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

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Prison Planet
Friday, February 9, 2007

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.

A cursory insight into professional building demolition tells us that experts are required to spend weeks and months planning the demolition of any building, ensuring that the explosives are placed in exactly the right spots, that the collapse will not impact surrounding buildings, and that a myriad of sufficient safety procedures are followed.

To imagine that demolition experts could rig such a huge building amidst the chaos of the day, unsure of whether further attacks were coming, in a matter of hours and bring the building down neatly in its own footprint without afflicting major damage to adjacent buildings is beyond belief.

Even if one entertains the notion that this is within the realm of possibility, the fact is that the federal government, FEMA and NIST and Silverstein Properties are all knowingly lying in claiming that the building collapsed by accident as a result of burning debris from the twin towers.

Now it is established that they lied about Building 7, how can we trust their often changing explanations of the collapse of the twin towers, especially considering the dozens and dozens of eyewitnesses who have gone on the record to report the fact that explosives were seen and heard on all levels of both towers, including underground?

We are being asked to put our faith in either the federal government, who deliberately lied about 9/11 in the very days after the attack in telling emergency workers and firemen that the toxic air was safe to breathe, or the emergency workers and other rescue heroes who risked their lives and are still suffering the consequences of their actions.

This testimony demands an immediate grand jury inquiry into both monolithic insurance fraud, potential manslaughter, and a complete re-appraisal and re-investigation into everything else that happened on 9/11 in an effort to discover what else the government lied about concerning the events of that day and its aftermath.

Link to article

FYI...

the audio clip in the article for Kevin McPadden is the wrong mp3 (it's Indira Singh's audio clip again), so if anyone would like to listen to Kevin McPadden talking about Building 7 and his experience at Ground Zero on 9/11, click on the audio links below:

Sep 20, 2006
Pacifica Radio's Guns & Butter
New York Stories: 9/11 First Responders
Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue, Kevin McPadden
Audio stream:
http://www.gunsandbutter.net/archives.php?si=142

Show archive page is here:
http://www.gunsandbutter.net/archives.php?page=3

McPadden's speech begins at 46 minutes in

@ 48:14 he makes the following comments about what he witnessed while at Ground Zero on 9/11...

"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."

______________
"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace

Also, Alex Jones will be discussing this story on his show today

The show starts NOW, and if anyone would like to listen, try going to Revere Radio and click on one of their free audio streams on the top/right side of the page:

http://www.revereradionetwork.com/

The show will be archived here later tonight:
http://www.realradioarchives.com/sound-2.htm

_____________
"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace

DIGG IT!

9/11 “pull it” = treason

This is beautiful. Every single person who comes out to make these claims is making it that much more credible. Then there is all of the other evidence combined.

9/11 “pull it” = treason

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Please vote 9/11 truth comments up at the DIGG IT link

And vote the government apologists' comments down. Thanks....

http://digg.com/world_news/WTC_Building_7_ON_THE_RECORD

And here...

http://digg.com/world_news/New_stunning_9_11_testimonies_WTC_Building_7_...

_______________
"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace

Digg my Digg submission also!

Digg it:
http://www.digg.com/world_news/New_stunning_9_11_testimonies_WTC_Buildin...

I believe my digg submission may be more explicit and convincing. We shall see!

Here is what I wrote:

New stunning 9/11 testimonies: WTC Building 7 Was Deliberately Brought Down

Listen to 9/11 emergency workers Kevin McPadden and Indira Singh explain how they were told that Building 7 was going to be brought down. And you can watch the CNN video that 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."

Will do

_____________
"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace

"Can you digg it?"

_______________________
"Cogito ergo sum"

LOL

_______________
"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace

Wolfowitz Warns of 'Surprise like Pearl Harbor' Months Before 9/

Wolfowitz Warns of 'Surprise like Pearl Harbor' Months Before 9/11 Attacks

Video posted recently on Live Leak shows now World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz delivering a June 2001 West Point commencement speech wherein he focused on surprise attacks-- making heavy reference to Pearl Harbor.

Wolfowitz illustrated, just months before the infamous 9/11 attacks, that Pearl Harbor is interesting in that it was "preceded by an astonishing number of unheeded warnings and missed signals."

This surfacing video only reinforces the pre-meditation established by the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). Wolfowitz helped to pen the think tank's September 2000 document 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' which stated on pg. 51, amidst a larger call for dramatic military build-up, that:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

Pearl Harbor is mentioned again later in the document in arguing for not only accelerated military spending, but for updated, state-of-the-art equipment, vehicles and Navy vessels.

"Absent a rigorous program of experimentation to investigate the nature of the revolution in military affairs as it applies to war at sea, the Navy might face a future Pearl Harbor – as unprepared for war in the post-carrier era as it was unprepared for war at the dawn of the carrier age."

This veiled threat evokes memories of a long-line of iconic false-flag attacks on U.S. ships-- including the Maine and the Gulf of Tonkin-- which, like Pearl Harbor, also launched profitable wars.

During his June 2001 speech, Wolfowitz commented on the role of such unanticipated events:

"Military history is full of surprises, even if few are as dramatic or memorable as Pearl Harbor. Surprises happen so often, that is is surprising that we're still surprised by it."

At least since his 1992 'Wolfowitz Doctrine' under George H.W. Bush, he has called for a sharp transformation of military capabilities into an unilateral and pre-emptive security arm for world conflicts-- solidifying U.S. primacy in the world order and ensuring control over mid-east oil.

One year after the goal of military escalation was reaffirmed in the PNAC documents-- written largely by members of the Bush administration-- the 9/11 'surprise' attack happened and Wolfowitz saw his dream of military build-up come to fruition-- including massive increases in budget, far beyond even the $100 billion increase Wolfowitz called for a decade earlier.

Remember, President Bush had the orders to launch war in Afghanistan on his desk two days prior to 9/11, but didn't sign them until after the attacks.

Wolfowitz seemed to expect an unexpected war could be just around the corner during his June 2001 speech. He went into some detail about the tendency of governments to get into a "routine of obsession with familiar dangers"-- explaining why a multitude of threats and signals can be overlooked and fail to prevent surprise attacks like that on Pearl Harbor.

He illustrates the rather ironic story of David Starr Jordan, who predicted-- just before the start of World War I-- that nations would not go to war in the future because banks would not find them to be profitable.

Nearly a century later, Wolfowitz warns us that we should:

"use hindsight to replace the poverty of expectations with anticipation of the unfamiliar and the unlikely."

He reiterated those words in the closing remarks of his address to West Point graduates:

"Be prepared to be surprised. Have courage."

Now in the comfort of hindsight, it is chilling to realize that such an unexpected war was just beyond Wolfowitz's warning-- the unlikely 9/11 attack was just around the corner and indeed, there was a heavy atmosphere of unheeded warnings in the intelligence community leading up to the surprise attack.

Fortunately for Wolfowitz, he was not embarrassing wrong as Jordan had been before World War I. He was, in fact, surprisingly dead on-- so much so, that one would swear he had prior knowledge.

(Wolfowitz, like fellow PNAC member William Kristol, is seen as an heir apparent to Leo Strauss, who believes openly in deceiving the public-- that it is not only acceptable, but necessary. Paul Wolfowitz chose the University of Chicago over Harvard in order to study under Strauss, who held a professorship there.)

http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/070207_wolfowitz.html

Hi pw, thanks for the info, but...

it has nothing to do with the subject of this blog. So please don't be offended if your post gets voted down to make room for comments that are on topic. You should create a blog for that if someone hasn't created one.

I would reccomend watching the video of this speech.

It really is chilling.

McPadden / Bloomberg confrontation on 9/11/01

It was shocking and revolting to hear McPadden's account of what happened when Mike Bloomberg walked up to him during a break and started hurling insults and childish remarks at McPadden...
I get the impression Bloomberg was trying to provoke Kevin for some sick media publicity stunt...Either that or Bloomberg was involved in 9/11 and was just exercising his evil bragging rights.
In any case I think Kevin M. should try, if he hasn't already, to get this particular story out into the press if he can.
This is how AmeriKa treats it's heroes and veterans...

A little bird told me...

That there is a large struggle within the corporate structures of certain insurance entities.

The general rule of insurance companies in cases like this is to pay out at first, and prosecute if it turns out to be fraud.

Invest in that company's stock

Do you remember or know the names of these insurance companies? It might help for some of us to put pressure on them.

For instance...

Shareholders can make waves. If anyone here has a little spare cash to invest, they/we could park it in the insurance company's stock. If enough people interested in 9-11 truth did that, those shareholders could force an investigation into this insurance fraud. Or, at a minimum, the issue could be brought in front of all the shareholders.

It needs a commotion. Stockholders and other investors usually do not like stupid payouts in the $7 billion range.

I found this from May 2, 2005...

Shareholder Proposal: Insurer to Investigate 9/11
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/5/prwebxml235341.php

That was two years ago and more

I wonder where that proposal went? Anyone have an update?

where are they?

i would really like to see more first responders come forward and corroborate the 20 sec countdown claim. where are they? also, Mike needs to go public and maybe align himself with William Rodriguez.

WTC7 is the key to blowing this thing wide open.

Right.

It also sounds from this as though a whole division of the fire department was aware of Bldg. 7's intentional demolition. Can't we just find some of those people and ask them about it?

Of course, come to think of it, 'we' did ask them, about the twins at least. Look here.

Did we ever report the crime?

You say, quite rightly: "This testimony demands an immediate grand jury inquiry ..." How does it get to that next step? The testimony itself will do nothing.

Citizens are supposed to report a crime if they see it happening, or have clear evidence that a serious crime took place. But I am unclear on how and where to report this particular crime. We have the evidence.

Maybe the best course would be to report the crime in the normal way -- whatever that is -- and also document how that report is handled. Get the media in on watching how the report is handled.

New Yorkers would have to do it. That's the jurisdiction. Has this happened already? What came of it?

Crime & Fraud

Student,

I like the way you think, both here and on the issue discussed in Feb. about Silverstein's insurance fraud. Actually prosecuting the crimes now evident seems the best way to go.

The ins. fraud angle has most of my attention at the moment. I wrote to the WT7 insurer this morning and will all the NYC DA later today.

Are there any (NY) lawyers in the truth movement? It would be great to hear their opinion.

e-mail far and wide

100 Professors Added to PatriotsQuestion911.com

A Prize For Truth
By Paul Craig Roberts

The Nobel Committee is experiencing difficulty in finding suitable candidates for the Peace Prize. Perhaps the solution is to consider candidates over a broader range of people.

What is as rare these days as a peace-maker? The answer is: a truth-teller. Without truth-tellers, there can be no peace-makers. This year the Nobel Committee should consider giving the Peace Prize to a truth-teller.

To get the ball rolling, here are some suggestions:

http://vdare.com/roberts/070205_nobel.htm
======

100 Professors Added to PatriotsQuestion911.com

A significant new section has been added to the PatriotsQuestion911.com website. It features statements from more than 100 professors who question the official account of 9/11.

In addition to this new section, the website features statements by more than 80 senior military, intelligence, law enforcement, and government officials that question or contradict the official account of 9/11.

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
=====

9/11 Inside Job: All Evidence, No Theories

4. How did WTC 7 collapse when no plane hit it? The collapse of Building 7 was later admitted to be a demolition by owner Larry Silverstein on a PBS interview in Sept. 2002. In a phone call with the FDNY chief regarding building 7, he 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" referring to the demolition of building 7. Larry later explains that "pull it" meant to evacuate firefighters, but there were no firefighters in the building at that time! Also, the FDNY is not equipped or trained to "pull" Building 7 in a controlled demolition as Larry stated. Nor can any building be prepared for such a well-designed demolition in the few minutes after Larry asked to "pull it". Coincidentally, Silverstein assumed a 99-year lease on the WTC Towers on July 24, just six weeks before Sept. 11. After the attacks, Larry boldly asserted he was entitled to twice the insurance policy value because "The two hijacked airliners that struck the 110-story twin towers Sept. 11 were separate ‘occurrences’ for insurance purposes, entitling him to collect twice on $3.6 billion collective worth of the policies, or $7.2 billion." (Do you think he wanted building 7 to collapse? The official FEMA report on WTC 7 concludes "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time." Nice investigation there!)

http://911blogger.com/node/5327#comment-103828
======

Ground Zero EMT: We Were Told Building 7 Was to Be "Pulled" - 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.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/080207building7.htm
======

Wolfowitz Warns of 'Surprise like Pearl Harbor' Months Before 9/11 Attacks

http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/070207_wolfowitz.html
======

THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF 9-11 WEBSITES (GOOGLE IT) THAT PROVE THAT THE BUSH/PNAC
ADMINSTRATION PLANNED AND ORCHESTRATED 9-11...HERES A FEW OF THEM

http://www.scholarsfortruth911.org/
http://911blogger.com/
http://www.reopen911.org/
http://www.geocities.com/killtown/
http://www.standdown.net/
http://www.911truth.org/
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/911links.html
http://www.tvnewslies.org
http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html
http://stopthelie.com/home.html
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com
http://911research.wtc7.net/
http://www.GlobalResearch.ca

Who amongst us has any doubt

Who amongst us has any doubt that WTC7 was a controlled demolition? Perhaps "any" is the wrong word: it implies certainty and nothing in this world is certain, not even taxes. But I venture that no one who frequents this website -- not even the self-described 'debunkers" -- believes that WTC7 collapsed from "natural causes" and not carefully placed explosives.

Do we have enough proof now? Can we take it to the streets?

I remember musing a few years ago that the eventual limited hangout might entail the following explanation for the collapse of all three buildings: they were wired many years before 911 and were imploded on that day as a safety measure. If one of those towers was split at the center it might take out a whole city block, therefore the gents at the controls made a tough decision -- for the benefit of the many at the expense of the few.

Sure enough, a year or two later I heard someone offering this exact explanation during a radio debate with Alex Jones. WTC7 was "obviously" a controlled demolition, this individual stated (I forget his name, sorry), but it was demolished for (a) safety reasons and (b) to protect the top-secret information stored within its precious walls -- not from defrauded stock holders, mind you, but from the terrists.

Does anyone think they might be desperate enough to offer this scenario at some point? Looking at the situation as it stands now, I highly doubt it. I think they'll fight CD to the bitter end.

All the more reason, as I said, to take it to the streets. We have enough witnesses, whistleblowers and video footage here to fill a small stadium. Hope to see you on the 11nth.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

If they do try using that scenario...

The whole can of worms will explode wide open.

_______________
"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace

i too have heard the "preventive explosives" joke

From a die-hard big D democrat having trouble coming to grips with the truth. There are so many reasons why that is absurd that we may as well be talking holograms and space beams...

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

You know what's a shame

You know what's a shame about the whole "space beam" thing? I mean aside from the obvious disinfo angle?

There may come a time in the not-so-distant future when HAARP-ish-type weapons become the cutting edge mainstay of international blackmail and parapolitics. Same with "TV fakery".

Hell, "TV fakery" has probably already been used more than once -- although there's no evidence (i repeat) no evidence of TV fakery having occurred on 911.

An interesting excerpt here from an article on "The Revolution in Military Affairs":

(1) The authors also foresee the Army developing "the aerial capability to broadcast and alter television signals." All
in the name of anti-terrorism, of course. The basic idea is deviously clever: The military could send fake broadcasts,
using computer-generated imagery to present real individuals in simulated situations. The same technology which
allowed Forrest Gump to shake hands with JFK can also create the spectacle of an "enemy" leader striking a woman,
masturbating in public, or otherwise discrediting himself. The authors concede that this approach has a downside,
should such an operation be "blown" (i.e., revealed to the public). The masses might lose their faith in the televised
image, thereby "reducing the impact of one of the American politician's greatest communication tools."
- Martin Cannon

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Peter Lance...

I remember when Coast to Coast A.M. had a round table debate with Alex Jones, Peter Lance and some other former DEA guy, Peter Lance was the guy pushing the "preventative demolition" theory to protect top secret information.

---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.

Show "Space Zapper used at WTC, Pentagon, Shanksville" by u2r2h

Hey u2r2d2, you're on the wrong blog.

Take that disinfo some place else. Thanks for being sooooooooo obvious about it, though.

_______________
"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace

Peter Lance...

I remember when Coast to Coast A.M. had a round table debate with Alex Jones, Peter Lance and some other former DEA guy, Peter Lance was the guy pushing the "preventative demolition" theory in regards to WTC 7 to protect top secret information.

---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.

This, at the very least,

This, at the very least, means insurance fraud.
Somebody needs to notify the DA in New York!

Remember, they only caught

Remember, they only caught Al Capone on tax evasion charges. If we can bring this to court on a lesser, but more easily proved charge of insurance fraud, we get the chance to blow this thing wide open!

One would think the lawers would be pissed

about losing all of that money to Silverstein... why don't they sue back their money?
“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

(a) class (b) family (C)

(a) class

(b) family

(C) Anthrax

Some people can transcend the brutal limitations imposed upon them by this system, others can't. Largely depends on circumstance. Don't really blame people who can't -- well that depends also -- to take 911, were they cheerleaders for TWAT (The war on terra) or did they at least try to try to oppose it? I can think of all sorts of people who never even tried.

Do you believe in hell? I don't. Sometimes I wish I did.

As for insurance companies, they know who butters their bread, and it ain't Alex Jones.

If I was an insurance goon I would go back door, not sue in court.

One hand washes the other.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Wouldn't that be...

"TWOT"? I get your point though.
_______________________
"Cogito ergo sum"

Wouldn't that be...

"TWOT"? I get your point though.
_______________________
"Cogito ergo sum"

Peter Lance...

I remember when Coast to Coast A.M. had a round table debate with Alex Jones, Peter Lance and some other former DEA guy, Peter Lance was the guy pushing the "preventative demolition" theory to protect top secret information.

Edit: I don't know what happenned, but this was a response to Danse above.

---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.

Yea I remember that one.

Lance was shilling BIG TIME during that show.

Here's a link to it if anyone wants it:

Scroll down to "C2C AM 06-16-05"
http://www.realradioarchives.com/sound-3.htm

_______________
"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace

Excellent...

Great that you found this. this was very informative.

---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.

Thanks T-Bone, I was

Thanks T-Bone, I was wracking my brain trying to remember...

"He is the author of 1000 Years for Revenge (2003) which is a broad survey of Al-Qaida operations in the US prior to 9/11 and Cover Up : What the Government Is Still Hiding About the War on Terror (2004). The later book concludes that Al-Qaida showed signs of launching the impending 9/11 attacks in 1995, but were able to evade arrest by exploiting the poor relations between the FBI and CIA and problems within their respective infrastructures. His newest book, entitled Triple Cross, and published in 2006, covers the Al Qaeda operative Ali Mohamed."

Surprise surprise, he pushes Al-Qaeda, but with a juicy enough twist to net semi-dissafected liberals.

Surprise surprise, same old same old

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

WTC7

If my re-collections are correct, of that fatefull day, there were TV news (Probable FOX or CNN) comments about bringing down a building with damage. At the time it did not mean anything to me. If there was a way to search that footage on that afternoon it might be found. That would be on the record at the time of the crime.

Somebody notify the DA!

We need to notify the DA. This is a clear cut case of at least insurance fraud!

- We have multiple, credible witnesses saying it was announced the building is going to be demolision

- We have TV footage confirming this

- We have demolition experts who say it was a controlled demolition

- We have the videotapped admission of the owner of the building, that he decided to "pull it".

- We know he collected several hundred million$ in insurance based on the claim that it was an accident.

What more do we need?

Why don't We ask Eliot Spitzer?

Who just happened to be the AG at the time. Apparently becoming the Governor of New York was on his agenda, instead of investigating Silverman.

Sign up for Digg already!

It takes like 2 seconds and we can get all 9/11 stories onto the front page with like 100 people!

Fighting for G.O.D. (Gold, Oil, and Drugs) is available now for pre-order on Amazon.

We're Coming For YOU!

Their lies are falling to pieces right in front of our eyes.
Like Alex Jones said yesterday: Globalists, you bit off more than you can chew, WE'RE COMING FOR YOU!

Evacuation

I definitely remember the news saying the Pentagon was being evacuated. This was right around the time the White House was evacuated. What happened?

Show "Countdown over the radio? BOGUS." by johndoraemi

John why do you insist on insulting people here by calling names

It only weakens your argument.

I for one do not believe that members of the FDNY planted bombs in any of the buildings. BUT there were people who identified themselves as FDNY and told others at Ground Zero that the building was going to be "Brought Down" on purpose.

Whether or not these persons were actually FDNY is anyone's guess. Perhaps they were, and were only following orders. But it's a fact that people were told that Building 7 was going to be "brought down" for safety concerns, which is an impossibility, because it takes weeks if not months to plan and rig a building for controlled demolition. There's no denying that fact.

The following evidence can be used in a court of law to prosecute the individuals who ordered the demolition of Building 7, which resulted in the death of at least one person, and caused thousands more to become ill from breathing in the the toxic dust produced by the demolition of the building:

There are at least two audio/video taped interviews w/ First Responders (Indira Singh & Kevin McPadden) who corroborate stories about people being told the building was going to be imploded on purpose.

There are also witnesses who've come forward to say that they heard explosions coming from the building seconds before it fell, which is consistent with controlled demolition.

There's also video of GZ workers telling people that the building was going to be "coming down soon" and was "ready to blow up".

There's Ground Zero witnesses on record who say the government is lying about their claims of the amount of damage that the building actually suffered from fire and debris.

Danny Jowenko, a well respected controlled demolition expert, has stated during video and telephone interviews that the only possible reason for the building to have fallen the way it did was from pre-planted explosives.

So stop calling people names, John, and instead start demanding that the government tell the truth about what happened to Building 7.

_______________
"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace

My protocol:

1. Read blanket or misdirected insulting term ("children," "immature," etc.)
2. Immediately stop reading post.
3. Hit down arrow.

Singh, Bartmer,

Singh, Bartmer, McPadden...eyewitnesses / earwitnesses to the same thing. Explosions; knowledge WTC7 was going to be brought down;...

Fact: IT TAKES WEEKS TO PREPARE SOMETHING LIKE THAT...
Therefore, 9/11 was an inside job.
And WTC7 is the probably the finest, classic controlled demolition we'll ever see in this lifetime.

America, wake up and smell the coffee.