WTC Victim Gartenberg Live On ABC

WTC Victim Gartenberg Live On ABC;
Core was blown from the inside out

Trapped on the 86th floor of WTC1 by blocked fire doors, Mr James M Gartenberg (age - 36) was just 8 floors below where the aircraft struck. Mr Gartenberg was on the east side of the North Tower facing the East River and the aircraft struck on the northeast side of the North Tower. The core must have blown towards Mr Gartenberg else how could he have seen it? The inner glass was blown out on the 86th floor, but not the outer glass according to Mr Gartenberg. Therefore the heavy core blowing out was almost at right angle to the direction of the aircraft inertia. Eight floors lower and the heavy core blowing out can only be explained by planted demolition charges. Jet fuel burning could not possibly exert that much force 8 floors below the impact zone.




Taking another look at the Jim Gartenberg video

The perfect human interest story for the boob tube addicted American public.
But the MSM ABC anchors dropped it like a hot potato. Why?

Great initial enthusiasm from the media reporters, with a trapped coherent and quite calm victim on the 86th floor of WTC 1 with a good cell phone connection. Jim was willing to talk, calmly taking time to reassure other familes who might have loved ones trapped in WTC1 and who might be tuning in to ABC. Jim specifically attempted to describe clearly what he had experienced and witnessed. Don't forget Jim and Patricia Puma were trapped on floor 86, 8 floors below the impact at floors 94 to 98. And the core of each tower was immensely strong, constructed with huge structural steel girders upon which burning fuel would be
like a puff of smoke. Photos of Remains of the Twin Towers in Hanger 17 - Core columns



From the video

Jim: . . . . part of the core of the building is blown out . . .

. . . . . . .

Female anchor: What time did you get to work?

Jim: I got to work around 8 o'clock this morning, and . . I think this happened about 8:45.

Female anchor: It did. Describe what you felt.

Jim: I felt .. eh .. I felt . . just the whole build .. I heard a noise, felt the building shake, saw glass blown out.
The glass on my floor was blown out from the inside of the building out; rather than the exterior windows being blown out.

Female anchor: What were you

Jim: the glass fully shattered with the core of the building .. ehh .. and the interior core, ehh part of the building collapsed.

Female anchor: SILENCE
Male anchor: SILENCE

Jim: hello

Complete loss of interest by the male and female anchors even though Jim can still be heard faintly talking in the background. The b*stards must have turned the sound down. They could have had a nice long interview with him until either his cell phone died or the building fell 53 minutes later. But they didn't give a damn did they? A whole bunch of information about the building and the fires and possible explosions might have been learned, but I guess they wanted no part of any of that. Two people trapped on the 86th floor would at least have had caring human support through their tribulation, but these two a**hole ABC anchors just did not give a sh*t did they?

You know when the American people finally get awakened and get those 9-11 gallows warmed up, there might be a whole bunch of mainstream media persons we might wish to stand in line for their turn on the noose.

Map of New York showing location of East River - WTC at lower end of peninsula

Is it not odd how the ABC media prostitutes did not want to talk to Mr Gartenberg after he stated the building core was blown out from the inside? Did they have a 9-11 planner on their earphones instructing them on their every move? At 9:32 + 3, they could have interviewed Mr Gartenberg for 53 more minutes until WTC1 was destroyed at 10:28. Why did they not want to talk to him? He was still talking on his phone and those lousy b*stards did not want to talk to him.

On September 11th, 2001 Mr Gartenberg was going to work for his last day at Julien J. Studley Inc. in the WTC. He had accepted an offer from another company in Midtown, and went in to move out and say goodbye.

86TH FLOOR
James Gartenberg, victim
Patricia Puma, victim
Julien Studley
Portraits of Grief: Love at First Sight
Portraits of Grief: Two Days a Week

James Gartenberg and Patricia Puma were on the 86th floor of Tower 1, well below the bottom of the impact zone on the 94th floor. But they said that access to the exits was blocked by the collapsed walls and debris. They were unable to escape. During the crisis, both Mr. Gartenberg and Ms. Puma had numerous conversations, including three with a reporter for The New York Times. This is their account of the conditions:

``The explosion on the 86th floor seemed to come from the inside out, rather than the outside in,'' said Mr. Gartenberg, 35, of Manhattan. ``That's why the core of the building is as damaged as it is. The fire door is blocked. It either closed from the force of the explosion or as a fire precaution. The elevators are completely blown out.''

Patricia Puma, who worked in the same office, said: ``The wall in the ladies room started to crack -- it looked like an earthquake. The noise and debris falling outside the building are frightening.

``It looked like the explosion came up through the elevator,'' said Ms. Puma, 33, of Staten Island. ``It looks like the firewall came down and I believe the stairs are on the other side of it.''

Mr. Gartenberg said that the interior glass doors were blown out, but the external windows were intact. He and Ms. Puma considered climbing across the debris to reach the stairs, but more debris fell, ``so we backed off.''

The explosion rocked through his office. ``Good God, could we feel it hitting,'' said Mr. Gartenberg. ``I could feel the whole building shake. There was no windows on our floor blown out.''

As he signed off, Mr. Gartenberg asked that his location be given to rescuers. ``I'm not the easiest guy to reach. We need air.''

Interview by Jim Dwyer
www.mishalov.com...

JAMES M. GARTENBERG
Love at First Sight

''When I first met him, he was running the University of Michigan Alumni Club meeting. He was president of the New York City chapter. I was impressed with his leadership skills, how well he was organized, his intelligence, his presence, his ability to negotiate in difficult situations when there was conflict. I said to myself, 'I want to marry him.' ''

That was in 1989. James M. Gartenberg, a man who would be hugely thrilled to know that Coach Lloyd Carr and the entire Michigan football squad signed a condolence card to his family, took a long time to come to the same conclusion about Jill Freeberg that she had about him.

But figure it out he surely did. Married six years ago, happily ensconced on the Upper East Side, father of Nicole, 2, with another child on the way, Mr. Gartenberg, 35, was moving out of his office at 1 World Trade Center on Sept. 11. His employer, Julien J. Studley Inc., the commercial real estate firm, was shifting him to Midtown.

Mr. Gartenberg spent some of his last minutes on ABC-TV, calmly describing the situation on the 86th floor.

He was making plans to take his family to next month's Michigan-Wisconsin game. He had taught Nicole -- ''his heart and soul'' -- to yell ''Go Blue!'' when Michigan was on television. He secretly fantasized about wearing navy pants embossed with little maize M's when he was suitably old.
query.nytimes.com...;pagewanted=all

86th floor
“The explosion on the 86th floor seemed to come from the inside out, rather than the outside in,” said Mr. Gartenberg, 35, of Manhattan. “That's why the core of the building is as damaged as it is. The fire door is blocked. It either closed from the force of the explosion or as a fire precaution. The elevators are completely blown out.” www.mishalov.com...

86th floor:
``It looked like the explosion came up through the elevator,'' said Ms. Puma, 33, of Staten Island. ``It looks like the firewall came down and I believe the stairs are on the other side of it.'' Accounts from the North Tower. The New York Times, May 26, 2002. Interview by Jim Dwyer
911stories.googlepages.com...

Although there may be some innocent reason for the cell phone going faint, he was still audible, and it does seem very odd that the anchors just started to ignore him.

Are the identities of the anchors known, and have they been asked about this?

Didn't you hear ???? When he explained about the shatter glass and the core the news people were getting a message that the tunnels were closed,It could have been a "silence"
while they were listening to their producer giving them the update ?????? Coincidence that it happend as soon as he finished explaining to them what he felt ??? C'ON Listen again to the video...........

Jet fuel poured down the elevator shafts from the impact and ignited
causing an explosion - the burning fuel reached as far down as the
basement. Burning jet fuel blow out the elevator doors in the ground
floor lobby killing people and severly burning others.

Elevator shafts worked like chimneys, funneling unbearable smoke to floors above the crashes. The shafts also channeled burning jet fuel throughout both towers. Fire moved not only up and down but also side to side, from shaft to shaft, unleashing explosions in elevator lobbies and in restrooms next to the shafts.

www.usatoday.com...

I can't buy the jet fuel running down the elevator shaft...That big ball of flame, what was that...i thought it was the jet fuel exploding...kinda hard for SOME fuel to escape that far enough to run down the whole elevator shaft only to later catch fire. People really need to think about the obvious sometime.

reply to post by thedman


So the jet fuel from the 757 managed to go down elevator shafts, that don't go from the floor to the top but I guess we're ignoring that, after managing to avoid the huge fuel explosion (or whatever) when the plane hit, and then magically dodged the extremely high temp HUGE fires that were weakening thousands of tons of construction steel and then somehow all by itself explode at various places?

Wow!

So the jet fuel from the 757 managed to go down elevator shafts, that don't go from the floor to the top but I guess we're ignoring that, after managing to avoid the huge fuel explosion (or whatever) when the plane hit, and then magically dodged the extremely high temp HUGE fires that were weakening thousands of tons of construction steel and then somehow all by itself explode at various places?

They were 99 elevators in each building, 1 freight and 2 passenger elevators ran entire lenght of building. In addition there was express
and local elevators in each zone (ground to 44, 45 to 77, 78 to roof)
where jet fuel could enter the shaft.

There were 99 passenger elevators in each tower, arranged in three vertical zones to move occupants in stages to skylobbies on the 44th and 78th floors. These were arranged as express (generally larger cars that moved at higher speeds) and local elevators in an innovative system first introduced in WTC 1 and WTC 2. There were 8 express elevators from the concourse to the 44th floor and 10 express elevators from the concourse to the 78th floor as well as 24 local elevators per zone, which served groups of floors in those zones. There were seven freight elevators, only one of which served all floors. All elevators had been upgraded to incorporate firefighter emergency operation per American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) A17.1 and Local Law 5 (1973).wtc.nist.gov... (PDF pg. 50)

There were two express elevators (#6 and #7) to Windows on the World (and related conference rooms and banquet facilities) in WTC 1 and two to the observation deck in WTC 2. There were five local elevators in each building: three that brought people from the subterranean levels to the lobby, one that ran between floors 106 and 110, and one that ran between floors 43 and 44, serving the cafeteria from the skylobby. All elevators had been upgraded to incorporate firefighter emergency operation requirements.

In addition to the passenger elevators, there were seven freight elevators in each tower; most served a particular zone, while Car 50 served every floor.
* Car #5: B1-5, 6, 9-40, 44
* Car #6: B1-5, 44, 75, 77-107 wtc.nist.gov... (PDF pg. 72)

I had heard that the towers were in three separate sections...the sky lobbies where the sections met were much more heavily reinforced, and there was a sealing off in the elevator shafts to avoid the problem of the shafts becoming like chimneys (and creating a draft) in the case of a fire.
In some videos of the collapses, squibs can be seen bursting from the exact middle of a highly reinforced sky lobby. I find it hard to believe that that is a natural event representing bursts of debris-laden air compressed by the collapsing floors above. Why wouldn't all or many more randomly spaced windows burst out? And also, how could centrally located windows 40 or more stories below the advancing level of collapse blow out in the same manner?
This is highly suspicious in itself, but you should be aware that brief intense white lights can be seen, especially in slo-mo videos taken from CNN of the collapse of the south tower. This is the only thing that can explain why that building begins to tip, and then the tipping, which no force on earth should be able to stop with a structure that size, is arrested as the entire tower disintegrates. And that it disintegrates symmetrically, when all the weight is on the side that the building is tipping toward, is a physical impossibility as well. Many demolition charges are visible if you care to check out youtube "south tower slow motion collapse.
I don't know what to think about the newscasters' silence after talking to the person who told them about the core being blown out...they may really have been paying attention to incoming traffic alerts. However, the fact that this poignant eyewitness testimony exists and has been buried speaks for itself, especially after the scales fall from your eyes and you see that explosives have turned the building to dust from the top down.

reply to post by thedman


From what I understand in high rise buildings elevator shafts are sealed at sections to prevent the spread of fire and smoke.

But regardless jet fuel is not going to explode, sry but you need to research instead of just believing whatever fits the opinion you have.

I was a jet engine mechanic, I know how jet fuel reacts pretty well. If it just exploded we would have had no flight deck left on our boat. Fuel FIRES were very common, especially in the catapults and they never exploded lol.

To anyone who's worked around fuel would laugh at this hypothesis. See I'm laughing, yes at you...

reply to post by ANOK



So please tell us what causes jets to explode when they crash?

I mean, if it's not the fuel, surely it must be something.

But regardless jet fuel is not going to explode, sry but you need to research instead of just believing whatever fits the opinion you have.

I was a jet engine mechanic, I know how jet fuel reacts pretty well. If it just exploded we would have had no flight deck left on our boat. Fuel FIRES were very common, especially in the catapults and they never exploded lol.

To anyone who's worked around fuel would laugh at this hypothesis. See I'm laughing, yes at you...

Well I'm a firefighter - jet fuel has a high flash point and in a puddle
will burn quietly, in this state is even difficult to ignite

When dispersed as aerosol mixed with air becomes a explosive mix.
The fuel in 767 was traveling at 500 mph when hit building - some of the
fuel was aerosolized into small droplets or mist which then ignited into
the fireball seen at impact. Much of the fuel cascaded down openings -
stairs, elevator shafts being dispersed into aerosol as it traveled.
Fuel reached the lobby and basement via the elevator shafts killing
or burning people there. The fuel/air mix exploded as it travelled
through the building.

The principal is the same as what causes a dust explosion - take a
combustible substance, divide into small particles and mixed with air
becomes powerful explosive.

Can test this at home by taking spoonful of corn starch and blowing
it into a candle. Will create an impressive fireball.

reply to post by thedman


Would just the fuel draining down the shaft actually create an aerosol though? Would the actual combustible vapour be classed as actual aerosol? Since the fuel is liquid I would have thought it would have needed some further dispersion or turbulance to become aerosolised to any serious degree, more than just pouring, but my knowledge of this is not fantastic.

thedman, thanks for your service as a firefighter, it is a very dangerous job however, as a retired firefighter, having zero experience in a high rise building, and zero experience with aircraft crashes, I can't comment on what I believe happened at the WTC on 9/11. Were you there? I know I wasn't.

I've heard many FDNY members describe many many explosions well after any fuel would have burned off. Just the size of the explosion tells me that most of the fuel was consumed in the initial explosions, leaving very little to fall to the basement, and hardly enough to cause large explosions. The black smoke was also a sign that the fire was oxygen starved, unless you, like some here believe there were tires, tar paper, and shingles in those buildings, slightly kidding there, but there just wasn't enough of the materials in those buildings to cause that much black smoke, some stuff? sure, but burning paper doesn't cause black smoke.

To me, seeing people waving towels out of the sides of the buildings is evidence enough that the fires at that time were not near hot enough to weaken steel, let alone melt it, yet we all saw red hot steel, weeks after the buildings came down. Doesn't make sense to me.

I believe the reason more people don't question the "official" theory is because, they don't want to believe that any government, let alone ours is capable of killing their own citizens, for their agenda. I'd love to hear what happened to the 2.3 trillion dollars the pentagon was missing, on 9/10/2001 because I don't remember hearing much about it after 9/11/2001. Wag the dog I say.

reply to post by almighty bob
The vast majority of the jet fuel would, in my opinion would have burned off in the initial explosion, that's why there was a huge fireball. I seriously doubt that the remaining fuel would have been enough to run the full length of the building, especially if it were aerosolized/atomized, and it likely would/could have evaporated on it's way down or perhaps, burned on the way down. With nothing to speak of to ignite on the way down, I doubt much raw jet fuel could make it's way down to cause an explosion in the basement. If it did, what ignited it down there? Was someone smoking? I don't remember hearing anyone smelling jet/diesel fuel in the basement that day.

Have you ever heard of jets that dump fuel in an emergency? I sure have, and yes, it's normally dumped from a couple of miles up, so it has a chance to evaporate, before it hits the ground. Now, that fuel isn't atomized and yet it does evaporate. Yet we are to believe that atomized fuel will make it's way down the shafts, without burning, Sorry, don't buy it. I believe if the fuel was atomized, the fire would have followed the fuel down the shafts, but the fuel would never make it down to the basement before it burned it's self out, unless there was a tremendous amount of flammables in those shafts.

Do we remember pictures of people waving towels from the hole in the side of the towers? I do, so the heat couldn't have possibly been hot enough to soften steel, let alone melt it, but we saw red hot steel weeks later, under stories deep rubble? With tons and tons of fine dust. Where was the oxygen coming from for the fire to sustain it's self? Was there air being pumped down there at high velocity for 5 weeks? Or is it just theories of how that trick was performed?

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by thedman

 

From what I understand in high rise buildings elevator shafts are sealed at sections to prevent the spread of fire and smoke.

But regardless jet fuel is not going to explode, sry but you need to research instead of just believing whatever fits the opinion you have.

I was a jet engine mechanic, I know how jet fuel reacts pretty well. If it just exploded we would have had no flight deck left on our boat. Fuel FIRES were very common, especially in the catapults and they never exploded lol.

To anyone who's worked around fuel would laugh at this hypothesis. See I'm laughing, yes at you...

Perhaps a "jet engine mechanic" should stay away from topics they know nothing about. Go ahead and keep on laughing, but rest assured you look pretty stupid right about now.

There is a weapon called a "fuel/air explosive", or FAE (BLU/CBU series of bombs). The US doesn't use much of them any more, but they were a very definite weapon in our inventory that we used frequently when its specirfic overpressure effects were needed. Fuel (a petroleum-based liquid fuel as opposed to jellied napalm) is misted as the result of an ordnance drop and ignited, causing a huge overpressure and yes, explosion.

And don't get all attitudinal on me. I was a Catapult Oficer on IKE from 90-92 so I've seen and fought cat trough fires and no, they didn' t explode, but given the right atmospheric conditions and combination of elements, a fuel/air explosion can ruin anyone's day - even elevator doors.

I was also Strike Operations lead instructor (i.e. strike operations = bomb dropping) at an east coast Navy training facility in Dam Neck and taught this stuff. Still laughing? To use one of your own quotes, "you need to research instead of just believing whatever fits the opinion you have" or trying to pretend you are smarter than you are.

[edit on 2-10-2008 by pinch]

-------------

LOOK at the initial fireball on tower impact.

Go ahead do it.

THINK about the amount of fuel left behind after the initial fireball.

LAUGH when you are told that the remaining fuel traveled to other floors through the elevator shafts all the way to the lobby.

------------

If ya don't know, now ya know.

pinch replying to ANOK
Perhaps a "jet engine mechanic" should stay away from topics they know nothing about. Go ahead and keep on laughing, but rest assured you look pretty stupid right about now.

Gotta put him down do you Bill Paisley? He is just being an ordinary honest person attempting to search out the truth. Every red-blooded American knows for a fact that OUR corrupt politicians are lying to us all the time. Just look at their lips; if they are moving then they are lying. Look how much they lied about this bail-out of the $$billionaires$$.

Why is it all you 'pseudoskeptics' and 'government loyalists' have to put everyone down that disagrees with your precious status quo? Besides this thread is primarily about the sudden loss of interest by the ABC anchors when Jim clearly pointed out that the building core 8 floors below the impact area was blown out from the inside out. Jet fuel burning or exploding 8 floors down would have no effect on core columns such as these.

Photos of Remains of the Twin Towers in Hanger 17 - Core columns


The perfect human interest story for the boob tube addicted American public. Jim Gartenberg and Patricia Puma trapped on the 86th floor of WTC1 and almost an hour before it was demolitioned to the ground. But the MSM ABC anchors dropped it like a hot potato. Why? Jim Gartenberg was speaking coherently with a good cell phone connection. The kind of human interest story that good reporters would kill for. But apparently they were ordered to drop him off the interview. Why? It seemed to me that the female anchor wanted to do her job she was trained for and keep interviewing him.

If there were demolitions going off in the core, then the 9-11 controllers certainly did not want it coming out on ABC did they? They had Jerome Hauer on Dan Rather early on feeding the American people a line of BS. They had the Harley Davidson guy "mostly do to structural failure because the fire was just too intense" early on reading us his script. Why would they neglect to oversee ABC interviewing people trapped in the towers?

911 - Inside Job - The 9/11 Solution

Originally posted by SPreston

Why is it all you 'pseudoskeptics' and 'government loyalists' have to put everyone down that disagrees with your precious status quo?

Funny how you just did in one sentence what you are accusing others of.

Hypocrite.

Originally posted by SPreston

pinch replying to ANOK
Perhaps a "jet engine mechanic" should stay away from topics they know nothing about. Go ahead and keep on laughing, but rest assured you look pretty stupid right about now.

Gotta put him down do you Bill Paisley? He is just being an ordinary honest person attempting to search out the truth.

When someone starts spouting BS in an field where I am experienced and conversant in, yes, I will put them down because they would otherwise end up like the boys in the CIT /PffT Tree Fort.

Not to mention people who start talking BS about stuff they know nothing about need to learn that you don't just make crap up and post it on an internet board to sound like you are some kind of expert or brainiac in that topic. We see plenty of that on CIT and PffT.

The individual was using his experience as a "jet engine mechanic" to impart some sort of authoritative knowledge on the inability of fuel to "explode". Not only was he wrong, he was dead wrong. This is just some internet forum, but in the real world people have died from idiots passing themselves off as some sort of expert in areas they have absolutely no business being in. That is misrepresenting yourself to the highest degree. You should know that, Preston, since you are talking all the time like you are some Chuck Yeager kind of guy. Too bad you can't tell the difference between an Excel spreadsheet of "projected landing times based on filed flight plan data" versus "actual landing times based on Bureau of Transportation Statistics data".

Speaking of which, have you Sky Kings worked out the Camp Springs departure yet and how it impacts (or doesn't) an approach to DCA from the south? Check up with Captain Bob on that.