portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting global

9.11 investigation | media criticism

BBC Reported WTC7 Had Collapsed 20 Minutes Before It Fell

A revealing video uncovered today shows a BBC reporter talking about the collapse of WTC 7 while WTC 7 can clearly be seen still standing behind her in the background.

Google removed the clip within hours. So did (Google's recently purchased and consolidated) You Tube. Other versions salvaged and spreading around like internet wildfire.
"The Solomon Brothers building has already collapsed...." lied BBC newscasters
Quick! Cut her! It's about to really collapse tho we announced it already gone!
Quick! Cut her! It's about to really collapse tho we announced it already gone!
BBC Reported Building 7 Had Collapsed 20 Minutes Before It Fell

A revealing video uncovered today shows a BBC reporter talking about the collapse of WTC 7 while WTC 7 can clearly be seen still standing behind her in the background,

Google removed the clip within hours.

Monday, February 26, 2007 (UPDATED 7:58PM CST)

An amazing video uncovered from the BBC archives today shows the BBC reporting on the collapse of WTC Building 7 over twenty minutes before it fell at 5:20pm on the afternoon of 9/11.

The incredible footage shows BBC reporter Jane Standley talking about the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head. She even moves aside at one point and looks back so you can see the entire building, upright and erect, quite clearly, still smoldering.

Minutes before the actual collapse of the building is due, the feed to the reporter mysteriously dies, and the anchor, who has obviously been informed of the error, just kind of shrugs and moves on.

Here's a link to the video on Utube.
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc&eurl=

This amazing clip was on Google Video, but was removed within hours of the story breaking. A You Tube upload (still processing) is embedded above. My personal favorite part is where the solemn studio anchor in London states that WTC 7 "was apparently weakened by the fire", and then goes on to ask whether there have been "calls in America for revenge....yet."

Political theatre, anyone?

Here's a link to the full article about it, with more video clip links.
 http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/260207building7.htm

It really begs the demolition question once again, to put it mildly to see that the BBC reported on the collapse of Building 7 over twenty minutes in advance of its implosion. This obviously provokes a myriad of questions as to how they knew it was about to come down when the official story says its collapse happened accidentally as a result of fire damage and debris weakening the building's structure.

Cut! Print it.


related:

I attempted to download several versions of the longer one, though strangely both versions are already corrupted somehow?
I could download the larger .flv version [57 MB] still.
though  http://www.arcfxhost.com/building7_still_up.avi [77 MB] didn't work for me and the 128 MB .wmv version didn't work for me either (which has a black screen and U2 song dubbed into it instead. On viewing the .flv version that IS the correct audio for the background introduction titles, though I was unable to personally see the video from that version--only from the .flv version. It may be just the software I have that is buggy though.

or still watch this shorter version, streaming video up for now--other links ***deleted within hours.*** This may go down soon because other You Tube versions have already been deleted.
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc&eurl=
[7:13]

Calls have already been put through to the BBC reporting the "mistake," click here to listen to an MP3.
 http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/bbc_oops.mp3




excerpt:
-------------------------------------------------

An astounding video uncovered from the archives today shows the BBC reporting on the collapse of WTC Building 7 over twenty minutes before it fell at 5:20pm on the afternoon of 9/11. The incredible footage shows BBC reporter Jane Standley talking [empathetically] about the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building [WTC7] while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head. [She is then cut out with only minutes to spare from the actual demolition which would have occurred live after they were already talking about it collapsing. She's cut from NYC-to-London TV feed without explanation when someone at BBC realizes the egregious continuity error about what they were ordering her to report from NYC something already occurring which has has not yet happened in the live shot from her NYC location.]

Although there is no clock or time stamp on the footage, the source claims the report was given at 4:57pm EST, 23 minutes before Building 7 collapsed at 5:20pm. While the exact time of the report cannot be confirmed at present, it is clear from the footage that the reporter is describing the collapse of WTC 7 while it clearly remains standing behind her in the live shot.

This newly uncovered video confirms that the collapse of WTC 7 was no surprise, because television news stations were reporting on it before it happened!

This footage is absolutely amazing and should provoke a firestorm of new questions aimed both at Silverstein [WTCs owner] and the BBC. Who told the BBC that the building was going to collapse before it did and why were they reporting its fall in advance of the event actually taking place?

Many have speculated that some kind of press release was leaked too soon and AP wires, radio stations and TV news outlets prematurely reported on WTC 7's collapse.

This amazing clip was on Google Video, but was removed within hours of the story breaking.

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



BBC Reported Building 7 Had Collapsed 20 Minutes Before It Fell

Revealing, shocking video shows reporter talking about collapse with WTC 7 still standing in background, Google removes clip

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Prison Planet
Monday, February 26, 2007 (UPDATED 7:58PM CST)
An astounding video uncovered from the archives today shows the BBC reporting on the collapse of WTC Building 7 over twenty minutes before it fell at 5:20pm on the afternoon of 9/11. The incredible footage shows BBC reporter Jane Standley talking about the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building [WTC7] while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head.

Minutes before the actual collapse of the building is due, the feed to the reporter mysteriously dies.

This amazing clip was on Google Video, but was removed within hours of the story breaking. A You Tube upload (still processing) is embedded above but we fully expect this to be removed soon. You can watch it for the time being at this link and also here. A WMV link is here (on our server) and a Quicktime here. Bit torrent versions of the file can be found here. An avi version can be found here. We are attempting to compile numerous mirrors of the video file. Skip forward to around the 14:30 minute mark. We expect the surviving links to quickly disappear, so we've also uploaded an FLV file to our own server. Click here to download. You'll need a free player that plays FLV files, a selection of which can be found here. Please use this download to create mirror copies in all formats and e mail the links to us.

To be clear, the Salomon Brothers Building is just a different name for Building 7 or WTC 7.

Although there is no clock or time stamp on the footage, the source claims the report was given at 4:57pm EST, 23 minutes before Building 7 collapsed at 5:20pm. While the exact time of the report cannot be confirmed at present, it is clear from the footage that the reporter is describing the collapse of WTC 7 while it clearly remains standing behind her in the live shot.

Here are some further screenshots from the video.

The fact that the BBC reported on the collapse of Building 7 over twenty minutes in advance of its implosion obviously provokes a myriad of questions as to how they knew it was about to come down when the official story says its collapse happened accidentally as a result of fire damage and debris weakening the building's structure.

As we have documented before, firefighters, police and first responders were all told to get back from the building because it was about to be brought down. It is widely acknowledged by those who were there on the scene that warnings were issued for people to evacuate the area in anticipation of the building's collapse, with some even stating that a 20 second countdown preceded the collapse of the 47-story skyscraper, again clearly suggesting that it was taken down by means of explosives as the video footage of its implosion illustrates.

Alex Jones' film Terror Storm documents how Thermate was the likely culprit for the implosion of the twin towers and also explores the collapse of WTC 7.

In a September 2002 PBS documentary, the owner of the WTC complex Larry Silverstein discusses Building 7 and states that in the late afternoon of September 11, the decision was made to "pull it." The term "pull it" is industry jargon for controlled demolition, but Silverstein denied charges that WTC 7 had been deliberately brought down.

This newly uncovered video confirms that the collapse of WTC 7 was no surprise, because television news stations were reporting on it before it happened!

This footage is absolutely amazing and should provoke a firestorm of new questions aimed both at Silverstein and the BBC. Who told the BBC that the building was going to collapse before it did and why were they reporting its fall in advance of the event actually taking place?

Many have speculated that some kind of press release was leaked too soon and AP wires, radio stations and TV news outlets prematurely reported on WTC 7's collapse.

The video also severely undermines the credibility of the BBC who recently caused controversy by airing a 9/11 hit piece that sought to debunk questions that bring the official story into doubt.

Calls have already been put through to the BBC reporting the "mistake," click here to listen to an MP3. The BBC have promised to "look into it."

Moronic commenters on Digg are already trying to bury the story, yet none of them have an answer as to why the BBC reported the building's collapse before it happened. Click here to add your own comment and counter the debunkers.

ACTION: E Mail the BBC and ask them to clarify exactly why their reporter is announcing the collapse of Building 7 before it has collapsed.

Comments (299) | Trackback

 http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/260207building7.htm

2.

newswire article reporting global 22.Feb.2007 13:19
9.11 investigation | imperialism & war
80 BLOCKBUSTING Statements on 911 Truth by Govt. & Military Personnel
author: jail bush
This is a seminal collection of statements from people in all walks of government and military who have made statements relative to the 911 truth message: cheney, bush, et al should be guantanamoed. click the link for photos or the "truth tellers"

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/02/354510.shtml?discuss


[Rarely does the Wizard of Oz curtain get pulled back so well. Classic. Freaking classic. ]

3.

WTC 7 Larry Silverstein
00:46
Owner of a 99 year lease and 3.5 billion dollar insurance policy, Larry Silverstein admits in a PBS special called "Rebuilding America" that WTC 7 was "pulled", the industrial term for demolished.
 http://youtube.com/watch?v=u0scE7bQWdk

4.

newswire article reposts united states 05.Jan.2006 14:37
9.11 investigation Silverstein Answers WTC Building 7 Charges
author: Paul Joseph Watson
Says "pull it" meant to evacuate firefighters, but there were no firefighters in the building
Larry
Paul Joseph Watson | January 5 2006


After nearly two years of steadfast silence, Silverstein Properties have finally responded to questions about what Larry Silverstein meant when he told a PBS documentary that WTC Building 7 was "pulled" in the late afternoon of September 11 2001.

Building 7 occupied a city block immediately north of the World Trade Center complex. Photos taken minutes before its collapse show small fires on two or three floors. Building 7 became only the third steel building in history before or since 9/11 to ["officially"] collapse from fire damage. The other two were the North and South towers of the World Trade Center.

Any building that was not owned by Silverstein Properties strangely remained upright.

Photo and video evidence of the collapse shows classic indications of a controlled demolition. The standard 'crimp' in the center-left top of the building and the subsequent 'squibs' of smoke as it collapses clearly represent explosive demolition.

Even Dan Rather, commenting on the collapse for CBS News said that the collapse was, "reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down."

Click here for Alex Jones' video analysis of the collapse of Building 7.

Questions about the highly suspicious nature of the building's collapse remained comparatively muted until January 2004, when a PBS documentary, America Rebuilds, originally broadcast in September 2002, received attention across the Internet.

The documentary was made infamous for one comment made by Larry Silverstein on the subject of 9/11. Silverstein states, "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

Click here to watch the clip.

We know that the term 'pull it' means to bring the building down by means of explosives because in the same documentary a cleanup worker (in December 2001) refers to the demolition of WTC Building 6 when he says, "...we're getting ready to pull the building six." The term is industry jargon for planned demolition.

Click here to listen to the clip.

For the following year and a half the Internet and alternative talk radio was aflame with talk of Building 7 and Silverstein's apparent admission. For many it is now the central issue of 9/11.

[1] In June 2005 this website reported Silverstein's only response to date. It was an ambiguous comment made to New York Post journalist Sam Smith. Silverstein told Smith that he "meant something else" by the "pull it" comment but mysteriously refused to elaborate any further.

[2] Silverstein Properties have finally provided a detailed explanation of what Silverstein meant when he said Building 7 was pulled.

The State Department, as part of its pathetic efforts to debunk 9/11 research, has posted the response from Silverstein's spokesperson Dara McQuillan on its website. It reads as follows.

Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

The State Department website then comments,

As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, "I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it." Mr. McQuillan has stated that by "it," Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.

The insurmountable problem with this explanation of Silverstein's statement is that there were no firefighters inside WTC 7.

Dr. Shyam Sunder, of the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST), which investigated the collapse of WTC 7, is quoted in Popular Mechanics (9/11: Debunking the Myths, March, 2005) as saying: "There was no firefighting in WTC 7."

The FEMA report on the collapses, from May, 2002, also says about the WTC 7 collapse: "no manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY."

And an article by James Glanz in the New York Times on November 29, 2001 says about WTC 7: "By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons."

Some defenders of the official 9/11 story say that the term "pull" is not demolition lingo for "bring down by controlled demolition". However, the same PBS video in which Silverstein makes his admission, contains the following exchange:

(unidentified construction worker): "Hello? Oh, we're getting ready to pull building six." Luis Mendes, NYC Dept of Design and Construction: "We had to be very careful how we demolished building six. We were worried about the building six coming down and then damaging the slurry walls, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area."

But even this argument is beside the point. The building's collapse had all the hallmarks of controlled demolition.

Silverstein's explanation, after two years of stonewalling, that "pull it" meant to withdraw the firefighters is a lie. There were no firefighters in the building for hours before the building's collapse.

So what did Larry Silverstein mean when he stated: "I said, 'You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, may be the smartest thing to do is, is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." He could not have meant that they should "pull" the firefighters from the building because there weren't any firefighters in the building, at least according to FEMA, NIST, and Frank Fellini, the Assistant Chief responsible for WTC 7 at that time. And if he meant "pull the firefighters" then why did he say "pull it", with no reference to anything other than the building? The argument that "pull" is not used to mean "demolish" a building is belied by the other footage in the PBS documentary. And consider the timing: "they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." Could it really be possible that some (nonexistent) fire brigade was removed from the building and just at that moment ("then") the building collapsed? Is there really any doubt here about what Silverstein meant?

The only reasonable conclusion is that Larry Silverstein's statement is an admission that WTC 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition, meaning that the official version of what happened to WTC 7 is false, and casting serious doubt on the official story that terrorists of a foreign origin destroyed the twin towers, as well as on the rest of the official account of 9/11. Note that this admission is a statement against Silverstein's own interests (putting him at odds with the official version of events and potentially jeopardizing his insurance claims). Such statements are given great weight as a matter of law.

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 profit of about $500 million.

[Silverstein made the video admittal that his insurance claims of a 500 billion dollar profit were fradulent, several months later in the PBS video "America Rebuilds," after he had collected half a trillion dollars.]

How concerned should we be therefore that Silverstein Properties bought the lease from MetLife for Chicago's Sears Tower in March 2004?

The length of time that it took Silverstein to respond to these charges and the fact that his eventual rebuttal does not correspond with the facts only gives us more grounds for skepticism.

A real, thorough, impartial, independent investigation of the collapse of Building 7 needs to take place and if the conclusions of that investigation are that Building 7 was professionally demolished, criminal charges need to be brought against those suspected of involvement.

---
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/01/331417.shtml

5.

newswire article reporting global 03.Dec.2006 22:06
9.11 investigation | arts and culture VIDEO: D. Tippet Sings Ode to Neocons Music Video, WTC7 thermate, Amer. Scholars Symposium
author: repost
Memorable moments from the Alex Jones organized L.A. 9-11 American Scholars Symposium, June 2006:

Thermite verifier Dr. Stephen Jones, University of Utah, plays a reworded version of The Police's "Every Breath You Take" song by Dale Tippet: dealing with WTC7 issues, thermite, fake wars, and most of all--America waking up from Bush's lies.

The song got a standing ovation.
Ode to the Neocons Music Video
All time views: 4,045
4 min 24 sec - Oct 31, 2006
 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2124251799530760088

lyrics printed here:

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/12/350203.shtml

1963 27.Feb.2007 10:49

rAT

That's like in '63 when Australian newspapers ran detailed descriptions of Oswald, including his name and basic background, and that he alone shot JFK. This was all SEVERAL HOURS BEFORE HE WAS ARRESTED.

I remember something very similar 27.Feb.2007 13:15

expat

I remember that the station I was watching suddenly cut away from their blather to go back live to Building 7. Then someone said something to the effect that Building 7 was about to come down. I don't think it was the newscaster, but a fireman or some other official near him. In any case, it was picked up on the mike clear as day, and then the building suddenly collapsed...

...And it was almost never mentioned again, Literally. The corpse press would just casually mention that another building fell too. Whatever. You know, 50 stories of the thickest steel girders on the planet, at greater than freefall speed directly into its own footprint. Whatever...move along...nothing to see here. New sale at Mal*Wart. Brittney shaved her head. It's snowing in Upstate New York...etc.

video clip available on brasschecktv 27.Feb.2007 16:42

also ran

 http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/88.html
Great dialoge from broadcaster about debris and "white covering of dust from concrete."

This is NOT 1963. We have the Internet! No one to blame but ourselves (in the broadest sense) if the lie of 911 stays on the books. What will our grandchildren learn about history in school? Will they be administered computer implants at birth? It's up to us.

Foreknowledge of WTC 7's Collapse 27.Feb.2007 18:05

repost

Foreknowledge of WTC 7's Collapse
 http://wtc7.net/foreknowledge.html

Veracity of Conclusion

Questions prompted by the report include: How do we know what the correct time of the broadcast footage? and How do we know that the imagery behind Jane Standley is live?

It is unlikely that the real times estimated above are off by more than a minute. The mpeg files are located in directories on archive.org with names encoding times down to the minute. For example, the directory name bbc200109111654-1736 encodes the time range 4:54 - 5:36 PM. No part of the 41-minute recording that contains the report shows a clock, but other recordings do, and suggest that the encoding of times into directory names is as maticulously accurate as the set of recordings is complete. For example, an NBC broadcast recording with the directory name nbc200109110954-1036, encoding the time range 9:54 - 10:35 AM, shows a clock with minutes and seconds. It displays a time of 10:20 starting at 25:34 in the recording, putting the start of the recording at 54:26.

That Jane Staldley was standing in front of a live view showing WTC 7 as she describes it in the past tense is virtually indisputable. The high-quality mpeg video clearly shows that she is in front of a row of windows in a tall building.
BBC Reacts

Richard Porter wrote a reactive denial on February 27 to suggestions that there is something wrong with the BBC ( whose "vision is to be the most creative, trusted organisation in the world" 1 ) announcing the third of the only three skyscraper "collapses" in world history before it happened.

Story seems to confirm 27.Feb.2007 19:07

a strong lingering suspicion:

namely, there was, and is, a trans-atlantic cartel in effect, one which directly links the City with the perps in new amsterdam (and canberra to a lesser extent).

But, now, who is capable of explaining the empirical connection across the waters?

Obviously, on the immediate level, one would want to explain how, and from whom, this b.b.c. reporter got the news of the hit on wtc7 in her ear-phone before the building was actually pulled.

And, then, who will dare to speak out and explain the deep background?

re: story seems to confirm, British corporation AMEC did 9-11, flees USA in 2004 28.Feb.2007 02:02

researcher

And lump in this information about Giuliani choosing British corporate oversight and cleanup of the largest freaking terrorism/controlled demolition site in the USA. Same British corporation 'cleaned up' both the WTC site controlled demolition as the Pentagon as well. Mossad teams may be in the white vans as controlled demolition experts, though the set up seems to have been under Brits, and American traitors aligned to the Brits. Read this excerpt.

excerpted from:
More Than Thermate: Evidence for Micronuke Basement WTC Demolitions, Radiation at Pentagon
author: summary
summary of the additional radiological evidence for WTC controlled demolitions and Pentagon hit
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341768.shtml



30-49: Bush/Brits cover up radiation, veto health funds for WTC rescue 29.Jun.2006 11:49
more link

[30] To cover up the radiological evidence, immediately, at the White House's direction, the Environmental Protection Agency gave New Yorkers misleading assurances that there was no health risk from the debris-laden air after the World Trade Center collapse, according to an internal inquiry. "The day after the attacks, former EPA Deputy Administrator Linda Fisher's chief of staff e-mailed senior EPA officials to say that "all statements to the media should be cleared" first by the National Security Council,..." which of course would be connected to these state terrorist attacks.
see  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/08/270538.shtml
and
Title: 9/11 MEMO REVEALS ASBESTOS 'COVER-UP'
Author: SAM SMITH
Date: 2004.07.20 07:21
Description: the 'duh' story of the year The data, which Jenkins says she culled from state records, appear damning. On the day after the attack, the memo claims, city test results from the corner of Centre and Chambers streets and from the corner of Spruce and Gold streets showed asbestos concentration at about twice the level considered safe by the EPA. The city did not release this information to the public, Jenkins says. The next day, Sept. 13, city tests were "overloaded" with asbestos in the air so much that the lab could not conclude precise amounts along Church Street. Again, the information was withheld, the memo claims. city testing data, some of which was later made public, showed asbestos levels 50 percent higher and more above what her agency considers safe, the memo states.
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/07/293005.shtml

[31] They were measuring for radioactivity at the WTC.

Matthew, you mentioned the possibility of tactical nukes early on. Was anyone measuring radioactivity at the Ground Zero site?
MT: To my knowledge, in a very short period of time, there is going to be a book that is coming out that will explain some other things. And yes, there is somebody working on that I am aware of. And ..
AJ: So were there devices there?
MT: My belief is that is yes. Completely, yes.
Mike: Thank you.
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/03/314483.shtml

[32] To cover up the radiological evidence, in an ongoing fashion, Bush vetos health funds and health monitoring for WTC-affected rescue workers and firemen.
"If they come down with illnesses 20 years from now [or merely 2 years]... and are not watched as a statistical group, their medical treatment will be affected ... Workers simply won't get medical care they need if they come down with diseases years later."
Title: Half 9-11 Rescue Workers' Health Suffering;Pollution'Could Cause More Deaths THAN ATTACK
Author: enn
Date: 2004.09.13 06:05
Description: Nearly half of the more than 1,000 screened rescue workers who responded to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks suffer from new or exacerbated respiratory, mental, and other health problems, according to a government report released Thursday. --- PLUS: Up to 400,000 New Yorkers breathed in the most toxic polluting cloud ever recorded...no proper effort has been made to find out how their health has been affected according to an official report. --- The US government study provides the latest evidence of a systematic cover-up... --- Bush suppressed evidence of increasing danger... --- between 250,000 and 400,000 people in lower Manhattan were exposed to the pollution on 11 September 2001. No systematic effort to adequately monitor the well-being of those affected, give them physical examinations or provide treatment. --- cloud of pulverised debris from the skyscrapers was uniquely dangerous. Government's own figures show it contained the highest levels of deadly dioxins ever recorded - about 1,500 times normal levels. Unprecedented levels of acids, sulphur, fine particles, heavy metals and other dangerous materials were also measured. Asbestos was found at 27 times acceptable levels, and scientists found about 400 organic alkanes, phthalates and polyaromatic hydrocarbons - many suspected of causing cancer and other long-term diseases. Ground Zero smouldering became a "chemical factory", creating new dangerous substances.
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/09/297330.shtml

Bush blocks funds for WTC rescue workers health or NYC monitoring 21.Sep.2004

Bush Blocked Bill For WTC Rescue Workers and Firemen: People Becoming Ill and Dying as a Result of the Deliberate Demolition

At his Waco, Texas pep rally..., President Bush announced that he intended to ...block...a US$5.1 billion emergency spending Bill passed by Congress. The Bill included US$90 million for long-term health monitoring of World Trade Centre (WTC) rescue workers and volunteers who were exposed to a catastrophe with potential long-term health and environmental consequences.
London Guardian:  http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve5/1108bush.html

[33] Bernard Loiseau, OF CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, INC., in under a week of 9-11, has a (pre-prepared?) a written formal plan to help clean up the WTCs: contract he then got.

[34] To cover up all evidence, police would tackle photographers and take their cameras.
AJ: Well I know they even banned photography at the site.
MT: They would tackle you and take your camera away. I watched people be tackled. I've been officially press for a while but I've done some press work - you know like writing a little article - and I have never, ever, ever seen anything like that.
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/03/314483.shtml

[35] To cover up radiological evidence, New York City stalls, claims "no liability" despite sudden spikes of cancer in huge portion of WTC rescue workers.

newswire article reposts united states 20.Nov.2005 12:31
9.11 investigation | alternative media
WTC, Ground zero and close by are dying of Cancer
author: reader
Warning. Deaths and dying result from being at ground zero and nearby.
World Trade Center workers dying of Canvcer
If you were close to ground zero read this and save your life.
Many people who were close to ground zero are dying of cancer. Read this reprint to save your life.
Keywords: Government, Local, Housing & Development,
Reprint from Arctic Beacon
Ground Zero Worker and 9/11 Hero Dying of Cancer From Toxins at WTC; White House And New York Officials Deny Liability and Have Thrown Victims into the Streets Like Pieces of Garbage
Pat Arcese, now dying of cancer, says government lied about the safety of workers at Ground Zero. He is now suing New York but officials have denied liability,....The three facts, in Arcese's own words, that proved to him the government lied were: "One, they had these little test tube bottles all around the WTC and they would use these as proof to the workers it was safe. Every day One of the EPA workers would tell us they checked the tubes and it was safe. I knew they were lying. "One day I went around and filled at least 30 of the tubes with asbestos that I found lying around the site. When EPA announced next morning and said it was safe, I caught them lying red-handed and called the official a liar right to his face."

[36] New York City and Bush White House WANT the WTC clean-up workers/witnesses dead. U.S. Gov't had "wash down" equipment for rescue workers at WTC--though they refused to use them.
"Another thing. The government spent millions of dollars on wash down machines for workers, but they never even used them once. Why? Well, they never even gave us protective gear or any protective clothing. They just didn't care about people, but they sure did care about getting the billions of gold out from the basement and they sure cared about hauling the steel away as quick as they could.
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/11/329129.shtml

[37] Knowing the radiological dangers may lead back to the Bush Administration and Giuliani when they authorize the steel to be illegally shipped overseas before investigation. The decision is made to wash down the steel though NOT wash down the rescue workers. THEY WASH DOWN THE STEEL IN A CONTAMINATION CENTER UPON LEAVING WTC SITE, THOUGH IGNORE THE WORKERS.
"The second reason I know they lied is because I found out after the trucks that hauled the steel out left the WTC, they went into a wash down contamination center. What does that tell yah"
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/11/329129.shtml

[38] FBI, CIA, EPA, U.S. Government observers tell everyone the lie that the WTC is safe, though the U.S. Government is saying this from a 'safe zone' for themselves, which they seldom if ever leave.
"And, the last thing, which is the icing on the cake, is the EPA put up this protective fence or what they called the 'safe zone.' And, think about it, there were hundreds of FBI and CIA there every day but they always stayed in the 'safe zone' and on the other side of the fence. Why?
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/11/329129.shtml

[39] The officials know it is "contaminated", and tell the workers to leave their clothes on site
"MT: I think we should just keep going from the beginning. When we first got there, we were told where we could go and where we couldn't go. There were different places that you were not to go to. One of the things you were not to go to and they claimed it was for safety was down in the garages, the parking garages. They were very flooded. There were a lot of problems like that. All the apartments around there were all sealed off. A lot of things were very much sealed off. However, at the same time, right from the beginning, one of the things that I noticed was there was looting everywhere. People were stealing clothes that were meant for us. The rescue people - when our clothes got so contaminated, we were told not to bring our clothes off that site. Don't wear anything on the site you're not prepared to leave there because it's contaminated."
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/03/314483.shtml

[40] Further insulating from U.S. law, WTC and Pentagon cleanup is under foreign British AMEC control--allowed to work on core U.S.'s security building. To simplify those in the know about the radiological dangers, and to limit U.S. law jurisdiction, the corporation that cleaned up WTC and Pentagon is the same: British owned AMEC. Giuliani hired more British foreign owned clean-up companies for isolating them legally from the WTC knowledge of its controlled demolition. The foreign corporations were assigned to the areas of controlled demolition in WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7. The only American clean up corporation, Tully, was kept from these areas. The companies Giuliani chose were all CEO'ed by Knights of the British Empire. AMEC of course is British as well.

[41] Giuliani is knighted by the British Empire soon after 9-11 attacks--which he illegally cleaned up without an investigation.

[42] People in Pentagon radiation suits would be under the direction of British AMEC.

[43] AMEC decision: On the other hand, civilian rescue workers that failed to get any "wash down" treatment at the WTC would be AMEC decision as well.

[44] AMEC decision: The "more important" (from the conspirators point of view) radioactive-dust ladel steel did get the "wash down" treatment--another AMEC decision. It's for the steel, instead of the workers.

[45] Soon after cleaning up, AMEC entirely leaves the U.S. in 2004.

Title: RADIATION shows 9-11 Penta. hit not 757: something with DU?; AMEC did Penta&WTC7 clean up
Author: repost
Date: 2004.10.25 02:05
Description: more damning fuel for the funeral pyre of the 9-11 'official story' that is completely dead by now. "Around the Pentagon there were reports of high radiation levels after 9-11. American Free Press has documentation that radiation levels in Alexandria and Leesburg, Va., were much higher than usual on 9-11 and persisted for at least one week afterward. In Alexandria, seven miles south of the burning Pentagon, a doctor with years of experience working with radiation issues found elevated radiation levels on 9-11 of 35 to 52 counts per minute (cpm) using a "Radalert 50" Geiger counter. One week after 9-11, in Leesburg, 33 miles northwest of the Pentagon, soil readings taken in a residential neighborhood showed even higher readings of 75 to 83 cpm. "That's pretty high," Cindy Folkers of the Washing ton-based Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) told AFP. Folkers said 7 to 12 cpm is normal background radiation inside the NIRS building, and that outdoor readings of between 12 to 20 cpm are normal in Chevy Chase, Md., outside Washington. The Radalert 50, Folkers said, is primarily a gamma ray detector and "detects only 7 percent of the beta radiation and even less of the [very short lived] alpha." This suggests that actual radiation levels may have been significantly higher than those detected by the doctor's Geiger counter. "The question is, why?" Folkers said. If the radiation came from the explosion and fire at the Pentagon, it most likely did not come from a Boeing 757, which is the type of aircraft that allegedly hit the building. --- "Boeing has never used DU on either the 757 or the 767, and we no longer use it on the 747," Leslie M. Nichols, product spokesperson for Boeing's 767, told AFP.
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/10/300788.shtml

[46] The U.S. Congress set a three year limitation on suits aginst the WTC--unconstitutional, since it claims to remove capacities of Constitutional due process by recourse to (thus unConstitutional) law, which is illegal.

"A class action lawsuit on behalf of more than 800 people who suffer health effects was filed against WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein and the companies that supervised the cleanup: AMEC, Bovis Lend Lease, Turner, and Tully Construction. The suit was filed on Sept. 10, the last day set by a federal three-year statute of limitations for lawsuits related to 9-11. "
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/10/300788.shtml

[47] New York City continues health coverup, along with FEMA:
Another 9.11 cover-up: Environmental concerns in Manhattan after WTC destruction
"When the towers blew up, tons of hazardous waste was blown over NYC, but the city is denying the dangers and dragging its feet on the clean-up. WTC Fallout Government Coverups Outrage Community Groups: "If there is not money for us, what is there money for?" demanded Lowell Peterson, a lawyer for Local 78 of the Asbestos, Lead and Hazardous Waste Laborers.
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2002/09/23125.shtml

[48] Clencher: Foreign owned British AMEC was put in charge of the areas hit on 9-11 long before 9-11. Then, they cleaned up after it. British AMEC did pre-9-11 WTC7 "renovations" and pre-9-11 Pentagon wedge "renovations and strengthening". Both of these British AMEC areas then suffer controlled demolition or were damaged intentionally on 9-11. Then Brititsh AMEC cleans it up. Then they leave the country in 2004.
"AMEC Construction Management, a subsidiary of the British engineering firm AMEC, renovated Wedge One of the Pentagon before 9-11 and cleaned it up afterward. AMEC had also renovated Silverstein's WTC 7, which collapsed mysteriously on 9-11, and then headed the cleanup of the WTC site afterward. The AMEC construction firm is currently in the process of closing all its offices in the United States." "
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/10/300788.shtml

[49] British AMEC's contract "date to completion" for attack reinforcement for Pentagon wedge, the one that was hit? AMEC's contract was to have the Pentagon reinforcement complete by.....September 2001--the month it was hit.

Shows International Corp. Institutional Media BBC and CNN in on the terrorism 28.Feb.2007 02:33

related repost grouping

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

Besides the advance reporting of just the collapse itself, how could the news anchor tell us the reason for the collapse before it happened?

"This was not the result of a new attack," states the anchor, "It was because the building had been weakened during this morning's attacks."

How else could the BBC have relayed this information unless by way of some kind of press release or official statement by Silverstein, Giuliani or the NYFD [OR AMEC]? Who told them that the building had been weakened? In effect, the BBC were working to a 9/11 script and made the error of orating their lines too early.

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



After This Fiasco, How Can We Trust Anything They Told Us About 9/11?

The BBC Building 7 farce lends about as much credibility to the official story of 9/11 as weapons of mass destruction do for justifying the invasion of Iraq

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, February 27, 2007

The fiasco of a BBC journalist reporting in advance that Building 7 had collapsed as it loomed large behind her strikes at the very root of how the media were complicit in acting as facilitators for the official myth that was manufactured on 9/11. After this debacle, how can we trust anything we were told about September 11?

Though the video was almost immediately purged by the crowned kings of censorship - Google - it has since been re-uploaded to You Tube and feverishly copied everywhere. Watch the clip below. For an extended clip where the Building 7 farce is clearly annotated, click here, and skip forward to 14 minutes.

A central facet of the debate raging amongst 9/11 truthers and a charge leveled by moronic debunkers is that there is no time code or clock on the video, so how can we verify the BBC reported Building 7's collapse 20 minutes before it fell?

Does it matter? Does it matter if the BBC reported the collapse 23 minutes before it happened or 30 seconds before it happened? The fact remains that the building is there in the background behind the reporter's head as she is telling us that it has already collapsed! Don't get tangled up in this minutia, the building is still standing after she has reported its collapse! Debates about time stamps and time zones are irrelevant.

Others charge that Building 7 was expected to collapse before it did, which is true, and the BBC merely jumped the gun - but that begs the question - how did officials know the building was going to collapse when no modern steel building in history had collapsed from fire damage alone and why were the BBC reporting its collapse in advance with the added knowledge of why it collapsed - a question that is still being investigated by NIST five and a half years later? Whoever the BBC's source was for reporting the collapse of Building 7 were ahead of NIST by five and a half years and had already determined why the building had collapsed before it had collapsed. Is this not in the least bit suspicious?

CNN had also been told the building was about to collapse, as is made clear below.
 link to www.youtube.com
[1:58]
[CNN hedging their bets.."er, has collapsed, or is about to collapse..."--while showing an uncollapsed image as well!]

What seems obvious is that Silverstein [OR A.M.E.C, THE SINGLE BRITISH CORPORATION DOMINATING BOTH WTC7 AND PENTAGON CONSTRUCTION AND CLEANUP] was getting the cover story out as quickly as possible before the building was intentionally demolished, and that's how they were so sure it was going to collapse before it eventually did.

In addition, NYPD officer Craig Bartmer reported hearing bombs tear down the building as he ran away from it.

Debunkers have scoffed at our suggestion that some kind of press release had to have been issued for the BBC to report this ahead of time. Well how else do you suggest the BBC learned of the building's demise before it happened? A psychic premonition?

This goes to the very heart of why the mainstream media is stuttering and the alternative is burgeoning - the establishment press have become nothing more than ditto heads of the official version of events to the point where they don't even perform a cursory investigation of what they are being told by official sources. Their role is simply to repeat what the authorities tell them with no scrutiny whatsoever.

Nowhere was this more evident than on 9/11 when the corporate media mechanically relayed the 'Osama did it' fraud within hours of the attack, and afforded copious air time to highly suspicious individuals who just happened to know the intricate details of how each building collapsed within minutes of it occurring. This was key to solidifying the dogma of the official story, because anyone who saw the collapse of WTC 7 without having had the official propaganda drilled into them could see plain as day that it was a controlled demolition.

Indeed, controlled demolitions expert Danny Jowenko, unaware that the structure had collapsed on 9/11, immediately concluded that Building 7 had been deliberately demolished when he was shown the footage by a Dutch television crew, and maintains that position to this day.

The BBC Building 7 fiasco lends about as much credibility to the official story of 9/11 as weapons of mass destruction do for the justification of invading Iraq.

Besides the advance reporting of just the collapse itself, how could the news anchor tell us the reason for the collapse before it happened?

"This was not the result of a new attack," states the anchor, "It was because the building had been weakened during this morning's attacks."

How else could the BBC have relayed this information unless by way of some kind of press release or official statement by Silverstein, Giuliani or the NYFD [OR AMEC]? Who told them that the building had been weakened? In effect, the BBC were working to a 9/11 script and made the error of orating their lines too early.

This damning video is also a commentary on the credibility and impartiality of the BBC as a whole, especially in light of their ludicrously bias, slanted and error ridden Conspiracy Files hit piece that aired last Sunday. Perhaps debunker-in-chief Guy Smith can explain to us how his colleague prophesied the downfall of a building that, almost mockingly, appears in full view behind her head before the live feed is conveniently interrupted.

24 hours after the video first surfaced and was then unceremoniously "pulled" from Google Video (but not before it went viral everywhere else), there is still no response from the BBC and no mainstream coverage whatsoever, not even a 'look what the silly conspiracy theorists are saying' puff piece.

It seems our noble press whores are more concerned today about Helen Mirren eating a beef burger and James Cameron's fictional Jesus tomb.

What if we had unearthed footage of a CNN anchor reporting the collapse of the twin towers as he stood below them? Would that be enough to provoke any interest? How about Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld announcing a joint press conference in which they admit they ran the attack? No doubt the noisy negativists would find some harebrained reason to dismiss that also.

Where is the BBC's clarification on this? How about Industrial Risk Insurers, surely they would be interested to find out that Silverstein was rapaciously anticipating their $861 million payout before Building 7 "accidentally" collapsed?

Our sense of outrage on this matter should not be quelled by time and the stubbornness of official channels, namely the BBC and whoever their source for reporting the collapse was, to answer for, in the case of the BBC, their hideous "mistake," and the source for exactly how they were able to predict that a modern steel building that had suffered limited fire damage would suddenly collapse in its own footprint without the aid of explosive demolition.

Comments (201) | Trackback

 http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/270207trustanything.htm
Like BBC goof, CNN
Like BBC goof, CNN "wait on fire collapse" (no fire!) before it happens as well!

Issue of Insurance Fraud. 28.Feb.2007 10:27

Carmon Elliott Wizdym4@aol.com

What insurance company paid some $3.5 Billion on a such a dubious claim as WTC 7's collapse? An investigation of this claim can and should be done. Surely there are professional prosecutors who would look into this issue. Would researchers please check this out and follow through with this line of inquiry?

Time zone difference is conspirators downfall, but who will listen? 28.Feb.2007 12:11

Fletcher

Detailing the lone gunman from Russia hours before the Dallas police named Oswald as a suspect, the New Zealand newspaper just like the BBC report of the Soloman Bros. (WTC7) collapse is something the conspirators obviously fucked up on. Unfortunately the organization we refer to as the "media" is asleep as usual. Osama bin Laden is the patsy in this one, the Council on Foreign Relations talking heads were naming him as the primary suspect on NBC and CNN, even before the dust settled in lower Manhattan.




 http://library.christchurch.org.nz/Heritage/Newspapers/Star23Nov1963/
CIA planted
CIA planted "news"

BBC Timestamp 26 min early stops debunkers; CNN lies WTC7 gone 1 hour before 28.Feb.2007 14:23

repost

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

BBC reports at least a half hour beforehand, and has WTC7 gone, on the air, "a full 26 minutes in advance of its collapse."..."the BBC reported the collapse of Building 7 at 4:54PM EST, a full 26 minutes before it collapsed." [i.e., substitute "collapsed" for "was control demolitioned on schedule," though someone's schedule was running a wee bit late (in NYC criminal gov't control demolition terrorists) or early (BBC getting the word from them at a certain scheduled time to pre-report on "fire" as an alibi--though something perhaps went wrong among the NYC controlled demolition of WTC7, postponing it past the BBC's pre-reportage agreement), eh?]

CNN reports WTC7 gone over an hour before it happens, starting from around 4:15! "...if we factor in CNN's Aaron Brown reporting that Building 7 "has collapsed or is collapsing" at 4:15PM EST, then that's over an hour before the building imploded into its own footprint."

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




Time Stamp Confirms BBC Reported WTC 7 Collapse 26 Minutes In Advance
Debunkers' claims about blue screens, inconclusive time frame of Jane Standley footage eviscerated

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, February 28, 2007


If there was any remaining doubt that the BBC reported the collapse of Building 7 over 20 minutes before it fell then it has now evaporated with the discovery of footage from the BBC's News 24 channel that shows the time stamp at 21:54 (4:54PM EST) when news of the Salomon Brothers Building is first broadcast, a full 26 minutes in advance of its collapse.

Watch the clip below.
[GOOGLE ALREADY HAS DELETED IT!]

According to FEMA, WTC 7 collapsed at 5:20pm on the afternoon of 9/11. Since British Summer Time is five hours ahead of Eastern Standard Time, the BBC reported the collapse of Building 7 at 4:54PM EST, a full 26 minutes before it collapsed.

"News is continuing to come in as you can imagine. We're now being told that another enormous building in New York has collapsed. It is the 47-story Salomon Brothers building [better known as WTC Building 7] which was situated very close to the World Trade Center, right there in this financial capitol," states the anchor Gavin Estler.

Following the controversy created by Monday's footage in which BBC correspondent Jane Standley is seen live in New York reporting the collapse of Building 7 as it remains standing behind her, many debunkers tried to claim that the images were inconclusive because there was no time stamp on the footage. Others alleged that Standley was merely standing in front of a dated blue screen image and that the shot in her background was a recording from earlier in the day. Both these objections can now be easily dismissed by the addition of the News 24 footage confirming that the news that Building 7 had collapsed was prematurely reported by 26 minutes.

Since the BBC obviously had a source for this information, though they refuse to acknowledge exactly what that source was, it can be surmised that the news took a few minutes to make its way to the on air anchor, therefore we can approximate that someone knew Building 7 was going to collapse at least half an hour before it fell. However, if we factor in CNN's Aaron Brown reporting that Building 7 "has collapsed or is collapsing" at 4:15PM EST, then that's over an hour before the building imploded into its own footprint.

First responders, firefighters and police are all on the record as stating they were told Building 7 was to be "brought down" and many took that to mean that it was going to be intentionally demolished by means of explosives. Some even reported a 20 second countdown preceding the building's collapse, which can only mean one thing - that it was deliberately imploded according to a pre-determined schedule.

Building 7 stood 355 feet away from the north tower. Structures closer to the twin towers that were bombarded with debris and essentially hollowed out remained standing for weeks after 9/11, until they were demolished by explosive crews, whereas Building 7 suffered relatively little damage and yet imploded hours after the towers fell. In their [false reportage brainwashing] Conspiracy Files "documentary" the BBC said WTC 7 was a "raging inferno" when in fact fires were confined to just eight floors according to FEMA.

World Trade Center Building 3..., known publicly as the 22-story Marriott Hotel positioned between the twin towers, was heavily damaged during the collapse of WTC 2, yet it did not experience uniform collapse either vertically or horizontally.

The BBC's pathetic excuse for not being able to confirm that they reported the collapse of WTC 7 in advance, that they lost the tapes of the BBC World 9/11 coverage, was nothing more than an attempt to make questions about this huge controversy go away. It remains to be seen if they'll issue another response now that it is 100% certified that they reported the collapse of a building 26 minutes before it happened.

So far wider mainstream coverage of this mammoth story has been all but mute.

We received an interesting e mail from a CNN archivist in Atlanta who stated their utter disbelief at the notion that BBC has lost any of their 9/11 archives.

"I'm an archivist with the CNN News Library in Atlanta, and I can tell you with absolute certainty, the mere idea that news agencies such as ours would "misplace" any airchecks from 9/11 is preposterous. CNN has these tapes locked away from all the others. People like myself, who normally would have access to any tapes in our library, must ask special permission in order to view airchecks from that day. Multiple tapes would have been recording their broadcast that day, and there are also private agencies that record all broadcasts from all channels - constantly - in the event that a news agency missed something or needs something. They don't just have one copy... they have several. It's standard procedure, and as soon as the second plane hit, they would start recording several copies on other tapes machines all day long."

"The only information they need to give out is the source of the collapse claim. No one is saying the BBC is "part of the conspiracy," we're saying that someone gave that reporter the information ahead of time. The source of that information is the only thing they can reveal that would be meaningful."

Just ten days after the airing of its bias, error ridden, propagandistic hit piece against the 9/11 truth movement, the BBC's program directors are probably wishing they had never gone near the subject. The response metered out against them, bolstered by the Building 7 fiasco, has tarnished the corporation's credibility and their sophistic attempt to rebut the accusations has only made matters worse.

Suffice to say it would be a very stupid decision to re-air Guy Smith's farce of a documentary in any country ever again. Perhaps the BBC could do us all a favor and 'lose' the tapes just like they claim to have lost the tapes of their 9/11 coverage.

Comments (113) | Trackback

 http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/280207timestamp.htm


ON 9-11, A WTC7 20-SECOND COUNTDOWN WENT OUT OVER EMERGENCY RESPONDER RADIO FREQUENCIES, PUBLIC BULLHORNS BLARED THEY WERE ABOUT TO PULL WTC7

The EMT worker: "There were bright flashes up and down the sides of Building 7, you could see them through the windows...and it collapsed. We all knew it was intentionally pulled... they told us!"

MAIN WTC COLUMNS IN THE 110 STORY TOWERS WERE ALREADY "BLOWN" BEFORE THEY WERE DEMOLISHED AS WELL

CO-CONFIRMING RODRIGUEZ'S TESTIMONY ABOUT PREPARATORY EXPLOSIONS BEFORE ANY PLANES HIT:
RODRIQUEZ CONFIRMS PREPARATORY BASEMENT EXPLOSIONS IN WTC1
EMERGENCY RESPONDER CONFIRMS PREPARATORY BASEMENT EXPLOSIONS IN WTC2

EMERGENCY RESPONDER FIRED FOR TALKING ABOUT IT

Ground Zero EMT: We Were Told Building 7 Was to Be "Pulled"
New Jersey Emergency Medical Technician asked "how could someone have rigged all these explosives?" before towers collapsed, support columns had been blown out

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, February 8, 2007

A New Jersey EMT has gone public on how emergency workers were told that Building 7 was going to be "pulled," before a 20 second demolition countdown broadcast over radio preceded its collapse.

The ground zero rescue worker also blows the whistle on how he witnessed multiple underground support columns of the WTC towers that had been severed before the buildings imploded.

In a letter to Loose Change producer Dylan Avery, the individual who wishes to remain anonymous refering to himself only as Mike, 30, NJ, describes how he has repeatedly tried to alert numerous authorities to what he saw on 9/11 but was ignored or told to "shut up" on every occasion, and ultimately fired for disorderly conduct.

The EMT now dismisses the official government explanation of events and slams the 9/11 commission as a "whitewash."

Having been in his profession for six years, the individual states that he was at ground zero before, during and after the collapse. He was forced to flee from the falling towers and take cover under a bus shelter as debris rained down all around him, leaving his lungs poisoned today with the toxic dust that 9/11 heroes were exposed to as a result of a cover-up on behalf of Condoleezza Rice and the EPA that assured workers ground zero air was safe to breathe.

The EMT made the decision to make his claims public after becoming aggrieved at how 9/11 debunkers were viciously attacking the creators of Loose Change for questioning the events of 9/11 in their film, which has now aired on numerous international television stations and has been seen by millions on the Internet.

In his enthralling testimony, the EMT goes into graphic detail of how he and others personally witnessed a plethora of explosions at all points of the buildings before their collapse.

"There were explosions. There were flashes. There was molten metal running down the I-beams of the basement levels like lava flows. I've never seen anything like it. Yes, planes hit the buildings - anybody who says otherwise is a moron. But the explosions - the rapid, symmetrical, sequential explosions - they happened," states 'Mike'.

He explains how he and others were in the basement of one of the towers helping injured victims when he saw "One of the huge steel and concrete support pillars with an 8 foot section blown out of the center of it." Looking around, Mike saw other support columns that were in the same condition, prompting rescue personal to ask "how could someone have rigged all these explosives?"

"We stood outside listening to the explosions," states Mike, "One after the other, every minute or so. At one point, about 10 minutes before the first collapse, a 30 foot or so section of the courtyard exploded straight up into the air. Just before the collapses, a series of deep, below ground explosions, then numerous explosions in the buildings upper floors. Then we ran. We felt the same deep explosions before the second collapse. This was not just the planes."

The rescue worker concludes emphatically, "The buildings were rigged, there is no question about it."

Perhaps of even more interest, the EMT relates the fact 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.

Following news reports in the days after the attack that Building 7 had collapsed due to fire damage, Mike fully expected this mistake to be corrected after the chaos had subsided, but was astonished when it became part of the official story.

Questions about Building 7 came to the fore in January 2004 when footage of WTC complex owner Larry Silverstein telling a September 2002 PBS documentary that after consultation with the FDNY the decision was made to "pull" the building surfaced on the Internet.

These issues were subsequently explored in Alex Jones' Martial Law and Terror Storm documentary films.

Since then, debunkers and Silverstein's office itself have tried to argue that Silverstein simply meant to "pull" or evacuate the firefighters out of the building, yet in the same documentary explosives experts are seen demolishing the remnants of other buildings in the ground zero area and repeatedly use the industry term "pull" to describe a controlled demolition.

In addition, there were no firefighters in WTC 7 to "pull" in the first place.

Dr. Shyam Sunder, of the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST), which investigated the collapse of WTC 7, is quoted in Popular Mechanics (9/11: Debunking the Myths, March, 2005) as saying: "There was no firefighting in WTC 7."

The FEMA report on the collapses, from May, 2002, also says about the WTC 7 collapse: "no manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY."

And an article by James Glanz in the New York Times on November 29, 2001 says about WTC 7: "By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons."

Photo and video evidence of the collapse of Building 7 shows classic indications of a controlled demolition. The standard 'crimp' in the center-left top of the building and the subsequent 'squibs' of smoke as it collapses clearly represent explosive demolition.

Even Dan Rather, commenting on the collapse for CBS News said that the collapse was, "reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down."

The EMT worker agrees, stating, "There were bright flashes up and down the sides of Building 7, you could see them through the windows...and it collapsed. We all knew it was intentionally pulled... they told us!"

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 profit of about $500 million.

Due to the many unanswered questions surrounding Building 7, The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was forced to include in its probe into Building 7 the theory of, "Whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse."

Following the attacks, Mike made a sustained effort to inform the relevant authorities of what he saw, including the FDNY, the NYPD, newspapers and television networks. In every case he was told to "shut up", "forget about it", or "let it go, for my own good."

Initially praised as heroes, when Mike and his colleague tried to to alert their EMT Coordinator In Charge of what they had witnessed, they were brought up on charges of disorderly conduct, fired, and fined for damaged uniforms and equipment they had used on 9/11. Two other colleagues who witnessed the same events now refuse to even acknowledge they were at ground zero for fear of reprisals.

The astounding testimony of this brave EMT only adds further credence to the already overwhelming case for controlled demolition of both the twin towers and Building 7. We implore this individual to go public with his full name in the interests of his own safety. It is far more secure to blow the whistle out in the light than to remain in the shadows and become another victim of those who wish to see 9/11 truth buried.

Comments (200) | Trackback

 http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/080207building7.htm
Google Deletes it Same Day It's Posted, screen capture from earlier in the day
Google Deletes it Same Day It's Posted, screen capture from earlier in the day

Google video on BBC power of future predictions is back on. 01.Mar.2007 16:34

Puting KGB

This page is reporting google now publishing video of bbc screw up. http://www.haloscan.com/comments/sonof101/ReaderComments5/?a=30204 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4859769454181174338 I have located this video of the BBC fuck up at google video. http://video.google.com/ videopla...769454181174338 Putin KGB | Homepage | 03.01.07 - 6:00 pm | #

Guy calls BBC and gives notice of this Video. 02.Mar.2007 05:13

Maxxx

This guy on a video in you tube talks to BBC about this story. http://www.porkolt.com/other-18342.html

OMG OMG 02.Mar.2007 10:13

rational human

I know it's hard to believe that the BBC could have made a mistake while covering a breaking news story of such monumental proportions, but it is obvious to any sane mind that this is what happened. The shot of WTC7 is clear in the background, but how would a BBC reporter doing a stressful live report be expected to know that -- they got bad information, and they ran with it before getting confirmation. There's no story here.

poor showing troll, though I'll respond 02.Mar.2007 17:41

moltel steel watch

quote:
"The shot of WTC7 is clear in the background, but how would a BBC reporter doing a stressful live report be expected to know that -- they got bad information,"...

That is the point. Where do you get "bad information" about an event that never occurred? That's not called "bad information" that's orating early a cover up alibi story for the WTC7 building not hit by anything and not in any danger of collapse by fire. Shows they had the alibi already set up before they committed the controlled demolition crime, and were coaching people to expect it to collapse soon (falsely) based on their alibi. Besides even FEMA says there was molten and sulfurated steel in WTC7, something that an office furniture fire would not do. Besides, look around you a bit more: there are plenty of witnesses to a controlled demolition countdown of WTC7.

And WTC7 fell like WTC1 and WTC2 exactly. And if WTC7 was pulled, says Silverstein, then his other buildings were prerigged and pulled because the molten steel was there as well.