Luke Rudowski, Sabrina Rivero and Tom Foti courageously confronted Rudy Giuliani about his foreknowledge of the collapse of the Twin Towers. Even Pat at Screw Loose Change quietly admitted, "Yes, as far as I know, Rudy's wrong when he says there was no forewarning of the possibility of collapse of the WTC towers."

The story of foreknowledge of the collapse of the towers is a strange one and worth revisiting, because one of the most important (and prescient) observations alleged to have taken place on 9/11 is attributed to an anonymous person (on the ground, about 800 feet from the impact). In the 9/11 Commission Report, the warning of total collapse arrives like this:

"At about 9:57 an EMS paramedic approached the FDNY Chief of Department and advised that an engineer in front of 7 WTC had just remarked that the Twin Towers in fact were in imminent danger of a total collapse" (302).

Could it have been Harley Guy? We'll never know, because no one involved seems to know the name of this anonymous "engineer" with magical powers of foresight.

First, the report mentions repeatedly that no one expected the towers to collapse:

“They also received advice from senior FDNY chiefs that while the building might eventually suffer a partial collapse on upper floors, such structural failure was not imminent. No one anticipated the possibility of a total collapse” (291).

“To our knowledge, none of the chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible” (302).

“Prior to 9:59, no NYPD helicopter pilot predicted that either tower would collapse” (304).

So the FDNY and NYPD, including the helicopter pilots who have a particularly good view of the impact zone, suspected nothing, but an anonymous person who may have been an engineer (see below) gave the opinion that motivated everyone involved, including Giuliani, to take specific action?

EMS Division Chief John Peruggia describes the encounter that predicted the collapse of the towers:

"I was in a discussion with Mr. Rotanz and I believe it was a representative from the Department of Buildings, but I'm not sure.Some engineer type person, and several of us were huddled talking in the lobby and it was brought to my attention, it was believed that the structural damage that was suffered to the towers was quite significant and they were very confident that the building's stability was compromised and they felt that the north tower was in danger of a near imminent collapse....

The information we got at that time was that they felt both buildings were significantly damaged,
but they felt that the north tower, which was the first one to be struck, was going to be in imminent danger of collapse. Looking up at it, you could see that, you could see through the smoke or whatever, that there was significant structural damage to the exterior of the building. Very noticeable. Now you know, again, this is not a scene where the thought of both buildings collapsing ever entered into my mind.

I was there in 1993, 14 minutes after the bomb went off. I operated some 16 hours at the
building and with all the post-incident critiques and debriefings with various agencies. We were always told by everyone, the experts, that these buildings could withstand direct hits from airplanes. That's the way they were designed. They went through all of this architectural stuff, way beyond the scope of my knowledge.

It was hit by an airplane. That's okay. It's made to be hit by an airplane. I mean I think everyone may have believed that. We were all told years ago it was made to be hit by an airplane."

The incident reminds me of the Phantom Flight 11 story, which alleges to explain the inability of air defenses to stop a plane from hitting the Pentagon. The Commission reveals: "We have been unable to identify the source of this mistaken FAA information" (194). Such a key piece of evidence, easily identified by FAA audio recordings, eludes the Commission.

It also reminds me of the put options from an anonymous institutional investor.

Or...