| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| Was 10:45 a.m. the Original Demolition Time?; Curious CNN report from 9/11 | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Apr 30 2008, 01:21 PM (321 Views) | |
| Shoestring | Apr 30 2008, 01:21 PM Post #1 |
|
Here's my latest blog entry, based on an interesting CNN report from 9/11. The blog entry is here: http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2008/04/was-1045-am-originally-planned.html You can watch the CNN report here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_E6RhuEQu4 Was 10:45 a.m. the Originally Planned Demolition Time of WTC 7? At 11:07 a.m. in the morning of September 11, 2001, a CNN correspondent in New York reported that a third tower had possibly collapsed. While this report was incorrect, it is interesting to note that the reporter's description could have applied to World Trade Center Building 7. This huge skyscraper was indeed the third tower to collapse on 9/11. However it did not come down until late in the afternoon, more than six hours after this report. CNN correspondent Allan Dodds Frank reported by phone from Lower Manhattan. He described: "[J]ust two or three minutes ago there was yet another collapse or explosion. I'm now out of sight, a Good Samaritan has taken me in on Duane Street. But at a quarter to 11, there was another collapse or explosion following the 10:30 collapse of the second tower. And a firefighter who rushed by us estimated that 50 stories went down. The street filled with smoke. It was like a forest fire roaring down a canyon." [1] WTC 7 was a 47-story tower, so would have fitted the description of the estimated "50 stories" described by Frank. And it did indeed collapse completely. One could in fact accurately describe its demise with Frank's words: "The street filled with smoke. It was like a forest fire roaring down a canyon." However, this collapse did not happen until 5:20 that afternoon. What could have led Frank to make his incorrect report? Surely, even in the chaos of that morning, it would have been quite difficult for a mistaken report of another massive skyscraper coming down to have emerged out of nothing. Could the reason be that WTC 7 had originally been scheduled to be brought down (with explosives) at 10:45 a.m.? The incorrect information Frank reported had therefore been put out, by persons unknown, on the assumption that this would be the case. However, something--as yet unknown to us--happened that meant the demolition had to be delayed, and so Building 7 was not ready to be brought down until late that afternoon. 10:45 a.m. would certainly seem a far more logical time for the masterminds behind 9/11 to have wanted to bring down WTC 7. At that time, just 17 minutes after the North Tower had come down, the collapse of a third skyscraper would have appeared less obviously suspicious. It would have been easier for those involved with covering up the truth about 9/11 to claim this collapse was simply a consequence of the two earlier ones. Instead, however, the collapse at 5:20 p.m. appeared completely inexplicable. (Unless, of course, it was a controlled demolition.) MORE REPORTS OF A THIRD COLLAPSE What makes Frank's report particularly notable is that there were other incorrect reports of a third building having collapsed--or at least being in danger of collapsing--later in the day, though these made specific reference to WTC 7. These went out in the hour or so before Building 7 came down: At 4:15 p.m., CNN reported, "We're getting information that one of the other buildings ... Building 7 ... is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing." At 4:27, Greg Barrow reported from New York for the BBC radio channel Five Live, "We are hearing reports from local media that another building may have caught light and is in danger of collapse." He added, "I'm not sure if it has yet collapsed, but the report we have is talking about Building 7." At 4:54, presenter Gavin Esler reported on the BBC's domestic television news channel, BBC News 24: "We're now being told that yet another enormous building has collapsed. ... It is the 47-story Salomon Brothers building." At 4:57, presenter Phil Hayton announced on the BBC's international channel, BBC World, "We've got some news just coming in actually that the Salomon Brothers building in New York right in the heart of Manhattan has also collapsed." [2] However, WTC 7 (the "Salomon Brothers building") did not collapse until almost 25 minutes later. WHY PUT OUT ADVANCE REPORTS OF THE COLLAPSE? These reports indicated that some people knew in advance that Building 7 was going to come down. This would have been quite a feat, since, as the New York Times put it, "before then, no modern, steel-reinforced high-rise in the United States had ever collapsed in a fire." [3] Perhaps the real reason we heard these premature reports was that this information had somehow been passed to the media by the 9/11 perpetrators, as a cautious attempt at preventing speculation that WTC 7 was brought down with explosives. This was clearly what the collapse resembled, with the building falling completely and symmetrically into its own footprint in just 6.6 seconds. Indeed, CBS News anchor Dan Rather commented at the time that it was "reminiscent of ... when a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down." [4] Speculation such as this would surely have been a threat to the official 9/11 story, as it might lead people to ponder whether--rather than being committed by Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda--the attacks were an "inside job." To stifle any such debate, an official narrative would need to have been put out promptly. Perhaps this was why at 5:10 p.m.--still before WTC 7 had come down--the BBC's Phil Hayton reported: "[Y]ou might have heard I was talking a few moments ago about the Salomon building collapsing and indeed it has. ... It seems this wasn't the result of a new attack but because the building had been weakened during this morning's attack." [5] It appears the information had been put out already, not only that WTC 7 had collapsed, but also that it had come down without the use of explosives: It collapsed because "the building had been weakened during this morning's attack." And thus, the cover-up had begun. NOTES [1] "America Under Attack." Breaking News, CNN, September 11, 2001. [2] These reports are summarized in Richard Porter, "Part of the Conspiracy? (2)." BBC News, March 2, 2007. [3] James Glanz and Eric Lipton, "Burning Diesel is Cited in Fall of 3rd Tower." New York Times, March 2, 2002. [4] CBS News, September 11, 2001. [5] Quoted in Richard Porter, "Part of the Conspiracy? (2)." |
 |
 
|
| Miragememories | Apr 30 2008, 06:59 PM Post #2 |
|
Sorry, I'm afraid I have to disagree here. Waiting only until 10:45 am, 17 minutes after WTC collapsed, would leave an even bigger question mark as to why a modern 47-story building with little fire (at that time) and some non-fatal damage to it's south face, would suddenly, totally collapse, at high speed.. At least the 5:20 pm collapse gave them the argument of a building weakened over time by fire, lame as that is. The more logical original plan to my mind was that the planners intended for the controlled-demolition collapse of WTC 7 to be masked by the collapse of WTC 1. Considering the huge dust cloud created, the collapse of WTC 1 would most certainly have masked the type of artificial looking, high speed collapse we observed with WTC 7 approximately 7 hours later. MM |
|
|
|
| Headspin | Apr 30 2008, 08:10 PM Post #3 |
|
if flight 93 had flown from shankesville to new york at a realistic speed of 500mph and crashed into wtc 7 it would have crashed into building 7 at 10:41 am |
|
|
|
| DoYouEverWonder | Apr 30 2008, 10:41 PM Post #4 |
|
That would make some sense. If WTC 7 had fallen on time, they could have easily claimed that there was very heavy damage and there would have been a very slim chance of anyone getting pictures of this supposed damage. BTW: Found some new(?) pictures but unfortunately the smoke is still covering up most of Vesey Street and the front of WTC 7.     http://public.fotki.com/anton/world_trade_center/page14.html |
|
|
| honestjoe | May 2 2008, 01:13 PM Post #5 |
|
I posted this on on another thread but I think it is relevant to this thread. Please pay attention to the events and photos that are taking place up to and around the time in question. It does seem that they intended to bring down WTC7 during or immediately after the collapse of WTC2 or WTC1 as the dust from the collapses would have provided plenty of cover. It appears that the number of high ranking personnel that were going to and/or were trapped inside the "bunker" by mistake (such as the longtime friend of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani ) led to the cancellation of the original detonation time of WTC7. NOTE: During a public meeting on the progress of the WTC7 report NIST said they do “NOT” know how the fires were initiated in WTC7. At one point, a participants asks NIST if the fires were initiated by the collapse of WTC2, and the NIST guy says all they know is that there were fires, which may have been caused by the collapse and he goes on to say there are other forms of initiation, such as electrical outlets. NIST also makes clear at the meeting that the shutdown of the fire alarm in the morning really isn’t a big deal (this was also addressed in the conference) just like how they don’t think it matters how the fire was started. http://nasathermalimages.com/images/NIST_NCST_Advisory_Committee_Meeting_12-18-01.mp3 Here are some quotes from first responders that more accurately describe the fires and the events leading up to them. These Quotes are evidence of arson! According to a soldier at the scene, WTC Building 7 is evacuated before the second tower is hit. [Fort Detrick Standard, 10/18/2001] All individuals in the Secret Service’s New York field office, located in WTC 7, were ordered to evacuate after the first attack. [PCCW Newsletter, 3/2006] OEM Commissioner John Odermatt, said during an interview that after the first plane hit the WTC, he left only two staffers at the command center. [Barrett and Collins, 2006, pp. 34] No reason has been given for the speedy evacuation of WTC 7 or why they DIDN'T evacuate the South Tower but instead sent everyone back into the South Tower. #1. Why did they decide before the South Tower was hit that the “Bunker” was a greater risk to its occupants than the South Tower? In the Naudet film the fire department initially ordered the lobby of WTC7 to be set up as the triage area for any wounded evacuated from the North tower. But an order came down not to use WTC7 (from an unknown official) before the second plane struck. When the second attack occurred Fire Commissioner Thomas Von Essen arrived at WTC 7 before the collapse of the South Tower, looking for Mayor Giuliani. Learning that the OEM headquarters has been evacuated, he later claims that he thinks, “How ridiculous. We’ve got a thirteen-million-dollar command center and we can’t even use it.” [Essen, 2002, pp. 26] He says in frustration, “How can we be evacuating OEM? We really need it now.” He will later tell an interviewer that he’d headed for the OEM headquarters because, “I thought that was where we should all be because that’s what [it] was built for.” [Fink and Mathias, 2002, pp. 230] #2. What reason was given for the NYFD to relocate the triage area away from WTC7? The answer to both is because WTC7 WAS ALREADY ON FIRE! Here are just two pictures of over a dozen that show WTC7 on fire before the collapse of the South Tower. Shows the fire location (before fire) of WTC7 before the false flag event: http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc-8.jpg Shows the fire in WTC7 after the jet had struck the South Tower: http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc-31.jpg Shows the fire in WTC7 before the collapse of the South Tower: http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc-31.jpg Shows the fire even through all the dust after the South Tower collapsed: http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc-67.jpg This has been confirmed by Chief Hall, and Chief Morris, who decided not to establish a command post at WTC7 as planed because they had discovered it was already on fire before the “South” Tower collapsed. This is also confirmed by Lt. Dennis P. Stafford who had met up with Chief Hall, and Chief Morris to assist in the establishment of a command post. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports01.pdf Other accounts confirm that WTC7 was on fire before the South Tower had collapsed and had been evacuated immediately after the first plane had struck the North Tower come from Michael Hess, New York’s corporation counsel, and Barry Jennings, a City Housing Authority worker. Barry Jennings, a City Housing Authority worker, and Michael Hess, New York’s corporation counsel, went up to the emergency command center on the 23rd floor of WTC Building 7 after the first attack occurred. [Associated Press, 9/11/2001 However, Hess and Jennings reportedly find no one there which suggests the center is evacuated earlier than officially claimed. [Independent, 9/13/2001] Barry Jennings then starts making calls from the recently abandoned "bunker" and is then told (by phone) to get out of building 7 ASAP! At this point, according to Hess, the power goes out in the building so they then start walking down the stairs to get out as the elevators are no longer operating. (Note: officially the power outage was do to the second plane striking the South Tower) According to Hess, when the two men get down to the eighth floor, “there was an explosion and we’ve been trapped on the eighth floor with smoke, thick smoke, all around us, for about an hour and a half.” [UPN 9, 9/11/2001] Jennings similarly describes, “We made it to the eighth floor. Big explosion. Blew us back into the eighth floor, and I turned to Hess. I said, ‘This is it; we’re dead. We’re not gonna make it out of here.’” [Penn State Public Broadcasting, 3/1/2002] After breaking a window and calling for help, they were spotted by firefighters outside. When the firefighters go in, they also find a security officer for one of the businesses based in the building, who is trapped on the 7th floor by the smoke in the stairway. Why this guard did not evacuate earlier, along with the rest of WTC 7, is unknown. All three men are escorted out of the building. Associated Press, 9/11/2001; Giuliani, 2002, pp. 20-21 and 244; Penn State Public Broadcasting, 3/1/2002; National Institute of Standards and Technology, 6/2004, pp. L-18 ; National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 109-110 ] The cause of the explosion is unclear but it is absolutely certain that it was started before the South Tower collapsed therefore there is plenty of evidence to declare WTC7 an arson and begin investigating it as such. I must repeat again that During a public meeting on the progress of the WTC7 report NIST said they do “NOT” know how the fires were initiated in WTC7. At one point, a participants asks NIST if the fires were initiated by the collapse of WTC2, and the NIST guy says all they know is that there were fires, which may have been caused by the collapse and he goes on to say there are other forms of initiation, such as electrical outlets. NIST also makes clear at the meeting that the shutdown of the fire alarm in the morning really isn’t a big deal (this was also addressed in the conference) just like how they don’t think it matters how the fire was started. http://nasathermalimages.com/images/NIST_NCST_Advisory_Committee_Meeting_12-18-01.mp3 |
|
|
|
| Stundie | May 5 2008, 07:56 AM Post #6 |
|
I'm going to have to agree..... It looks like WTC 7 should have been collapsed after WTC 1 & 2 collapsed. Getting news reports 4 times from 3 different TV channels in the same day is not a mistake, especially as this one was much earlier than the others. I think the dust would have covered the collapse of WTC 7 and if this had been the case, we might not have seen it and of course, even with all the other evidence, it would have made the CT a harder case to prove. This might explain the reason why no firefighting operations took place, probably because the explosives hadn't gone off and they needed to send a team in to fix it. I just wonder when the police/FBI caught those guys in the white vans with explosives. If they had anything to do with being on standby in case anything went wrong? A great find Shoestring. Thanks 
|
|
|
|
| JackD | May 13 2008, 01:44 PM Post #7 |
|
i don't think WTC7 was ever 'targeted' for plane strike. if you look at the skyline you may note that there is no clear 'shot' at WTC7 as there is for WTC 1&2 -- at 47 stories, the tower isnt high enough for anything other than a steep-angle dive. when/how/why was WTC7 to come down"? WTC1 was closest to WTC7, and therefore WTC7 could have been 'pulled' while it was semi-obscured by the 40+storey dustclouds from WTC1 collapse, or any time after 10:30am, before 10:45 am. firefighters had entered the WTC7 that morning, but were pulled out at 10?? am. they later re-entered to remove certain persons from the building at around noon. WTC7 fires did not get going until midafternoon. curiously, WTC7 also was built right over the truck entrance to the underground complex of WTC1&2. it's collapse completely buried that entrance-hole to WTC underground, effectively, for several weeks. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · WTC 7 · Next Topic » |
8:03 AM Dec 3
