See other 9/11 Articles
Title: NYPD Officer Heard Building 7 Bombs: "The whole time you're hearing boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. I think I know an explosion when I hear it"
Source:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/100207hear
URL Source: http://www.prisonplanet.com/article ... ruary2007/100207heardbombs.htm
Published: Feb 10, 2007
Author: Paul Joseph Watson
Post Date: 2007-02-10 19:54:01 by Kamala
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: 911
Views: 205
Comments: 20
NYPD Officer Heard Building 7 Bombs "The whole time you're hearing boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. I think I know an explosion when I hear it" Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet Saturday, February 10, 2007 Following our reports this week about three different ground zero rescue workers who all testified that they were told Building 7 was to be brought down, yet more revealing testimony has come to light - this time from a former NYPD officer and first responder, who states that he clearly heard bombs tear down Building 7 as he ran away from its collapse. NYPD officer Craig Bartmer awoke on 9/11 to images of the World Trade Center burning. Knowing colleagues who worked inside the towers, he immediately headed for ground zero to help with the rescue efforts. He is now suffering from respiratory illnesses as a result of the toxic dust inhaled at the site. Bartmer was in the immediate vicinity of Building 7 before its collapse at approximately 5:20pm. It is worthwhile to watch the entire 27 minute video interview below (conducted by Dylan Avery of Loose Change) but in the context of this article, Bartmer's comments on the subject of Building 7 alone are transcribed after the jump. BARTMER: "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. I didn't see any reason for that building to fall down the way it did -- and a lot of guys should be saying the same thing. I don't know what the fear is coming out and talking about it? I don't know -- but it's the truth." [...] BARTMER: "I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'... It was at that moment... I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself... Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit's hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they're saying... Nothing to account for what we saw... I am shocked at the story we've heard about it to be quite honest." Later in the film, Bartmer highlights the possibility that the attack was run from Building 7, as former German technology minister Andreas von Buelow has also postulated, and that it was then demolished to destroy the evidence. BARTMER: "If the means and the motive are they where would they pull it off from? The Office of Emergency Management was in Building 7. That was a hardened bunker built to withstand just about anything that New York would face. That building had a lot of important shit in it and there was enough stuff in that building to bury evidence on other fronts - financial records, government records. There's no way that that just fell down on its own, I don't believe it." Click here for an MP3 audio clip of Bartmer's statements. Elsewhere in the interview Bartmer states his incredulity at how fast the Building 7 site was cleaned up compared to the rest of ground zero. He dismisses the 9/11 commission report as a farce and demands a new real investigation. The criminals who perpetrated and covered up 9/11 have a growing problem on their hands in that the very heroes who led the rescue efforts are now dying as a result of the government's lie in telling them ground zero air was safe to breathe in the days after the attack. The fact that the authorities were deceptive in the very hours and days after the event itself has led many who were there to question every other facet of the official story. It is important to stress that everywhere we turn there are statements from firemen, NYPD officials, EMT's and others who were involved in the rescue efforts attesting to the fact that Building 7 was brought down deliberately and that bombs were heard in all three buildings. During the five year anniversary protests at ground zero, a plethora of firemen and police echoed similar sentiments but few are prepared to go on the record. However, the fact that they and many of their friends are now dying in large numbers as a result of government deception is encouraging more to come forward. RELATED MATERIAL More Ground Zero Heroes On The Record: Building 7 Was Deliberately Brought Down Ground Zero EMT: We Were Told Building 7 Was to Be "Pulled" Silverstein Answers WTC Building 7 Charges New WTC Complex Photos Highlight Bizarre Building 7 Collapse Extended version of interview w/ Controlled Demo Expert Danny Jowenko confirming that Building 7 was brought down on purpose NIST To Probe Whether WTC 7 Downed By Bombs Close-Up of WTC-7 Collapse Footage Shows Unmistakable Demolition Charges Silverstein, FDNY Decided to 'Pull WTC 7': An In-Depth Analysis
The Internet leader in activist media - Prison Planet.tv. Thousands of special reports, videos, MP3's, interviews, conferences, speeches, events, documentary films, books and more - all for just 15 cents a day! Click here to subscribe!
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Kamala (#0)
BAC will question his expertise to say such.
Yeah, and I'm sure he'll dispute the other 400 eyewitness accounts of explosions. I've read all the tired arguments. I'm sure he'll pull the one account of a giant hole/scoop in the south face of WTC 7, even though there are numerous conflicting accounts. The best account that disputes the massive south face damage is, of employees being escorted/rescued right though the lobby of WTC 7 and reporting light damage outside and a light dust coating in the building.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
*************** http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm "I E-mailed Mr. Spak to see if he had any photos of the huge hole in the south side of building 7. He sent me back what I conclude is the best photo of the south side damage yet. Even this photo doesn't show the entire hole. Mr. Spak said he just happen to take the shot when the smoke cleared enough to see a portion of it. The WTC mezzanine covers the bottom half of the hole so we can't know how wide the hole is on the bottom floors. The skin of the building seems to be detached from the floors as if the north tower debris took some building 7 floors with it on the way down." A statement from Steve Spak: "This photo was taken a couple of hours before number 7 WTC collapsed. Two water mains that supplied lower Manhattan were damaged leaving little or no water pressure in the area. Hours before the collapse of 7 WTC, Fire Chiefs at the scene advised all units to stay away from 7 WTC because of the collapse dangers. They had no water to fight the blaze and the building was damaged from the collapse of the North Tower. You can see a big hole on the lower floors in this photo. I believe that the Chiefs made the right decision in letting 7 WTC burn. Steve Spa If you count the columns which are visible, you can see this is NOT the corner damage in the FEMA photo below. The above South West damage is taken into account in the graphics below. Below is a graphics from the initial World Trade Center 7 report. This might change when the final report becomes available. Note the word "Approximate" when talking about the large hole. I suspect the only evidence they had at the time were the firemen's interviews which seem to be very close to the photo above. Note the amount of columns on the south face. There are 14 columns on the south face. Also note the columns on the ends are spaced out farther apart. Spak's image shows 5. We can assume the clearing at the end where daylight is visible is the end of the building. We can then fill in the columns to get a better idea where this hole is... Green are visible columns, yellow are assumed. We can conclude this isn't the south west corner damage which only had a column or two taken out. The mezzanine under building 6 covers at least from the 6th floor down. How do we know? Because we can't see the louvers in Spak's image. No one can say the damage we see is the total damage. I suspect the hole became much larger at ground level given the collection of debris we see in the photo below. Note the large pile of debris and what looks like perimeter columns sticking out of it. Another problem with the conspiracy story is the fireman's quotes. Why would they lie? Why would they say their was a hole which never existed. Why would Steve Spak lie? 360 of his brothers perished that day. But the main point of the Spak image is to show the building was FAR more damaged than conspiracy theorist let on. It was never a few small fires as the deceptive north face photos show. In that sense these photos are conclusive. Below is another image which seems to show damage inline with the hole in Spak's image. ************************* And as to why there aren't more photos of this hole the firemen describes, smoke is the answer. How were they to get a photo of the center of the building's south side, sans smoke, when the wind was blowing in the direction it was that day? Every single image of the building seems to show the south side was covered with smoke: ************ ************** http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html Deputy Chief Peter Hayden Division 1 - 33 years Hayden:...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. Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away? Hayden: No, not right away, and that's probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn't make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety. Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7 - did you have to get all of those people out? Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn't want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn't even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn't know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o'clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. ************
First off, asymmetrical damage and asymmetrical fire cannot result in symmetrical collapse in 6.6 seconds. Was there south face surface damage to WTC 7? Yes. Was there by 5:00pm, a smokey diesel fire on the south face side? Yes. WTC 7 was completely evacuated around noon. At that time there were a couple very small fires. The fires slowly spread over the next 5 hours or so. The other 3 sides had no damage or little or no fire or smoke. There was no raging fire, and even if there was, no structual steel highrise has ever collapsed completely because of fire or and damage. Why don't you ccp and include the conflicting accounts? There is a account of multiple employees of WTC 7 hearing explosions, and then the same employees were escorted and rescued right through the lobby of WTC 7. There were no reports of a giant scoop. There was some light damage to the face and promanade and a light coating of dust in the lobby area of 7. If there was all this lower damage and scoop, the lobby area exit would have been destroyed and blocked. Fire cannot, even without fireproofing, result in a complete symmetrical collapse of a structual steel building. Fire attacks steel very slowly and steel wicks heat away. Never in history has this happened, except for that one day. Scientific method states that for a phenomenon to exist, it must be tested and reproduced scientifically. If the event and hypothesis cannot be reproduced scientifically, then the theory and phenomenon does not exist. Come on man, you have got to do better.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
The FEMA Performance Study Group was the first formal investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings. From the FEMA Report, Chapter 5: "According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WTC 1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the southwest corner."(emphasis added) Years later, after independent investigators were focusing on the WTC 7 collapse, the NIST released the photo below as photographic proof there was significant structural damage to WTC 7. Since there was only one photo released, I thought that was odd. Please note that the damage to the southwest corner in the NIST released photo above is not consistent with the damage in the photo below. Note the two floors with smoke damage on the southwest corner, floors 29 and 30, in the photo above. Count down 15 floors below foor 29. That corner is missing in the NIST photo submitted as the proof there was significant structural damage to WTC 7 as a result of the collapse of the North Tower.
(Thanks to Critter for posting the above images)
My, you are an obsessed kook. Do you believe that the moon landing was faked or that Ron Brown was murdered just before the plane crashed? How about the CIA having Walt Disney's frozen head?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Replies #5 and #6 posted for your consideration.
You still posting hot linked images and thread killing copied and pasted half mile long posts? You posted this same BS at LP and we trashed your claims there. Get lost twerp.
Oh man, now we have to deal with BeALoser here? wtf? lmao
I didn't realize you were a structural engineer, Mark. So now I'm curious ... why don't any other structural engineers or demolitions experts (besides perhaps one or two and I'd be happy to discuss what they actually say) agree with you? One would think something as obvious as what you claim would prompt hundreds of such people to publically express their concerns. But it hasn't. Why is that?
See? I told you that FEMA got a lot wrong. If you recall, I agreed over at LP that the SW corner picture is probably misinterpreted because of dense smoke between the observer and the structure that makes it look like the damage is worse than it is. But the image by Spak of the damage near the center of the South face is not misinterpreted. Smoke is not creating the perception of this hole:
BAC is a dedicated disinformationist. A waste of bandwidth. See - http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=45636
For the same reason you are still posting about something that occurred over 5 years ago, it is profitable. When people's livelihoods are at stake they tend to go along with the status quo.
God is always good! What hole are you talking about? There is not even an optical illusion hole in that picture much less a real one. I see only some damage, no hole.
God is always good! The above statement exposes the core reason many people on this forum consider you dishonest. You posted a picture that you knew was deceptive without explanation in order to deceive people into thinking the damage to the SW corner was more significant than it actually was. The NIST included that picture in their report for the same reason you posted it on this thread- intentional deception.
That's your interpretation. It appears to me this image was intentionally manipulated in order to support the NIST claim that WTC 7 experienced significant structural damage to the southwest corner during the collapse of the Towers. Another intentional NIST false statement. If this photo had been available to the FEMA Study Group,it would have been referenced and included in their report.
As anyone reading this thread can tell, the issue being discussed was the size of the hole on the SOUTH FACE of the structure. I posted the article http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm because it pertained to that issue. I can't help that it contains a picture suggesting a huge hole in the corner of the structure. I posted the picture because it was included in the source article. The issue is whether the image of the hole near the center of the south face is real. You have any comment on that, honway? And again, just so our readers know, and as you should recall, over at LP when this issue was discussed I agreed right away that the damage in the corner of the building was probably not as great as the image might at first glance suggest. I clearly stated that I thought smoke was creating an illusion of more damage than there was. Here is that discussion: http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=158966&Disp=All&#C142 See post #81, folks. You'll find me saying exactly what I just said. So back to the issue. Smoke isn't creating an illusion of damage in this: If anything, smoke and the building in the foreground are hiding the full extent of the hole. Wouldn't you agree, honway?
You are entitled to your opinion, honway. Perhaps you should take it to some real photo analysts for their opinion. Who knows, you might blow this conspiracy wide open. Finally.
More information is needed. What is needed is the original source of the image and additional images to support the claim. Why is it the NIST is not considering the image and instead resting their unsupported claims on a picture that is "probably misinterpreted because of dense smoke between the observer and the structure that makes it look like the damage is worse than it is."?
#2. To: SKYDRIFTER (#1)
#3. To: Kamala, ALL (#0)
BARTMER: "I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though.
stevespak.com 
looking at the west face from the south 
looking at the west face from the south 
looking at the east face from the north 
looking at the north face 
looking at the north face 
looking at the north face from the north west BARTMER: "Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down."
#4. To: BeAChooser (#3)
#5. To: BeAChooser, Kamala (#3)
#6. To: BeAChooser, Kamala, Critter (#3)
#7. To: BeAChooser (#3)
#8. To: All, *9-11* (#6)
#9. To: BeAChooser (#3)
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#10. To: honway BeAChooser (#8)
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#11. To: Kamala, ALL (#4)
First off, asymmetrical damage and asymmetrical fire cannot result in symmetrical collapse in 6.6 seconds.
#12. To: honway, ALL (#5)
From the FEMA Report, Chapter 5: "According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WTC 1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the southwest corner."(emphasis added)
#13. To: Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#10)
Oh man, now we have to deal with BeALoser here? wtf? lmao
#14. To: BeAChooser (#11)
(Edited)
One would think something as obvious as what you claim would prompt hundreds of such people to publically express their concerns. But it hasn't. Why is that?
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#15. To: BeAChooser (#12)
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#16. To: BeAChooser (#12)
BAC: If you recall, I agreed over at LP that the SW corner picture is probably misinterpreted because of dense smoke between the observer and the structure that makes it look like the damage is worse than it is.
#17. To: BeAChooser (#12)
I told you that FEMA got a lot wrong. If you recall, I agreed over at LP that the SW corner picture is probably misinterpreted because of dense smoke between the observer and the structure that makes it look like the damage is worse than it is.
When you say "dense smoke between the observer and the structure" are you referring to the gray colored area or the black colored area in the image?
#18. To: honway, ALL (#16)
BAC: If you recall, I agreed over at LP that the SW corner picture is probably misinterpreted because of dense smoke between the observer and the structure that makes it look like the damage is worse than it is.
The above statement exposes the core reason many people on this forum consider you dishonest.
You posted a picture that you knew was deceptive without explanation in order to deceive people into thinking the damage to the SW corner was more significant than it actually was. The NIST included that picture in their report for the same reason you posted it on this thread- intentional deception.
#19. To: honway, ALL (#17)
It appears to me this image was intentionally manipulated in order to support the NIST claim that WTC 7 experienced significant structural damage to the southwest corner during the collapse of the Towers. Another intentional NIST false statement.
#20. To: BeAChooser (#18)
. The issue is whether the image of the hole near the center of the south face is real. You have any comment on that, honway?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest