Please check in: How many actually visited the WTC area before 9/11?

[HamdenRice]

I ask this because a lot of the debate here, by both those in the Truth Movement and those who are official conspiracy theory apologists, base a lot of their points on the physical layout of the area, mostly based on maps and photos -- for example the debate about whether the towers collapsed into their own footprint.

But it is very different to see the WTC on a map or photo and to have been familiar with the site. For example, the twin towers were partly based on the architectural principles of Le Corbusier -- the tower in the park -- which really means a tower (or in this case two) isolated in a vast, barren urban plaza. That's what the towers actually felt like for most of their existence, until the late 90s, when the space began to be used for concerts and other urban gatherings.

Some of the discussion of the collapse of WTC 7 seems to be informed (or misinformed) about the layout of the area, because given the scale of the center, as one experienced it, WTC 7 really was quite far away and separated by another building. Most New Yorkers would not even have considered it part of the center.

So please check in and say whether you actually ever saw the site first hand.

[KJF]

1. Checking in

My first trip to New York was a couple of months after 9/11. I never saw the towers "live". I wish I had, it would have made everything so much easier.

[reprehensor]

2. Been there.

Went up to an observation deck in one of the towers (North Tower, I think) in 1991. Walked around the area.

It was big.

[pauldp]

3. Used to live in NYC. Drove by it all the time.

It was a HUGE plaza.

[JHB]

4. Almost daily, from about '95

Take amost any piece of film shot that day, and I can give you a walking tour of the cameraman's footsteps.

[petgoat]

6. Can anybody comment on this picture?

What time of day? Where was it taken from?

[JHB]

8. That looks like it was from Church Street...

...i.e., the "east" side of the WTC. If I'm not mistaken, the building directly behind the police cart is WTC6, to its right is WTC5, with WTC7 rising behind it. Obviously it's after the collapse of the South Tower, but it's possible the North one hasn't fallen yet. It looks like it's still morning, based on a quick guess from the shadows.

[Ferry Fey]

30. Around noonish?

Petgoat, I'd say the shadows are within an hour of noon either way, depending on the direction we're seeing this image from. The shadows are very short. Then you'd have to factor in still being in daylight savings time at that time of year, so you'd have "sprung forward" an hour. So within an hour before or after 1PM, if I haven't gotten it turned inside out?

Good question, Hamden. I was there I guess in the early 1980s, don't remember which tower it was. It was a weekend when I was helping at a booth at a trade fair held in one of the lobbies, I don't remember whether One or Two. We drove in straight into the parking underneath, and had our meals below from the food court, so we really didn't get to see much of the plaza area.
My overwhelming feeling had been that the tower was just too big, way out or proportion on a human level.

[JHB]

9. Informed (and Misinformed) Discussion

Some of the discussion of the collapse of WTC 7 seems to be informed (or misinformed) about the layout of the area, because given the scale of the center, as one experienced it, WTC 7 really was quite far away and separated by another building. Most New Yorkers would not even have considered it part of the center.

It's a matter of perspective: on a human scale, the plaza was big (many argued too big), but it was small compared to the size of the towers themselves. Some of the most ignorant claims I've run across were the ones that claimed that WTC6 would have blocked debris from the towers from hitting WTC7 -- apparently based only on looking at a map and seeing it between them (and taking no account of the relative size).

Check out
http://www.netfeed.com/~jhill/wtc-newyork.htm
and scroll down to the 2nd photo: it's taken from the North Tower, looking down on WTC5, 6, and 7, and the Church Street Post Office. 7 doesn't look nearly so "far away" from that perspective, does it?

[petgoat]

19. It's still a long way.

375 feet may be short incomparison to 1000 feet, but it's still a long way for
the heavy steel to fly.

The photo of Vesey Street between WTC5 and the Post Office doesn't show any
heavy debris. Heavy debris did fly 440 feet, over West Street, and hit the
WFC, but it provided no danger of collapse.

I don't see any proof of heavy debris in the street between WTC7 and the Verizon
building. That picture shows one heavy spear at the SW corner of WTC7 but it
is not easily identifiable as a piece of WTC1--given the devastation of WTC6
across the street the proposition that it's a piece of WTC6 seems just as
resonable if not more so.

The Verizon Building was closer to WTC1 than WTC7 was, and its damage was
isolated, limited, and caused no collapse.

[JHB]

21. Which photo are you referring to?

Just for clarity.

[petgoat]

27. I was afraid you were going to ask that.

Since 911research will no longer let me hotlink their stuff,
uploading photos has become a real pain. :)

The photo of Vesey Street between WTC5 and the Post Office
doesn't show any heavy debris.



Note the WTC1 perimeter column tree in the left-middle of the picture,
the three vertical columns with their heavy lateral spandrel plates.


I don't see any proof of heavy debris in the street between WTC7 and the Verizon
building. That picture shows one heavy spear at the SW corner of WTC7 but it
is not easily identifiable as a piece of WTC1--given the devastation of WTC6
across the street the proposition that it's a piece of WTC6 seems just as
resonable if not more so.

WTC7 to the left, Verizon to the right.

[JHB]

35. I'm still not sure we're talking about the same things...

...because where you say there's "no major debris", it seems to me there's piles of twisted metal.
I had to go back to the website to find the photo, because here it showed only a few pixels tall. I think I found the larger version, but I'm not sure it was the one you were talking about.

[mirandapriestly]

26. It makes no sense for heavy debris to fly outward

It would fall straight down unless there was a force causing it to move outward. also... why were the only buildings to collapse World Trade Center buildings?

[vincent_vega_lives]

49. There was a great deal of force

Mass*Velocity=Force

Cutting charges have very little explosive energy outside of the few square feet they are effecting if that is what you are insinuating.

[mirandapriestly]

Yeah,

I took physics 101 in college, I 'm not impressed by your formula which has nothing to do with objects being thrust outward.

[vincent_vega_lives]

56. Thrust outward?

Sort of like "mass displacement"? I suppose kinetic energy has nothing to do with the energetic displacement of matter.

[DrDebug]

5. Just two times. Sadly never been inside

I don't like to wait in long queues and not too fond of heights either... It was an enormous plaza with endless towers.

[sabbat hunter]

7. i was there at least twice a month

for several years. there was a LARP that i was in that used the winter garden as space for our game. in order to get there, i would have to travel thru the WTC (because of where the subway station was/is)

most people just considered the twin towers the WTC, and didnt give much thought to the surrounding buildings as being part of a bigger complex. some who worked there may have thought otherwise, but i am just going by average joe/jane.

[mirandapriestly]

14. What's a Larp? nt

[sabbat hunter]

15. LARP

LARP stands for Live Action Role Playing.



sort of a combination of improv theater and a role playing game. but instead of sitting around a table rolling dice to see what happens, you act it out

[mirandapriestly]

20. Is that where people call others to show up at a certain place

or somehow spread the word then everyone does something preplanned while they are there? I always thought that sounded so cool.

[HamdenRice]

23. Isn't that a "flashmob" ? nt

[mirandapriestly]

25. Oh, maybe.

I guess I'm not very "current". :blush:

[warrior1]

10. I visited once

[DoYouEverWonder]

11. When I was in college during the 1970's

my SO at the time had a route delivering Japanese newspapers. We use to get to ride in the WTC freight elevators because one his clients was on the 92nd floor of one of the towers. Even in the 70's you had to have clearance to go above the 90th floor. Not sure why? I know those floors were still under construction at the time.

Whenever we went up the Japanese fellow who was working on that floor would come to the elevator to get his newspaper. We were never allowed off the elevator but we could see the big empty open space that was the floor he worked on. None of that section had been walled in yet, so it was just a big open space.

It was a bit of a thrill to get to ride the freight elevator. We would just drive the whole damn van in and go all the way up. The WTC was a nice stop because we didn't have to park illegally to do the delivery.

[mirandapriestly]

17. Weird. I did a search for "92nd floor" wtc

and I came up with this site about an artist who had a studio space on the 92nd floor and he spent the night of September 10th there and died . The art piece is based on the Tuskeegee Airmen and it is a sculpture of a man who's body is being pierced by airplanes, it looks like the St Sebastian painting by Mantega (I think that is what it is based on). There was a program to put artists in studios in empty space in the wtc which had started the previous December. I'm not sure north or south.
http://www.newmuseum.org/more_exh_wtc_artists.php

[DoYouEverWonder]

18. You mean he created that sculpture before 9-11?

Wow?

The weird part for me is that the night after the attack, my young son woke up in the middle of the night having a bad dream. He said airplanes were attacking his body.

[mirandapriestly]

22. It sounds like it was destroyed 9-11

and he was killed too. The sculpture was based on the Tuskegee Airmen story, which is the story of black Airmen during WWII who experienced severe racism despite their service to their country. The St Sebastian reference is to a saint who was a soldier ordered tied to the stake while assassins threw knives at him, hence the stabbing. His crime was he had turned out to be a Christian and was nice to Christian prisoners. He survived the stabbing and went back to preach Christianity and then was ordered clubbed to death.
("Bent Propeller," a 25-foot-tall red steel abstract sculpture by the more well known Alexander Calder was also destroyed 9-11). It would be interesting to know how many valuable paintings were "saved" from the wtc (ie: the owner knew they were going to be destroyed and got them out OR insurance collections on valuable art work.)
That is weird about your child's dream, too...

[Ferry Fey]

63. "an airman riding a falling, burning meteor"

The article Miranda links also mentioned that the man who did the Tuskeegee Airmen sculpture "was completing a sculpture of an airman riding a falling, burning meteor."

So very poignant. Sounds like the dead were calling to him.

I don't know if we know where the studio space was located, but it doesn't look like too many artists described in the article would need the traditional north light that realist painters prize for their working spaces.

[seatnineb]

28. Interesting stuff DYEW!.......does this look familiar to you?

It is screen capture i took from the 1976 movie of King Kong where Jeff Bridges goes to the one of the highest floors of the South Tower......which at this point(1975/76) was empty of offices ect......

[DoYouEverWonder]

33. Yes, very similiar

Just concrete and open ceilings.

[petgoat]

29. Hmmm I wonder if a van with a sunroof would allow somebody

to climb out onto the roof and up through a hypothesized hatch
in the ceiling of the freight elevator car and so achieve
access to the roof of the elevator car--perhaps even if there
were security cameras in the elevator.

[DoYouEverWonder]

32. Heck, you don't need a sunroof

Just open the door, there was enough room to fit a van with space to walk around inside of the elevator.

[Jazz2006]

41. Vastly different in the 1970s, though, than after 1993

After the bombing in 1993, many millions of dollars were spent on all manner of state of the art security. Proximity cards were introduced for tenants, visitor access was restricted in numerous ways, public access to the underground parking garages was no longer allowed and very interesting (and at the time, unique) tracking on tenant vehicles was put in place such that if a tenant vehicle failed to go directly to its allocated spot, security alarms would be triggered.

No longer would random vans be able to wander in and access the freight elevator (which was huge, as you described ~ but as far as I can tell, there was no "hatch" in the roof of the freight elevator as petgoat hypothesized), hundreds upon hundreds of hidden cameras were installed all over the buildings, elevator security was increased by orders of magnitude, and tenants could not access passenger elevators beyond their own designated floors after hours, even if they could have figured out how to stop numerous elevators undetected (which they'd have to do in order to go "elevator surfing" for purposes of planting explosives).

Moreover, at least half of the roughly 100 elevators in each tower were equipped with electronic locking mechanisms that prevented them from being opened in between floors (sadly, that probably contributed to the deaths of many on Sept. 11/01 because the passengers who found themselves in elevators when the shit hit the fan could not open them if they were more than a few inches from a landing in order to try to find a way out. (I can't remember the exact numbers off the top of my head, but for some reason I think that they varied between 4 and 18 inches).

There were some passenger elevators that could be forced open from the inside if you happened to have a dozen strong men inside and the requisite knowledge to figure out what to do once you forced one open, but the stoppage would certainly be recorded and, most likely, noticed by security personnel. In addition, the landing side of the elevators most certainly did not allow enough space for anyone to clamber up on top of the elevators, as has also been hypothesized by petgoat on a previous thread.

The pretense that it would be, oh, so easy for a crew to plant explosives over the course of days or weeks by "tenants" on numerous floors via the elevator shafts is preposterous. (Again, not saying that your post is preposterous, as it was not, but it happens to raise preposterous positions set forth by others here).

[dailykoff]

42. How do you think the mechanics installed those locks?

Or did any other kind of maintenance? There are plenty ways of getting into the shafts besides through the access panels, which every car has whether you can see it or not.

[DoYouEverWonder]

44. No, you could not just drive a random van into a WTC freight elevator

even in the 70's. There was security that you had to pass through and you had to be on their list of approved delivery people to get on. They knew exactly which floor you were going to and which company the delivery was for. Since we never even had to get out of the van to go up, I'm not sure if you could even change or override the destination floor that the operator had already selected for you.

In regards to whether or not the elevators had a 'hatch' I can not confirm that since it wasn't even something I had thought about at the time. However, growing up in NYC and having gotten 'stuck' more then a few times in an elevator, I've never seen one that didn't. First they are required so that repair people can get to the mechanical parts of the elevator and for safety. However, the hatch doesn't do anyone much good who gets stuck inside because they are usually to high for people inside to reach. The idea is that if the elevator is stuck, someone will come from the outside to open the hatch and help people out and only if they can't move the elevator or force the doors open. The problem with just relying on forcing doors open is that if the elevator is between floors you end up in front of a solid wall, so opening the door doesn't do you any good in that situation.

In regards to the increased security after 1993, that system wouldn't do much good if you already had security clearance, for example if you already worked in the building. Also, since Bush's brother Marvin had been a director (prior to 9-11) of Securacom, the firm that on 9/11 was in charge of security not only at the World Trade Center but also for United and American airlines as well as at Dulles airport, if 9-11 was an inside job, the security wouldn't have been much of an issue. Bush’s cousin, Wirt Walker III, worked there, too, so it seems Marvin had the opportunity to put his own people on the inside and even though he made a graceful exit before the attack, the people he placed inside the company probably stuck around. Beside most security systems are more illusion then substance and has we have seen in the London attack, half the time the cameras don't even work.

[KJF]

46. Elevator

I'm a bit surprised by what you're saying and have a few questions.

Which elevator did you drive a van into? Car 50?

How big was it?

Was it the one whose doors are supposed to have blown out in the lobby when the first plane hit?

[DoYouEverWonder]

48. Each tower had about 5 (?) freight elevators

One of these freight elevators was an express that went all the way to the top. That was the elevator we used. We were driving a regular Dodge Van but you could probably fit a fairly large step van in it. You could not fit a tractor trailer type truck, like you can in some of the elevator at Rockefeller Center for example.

To tell you the truth, even then I didn't know which tower we were in, so I'm not sure if it was the elevator you are referring to.

[Jazz2006]

54. Yes, there were

about 5 freight elevators in each tower, but only one express.

But again, the way things worked in the 1970s was ENTIRELY different than the way things worked post 1993. Night and day different. Earth and Mars different. Black and white different.


Not for a second doubting your 70s story, DYEW, just saying that it is so far removed from the reality that existed after the 1993 bombing that it's pretty much meaningless for purposes of discussion about security and access to the buildings in 2001.

[Jazz2006]

51. Even people who worked there pre-1993 were subject to

the new rules and the new security regime that came into effect after that, DYEW.

There was no grandfathering. The entire system changed and nobody was exempt from it.

[Jazz2006]

52. As for "hatches", um, no.

First they are required so that repair people can get to the mechanical parts of the elevator and for safety. However, the hatch doesn't do anyone much good who gets stuck inside because they are usually to high for people inside to reach. The idea is that if the elevator is stuck, someone will come from the outside to open the hatch and help people out and only if they can't move the elevator or force the doors open. The problem with just relying on forcing doors open is that if the elevator is between floors you end up in front of a solid wall, so opening the door doesn't do you any good in that situation.

That's just not correct. I don't know where you got the idea, but it's simply not true. There is no requirement that there be hatches in the ceilings of elevators, and the vast majority of elevators installed in the last couple of decades have no such thing. There are, of course, ways in which emergency response teams can rescue people trapped in elevators, but it rarely involves "hatches" in the roofs of elevators.


In regards to the increased security after 1993, that system wouldn't do much good if you already had security clearance, for example if you already worked in the building. Also, since Bush's brother Marvin had been a director (prior to 9-11) of Securacom, the firm that on 9/11 was in charge of security not only at the World Trade Center but also for United and American airlines as well as at Dulles airport, if 9-11 was an inside job, the security wouldn't have been much of an issue. Bush’s cousin, Wirt Walker III, worked there, too, so it seems Marvin had the opportunity to put his own people on the inside and even though he made a graceful exit before the attack, the people he placed inside the company probably stuck around. Beside most security systems are more illusion then substance and has we have seen in the London attack, half the time the cameras don't even work.

No, that's not correct either. The security systems put into place after the bombing in 1993 applied to everyone and those who worked there prior to 1993 were not exempt from it. And the "Bush's brother" thing is old news. He was on the board of directors of a company prior to the events ~ big deal. I sit on three boards currently and that doesn't mean that I can plant explosives in the buildings occupied by those agencies.

Edit to correct the italics.

[HornBuckler]

45. Just curious, but how do you know all this?

Where did you get all this information?
100 elevators in each tower? seems like a helluva lot.


"Moreover, at least half of the roughly 100 elevators in each tower were equipped with electronic locking mechanisms that prevented them from being opened in between floors (sadly, that probably contributed to the deaths of many on Sept. 11/01 because the passengers who found themselves in elevators when the shit hit the fan could not open them if they were more than a few inches from a landing in order to try to find a way out. (I can't remember the exact numbers off the top of my head, but for some reason I think that they varied between 4 and 18 inches). "

100 elevators in each building?


This claim makes all the other comments in your post sound unfounded.

[DoYouEverWonder]

47. In regards to the 100 elevators in each building

The number is about right. Keep in mind that most of the elevators were stacked within the same column. A couple of floors for used for transfer points, so if you may have to take more then one elevator to get to your floor.

[HornBuckler]

50. I stand corrected

Still seems like an icredibly high number - but I've never been in the towers before.

[Jazz2006]

53. "This claim makes all the other comments in your post sound unfounded"

Well, if posting a documented fact makes my comments sound unfounded, I'm not sure that there is anything I can say that will make you open your mind to reality.

There were, in fact, approximately 100 elevators in each tower.

In order to keep the flow of people moving in an orderly fashion while conserving the amount of floor space required to house the elevators, the towers were designed with "stacked" elevator cars, most of which could only go between a certain few designated floors. There were only one or two express elevators in each tower that could go from bottom to top (one passenger and one freight, if memory serves). There were also "sky lobbies" on 44 and 78, which served as transfer points for local elevators above each of those floors. But the vast majority of the elevators were stacked and could only travel between a few designated floors.

This isn't something I just dreamt up out of the air. It's easily verifiable fact.

[HornBuckler]

55. I've done some looking into it and I stand corrected.

see above reply.

I have never been in the towers and it sounded like a huge number of elevators at first.

[Jazz2006]

60. No sweat.

It is a huge number of elevators.

[drdtroit]

12. I used to look at them every day from my living room

in Brooklyn

I lived directly east of them and no more than 2 miles away.

They looked fantastic at sunrise and equally as majestic at sunset.

I performed regularly at Windows on the World, on the 107th floor of WTC ONE.
Could actually see my living room windows from the stage! It was a trip (I live on the top floor of my coop).

Also did many various jazz concerts on the Plaza, the last one only a month before that fated day.

Without seeing it in person one cannot possibly get a sense of the enormity of the WTC complex.

:patriot:

[mirandapriestly]

13. I remember the connected subway

when I lived there I would transfer there if I was going to New Jersey. When I first learned of 9-11 I remember thinking that the fires could spread into the subway and wipe out passengers. I still wonder if that would have been possible, i was sure we were going to hear that the fires had gone into the tunnels, but I don't even kn ow if that is possible. I also went to the Windows on the World several times when people came to visit, but I didn't have any work or personal connection to the towers. I remember the vastness of the space and there was quite a bit of time involved getting from one place to the other. I didn't even know about wtc7

[RedSock]

16. Worked in WTC 1 for 3 years

Lived in NYC from 1987-2005.

Worked on the 57th floor of WTC 1 for three years (1995-98).

Was down in that area -- at/in the Winter Garden, especially -- many, many times. And on the roof/observation tower twice.

[DrDebug]

36. At Brown & Wood? (just curious whether they had those floors back in 98)

Don't worry Sidley Austin LLP (as it is called nowadays) appears to have been a normal tenant.

[mirandapriestly]

40. RS, was there much of a change-over in tenants

between the time you were there and the tenants that you see on the "tenant's list" from 9-11-2001? Maybe you didn't pay much attention to other tenants, but if you can recall.

[Grateful for Hope]

24. I have

As a student at NYU, I attended an off-campus class in the WTC area back in the mid-eighties. I passed by the WTC area every night three times a week for a full semester. I also had pre-employment screening in WTC1 in the mid-nineties.

I am definitely aware of how big the area was.

[mirandapriestly]

34. You went to NYU?

I always wish I had gone there.

[Grateful for Hope]

37. I did

Got my Master's there. I liked the school very much.

[Jazz2006]

31. I did, in 1999 and 2000.

The only buildings I went into were WTC1 and WTC2 as I had no reason to go into any of the others. I also walked around the area, shopped in the underground mall, strolled through the plaza, tossed some coins into the fountain with the sphere sculpture while having a smoke, etc. but never really paid much attention to the geography other than that.

[earth mom]

38. I went to Windows on the World in 86.

My friends' cousin worked there and he took us up for drinks one evening. I remember the outside area as very large and it being eerily quiet in the lobby when we entered one of the towers though I can't even say which tower the restaurant was actually in. The view was jaw droppingly incredible...but it's something I remember with sadness because of 9/11.

BTW- I now have a fear of heights and I've been to the CN tower and the Chicago Arch too. Now I can barely go up to the top of some of the lighthouses on the coast...

:cry:

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

39. yes; b4 & after

[greyl]

43. I was there in 1993.

Not in the buildings, just outside on ground level.

[BuddyYoung]

57. What have you learned from this exercise? That's there's more than one

way to focus attention away from the implications of whether or not 911 was an inside job? Or, do you feel that if people claim they've been to the WTC then they are in a stronger position to assert that the buildings came down due to CD...or that they are in a stronger position to assert that "no, they didn't collapse due to CD, and furthermore what exactly is a truss. Isn't that some kind of fund for rich people? A medical product that polite people don't talk about? Or __?".

From the large number of posts, it would appear that most people here are OCT'ers and their primary strategy is to divide the rest of us by way of two issues which are unresolvable and therefore largely irrelevant except as a way of drowning out other questions about 911.

The two questions:

1) Did the WTC buildings collapse due to controlled demolition?

2) Did Larry Silverstein's "pull it" statement refer to a building or to FDNY personnel?

For variety, may I suggest that another similar question that should be flogged 24/7 is:

Did Rumsfeld REALLY mean an actual missile whenever he made his "missile" statement, or do highly experienced public figures often make public statements that show a lack of caution and a naivete about how the media and the public-at-large will react to provocative statements?

Can you hep me? Speaking for myself, I think it would be entertaining to watch the Bush apologists use the same tactics that work so well in keeping so many people addicted to endlessly trying to reason with people who don't have even the slightest interest in being reasoned with and who may literally NEED to foment "divide and conquer" tactics in order to continue doing what they're doing.

[Jara sang]

58. Good point.

I never visited the site. WTC 7 is my main sticking point to debunking the OCT.

[BuddyYoung]

59. You mean you are unable to recognize a demolition whenever you

see one? Or, are you trying to say something else? Your post is extremely vague, but I assume you had something in mind, so would you try again. This time, in plain English.

[Jara sang]

61. could you be a little ruder?

[Hailtothechimp]

62. I went up to the observation deck right after it was reopened...

following the '93 attack. Security was tight, which in those days was unusual.

I remember looking out at Manhattan, thinking what a disaster it would have been if the building had toppled over and created a grotesque domino effect with other skyscrapers. Then I was relieved that it didn't happen that way. And then I began to enjoy the view.

Bringing the towers down in a controlled demolition (i.e. straight down into their own footprint) was a deliberate act, IMHO. That way, the fear and the horrifying visuals could be achieved, but without significant damage being done to the other buildings in Manhattan. New York City could get on with being the capital of so many things, but with a constant visual reminder of what's been lost. A diabolical stroke on someone's part.