http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/160907_amy_goodman_911.html

WeAreChange Colorado caught Amy Goodman just before a speech, to ask if she would support a new investigation of 9/11.

"Oh, I think what happened on 9/11 needs to be much further investigated," she told cameras briefly.

9/10/07

EXCLUSIVE! "The Real Spitzer Scandal" a 9/11 Spitzer Scandal SCOOP!

Brooklyn Newspaper Delivers the Goods:
Spitzer Filed Legal Brief, Helped Silverstein Win $4.5 Billion WTC Insurance Windfall

Contact: Sander Hicks, Publisher, NY Megaphone
718 940 2084 sander@voxpopnet.net
http://nymegaphone.com

The Spitzer scandals continue.

On the 6th anniversary of the 9/11 attack, Brooklyn activist newspaper the New York Megaphone breaks this exclusive story:

NY Governor Eliot Spitzer filed an amicus brief on 1/15/03 on behalf of the World Trade Center's controversial lease-holder, the real estate magnate Larry Silverstein. This document shows that Spitzer, as Attorney General, helped Silverstein get the whopping $4.5 billion windfall for the 9/11 attacks. The record is clear: Spitzer helped reverse a lower court's decision, by making credible Silverstein's argument that the two different plane crashes on 9/11/01 should be compensated as two different terrorist attacks.

This is a follow up to a blog entry from back in April, that called on 9/11 researchers to petition NIST to provide a copy of the source file for the infamous WTC7 corner shot that was used in the "Part IIC - WTC 7 Collapse" section of the "NIST Response to the World Trade Center Disaster".

At least one FOIA request was initiated, but unfortunately, NIST was unable to comply. It turns out that the digital file embedded in the PDF/PPT presentation is all they have, according to a telephone conversation with Catherine Fletcher of NIST. (The person who filed the FOIA request spoke with Fletcher.) This raises some questions.

Did anyone at NIST check the EXIF data for this photo (which appears to be missing from the PDF copy) which would indicate a time-stamp and other details essential for provenance? Shouldn't this be standard procedure? Can anyone go ahead and submit "evidence" to NIST and not have to worry about ever having to provide an original?

Anyhow, the call goes out again to 9/11 researchers to petition the NYPD for a copy of the original source file, with intact EXIF data, which should lay to rest speculation that the photo was altered in any way. If you have contacts at the NYPD, please use them.

9/11 Bombshell: WTC7 Security Official Details Explosions Inside Building - prisonplanet.com

The Alex Jones show today welcomed Loose Change creators Dylan Avery and Jason Burmas to discuss an exclusive interview they have conducted with an individual with high level security clearance who was inside the Office of Emergency Management in World Trade Center 7 and has descibed and detailed explosions inside the building prior to the collapse of any of the buildings at ground zero on 9/11.

The interview, to be featured in the forthcoming Final Cut of Loose Change is currently under wraps but the creators have allowed some details to leak purely to protect themselves and the individual involved who has asked to remain anonymous until the film is released.

[..]

The city official he was escorting was attempting to reach Rudy Guiliani, who he had determined was inside building 7 at that time. According to Avery and Burmas this official now works for Guiliani partners.

The individual was also asked to provide access to the Office Of Emergency Management on the 23rd floor of the building, this was the so called "bunker" that was built inside WTC7 on the orders of Rudy Guiliani.

[..]

It was at this point that he witnessed a bomb going off inside the building:

"We subsequently went to the stairwell and were going down the stairs, when we reached the sixth floor, the landing that we were standing on gave way, there was an explosion and the landing gave way. I was left there hanging, I had to climb back up and now had to walk back up to the eighth floor. After getting to the eighth floor everything was dark."

[..]

The key to this information is that the individual testifies this all happened BEFORE either tower collapsed, thus building 7 was at that point completely undamaged from any falling debris or resulting fires. It also means that explosions were witnessed in WTC7 up to eight hours before its collapse at around 5.30pm.

Visit the original link at prisonplanet.com for the rest of the article and the clip from the show.

Thanks Chris for the heads up!

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/300407wtc7explosions.htm

An eyewitness who evacuated WTC 7 before its collapse reported an explosion inside the building, before exiting via the lobby which had been almost completely destroyed - before either of the twin towers had collapsed nearly 400 yards away in the WTC complex.

This testimony severely undermines the flawed explanation that Building 7 collapsed as a result of the damage it sustained following the collapse of the towers, since the structure was seemingly being gutted by explosives prior to 9:59AM.

WTC 7 was not hit by a plane but collapsed in a perect implosion in its own footprint at 5:20PM.

From a September 11, 2001 Associated Press report.

After the initial blast, Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell," Jennings said.

John Kerry: WTC Building 7 Was a Controlled Demolition

2004 Presidential Candidate Says Weakened Building Was Brought Down Based on Danger Posed to Surroundings

Aaron Dykes / JonesReport | April 22, 2007

Senator John Kerry was questioned concerning 9/11 during an appearance at Book People in Austin, Texas. Members of Austin 9/11 Truth Now asked Kerry about the officially unexplained collapse of WTC Building 7."

Kerry responded:

"I do know that that wall, I remember, was in danger and I think they made the decision based on the danger that it had in destroying other things-- that they did it in a controlled fashion."

Continued...
http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/220407_kerry_wtc7.html

Thanks to the dozen or so people who submitted this as a blog entry :)

The above image consists of two shots of WTC7 taken on 9/11. The Left photo is attributed to the NYPD, and is used by NIST as corroboration for eyewitness testimony that suggests that debris from the collapse of the towers caused a specific amount of damage to WTC7. The photo on the Right is by Aman Zafar. The discrepancy is obvious, Zafar's photo does not confirm the visual data in the NYPD photo.

Researchers should petition NIST for provenance on this photo. If the photo was taken with a digital camera as other helicopter shots from 9/11 were, then Exif data should be embedded in the file that will reveal a time-stamp. The original file should also reflect what we see in the NIST drafts, and not bear evidence of tampering in Photoshop or other image editing software. A separate inquiry to the NYPD probably wouldn't hurt. (If you have a connection there, use it.)

Vesa blogged this item yesterday and invites observations and input. truth911.net also blogged it and there is good information in the comments section below the blog entry. DanR over at the Randi Rhodes Message Board posted about this back in December of 2006, after seeing a post here, and that's where I cribbed the source files for the graphic above.

But if it wasn't for "Winston Smith", and his article, Photographic Analysis of Damage to WTC7 and Critical Errors in NIST's Estimations, posted last October, maybe nobody would have noticed this one.

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=2948e9ba-df6a-478...

Now that Rosie O'Donnell is trying to table it on The View, I guess we can talk about it here.

First, a news quiz: If, some time after the collapse of World Trade Center towers 1 and 2, a 47-storey office building in a major American city also came crashing to the ground, do you think you'd know about it?

Of course, you would.

This video is now on Google Video. It is only 16 minutes long yet contains the BBC-Jump the Gun reports of Bldg 7 collapse, Craig Bartmer-First Responder-Interview, "Lucky Larry" Silverstein "pull it" admission, Danny Jowenko Demolition Expert Interview. It also has numerous clips of the IMPLOSION.

This short video is perfect for waking the masses. Let's move it to the TOP 100.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2073592843640256739

Direct download, 911podcasts mirror: http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?vid=200

Edit(s): Changed title and text to "Famous" from "Infamous" - added Digg for PrisonPlanet story.

PLEASE NOTE: This is NOT a tacit or overt endorsement of the veracity of the claims made in the linked video by 911blogger.com.

Please stop submitting blogs on this! Message received!

I previously wrote about the apparent death of Craig Miller from the demolition of WTC 7. Because the link for the information no longer works, and so the info cannot be verified, I dug a little deeper to try to confirm or refute the story.

As reported by What Really Happened, a rescue worker said:

"...I'm on top of building 7 just pulling out rubbish. Pulled out a Port Authority cop at about 11 o'clock in the morning..."

Craig Miller was technically not a Port Authority police officer, but a Secret Service Officer. Therefore, either the rescue worker erroneously believed that Officer Miller was a Port Authority officer, or two people were killed by the demolition of WTC7.

Additionally, U.S. Congressman Otter believed that Officer Miller died when WTC7 collapsed:

Photographic Analysis of Damage to WTC7 and Critical Errors in NIST's Estimations

By "Winston Smith" of StudyOf911.com 2006-10-19 - Last updated 2006-10-25

An interesting analysis of the collapse of WTC7, incorporating the latest available photographic evidence.

Via poster quicknthedead at the September 11 forum at DemocraticUnderground.com.

Prison Planet found a video clip with potential explosions -- as well as firefighters discussing the imminent collapse of the building and saying it is "about to blow up" -- before the collapse.

Find more on this clip on Killtown's blog:
GZ Rescuer: ‘WTC 7 about to blow up’

The crux of the conspiracy argument is that demolition is the only
possible explanation for the destruction of WTC1,WTC2 and WTC7. One
need only raise the single question: How could a collapse, caused only
by the damage of the plane collisions and subsequent fires cause the
remaining still intact structures to fall to the ground at the speed
of a free fall in a vacuum? No explanation can be produced for this,
because it would require breaking the laws of physics. It cannot be
done.

This scientific fact is the corner stone. It should be stressed and
focused on because it is undeniable. It is the truth that will
convince the skeptics. It certainly convinced me.

I, like many others, was very skeptical about the demolition theory,
mainly because the only evidence I was shown were the squibs.
Furthermore, I (also like many others) was completely ignorant of the
WTC7 collapse. It actually took over a year for me to see the light,
when I finally saw the on line videos of WTC7's collapse.

It does not take a physics degree to understand that the collapse of a
steel girder concrete reinforced building cannot occur in less time
than it takes for a bowling ball to fall from the top of the building

Matthew Woodson interviewed on Fox News, check it out on Google video here:

http://sendmeabuck.blogspot.com/2006/09/9-04-06-fox-25-interview-with-oklahoma.html

This is the 1st time that thousands of Oklahoman residents have had the opportunity to watch the collapse of World Trade Center 7 on broadcast television since 9/11/01.

 

---

Also, compliments of the Loose Change forums, check out the flashes and explosions occuring at WTC7 hours before the collapse.  (hi-res 77 MB file, I will post a smaller version shortly):

 

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=12277

Direct link here:
http://www.loosechange911.com/download/wtc7flashes.mov

 

In The New Pearl Harbor, David Ray Griffin says, regarding WTC7, "there is no evidence of any raging fire" (p.21). This claim, often repeated, must be modified. Debunking sites use images from Steve Spak's film Day of Disaster to counter the argument for controlled demolition. This evidence cannot be ignored. Here I would like to suggest a refined argument for WTC7, and I recommend downgrading its importance in the 911 Truth movement.

Hopefully, the screen captures I uploaded appear below. These images are from Spak's film and show the west side and the south side. Typically, Truthers show video of the north side collapsing. The west face shows at least one floor where the windows are broken and a "raging" fire is belching from the building. The south side shows a wall of smoke and some structural damage (we know the SW corner had a gash about 15-20 floors high).

Two points should be made about these pictures:

1. There is definitely an intense fire in WTC7, but we do not know how widespread it is.

2. The wall of smoke suggests but does not confirm a widespread fire. There is definitely structural damage to the south side of WTC7, and all of the smoke is being vented out that side. The north side, for example, shows little evidence of smoke or fire.

The purpose of this blog is to suggest rhetorical strategies for refining the 9/11 Truth talking points. As more so-called debunking sites appear, we cannot ignore them and proceed in an echo chamber of self-congratulation. We must adjust our message to reflect a wider selection of evidence.

In this first entry, I would like to suggest dropping references to Larry Silverstein's famous "pull it" comment in the 2002 PBS documentary. Most Truthers believe Silverstein means "demolish building 7". Critics charge he really means "pull the personnel from building 7".

I recommend avoiding Silverstein's remark not because I think WTC7 fell via a gravitational collapse, but for the following reasons:

• both interpretations are plausible, so an audience is forced to accept one on the basis of predisposition alone
• it does not change the physical evidence one way or another
• for some, this charge reinforces the unfair accusation that 9/11 Truth is about "blaming the Jews"; notice, for example, how this reasonable argument devolves quickly into a discussion of "Zionist circles"; later, Killtown makes excellent points about Silverstein coincidentally having a doctor's appointment the morning of 9/11, but this information will be overshadowed in a debate by ad hominem attacks