama Bin Laden, "Al Qaeda" hijackers, etc.-- not unlike the way the CIA barraged the world media with the Lee Harvey Oswald, Lone-Nut- Commie-in-the-TSBD narrative shortly after JFK's murder.

There are some unexplained noises in the audio recordings, and the witness record, but none of those were loud enough to be comparable to ordinary cutter charges.

3 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

 

Yeah, I used to be in love with WTC stuff until I found JFK. I think the foreknowledge of WTC 7's collapse is very interesting. https://old.reddit.com/r/911truth/comments/6zcttx/of_course_wtc_7_fell_from_fires_the_firefighters/

There's just no known demolition device that can create the results seen with the WTC. I have wondered if there could be a way to quickly heat the steel columns before using relatively small kicker charges on the weld splices to knock them out of place.