FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Len Colby]

(1) As to the former point, I've talked with Chief of Department Nigro several times about this. He is adamant that he never talked to Larry Silverstein, that conditions were such that he probably could not have talked to him by phone, that whatever the owner of WTC7 wanted or didn't want it was irrelevant to him. Nigro's command staff echo this set of opinions. The statement by Larry Silverstein is somewhat self-serving. He gives the impression that to reduce the risk of further loss of life he graciously tells the chief to forget about fighting fires in the building. Given any conflict between Larry Silverstein and Daniel Nigro, I put my money on Nigro.

The fact that Silverstein never mentioned the name of "the, er, fire department commander" re-enforces Tink's theory that if Silverstein spoke to anyone in the FDNY he didn't speak to Nigro. In addition to being self serving his comment was self aggrandizing - he such an important guy the head of the FDNY called him during the midst of the worst crisis the department ever faced.

The inside jobbers have yet to deal with the fact that under their interpretation of Silverstein's comments he is saying the FDNY demolished 7 WTC and only decided to do so that afternoon. Since that obviously isn't the case the value of his comments is usless. Nor have they come up with a reasonable explanation as to why if Silverstein was "in on it" why he'd make such a comment during an low key interview.

[Len Colby]

Individually, I agree... but we have dozens of reports that talk of large fires. How many times do I need to refer to them?

Eight is not dozens.

When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.

–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers (Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam. p. 160)

Clearly false, since videos at the time of collapse show NO fires.

Then we had to move because the Duane Reade, they said, wasn't safe because building 7 was really roaring.

–FDNY Chief Medical Officer Kerry Kelly.

"Really roaring"? A vague non-description, and hearsay to boot.

Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable.

–PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade

Small fires qualify as actively burning. The rest is hearsay from anonymous source.

At Vesey St. and West St., I could see that 7 WTC was ablaze and damaged, along with other buildings.

–M. DeFilippis, PAPD P.O.

Yeah, there were scattered small fires.

So yeah then we just stayed on Vesey until building Seven came down. There was nothing we could do. The flames were coming out of every window of that building from the explosion of the south tower. So then building Seven came down. When that started coming down you heard that pancaking sound again everyone jumped up and starts.

Photos do not show flames coming out of every window.

Because it really got going, that building Seven, saw it late in the day and like the first Seven floors were on fire. It looked like heavy fire on seven floors. It was fully engulfed, that whole building.

Late in the day, seven floors had fires.

And there was a great deal of concern at that time, the firemen said building number 7 was going to collapse, building number five was in danger of collapsing. And there's so little they can do to try to fight the fires in these buildings, because the fires are so massive.

- CBS-TV News Reporter Vince DeMentri

Yeah, hearsay from a reporter.

And 7 World Trade was burning up at the time. We could see it. ... the fire at 7 World Trade was working its way from the front of the building northbound to the back of the building.

–Firefighter Eugene Kelty Jr.

The building was burning.

-- they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down as it was on fire. It was too dangerous to go in and fight the fire.

–Assistant Commissioner James Drury

It was on fire.

The whole south side of Seven World Trade had been hit by the collapse of the second Tower, and there was fire on every floor.

– Fire Captain Brenda Berkman

This is totally untrue. Photos show the whole south side NOT hit by debris, and NO fire on every floor.

WHICH OF THESE DESCRIBE THE RAGING INFERNO? WHERE ARE THE PHOTOS?

Josiah,

If I am correct, then all bets -- including the one you've placed on Nigro -- are off.

Charles

I wonder if these posts will lead Mr. Lemkin to make self-righteous comment protesting the denigration of witnesses or if he only objects to challenging witnesses who agree with his POV.

Oh and Jack - Let's see your images showing "the whole south side NOT hit by debris" post North Tower collapse.

EDIT typos

Edited July 7, 2008 by Len Colby

[Jack White]

9/11 First Responder Heard WTC 7 Demolition Countdown

Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue expert witnessed

officials attempt to conceal planned nature of demolition

Paul Joseph Watson

Prison Planet

Thursday, September 13, 2007

A 9/11 first responder has gone on the record to describe how he heard a demolition-style countdown precede the collapse of WTC 7, eyewitness testimony that dovetails with other EMT's and rescue personnel who were also told that Building 7 was going to be "brought down".

Earlier this year, we reported on the testimony of an anonymous EMT named Mike who told Loose Change producer Dylan Avery that hundreds of emergency rescue personnel were told over bullhorns that Building 7, a 47 story skyscraper adjacent the twin towers that was not hit by a plane yet imploded symmetrically later in the afternoon on 9/11, was about to be "pulled" and that a 20 second radio countdown preceded its collapse.

That account was backed up by another ground zero rescue worker who went on the record with her full name. Volunteer EMT Indira Singh described to a radio show how she learned that WTC 7 was going to be "brought down" and the context was clear that it was to be deliberately demolished.

In addition, former NYPD officer Craig Bartmer described hearing bombs tear down the building as he fled the collapse.

Now another ground zero first responder has shed more light on how he heard the countdown moments before attempting to escape the collapse of Building 7 as a stampede ensued.

Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue expert, Kevin McPadden traveled to ground zero completely of his own accord and spent the next four days searching through the rubble and nearby buildings for survivors.

In a speech given at this week's 9/11 truth events in New York City, McPadden describes the shocking details of what he witnessed shortly before WTC 7 imploded into its own footprint.

Watch the video.

"While we were on the right side, there was firefighters getting ready, they were bussing them back and forth, and a couple of vets that were there - they got the vibe that something was coming down," said McPadden.

"We started asking questions, everybody started asking questions, and the next thing you know there was a Red Cross representative pacing back and forth in front of the crowd holding his hand over the radio - I couldn't hear what it was saying but it was like pulsed - whatever the speech was on there it was pulsed - and that means to me most likely it was a countdown."

"But he took his hand off at the last three seconds and he gave this heartfelt look - like just run for your life - because he didn't want to bring it on his conscience - he didn't want to go to his grave with that - and then we had a couple of seconds to put our heads together," said McPadden.

McPadden then describes the frantic attempts to escape as the building began to collapse.

In a taped interview with us after the event, McPadden made it clear that he and onlookers clearly heard "three, two, one" from the radio before the building collapsed. We will be releasing that tape over the next week. We also talked to other first responders who verified the story.

McPadden's account, when added to the testimony of other first responders, clearly suggests that officials knew the building was about to be brought down in a planned demolition, and that they made a conscious effort or were ordered to hide that fact from the first responders, though at the very end onlookers were given a brief warning which enabled them to escape safely.

The following video from CNN clearly shows firefighters and police telling the public to get back because Building 7 was about to come down and in the words of the cameraman was about to "blow up."

In June it was revealed that an individual who had a high level security clearance and was stationed in the Office of Emergency Management in World Trade Center 7 witnessed explosions and damage to the lobby of the building before either twin tower had collapsed.

The testimony of these individuals meshes with others in confirming that Building 7 was deliberately brought down on the day of 9/11, a fact that eviscerates official investigations into Building 7 as nothing more than part of an orchestrated cover-up.

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. This building's collapse alone resulted in a payout of nearly $500 million, based on the contention that it was an unforeseen accidental event.

A cursory insight into professional building demolition tells us that experts are required to spend weeks and months planning the demolition of any building, ensuring that the explosives are placed in exactly the right spots, that the collapse will not impact surrounding buildings, and that a myriad of sufficient safety procedures are followed.

To imagine that demolition experts could rig such a huge building amidst the chaos of the day, unsure of whether further attacks were coming, in a matter of hours and bring the building down neatly in its own footprint without afflicting major damage to adjacent buildings is beyond belief.

Even if one entertains the notion that this is within the realm of possibility, the fact is that the federal government, FEMA and NIST and Silverstein Properties are all knowingly lying in claiming that the building collapsed by accident as a result of burning debris from the twin towers.

Now it is established that they lied about Building 7, how can we trust their often changing explanations of the collapse of the twin towers, especially considering the dozens and dozens of eyewitnesses who have gone on the record to report the fact that explosives were seen and heard on all levels of both towers, including underground explosions before the planes even hit?

We are being asked to put our faith in either the federal government, who deliberately lied about 9/11 in the very days after the attack in telling emergency workers and firefighters that the toxic air was safe to breathe, or the emergency workers and other rescue heroes who risked their lives and are still suffering the consequences of their courage.

This testimony demands an immediate grand jury inquiry into both monolithic insurance fraud, potential manslaughter, and a complete re-appraisal and re-investigation into everything else that happened on 9/11 in an effort to discover what else the government lied about concerning the events of that day and its aftermath.

[Len Colby]

Jack you already posted that a few months ago and I replied here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=118451

As I've previously noted a truther tactic seems to be to ignore rebutals to their claims and to keep representing them hoping no one will notice.

In the videolinked from the BBC page Dave posted one of the Loose Change guys, Dylan Avery I think, is wearing a t-shirt with the word "truther" on it. So now I guess it's officially OK to call "truthers", "truthers". Lowlife Alex Jones uses the term as well.

[Josiah Thompson]

There are tapes of all the first responder radio nets in operation that day. Nothing remotely like this can be found on any of them

There is a social phenomenon that I ran into when I worked on the Oklahoma City bombing as McVeigh's defense investigator. Many "eye-witnesses" come forward after the event with reports that matched the most controversial of the theories that were out there in the media. It would take a lot of time and effort and money to run down these claims. I bet if anyone tried to run them down they would end up like so many I ran down ten years ago... the self-serving claims of people who somehow wanted to elbow in and get their place in the controversy. I don't know that this is the case with any of the reports that you mention. I do know that they resemble claims that wasted a lot of my time ten years ago.

I guess the good Professor is so busy with so many things in his retirement that he can't be counted on to reply to anything. Right?

9/11 First Responder Heard WTC 7 Demolition Countdown

Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue expert witnessed

officials attempt to conceal planned nature of demolition

Paul Joseph Watson

Prison Planet

Thursday, September 13, 2007

A 9/11 first responder has gone on the record to describe how he heard a demolition-style countdown precede the collapse of WTC 7, eyewitness testimony that dovetails with other EMT's and rescue personnel who were also told that Building 7 was going to be "brought down".

Earlier this year, we reported on the testimony of an anonymous EMT named Mike who told Loose Change producer Dylan Avery that hundreds of emergency rescue personnel were told over bullhorns that Building 7, a 47 story skyscraper adjacent the twin towers that was not hit by a plane yet imploded symmetrically later in the afternoon on 9/11, was about to be "pulled" and that a 20 second radio countdown preceded its collapse.

That account was backed up by another ground zero rescue worker who went on the record with her full name. Volunteer EMT Indira Singh described to a radio show how she learned that WTC 7 was going to be "brought down" and the context was clear that it was to be deliberately demolished.

In addition, former NYPD officer Craig Bartmer described hearing bombs tear down the building as he fled the collapse.

Now another ground zero first responder has shed more light on how he heard the countdown moments before attempting to escape the collapse of Building 7 as a stampede ensued.

Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue expert, Kevin McPadden traveled to ground zero completely of his own accord and spent the next four days searching through the rubble and nearby buildings for survivors.

In a speech given at this week's 9/11 truth events in New York City, McPadden describes the shocking details of what he witnessed shortly before WTC 7 imploded into its own footprint.

Watch the video.

"While we were on the right side, there was firefighters getting ready, they were bussing them back and forth, and a couple of vets that were there - they got the vibe that something was coming down," said McPadden.

"We started asking questions, everybody started asking questions, and the next thing you know there was a Red Cross representative pacing back and forth in front of the crowd holding his hand over the radio - I couldn't hear what it was saying but it was like pulsed - whatever the speech was on there it was pulsed - and that means to me most likely it was a countdown."

"But he took his hand off at the last three seconds and he gave this heartfelt look - like just run for your life - because he didn't want to bring it on his conscience - he didn't want to go to his grave with that - and then we had a couple of seconds to put our heads together," said McPadden.

McPadden then describes the frantic attempts to escape as the building began to collapse.

In a taped interview with us after the event, McPadden made it clear that he and onlookers clearly heard "three, two, one" from the radio before the building collapsed. We will be releasing that tape over the next week. We also talked to other first responders who verified the story.

McPadden's account, when added to the testimony of other first responders, clearly suggests that officials knew the building was about to be brought down in a planned demolition, and that they made a conscious effort or were ordered to hide that fact from the first responders, though at the very end onlookers were given a brief warning which enabled them to escape safely.

The following video from CNN clearly shows firefighters and police telling the public to get back because Building 7 was about to come down and in the words of the cameraman was about to "blow up."

In June it was revealed that an individual who had a high level security clearance and was stationed in the Office of Emergency Management in World Trade Center 7 witnessed explosions and damage to the lobby of the building before either twin tower had collapsed.

The testimony of these individuals meshes with others in confirming that Building 7 was deliberately brought down on the day of 9/11, a fact that eviscerates official investigations into Building 7 as nothing more than part of an orchestrated cover-up.

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. This building's collapse alone resulted in a payout of nearly $500 million, based on the contention that it was an unforeseen accidental event.

A cursory insight into professional building demolition tells us that experts are required to spend weeks and months planning the demolition of any building, ensuring that the explosives are placed in exactly the right spots, that the collapse will not impact surrounding buildings, and that a myriad of sufficient safety procedures are followed.

To imagine that demolition experts could rig such a huge building amidst the chaos of the day, unsure of whether further attacks were coming, in a matter of hours and bring the building down neatly in its own footprint without afflicting major damage to adjacent buildings is beyond belief.

Even if one entertains the notion that this is within the realm of possibility, the fact is that the federal government, FEMA and NIST and Silverstein Properties are all knowingly lying in claiming that the building collapsed by accident as a result of burning debris from the twin towers.

Now it is established that they lied about Building 7, how can we trust their often changing explanations of the collapse of the twin towers, especially considering the dozens and dozens of eyewitnesses who have gone on the record to report the fact that explosives were seen and heard on all levels of both towers, including underground explosions before the planes even hit?

We are being asked to put our faith in either the federal government, who deliberately lied about 9/11 in the very days after the attack in telling emergency workers and firefighters that the toxic air was safe to breathe, or the emergency workers and other rescue heroes who risked their lives and are still suffering the consequences of their courage.

This testimony demands an immediate grand jury inquiry into both monolithic insurance fraud, potential manslaughter, and a complete re-appraisal and re-investigation into everything else that happened on 9/11 in an effort to discover what else the government lied about concerning the events of that day and its aftermath.

[Evan Burton]

Jack,

Those examples were only a selection of the dozens of witness reports.

So you are calling them liars? You who was not there?

You also dismiss others descriptions? "Heavy fires" "Burning out of control" "7 WTC was ablaze"

I thought that might be your position - anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong.

[Len Colby]

There is a social phenomenon that I ran into when I worked on the Oklahoma City bombing as McVeigh's defense investigator. Many "eye-witnesses" come forward after the event with reports that matched the most controversial of the theories that were out there in the media.

That would fit with the handful of witnesses

As with Jennings and Rodriguez, McPadden’s story changed over time. Here’s what he said September 9, 2006

McPADDEN: "They said you know you've got to stay behind this line because they're thinking about taking this building down, they're not sure if it's stable or not, so they were holding a line off because they had knowledge that something was gonna happen. Well, they pushed us back a little bit....a couple of minutes later they started coming down....people started coming back out to the street, I watched five New York City buses jam packed with people wanting to do search and rescue head down there towards Building 7 - people walk out into the middle of the street to see these people off, like bon voyage and right then Building 7 came down."

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/febru...broughtdown.htm

There is no mention of a count down. I believe at that point he was telling the truth at least as well as he remembered it. Assuming he was there and AFAIK we have only his word that he was, we have only two witness from Ground Zero who say they were told the building was going to be brought down, him and Indira Singh. This is as oppose to dozens of witnesses who said they were told to evacuate because the building was in danger of collapse. The most obvious explaination is that they were simply mistaken.

Singh and Bartmer like McPadden in his earlier comments make no mention of hearing a count down. Why would they play their countdown over the radio if this was supposed to be secret? Why would they risk the operation to warn people after they had just murdered almost 3000?

Singh it should be pointed out seems unsure of what she heard:

SINGH: "After midday on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. If you had been there, not being able to see very much just flames everywhere and smoke - it is entirely possible - I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable because of the collateral damage. That I don't know I can't attest to the validity of that all I can attest to is that by noon or one o'clock they told us we need to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away

because B

uilding 7 was going to come down

or be brought down

."

HOST: "Did they actually use the word "brought down" and who was it that was telling you this?"

SINGH: "The fire department. And they did use the words 'we're gonna have to bring it down' and for us there observing the nature of the devastation it made total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility, given the subsequent controversy over it I don't know."

[ibid]

One part of her story that makes little sense is why if they were going to bring down the building by secret controlled demo at 5:20 did they say this publicly “by noon or one o'clock”?

Here's an image show heavy fire on the buildings east face. Note the smokw coming off the flame which contradicts Jack's claim smoke = weak fires:

There are several images showing heavy smoke pouring out of the south face, which the side most severely effected. An obvious posibility is that flame is being obscured by smoke.

Edited July 7, 2008 by Len Colby

[Jack White]

Not smoke.

Jack

Edited July 7, 2008 by Jack White

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

There is a social phenomenon that I ran into when I worked on the Oklahoma City bombing as McVeigh's defense investigator. Many "eye-witnesses" come forward after the event with reports that matched the most controversial of the theories that were out there in the media. It would take a lot of time and effort and money to run down these claims.

------

This seems a very broad dismissal.

Can it work the other way? For example why did the LAPD sit Sandra Serano down next to another witness to the Pocka Dot Dress girl? Later they insisted (too weak a verb) that she had

heard of it from that other witness. Yet the other witness had testified to seeing the Pocka dot dress girl beforehand.

The police, in this case by violating basic rules on how to handle eyewitnesses-- had set up their own dismissal-dismissal mechanism.

[Dave Greer]

Not smoke.

Jack

Not smoke?

If not smoke, then what? There are videos showing smoke streaming out of the windows on the south side (as well as other sides).

Here's another angle showing the south side of WTC7.

[Josiah Thompson]

Hi Dave Greer,

This is a new photo to me. It's watermarked "Magnum". Could you give me the url where you obtained it? Thanks.

Josiah Thompson

Not smoke.

Jack

Not smoke?

If not smoke, then what? There are videos showing smoke streaming out of the windows on the south side (as well as other sides).

Here's another angle showing the south side of WTC7.

[Dave Greer]

Hi Dave Greer,

This is a new photo to me. It's watermarked "Magnum". Could you give me the url where you obtained it? Thanks.

Josiah Thompson

Hi Josiah

To get the URL for an image, just right click on it, then left click Properties.

I first saw the image on Judy Wood's site.

http://drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/WTC7.html

The original is hosted at www.magnumphotos.com

[Len Colby]

For anyone who understands Italian [and even for those who do not] an interesting site on WTC7 [and towers] here: http://www.attivissimo.net/11settembre/wtc...demolizione.htm

with lots of photos. [Like we shouted in the '60s, the whole world is watching!]

NB It also includes the photo Josiah asked about.

...and one fact new to me about elevators in WTC7: "from inside the building at the 8th or 9th Floor elevator lobby, where two elevator cars were ejected from their shafts and landed in the hallway north of the elevator shaft"

• I’m surprised that someone who claims to have researched 9/11 has read NIST’s interim report on WTC 7.
  
• A common truther tactic is very selectively editing quotes. Here’s he complete passage from the webpage he cited
  

After WTC1 collapsed:

• Heavy debris (exterior panels from WTC 1) was seen on Vesey Street and the WTC 7 promenade structure at the third floor level

• Southwest corner damage extended over Floors 8 to 18

• Damage was observed on the south face that starts at the roof level and severed the spandrels between exterior columns near the southwest corner for at least 5 to 10 floors. However, the extent and details of this damage have not yet been discerned, as smoke is present.

• Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. While the accounts are mostly consistent, there are some conflicting descriptions:

o middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to the ground

o large debris hole near center of the south face around Floor 14

o debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium (extended from the ground to 5th floor), noted that the atrium glass was still intact

o

from inside the building at the 8th or 9th Floor elevator lobby, where two elevator cars were ejected from their shafts and landed in the hallway north of the elevator shaft

,

the visible portion of the south wall was gone with more light visible from the west side possibly indicating damage extending to the west

As per Jack’s claim that what was in the photo I posted was dust rather than smoke there are 2 videos which clearly show this to be untrue. Another thing which makes such a claim doubtful is that the smoke/dust can seen to be rising up from the WTC 7 roofline, exactly what we'd expect from smoke from that building and the exact opposite of what we'd expect from duct comming from across the street.

http://911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi (5MB)

http://911myths.com/wtc7moresmoke.avi (700KB)

He has now indicated at least twice there are images showing the south face of the building with little or no damage and intact windows after WTC 1 collapsed. I’m calling his bluff I want to see them. Here are a few showing damage to that side of the building as well as heavy smoke emanating from it.

Edited July 7, 2008 by Len Colby

[Christopher Hall]

For anyone who understands Italian [and even for those who do not] an interesting site on WTC7 [and towers] here: http://www.attivissimo.net/11settembre/wtc...demolizione.htm

with lots of photos. [Like we shouted in the '60s, the whole world is watching!]

NB It also includes the photo Josiah asked about.

...and one fact new to me about elevators in WTC7: "from inside the building at the 8th or 9th Floor elevator lobby, where two elevator cars were ejected from their shafts and landed in the hallway north of the elevator shaft"

• I’m surprised that someone who claims to have researched 9/11 has read NIST’s interim report on WTC 7.
  
• A common truther tactic is very selectively editing quotes. Here’s he complete passage from the webpage he cited
  

After WTC1 collapsed:

• Heavy debris (exterior panels from WTC 1) was seen on Vesey Street and the WTC 7 promenade structure at the third floor level

• Southwest corner damage extended over Floors 8 to 18

• Damage was observed on the south face that starts at the roof level and severed the spandrels between exterior columns near the southwest corner for at least 5 to 10 floors. However, the extent and details of this damage have not yet been discerned, as smoke is present.

• Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. While the accounts are mostly consistent, there are some conflicting descriptions:

o middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to the ground

o large debris hole near center of the south face around Floor 14

o debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium (extended from the ground to 5th floor), noted that the atrium glass was still intact

o

from inside the building at the 8th or 9th Floor elevator lobby, where two elevator cars were ejected from their shafts and landed in the hallway north of the elevator shaft

,

the visible portion of the south wall was gone with more light visible from the west side possibly indicating damage extending to the west

As per Jack’s claim that what was in the photo I posted was dust rather than smoke there are 2 videos which clearly show this to be untrue. Another thing which makes such a claim doubtful is that the smoke/dust can seen to be rising up from the WTC 7 roofline, exactly what we'd expect from smoke from that building and the exact opposite of what we'd expect from duct comming from across the street.

http://911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi (5MB)

http://911myths.com/wtc7moresmoke.avi (700KB)

He has now indicated at least twice there are images showing the south face of the building with little or no damage and intact windows after WTC 1 collapsed. I’m calling his bluff I want to see them. Here are a few showing damage to that side of the building as well as heavy smoke emanating from it.

Thanks, Len.

That bottom pic is quite revealing.

[Ron Ecker]

What are the white oblong objects seen in so many of the windows?