There are two theories regarding how did WTC 7 collapse, part of September 11 attacks that hit the United Sates six years ago and changed the political map of the entire world and the U.S. foreign policies in the Middle East.

Some analysts attributed the collapse to structural failure due to prior debris impact and ongoing fire damage. The other theory suggests the building collapsed as a result of controlled demolition- many support the second theory given the lack of precedent of total collapses of steel framed structures during fires.

But the controversy over the collapse of Building 7 that the Bush administration has so far failed to explain is being brought up again in 2007 with more shocking revelations.

Websites and blog pages began in recent weeks circulating commentaries about the shocking BBC News reporting of the collapse of WTC7 before the incident actually took place.

I made this in just 5 hours!

I hope it will serve for our case. If you find errors, please report them to me, I'll correct them soon!

http://dirk-gerhardt.homepage.t-online.de/Bilder/Draft1.0BBCWTC7AllInfos...

Now includes BBC and CNN videos.

On September 11th, none of the New York City rescue people thought any of the World Trade Centers would collapse. For example:

The battalion chief of the New York Fire Department stated "there was never a thought that this whole thing is coming down" (page 15)

The Emergency Medical Services Division Chief, in charge of planning for the Chief of Department’s office said "No one feared that the building was in any danger as a result of two airplane attacks and subsequent fires . . . ."(page 7)

A lieutenant firefighter said "I never thought the whole thing would come down"

I had a similar thread earlier this day:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/6513

Here are more points that came to my mind:
******************************************************************************************
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html#c861586

· 119.
· At 09:44 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
· Jason wrote:
I'm confused...what is the conspiracy? What are the implications of reporting WTC7 falling before it actually did? Who cares I was living in NYC at the time and it was widely reported that other building that were part of the WTC were collapsing or would collapse eventually. So they jumped the gun? What are the implications everyone is getting at here????
******************************************************************************************

So, spot on.

I have heard several times now the spin that the BBC probably mixed up these other reports that “other buildings might collapse” with “Building 7 has collapsed”. Besides all doubts that the BBC could made such an unbelievable error and that other news-outlets were running similar news:

Now, with three confirmations about early (means before it actually happened) reports on the collapse of WTC7, we can assume that there was indeed an early press release, stating that Building 7 has collapsed due to fires and damage from the fallen debris of the Twin Towers.

The CNN guy was confused, as he could see the building still standing in the skyline, which made him switch to “Is collapsing” as he reads the news.
The BBC reporter, who did not necessarily knew the Manhattan skyline in detail, gave us the original report: “indeed it has collapsed.”

The people behind this press release should be taken unter close scrutinity, they are most likely the real perps of that day. We can only speculate, if it was the OEM or a similar organisation or group of persons.

I mean, this early reporting was not necessarily an “error” in the script Matrix.

Remember that WTC7 slided into oblivion after that day, from 01-09-12 on?

I just came across this movie posted on Google. This half hour film is presented part in the spirit of Loose Change and part Oil, Smoke and Mirrors. It is not the best 9/11 film out there, but is a decent introduction to some of the basic issues. The first half covers the PNAC-type background, while the second half concerns the events of the day of 9/11 and its aftermath. John O'Neill gets lots of love in here. There is a bizarre DC sniper segue that I didn't understand. I think I have seen this before, but the explosion at the 21:22 minute mark is AMAZING.

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/january2007/290107rockefellergoal.htm

Some excerpts from this very interesting article:

* * * * *
Hollywood director and documentary film maker Aaron Russo has gone in-depth on the astounding admissions of Nick Rockefeller, who personally told him that the elite's ultimate goal was to create a microchipped population and that the war on terror was a hoax, Rockefeller having predicted an "event" that would trigger the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan eleven months before 9/11. [...]

Russo states that Rockefeller told him, "Eleven months before 9/11 happened there was going to be an event and out of that event we were going to invade Afghanistan to run pipelines through the Caspian sea, we were going to invade Iraq to take over the oil fields and establish a base in the Middle East, and we'd go after Chavez in Venezuela."

NOTE: I assume I do not need to clarify how 7/7 is connected with 9/11.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Dear BBC journalists,

On May 6, 2004, the BBC Panorama program depicted a fictional terrorist attack involving four suicide bombs: three trains on the London Underground were blown up between 8-9 am, and one more explosion happened on a large street vehicle an hour or so later, in central London. This scenario was quite precisely realized a year later.

Then, on the day of the real attacks, the Managing Director of Visor Consultants, Peter Power, told in a BBC Radio Five interview that

"[A]t half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now."

http://www.envirosagainstwar.org/know/read.php?itemid=2927

Did the General Counsel of the firm that manages George Bush's money and signs his tax returns telephone Bryant Gumbel on the morning of 9/11 and sell the official story as an "eyewitness" from his office in Rockefeller Center?

911logic.blogspot.com has an interesting profile of 9/11 "eyewitness" Richard Davis and his obvious attempt to sell the official story to the public.

http://911logic.blogspot.com/2006/12/911-eyewitness-report-cards_07.html

As it turns out, this supposed eyewitness to the first and second WTC strikes was previously partner at a law firm that manages multi-billion dollar oil and gas deals. As if that is not enough, the eyewitness appears to be the chief lawyer at the firm that manages the "blind trust" that contains the bulk of the Bush family fortune.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/moneymag_archive/1999/07/01/262278/index.htm

"George Bush chose Bessemer Trust, a blueblood firm where the average account is $22 million. Ronald Reagan turned to a tight group of millionaire businessmen."

Is it a mere coincidence that the lawyer who represented Gerorge W Bush in the battle for the presidency in 2000 is the Solicitor General of the United States who called CNN to tell a story about hijackers with boxcutters? Is it also a coincidence that the lawyer who manages the Bush Family fortune just happened to call in to Bryant Gumbel on the morning of September 11th to sell the story that planes "very deliberately" attacked the World Trade Centers? In his statements to Gumbel, he makes claims about things that he could not possibly know, such as the condition of the airplanes used in the attacks. Listen to the conversation between Gumbel and Davis and decide for yourself.

Webster Tarpley believes this is a focol point of 9/11 truth that people should be talking about more.
For those who have read Synthetic terror know exactly what im speaking of.
On his last saturday radio show he explained it again but i still could not follow.
I find it a little confusing personally, why this is such an important clue?
Does the general public know that air force one is called "angel"?
Was the threat "angel is next" from the outside or is there evidence to say it was from the inside of the intelligence apparatus?

Webster explains that this is an important clue because he believe it was a threat against bush from within the invisible government, making him at that very moment decide to go along with the 9/11 plan or not. However i am not totally convinced of this and would like more information. From this report it sounds like Bush himself was the one referring to air force one as angel, but webster seems to be getting his information from a different report. Here is a cbs report on what i speak of....

The President's Story
The President Talks In Detail About His Sept. 11 Experience

'....There was word Camp David had been hit. A jet was thought to be targeting Mr. Bush’s ranch.

USA Today has finally started looking at a story first reported by Patriots Question 9/11. Here's USA's Today story:

"From 1995 to 2001, Bogdan Dzakovic served as a team leader on the Federal Aviation Administration's Red Team. Set up by Congress to help the FAA think like terrorists, the elite squad tested airport security systems.

In the years leading up to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Dzakovic says, the team was able to breach security about 90% of the time, sneaking bombs and submachine guns past airport screeners. Expensive new bomb detection machines consistently failed, he says.

The team repeatedly warned the FAA of the potential for security breaches and hijackings but was told to cover up its findings, Dzakovic says.

Eventually, the FAA began notifying airports in advance when the Red Team would be doing its undercover testing, Dzakovic says. He and other Red Team members approached the Department of Transportation's Office of the Inspector General, the General Accounting Office and members of Congress about the FAA's alleged misconduct regarding the Red Team's aviation security tests. No one did anything, he says.

The administration's claim that terrorists crashing planes into buildings was not foreseeable is contradicted by numerous sources:

The CIA Director had warned congress shortly before 9/11 "that there could be an attack, an imminent attack, on the United States of this nature. So this is not entirely unexpected" according to a broadcast on National Public Radio

According to MSNBC, "There have been a slew of reports over the past decade of plots to use planes to strike American targets".

In 1994, the government received information that international terrorists "had seriously considered the use of airplanes as a means of carrying out terrorist attacks" (see also this article).

In 1998, U.S. officials received reports concerning a "Bin Laden plot involving aircraft in the New York and Washington, areas." Officials received reports that al Qaeda was trying to establish an operative cell in the United States and that bin Laden was attempting to recruit a group of five to seven young men from the United States to travel to the Middle East for training in conjunction with his plans to strike U.S. domestic targets. Indeed, the report concluded that "a group of unidentified Arabs planned to fly an explosive-laden plane . . . into the World Trade Center".

A 1999 report for the National Intelligence Council warned that fanatics loyal to bin Laden might try to hijack a jetliner and fly it into the Pentagon..

In July 2001, a briefing prepared for senior government officials warned of "a significant terrorist attack against U.S. and/or Israeli interests in the coming weeks. The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties ... (it) will occur with little or no warning.".

(more after the jump..)

Source: ny911truth.org

by Les Jamieson
10-7-06

Famed Watergate reporter Bob Woodward is out with a new book, State of Denial. While it focuses on the lies of Bush and Rumsfeld regarding Iraq, it reveals that Condaleeza Rice was warned on July 10, 2001 by George Tenet and his counter-terrism expert, Cofer Black, that a serious attack was imminent.

In essence, Woodward shows that Condi blocked this key warning with what Tenet called "a brush-off". This is gross dereliction of duty and malfeasance, which are seriously punishable crimes. She then perjured herself in front of the 9/11 Commission, as is seen in the Mitchell article excerpt below, when she said the Aug. 6th Presidential Daily Briefing wasn't specific, was past tense, and only mentioned threats from abroad! After these criminal acts, SHE GOT PROMOTED TO SECRETARY OF STATE! What does this say? It incriminates the whole administration.

So here are some sources:

Book Says Bush Ignored Urgent Warning on Iraq
NY Times, September 29, 2006
By DAVID E. SANGER

The 537-page book describes tensions among senior officials from the very beginning of the administration. Mr. Woodward writes that in the weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Tenet believed that Mr. Rumsfeld was impeding the effort to develop a coherent strategy to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Mr. Rumsfeld questioned the electronic signals from terrorism suspects that the National Security Agency had been intercepting, wondering whether they might be part of an elaborate deception plan by Al Qaeda.

On July 10, 2001, the book says, Mr. Tenet and his counterterrorism chief, J. Cofer Black, met with Ms. Rice at the White House to impress upon her the seriousness of the intelligence the agency was collecting about an impending attack. But both men came away from the meeting feeling that Ms. Rice had not taken the warnings seriously.

(more after the jump..)

Richard Ben-Veniste said the following to Condoleezza Rice the following question during her appearance before the 9/11 Commission:

"The extraordinary high terrorist attack threat level in the summer of 2001 is well documented, and Richard Clarke's testimony about the possibility of an attack against the United States homeland was repeatedly discussed from May to August within the intelligence community, and that is well documented. You acknowledged that Richard Clarke told you that Al-Qaeda cells were in the United States.

(or watch the video).

The August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief was entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US".

The CIA Director had warned congress shortly before 9/11 "that there could be an attack, an imminent attack, on the United States of this nature. So this is not entirely unexpected" according to a broadcast on National Public Radio

Amusing little tidbit:  

http://gaelicstarover.blogspot.com/2006/10/ashcroft-cant-get-no-satisfaction.html

…from United Press International:

“Former Attorney General John Ashcroft this week became the only Cabinet-level Bush official to attack the Sept. 11 Commission, writing in his memoirs it "seemed obsessed with trying to lay the blame for the terrorist attacks at the feet of the Bush administration, while virtually absolving the previous administration of responsibility."

...and from CBS News, July 26, 2001:

"Fishing rod in hand, Attorney General John Ashcroft left on a weekend trip to Missouri Thursday afternoon aboard a chartered government jet, reports CBS News Correspondent Jim Stewart.

In response to inquiries from CBS News over why Ashcroft was traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines, the Justice Department cited what it called a 'threat assessment' by the FBI, and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term."

It seems that you just can’t please some people.

The self-anointed Mr. Ashcroft apparently believes that the Commission didn’t bend over backwards far enough to exonerate the Dubya Administration.

He really would do well not to draw more attention to himself.