Author Topic: Floodgates opening? 2 more Ground Zero workers say WTC 7 was controlled demo  (Read 4344 times)

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
More Ground Zero Heroes On The Record: Building 7 Was Deliberately Brought Down

Testimony of multiple rescue personnel that they were told Building 7 was going to be imploded means FEMA, NIST, Silverstein Properties and federal government all lied, revelations demand immediate grand jury inquiry into insurance fraud, vindicates call for new independent 9/11 investigation

Two more ground zero emergency rescue personnel are on the record as stating they were told Building 7 was going to be brought down on 9/11 hours before its symmetrical implosion, completely contradicting the official explanation of accidental collapse.

The new revelations provoke urgent questions about how a building was rigged with explosives within hours when such a process normally takes weeks or months and why the decision was taken to demolish the building amidst the chaos of the situation on that day.

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

Shortly after this article was released we uncovered more astounding testimony of ground zero rescue workers who are fully public and on the record in repeating the same claims, that Building 7 was brought down deliberately and that its collapse was not accidental as the government claims.

Indira Singh was a volunteer civilian Emergency Medical Technician at the World Trade Center on September 11th. She was a Senior Consultant for JP Morgan Chase in Information Technology and Risk Management. Singh was responsible for setting up triage sites for the seriously injured and walking wounded. These sites were closed down and consolidated one by one as the day wore on. Appearing on the Pacifica show Guns and Butter, Singh describes her experience to host Bonnie Faulkner. Click here to listen with commentary by Alex Jones.

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

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

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

As is discussed elsewhere in this article, the feasibility and logic of bringing the building down on 9/11 is up for debate, but what is not debatable is the fact that Silverstein Properties, NIST, FEMA and the federal government have all knowingly lied in claiming in official reports that the building came down solely as a result of damage from the towers and that the collapse of the building was not aided by means of intentionally placed explosives.

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

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

On September 9 2006, McPadden told an audience at the Community Church in New York City how while he was stationed in a Red Cross operations center, he was told that Building 7 was going to be brought down. Click here for the audio.

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

McPadden then describes the scene as a "stampede" as people ran over each other in their attempts to flee.

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

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


sandycoosworth

  • Guest
my guy ... links with words please!

Deedee

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5067
  • They sicken of the calm, who knew the storm.
Am not really into CT much, but was I the only person watching the news the day they brought down WT7? I only watch generic news like NBC, ABC or CNN and can't remember which one it was, but the two newscasters were reporting on it minutes before and were quite openly anticipating the controlled demolition of the building. It came down during the broadcast.  It didn't seem out of the ordinary and the broadcasters explained it was being brought down because the building had become dangerous to work around. Was I having an out of body experience? Abducted by aliens? Didn't anyone else see this?

sandycoosworth

  • Guest
Am not really into CT much, but was I the only person watching the news the day they brought down WT7? I only watch generic news like NBC, ABC or CNN and can't remember which one it was, but the two newscasters were reporting on it minutes before and were quite openly anticipating the controlled demolition of the building. It came down during the broadcast.  It didn't seem out of the ordinary and the broadcasters explained it was being brought down because the building had become dangerous to work around. Was I having an out of body experience? Abducted by aliens? Didn't anyone else see this?

i wonder if they probed you :D

Deedee

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5067
  • They sicken of the calm, who knew the storm.
i wonder if they probed you :D

I'm worried now.  :P

But seriously...

sandycoosworth

  • Guest
yeah i was aroused worried too ;D

i love how the article mentioned insurance fraud,  insurers are among the best intelligence gatherers in the world .. would they pay knowing it was an inside job?? of course, becuase AGI owns KROLL industries which seems to have been very deeply involved with 911 and im betting the other 7 or whatever insurers have similar connections, im sure the bush administration shook their hands on some unrealted matter(like i dunno, an insurers role in healthcare) and they are even steven

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Am not really into CT much, but was I the only person watching the news the day they brought down WT7? I only watch generic news like NBC, ABC or CNN and can't remember which one it was, but the two newscasters were reporting on it minutes before and were quite openly anticipating the controlled demolition of the building. It came down during the broadcast.  It didn't seem out of the ordinary and the broadcasters explained it was being brought down because the building had become dangerous to work around. Was I having an out of body experience? Abducted by aliens? Didn't anyone else see this?

I didn't see it, and haven't spent a minute looking into this "controlled demolition," but if what you say is true I find it REALLY funny.  You mean all this talk about a "bomb" is malarkey? 

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
sorry - it's from prison planet.
And before anyone automatically ignores the story because of the source, look at the titles of the people
---Senior Consultant for JP Morgan Chase in Information Technology and Risk Management
---Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue

Additionally, I think it's going to start becoming clear why the 911 Commission refused to even touch WTC7 in the Official Report.  We know the White House changed the EPA report (when lives were at stake!) and we don't know if the NIST report was altered yet, but we do know the White House controls its findings release.

I don't care where you stand on the issue of 911, who was to blame, etc.  If a 47-story skyscraper was demolished that day, and the govt covered it up, we should really ask ourselves
1) WHY they would cover it up, and 2) WHY should we take their word on buildings 1 & 2?




240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
I didn't see it, and haven't spent a minute looking into this "controlled demolition," but if what you say is true I find it REALLY funny.  You mean all this talk about a "bomb" is malarkey? 

You find it REALLY funny?

You're a sick man.  3000 peolpe died on 9/11, and if WTC7 was brought down in a controlled demolition, the credibility of their story on how the other buildings came down comes into question.

beach, seriously, is something wrong with you?

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31866
Am not really into CT much, but was I the only person watching the news the day they brought down WT7? I only watch generic news like NBC, ABC or CNN and can't remember which one it was, but the two newscasters were reporting on it minutes before and were quite openly anticipating the controlled demolition of the building. It came down during the broadcast.  It didn't seem out of the ordinary and the broadcasters explained it was being brought down because the building had become dangerous to work around. Was I having an out of body experience? Abducted by aliens? Didn't anyone else see this?
uhm, I don't think you were the only one watching...  Don't forget that it would not have been possible to prep the building for demolition in a snap.  When did silverstein stay he made the call to pull it?  When did it go down?  How long does it take to prepare the building for controlled demolition... ;) You don't just have someone go into a building, stick a bomb there, run out and have the thing drop into its footprint...

sandycoosworth

  • Guest
the problem with controlled demolition is very simply

admit you have it and you have to admit that there were explosives in the buildings before 911 ... a building cannot be dangerous enough to collapse requiring controleld demo and safe to demo in under 8 hours

srry it doesnt work like that

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Am not really into CT much, but was I the only person watching the news the day they brought down WT7? I only watch generic news like NBC, ABC or CNN and can't remember which one it was, but the two newscasters were reporting on it minutes before and were quite openly anticipating the controlled demolition of the building. It came down during the broadcast.  It didn't seem out of the ordinary and the broadcasters explained it was being brought down because the building had become dangerous to work around. Was I having an out of body experience? Abducted by aliens? Didn't anyone else see this?

DeeDee-

When news is happening, it's hard for the govt to control it.  These initial reports are usually the most accurate, as they are reporting what's happening (and there are google videos too, that show they prepping for the building to come down).

Afterwards, they changed the story though.  Afterwards, it became "We had no clue it was falling".

Remember - IF is was indeed a controlled demolition (and the evidence is showing that), we have to ask WHEN did they wire the building to collapse? We know it takes days or weeks for teams to do it, and they obviously didn't do it ON 9/11, since the place was on fire and you can't carry a ton of tnt into a fire, wire the building, etc etc.   Plus it's a govt building, most still intact, full of legal documents for SEC cases, FBI investigations, etc, and all this evidence was destroyed.

So, it had to have been wired BEFORE 9/11.  Now if gets scary, Dee.  1) Why did silverstein wire his building - did he know the attacks were coming?  2) Did the FBI, CIA, SEC, Sec Srvc, Mayor Rudy, etc, LET him wire the building with explosives where they worked?  Insane.  3) Why did silverstein collect hundreds of millions - clearly fraud if it was a controlled demolition.

We're not trying to convict anyone here - we're trying to show there needs to be a second investigation.

Thoughts?

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
WIKI on CONTROLLED DEMOLITION

Preparation
It takes several weeks or months to prepare a building for implosion. All items of value, such as copper wiring, are stripped from a building. Some materials must be removed, such as glass that can form deadly projectiles, and insulation that can scatter over a wide area. Non-load bearing partitions and drywall are removed.[2] Selected columns on floors where explosives will be set are drilled and nitroglycerin and TNT are placed in the holes. Smaller columns and walls are wrapped in detonating cord. The goal is to use as little explosive as possible; only a few floors are rigged with explosives. The areas with explosive are covered in thick geotextile fabric and fencing to absorb flying debris.[2] Far longer than the demolition itself is the clean-up of the site, as the debris is loaded into trucks and hauled away.

sandycoosworth

  • Guest
WIKI on CONTROLLED DEMOLITION

Preparation
It takes several weeks or months to prepare a building for implosion. All items of value, such as copper wiring, are stripped from a building. Some materials must be removed, such as glass that can form deadly projectiles, and insulation that can scatter over a wide area. Non-load bearing partitions and drywall are removed.[2] Selected columns on floors where explosives will be set are drilled and nitroglycerin and TNT are placed in the holes. Smaller columns and walls are wrapped in detonating cord. The goal is to use as little explosive as possible; only a few floors are rigged with explosives. The areas with explosive are covered in thick geotextile fabric and fencing to absorb flying debris.[2] Far longer than the demolition itself is the clean-up of the site, as the debris is loaded into trucks and hauled away.


further to the twin towers, the cost of prepping the building for demolition was astronomical!

Deedee

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5067
  • They sicken of the calm, who knew the storm.
DeeDee-

When news is happening, it's hard for the govt to control it.  These initial reports are usually the most accurate, as they are reporting what's happening (and there are google videos too, that show they prepping for the building to come down).

Afterwards, they changed the story though.  Afterwards, it became "We had no clue it was falling".


I know... and I know what I saw that day watching the news. Like I said, am not into CT all that much, though interested, but that's what raised all the questions for me personally. As stated in the posts above,  why suddenly change the story or put a gag on it.  Why not trot out that clip and say "it was done for safety reasons."  Obviously in the aftermath it became inconvenient to actually admit that the building was rigged.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
You find it REALLY funny?

You're a sick man.  3000 peolpe died on 9/11, and if WTC7 was brought down in a controlled demolition, the credibility of their story on how the other buildings came down comes into question.

beach, seriously, is something wrong with you?

Hilarious.  This entire CT crap is a riot.  :D  How many people died in this "controlled demolition"? 

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
I know... and I know what I saw that day watching the news. Like I said, am not into CT all that much, though interested, but that's what raised all the questions for me personally. As stated in the posts above,  why suddenly change the story or put a gag on it.  Why not trot out that clip and say "it was done for safety reasons."  Obviously in the aftermath it became inconvenient to actually admit that the building was rigged.

If they admitted they did it,
1) They'd have to give back the $ for insurance, and more importantly,
2) They'd have to tell America WHEN they rigged it (a process that takes weeks)

Silverstein (owner of all 7 buildings) did admit on PBS he decided the best thing to do was to "pull it", a popular demolition term for imploding a building.  Later, he denied he meant pulling the building, but...

It opens a lot of questions, you know?  The way that towers 1/2 fell - completely organized and straight down, ejection plumes before the building fell, bombs in basement, molten steel afterwards, all these things point to a controlled demolition.  If we know WTC7 was a controlled demolition, we have to ask if the others were too.

I find it weird that people are still okay with it.  Aside from the fact the guy stole 480 mil in insurance money, he blew up a govt building, destroying many cases (inculding much of Enron and Worldcom!).  Also, did he know about 9/11 ahead of time?  If so, that's conspiracy to commit mass murder. 

Lots of questions open up. 

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Hilarious.  This entire CT crap is a riot.  :D  How many people died in this "controlled demolition"? 

You have just marginalized yourself in a conversation between adults.

We're talking about clear evidence of foreknowledge of 9/11, and you're calling it crap.

Sounds like you support the terrorists a lot more than you support America and punishing anyone who knew about 911 and let it happen. 


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
You have just marginalized yourself in a conversation between adults.

We're talking about clear evidence of foreknowledge of 9/11, and you're calling it crap.

Sounds like you support the terrorists a lot more than you support America and punishing anyone who knew about 911 and let it happen. 



lol.   :)

You're talking about a freakin fairy tale that is confined to CT web sites and nuts like you who accuse the president of murder.  The overwhelming majority of rational people do not take this crap seriously.  They don't spend time wondering how the hundreds, and probably thousands, of people participated in this stupid plot, which resulted in the secret abduction of two jets and hundreds of passengers. 

Okay, so tell me again how many people died in this "controlled demolition"? 


Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31866
I know... and I know what I saw that day watching the news. Like I said, am not into CT all that much, though interested, but that's what raised all the questions for me personally. As stated in the posts above,  why suddenly change the story or put a gag on it.  Why not trot out that clip and say "it was done for safety reasons." Obviously in the aftermath it became inconvenient to actually admit that the building was rigged.
exactly... it would be inconvenient to say the least admitting they brough down the building if doing so could only mean preperation was made before that day.

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31866
Beach, you have to admit, the WTC case is worthy of considering.  There's some real valid points in this area made by conspiracy theorists.  Now I've done my share of shooting down dumb notions like holographic images projected on missiles, but this is worth examination because some very concrete real world problems are obvious with the current model for how the building fell.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
I will say it again.

As time passes, the fear which keeps people quiet subsides.

One guy sent in an anonymous letter to Dylan Avery of Loose Change this week.  The next day, Alex jones shares it with the world. Suddenly two more people (one military, one executive) come forward with their account of the events.  How many will come forward this year?

So what if it's true?  Whether it takes 3 people, or 30, or 300 to come forward with statements, at some point you have to believe them, that it was a controlled demo.  Now what?  Would you still believe it was 19 Arabs with planes who destroyed all SEVEN of the WTC buildings that sad day?  Only 7 buildings fell, WTC 1,2,3,4,5,6, and 7.  Larry Silverstein owned them all.

Did larry Silverstein (longtime Bush / Cheney buddy) work with the terrorists?  We know in 2002, WTC1 and 2 were going to need a billion dollars in renovations for asbestos.  Did he blow up just 7?  Or 7,6,5,4,3 too?  Or did he wire all 7?  What about the people that died in all those buildings?  

It gets scary now, doesn't it?  And obviously the police and firefighters knew WTC was controlled demo, as they moved everyone back.  Why didn't the 911 COmmission let them testify? Ohhhh - the 911 Commission wouldn't let them speak?  They're the "Official Story" on 9/11.  Why would they cover it up?

Scary, eh?

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Beach, you have to admit, the WTC case is worthy of considering.  There's some real valid points in this area made by conspiracy theorists.  Now I've done my share of shooting down dumb notions like holographic images projected on missiles, but this is worth examination because some very concrete real world problems are obvious with the current model for how the building fell.

I agree.  Although if what Deedee says is true, this is much ado about nothing.  But I don't have any problem with examining whether there are structural defects, etc.  What I do have a problem with is trying to tie this to some sinister plot to murder Americans. 

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Another person come forward, this time a NYPD police officer, this morning in a vid interview with Dylan Avery


This is an NYPD Officer at the foot of WTC7




NYPD Officer Heard Building 7 Bombs
"The whole time you're hearing boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. I think I know an explosion when I hear it"

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Saturday, February 10, 2007

Following our reports this week about three different ground zero rescue workers who all testified that they were told Building 7 was to be brought down, yet more revealing testimony has come to light - this time from a former NYPD officer and first responder, who states that he clearly heard bombs tear down Building 7 as he ran away from its collapse.

NYPD officer Craig Bartmer awoke on 9/11 to images of the World Trade Center burning. Knowing colleagues who worked inside the towers, he immediately headed for ground zero to help with the rescue efforts. He is now suffering from respiratory illnesses as a result of the toxic dust inhaled at the site. Bartmer was in the immediate vicinity of Building 7 before its collapse at approximately 5:20pm.

BARTMER: "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. I didn't see any reason for that building to fall down the way it did -- and a lot of guys should be saying the same thing. I don't know what the fear is coming out and talking about it? I don't know -- but it's the truth."

[...]

BARTMER: "I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'... It was at that moment... I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself... Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit's hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they're saying... Nothing to account for what we saw... I am shocked at the story we've heard about it to be quite honest."

Later in the film, Bartmer highlights the possibility that the attack was run from Building 7, as former German technology minister Andreas von Buelow has also postulated, and that it was then demolished to destroy the evidence.

BARTMER: "If the means and the motive are they where would they pull it off from? The Office of Emergency Management was in Building 7. That was a hardened bunker built to withstand just about anything that New York would face. That building had a lot of important shit in it and there was enough stuff in that building to bury evidence on other fronts - financial records, government records. There's no way that that just fell down on its own, I don't believe it."

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31866
I agree.  Although if what Deedee says is true, this is much ado about nothing.  But I don't have any problem with examining whether there are structural defects, etc.  What I do have a problem with is trying to tie this to some sinister plot to murder Americans. 
well that's cool, don't go that far, just look at building 7 and don't take it to any conspiracy... how does what deedee said make this much ado about nothing.  The factors involved in this thread alone make that not true.  Indeed the factors in this thread = a contradiction with feasible reality.  If there was no conspiracy, there can be no charges placed prior to 9/11 in the building.  If the decision to declare the building a lost cause happend on Sept 11 sometime between 10:30 and 12:30, that gives only a few hours to execute a demolition that by all accounts couldn't happen without weeks of prep.  One could point out that simply obtaining the equipment needed would take longer to process than a few hours.  It is  completely unreasonable to assume at any level wtc 7 could be accurately demolished by 5:20pm on Sept 11. So what Deedee says, if absolutely true, really raises a red flag.  Now since we're not connecting this to any conspiracy, take that red flag where you want or just ignore it.  There are other options... Inside conspirators working for an outside source... There are other options... At the time I also heard speculation when they were talking about bombs that it was believed the terrorists had set bombs and used planes.  That also came from the media...  It's up to you... where should this go?  There is a serious inconsistency to deal with here... 8)