9/11 Bombshell:WTC7 Security Official Details

[Q24]

...er, the report that started this thread off mentions firefighters making a hole in a wall to get the guy out of the building, so is the guy a reliable witness or not?

Those were firefighters in the building before anybody even knew WTC7 was on fire - they were not fighting the fire.

Why should a physics professor know any more about structural engineering than a structural engineer knows about nuclear fusion?

Perhaps because physics has a broad range of applications, including in structural engineering? Or are physics not important in building design? Perhaps not if you believe the official fairytale.

[The-Doctor]

Excerpt from a paper by Mark Roberts: (for link to full site click here, his paper is the second one from the top, I encourage you to read most if not all of the paper)

There are glaring flaws with the idea that WTC 7 was brought down by explosives.

Many of these points will be examined in detail below.

The building suffered severe structural damage from the debris from the north tower collapse. Firemen described a gaping hole in the south face. We will see glimpses of south face damage through the smoke in photos below and will see clear images of the massive damage to the southwest corner.

No one reports having seen work that might involve the planting of demo-litions charges. I’m not aware of anyone who has provided a rational ex-planation of how this work might have been done and remained unobserved, before, during, and after the building’s collapse. An employee of Solo-mon Smith Barney who worked in WTC 7 says,

I actually worked at WTC7 and was there on 9-11. From the min-ute the first plane hit the towers, WTC7 was getting hit with debris.

In fact, when I finally got down to the lobby 45 minutes lat-er, we were all forced to leave through the back since so much debris had hit the building and blocked the entrance.

I also would love to have someone tell me how the 28-44th floors were wired for demolition, when we packed like sardines after the merger with Smith Barney and most floors had people on them 7 days a week. ( A few floors were trading floors so it was 24x7 and many worked 6-7 days a week), and I never saw one construction crew in my time there doing anything signifi-cant.

Why won't CT's talk to people who worked at WTC7? My friends and I who worked with at Salomon are eager to talk but I'm guessing you won't like the answers. http://tinyurl.com/n5xap

Some CTs contend that WTC 7 was demolished to conceal sensitive infor-mation that was stored there by some of its tenants. This is one of the silliest of all 9/11 CT claims. Sure: whenever I have information on my hard drives or documents that I don’t want anyone to get their hands on, I always wire my building with explosives, set it on fire, and blow it up. In addition, keep in mind that information was recovered from many computer hard drives found in the WTC rubble. http://tinyurl.com/nmgmc Investigators were keen to have this information, to trace any transac-tions that may have indicated foreknowledge of the attacks. As the 9/11 Commission report details, these transactions turned out to not have suspicious origins. http://tinyurl.com/k659n pg. 145-152

Fires raged uncontrolled on many floors for hours. Lack of hydrant pressure due to broken water mains left firemen nearly helpless to ex-tinguish the blazes.

The building was visibly bulging and was making groaning noises: when a steel-framed building does that it’s in very serious trouble. Reports of the damage from firefighters inside and outside of the building are consistent.

Demolitions experts who saw WTC 7 collapse from nearby neither saw nor heard anything indicating an explosive demolition.

Nothing can be seen or heard in videos that resembles explosive charges going off before the collapse. See below.

Seismic data from multiple sources indicates that, as with the Twin Towers, the collapse of WTC 7 began slowly, completely unlike an explo-sive demolition but consistent with internal failures leading to global collapse.

Source: Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

Any detonation of explosives within WTC 7 would have been de-tected by multiple seismographs monitoring ground vibration in the general area. No such telltale “spike” or vibratory anom-aly was recorded by any monitoring instrument. –Brent Blanch-ard of Protec http://tinyurl.com/z6zyc

Explosive demolitions would not be very controlled, or likely to work at all, if they involved slamming tons of skyscraper debris through a building and then setting it on fire for seven hours. Precision explo-sives, timers, and wiring don’t like that sort of treatment.

In my opinion, the best points he made were the fact that the building was in fact severely damaged, and that the building was bulging, creaking, and making groaning noises, which pointed to the fact that it was very likely to collapse. Also, how the seismographs never picked up traces of anything that resembled explosives or demolition activity.

[flyingswan]

No, regular fires burning beneath the debris pile could not sustain 727^oC temperatures on 9/11 itself, nevermind 5 days later and with all the water that had been poured on them. The only explanation for such hot spots in the rubble pile is the very obvious fact that there was an alternative heat source in the WTC debris, raising the steel to extremely high temperatures.

We had a hotel fire in the UK recently, only a four-storey building with about 60 rooms, but it was three days before the rubble could be disturbed to look for bodies because it continued to smolder. What is unusual about hot spots in a rubble pile?

[flyingswan]

There are no exterior column ‘x’ marks in WTC7. The building was on the periphery of the light debris field. You can guess exterior columns may have struck WTC7 but that is not what FEMA’s figure shows.

The argument was that no debris could have gone that far.

You “would not have been surprised”, suggests that to some degree you would expect it. Then the Bankers Trust building did severely catch fire with not the slightest hint of any sort of collapse. The building demonstrated that it would not collapse due to fire, so to have expected it to collapse shows a clear misunderstanding of how damage/fires affect high rise steel framed structures.

On the subject of the Bankers Trust building again though, the building is a clear parallel to WTC7. Both were steel framed high rise buildings, both were damaged by the Twin Towers’ falling debris (I would suggest the Bankers Trust building to a greater degree as FEMA shows it was closer to the heavy debris field and took two direct hits from steel columns) and both caught fire. Why is it WTC7 was reduced to a rubble pile a few storeys high and the Bankers Trust building did not exhibit even the slightest sign of any sort of collapse?

No, "would not have been surprised" means that I thought there was a possibility that it would collapse. If I thought it would definitely collapse I would have said so.

I have since found more pictures of the Bankers Trust damage, and it seems considerably smaller in extent that the damage to WTC7 described by the witnesses.

[Sunofone]

In my opinion, the best points he made were the fact that the building was in fact severely damaged, and that the building was bulging, creaking, and making groaning noises, which pointed to the fact that it was very likely to collapse. Also, how the seismographs never picked up traces of anything that resembled explosives or demolition activity.

in my opinion it is a complete joke --yes damaged by an explosion that was captured on firefighter video search "seven is exploding"-- here is just one example of how flawed and outright complacent the article actually is--

Nothing can be seen or heard in videos that resembles explosive charges going off before the collapse.

here is reality

[flyingswan]

I did not say it started at the bottom and started at the top… but that is an interesting idea.

Yes you did, it's implicit in your belief that the penthouse collapse was a small-scale event separate from the main collapse.

I explained in this post how high temperature ignition explosives/reactions and a chemical or electrical detonator would achieve this.

No you didn't. Your charges have to be fireproof, but you can propose no way to detonate them.

Great, a point I can agree with at last. Of course this was not identical to a conventional controlled demolition. As I mentioned, this controlled demolition would have been quickly exposed had it been entirely conventional with no subtle disguises. The fact that it was unconventional does not change the fact WTC7 demonstrated most of the physical characteristics of a controlled demolition: sudden, virtually symmetrical, freefall collapse.

So you are saying that the similarity to a CD in the final collapse is evidence for an inside job, but the lack of similarity to a CD in the previous hours is also evidence of an inside job. We are back with an unfalsifyable hypothesis.

We went through a number of pages where I gave reasons why a separate damage event likely occurred immediately below the penthouse. Namely that it is difficult to believe the penthouse and structure below, tunnelled a path down through every floor, tearing free of all horizontal supports and adjacent columns as it went whilst not instantly affecting the main structure. Also, if a section of the building can act in this way, collapsing independently of the main structure, this contradicts your explanation of why the remaining building came down symmetrically as once piece.

You denied this simply because it did not fit your CD hypothesis. Saying "I don't believe it" is only a valid argument if you have the expertise to back your belief. If you think a building cannot partially collapse, why isn't every damaged building either still standing or a heap of rubble? You also cannot give any reason other than your belief why you dismiss my scenario in which a partial collapse of the interior causes sufficient extra damage to bring down the exterior. I haven't mentioned the seismic data before, as there seems to be some uncertainty in the timing, but on most interpretations it does seem to start before the penthouse collapse, which fits nicely with my theory of an interior collapse working up from the level of the damage and fires to the roof.

You could very vaguely argue that due to the flexibility of steel and expansion points, “structures AREN’T rigid”, but as a statement on its own this is very misleading.

It wasn't a statement on it's own until you isolated it. It was part of Pericynthion's explanation of load redistribution.

Why would anybody believe an explanation based almost entirely on supposition, that contains impossibilities breaking all known rules and defies everything we would expect from what has been witnessed before.

Which is why your CD hypothesis has no merit.

[flyingswan]

here is reality

How does CD charges at that location on the building compare with the final collapse appearing to start low down? On the other hand, the puffs fit very well with an ongoing interior collapse compressing rooms and blowing out the windows.

[dmb]

How does CD charges at that location on the building compare with the final collapse appearing to start low down?

From "HowStuffWorks: How Building Implosions Work" http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm

Even though the collapse initiation of a CD may begin down low, charges are still placed up high.

This follows the same general pattern of WTC 7, as FEMA notes in Chapter 5.6.2 of the WTC-BPS report: "The collapse [of WTC 7] then began at the lower floor levels, and the building completely collapsed to the ground. From this sequence, it appears that the collapse initiated at the lower levels on the inside and progressed up".

On the other hand, the puffs fit very well with an ongoing interior collapse compressing rooms and blowing out the windows.

They "fit very well"...sounds like you have some prior examples of this occuring? I'd like to see them.

How do you suppose the puffs came to be concentrated on that one corner, one directly on top of the other? If we suppose the windows blew out due to a piston effect, why would it be so ordered?

We expect that level of order from a CD, not from an accidental collapse. Not that I accept the puffs as proof positive of CD, but they hint at it.

Thanks,

Dane

Edited September 6, 2007 by danemburke

[Sunofone]

How does CD charges at that location on the building compare with the final collapse appearing to start low down? On the other hand, the puffs fit very well with an ongoing interior collapse compressing rooms and blowing out the windows.

windows are not located on the corner of the structure

[Q24]

We had a hotel fire in the UK recently, only a four-storey building with about 60 rooms, but it was three days before the rubble could be disturbed to look for bodies because it continued to smolder. What is unusual about hot spots in a rubble pile?

As with the WTC debris, did hot spots in the UK fire cause molten metal to flow through the debris, exceeding temperatures that could have been reached by the fire itself?

The argument was that no debris could have gone that far.

My argument is that you create evidence of heavy debris where there is none and ignore evidence showing only light debris.

No, "would not have been surprised" means that I thought there was a possibility that it would collapse. If I thought it would definitely collapse I would have said so.

Yes and as the Bankers Trust building did not collapse after a severe fire, it seems there was not a possibility.

I have since found more pictures of the Bankers Trust damage, and it seems considerably smaller in extent that the damage to WTC7 described by the witnesses.

The witness to WTC7 described a 20 storey hole across ¹/₃ of the building. The damage to the Bankers Trust appears to be a 19 storey hole across ²/₇ of the building. How is the extent of damage to the Bankers Trust building ‘considerably smaller’?

You denied this simply because it did not fit your CD hypothesis. Saying "I don't believe it" is only a valid argument if you have the expertise to back your belief.

I denied the penthouse collapse was due to damage around the 10th floor as it is unreasonable that the penthouse and structure below tunnelled its way through the rest of the building with no external effect. Even if your theory of the penthouse collapse was correct it does not conflict with a controlled demolition - if fires could cause it, explosives sure could as well.

If you think a building cannot partially collapse, why isn't every damaged building either still standing or a heap of rubble?

Of course a building can partially collapse – just not in the way you describe the penthouse collapse. This is why the virtually symmetrical, freefall collapse of WTC7 due to irregular damage is so peculiar.

It wasn't a statement on it's own until you isolated it. It was part of Pericynthion's explanation of load redistribution.

It was a statement with no explanation, but good - you agree that as a statement on its own it is misleading. I notice Pericynthion has not answered any questions I asked about his theory.

[Q24]

On the other hand, the puffs fit very well with an ongoing interior collapse compressing rooms and blowing out the windows.

One more point on the squibs: Is it likely air compression will be great enough to blow out windows when supposedly we had a giant open vent right through WTC7 made by the penthouse?

Edited September 6, 2007 by Q24

[flyingswan]

From "HowStuffWorks: How Building Implosions Work" http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm

Even though the collapse initiation of a CD may begin down low, charges are still placed up high.

Nothing like WTC7 in that diagram - the high charges are the last to go, while the puffs are among the first events on WTC7, and the charges are placed all around the building on one horizontal level to break it up, while the WTC7 puffs are a vertical line at one corner that does not subsequently appear to break up any differently from the rest of the building where no puffs occured.

This follows the same general pattern of WTC 7, as FEMA notes in Chapter 5.6.2 of the WTC-BPS report: "The collapse [of WTC 7] then began at the lower floor levels, and the building completely collapsed to the ground. From this sequence, it appears that the collapse initiated at the lower levels on the inside and progressed up".

This is the description of the final collapse. The puffs coincide with my postulated internal collapse that occurs a few seconds earlier, marked by the penthouse falling and the seismic evidence.

They "fit very well"...sounds like you have some prior examples of this occuring? I'd like to see them.

No, I don't recall seeing any videos of buildings collapsing apart from WTC. CD videos don't count because the windows are removed previously. However, similar effects are visible on the towers, also at places where no other immediate break-up occurs.

How do you suppose the puffs came to be concentrated on that one corner, one directly on top of the other? If we suppose the windows blew out due to a piston effect, why would it be so ordered?

Because some part of the interior structure was collapsing and compressing the rooms in that corner one after the other.

Edit: On viewing the video again, the puffs appear to come in the order 4-1-2-3-5, counting from the bottom. I'm not sure whether this is evidence for either theory. Q24's CD theory says the final collapse was triggered by thermal charges - this is to get round the lack of witness reports of explosions - but I'm not sure whether he can explain puffs in this way.

Edited September 7, 2007 by flyingswan

[dmb]

Thanks for the reply flyingswan...I'm about to leave for a few days so I'll give you a response later. Enjoy your weekend

[flyingswan]

One more point on the squibs: Is it likely air compression will be great enough to blow out windows when supposedly we had a giant open vent right through WTC7 made by the penthouse?

Depends on whether the internal collapse reached the rooms in the corner where the puffs originated. The presence of an "open vent" doesn't mean every room in the building was linked to the vent.

[flyingswan]

As with the WTC debris, did hot spots in the UK fire cause molten metal to flow through the debris, exceeding temperatures that could have been reached by the fire itself?

Unlikely, it was bricks and mortar. However, a fire continuing to smoulder in the debris pile can sustain high temperatures over a long time. Look at how metals were melted in the past.

My argument is that you create evidence of heavy debris where there is none and ignore evidence showing only light debris.

My argument is that the map shows that WTC7 was in range of heavy debris, and the eyewitness statements showed a lot of damage to WTC7 after WTC1 fell.

Yes and as the Bankers Trust building did not collapse after a severe fire, it seems there was not a possibility.

Not at all. Was the Bankers Trust fire left to develop on its own for several hours? Was it as widespread through the building as the WTC7 one? If not, the question is still moot.

The witness to WTC7 described a 20 storey hole across ¹/₃ of the building. The damage to the Bankers Trust appears to be a 19 storey hole across ²/₇ of the building. How is the extent of damage to the Bankers Trust building ‘considerably smaller’?

The images I referred to show that only one of the eight main columns on that face of the Bankers Trust building was damaged. The WTC7 accounts suggest about a third of the columns on the south face. Broken columns count for a lot more than area of face missing.

I denied the penthouse collapse was due to damage around the 10th floor as it is unreasonable that the penthouse and structure below tunnelled its way through the rest of the building with no external effect. Even if your theory of the penthouse collapse was correct it does not conflict with a controlled demolition - if fires could cause it, explosives sure could as well.

Of course a building can partially collapse – just not in the way you describe the penthouse collapse. This is why the virtually symmetrical, freefall collapse of WTC7 due to irregular damage is so peculiar.

And I see no problem with a collapse initiating at that level bringing down all the structure above it without reaching the walls. Remember that columns have to support all the floors above them, but beams only support their local floor loads, thus columns are a lot stronger. A falling broken column can thus be strong enough to pull down the structure above it while the beams to the sides break.

It was a statement with no explanation, but good - you agree that as a statement on its own it is misleading. I notice Pericynthion has not answered any questions I asked about his theory.

No, the statement is true. The way that structures respond to applied loads depend on the elastic properties of the structural elements. From his last post, I don't think Pericynthion is going to reply to you until you show some signs of understanding the structural basics that he mentioned.

[dmb]

My plans got delayed...

Nothing like WTC7 in that diagram - the high charges are the last to go, while the puffs are among the first events on WTC7, and the charges are placed all around the building on one horizontal level to break it up, while the WTC7 puffs are a vertical line at one corner that does not subsequently appear to break up any differently from the rest of the building where no puffs occured.

I put up the picture in response to this:

How does CD charges at that location on the building compare with the final collapse appearing to start low down?

It sounded to me like you thought "CD charges in that location" were inconsistent with the collapse beginning at the lower part of the tower. This diagram shows they are not out of place.

The diagram only displays timing in a relative way. The gap between the first, second, and third sets of charges could be milliseconds. You say "the puffs are among the first events of WTC7"...so what? Explosions are usually among the first events of demolitions, right? Go ahead and review the video footage here:

The building begins downward motion before the puffs are seen. This is consistent with both the CD and compression theories, so I don't get what your point is about timing.

The vertical puffs do seem odd, although not inconcievable. It would be interesting to look at the building blueprints and determine what those supposed demolition charges would likely have been destroying.

This is the description of the final collapse.

I thought it was all one long collapse

The puffs coincide with my postulated internal collapse that occurs a few seconds earlier, marked by the penthouse falling and the seismic evidence.

How so? I'm not following...

No, I don't recall seeing any videos of buildings collapsing apart from WTC. CD videos don't count because the windows are removed previously. However, similar effects are visible on the towers, also at places where no other immediate break-up occurs.

Then what you meant by it "fits very well" is that it fits well with your personal idea of what a collapse should look like, not necessarily with what has been objectively determined. I have not seen any evidence that compression during a building collapse could account for these observations. One should always reserve some skepticism for theories that have no experimental/observational evidence backing them up.

Because some part of the interior structure was collapsing and compressing the rooms in that corner one after the other.

The puffs appear to progress from the bottom to the top. If some part of the interior structure was collapsing it would fall downward, affecting the upper floors before the lower floors, not the other way around.

Thanks flyingswan,

Dane

EDIT: In case you weren't following the thread, you've been personally invited to chime in here - http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...howtopic=104800

Edited September 7, 2007 by danemburke

[flyingswan]

My plans got delayed...

I put up the picture in response to this:

It sounded to me like you thought "CD charges in that location" were inconsistent with the collapse beginning at the lower part of the tower. This diagram shows they are not out of place.

The diagram only displays timing in a relative way. The gap between the first, second, and third sets of charges could be milliseconds. You say "the puffs are among the first events of WTC7"...so what? Explosions are usually among the first events of demolitions, right? Go ahead and review the video footage here:

The building begins downward motion before the puffs are seen. This is consistent with both the CD and compression theories, so I don't get what your point is about timing.

The vertical puffs do seem odd, although not inconcievable. It would be interesting to look at the building blueprints and determine what those supposed demolition charges would likely have been destroying

Afraid I was in too much of a hurry when I posted this morning and only watched the video again just now, see my edit to my previous reply to you. I agree that the puffs occurred later than I first thought, but I still think the placement and sequence is difficult for the CD theory to explain.

I thought it was all one long collapse

How so? I'm not following...

See my posts above - my theory is that it was a three-part process, an initial collapse that progressed up the building, a large part of the interior collapsing, damage from this taking out the bottom of the outer walls which then collpsed in turn.

Then what you meant by it "fits very well" is that it fits well with your personal idea of what a collapse should look like, not necessarily with what has been objectively determined. I have not seen any evidence that compression during a building collapse could account for these observations. One should always reserve some skepticism for theories that have no experimental/observational evidence backing them up.

On the other hand, if a closed room gets crushed in a collapse, where is the air most likely to go? Blowing out a window seems a totally plausible answer.

The puffs appear to progress from the bottom to the top. If some part of the interior structure was collapsing it would fall downward, affecting the upper floors before the lower floors, not the other way around.

Not the way I see the video, as in my edit to the previous reply, the order is 4-1-2-3-5.

EDIT: In case you weren't following the thread, you've been personally invited to chime in here - http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...howtopic=104800

Sorry, not tonight.

[Q24]

Regarding the Bankers Trust building, we start off with: -

I would say that there appears to be severe structural damage and I would not have been surprised if a subsequent fire had led to a collapse.

In addition, you tell us throughout this thread how a single initially damaged column can lead to a progressive collapse from fire and that high temperatures are not vital to that collapse. Then we have excuse....

Was the Bankers Trust fire left to develop on its own for several hours?

... after excuse....

Was it as widespread through the building as the WTC7 one?

... after excuse....

The images I referred to show that only one of the eight main columns on that face of the Bankers Trust building was damaged.

Fairytale: an interesting but highly implausible story; often told as an excuse

From his last post, I don't think Pericynthion is going to reply to you until you show some signs of understanding the structural basics that he mentioned.

Pericynthion’s structural basics in regard to real buildings are questionable at best, evinced by his lack of ability to answer the straightforward questions I put to him.

[Sunofone]

Q24 Posted Today, 06:56 PM

Fairytale: an interesting but highly implausible story; often told as an excuse

hes surely an operative meant to dissude the casual onlooker from going down the rabit hole

[flyingswan]

Regarding the Bankers Trust building, we start off with: -

In addition, you tell us throughout this thread how a single initially damaged column can lead to a progressive collapse from fire and that high temperatures are not vital to that collapse. Then we have excuse....

... after excuse....

... after excuse....

Fairytale: an interesting but highly implausible story; often told as an excuse

Pericynthion’s structural basics in regard to real buildings are questionable at best, evinced by his lack of ability to answer the straightforward questions I put to him.

And you keep saying that my "I wouldn't be surprised if" is somehow the same as "I would definitely say that". Do you understand the meaning of simple English phrases? What does "strawman argument" mean to you?

I have never said that a single damaged column is likely to bring down a building. When you asked me how many damaged columns would be required, I said:

One failed structural element could be enough to start the process if the fire is severe, a minimal weakening due to heat could be enough to spread an initially large damaged region.

Note the qualifications "could be","if the fire is severe". Note also that I am saying that the more the damage, the smaller the fire needs to be. That is why it the differences in damage and fire between the two buildings are not "excuses" but valid points that have to be considered.

Edited September 8, 2007 by flyingswan

[Q24]

And you keep saying that my "I wouldn't be surprised if" is somehow the same as "I would definitely say that".

Do you understand the meaning of simple English phrases?

Actually, I said: -

You “would not have been surprised”, suggests that to some degree you would expect it.

And the outcome of the damage and fire - an intact and structurally stable Bankers Trust building - suggests it was misguided to expect it.

What does "strawman argument" mean to you?

Hmm… something to do with Popular Mechanics?

That is why it the differences in damage and fire between the two buildings are not "excuses" but valid points that have to be considered.

I just get the feeling if we had a structure design identical to WTC7 that suffered exactly the same damage and fire yet did not collapse, you would say something along the lines of, “we must consider that the wind was blowing in a north-easterly direction when the steel was rolled rather than westerly as with WTC7.”

Anyhow flyingswan, I think we have given our views and covered most points of WTC7. The only outstanding item I can think of is you have yet to give your opinion of what the Israelis celebrating the Twin Towers collapse and subsequently arrested were doing. I understand you do not think they were complicit in the events of 9/11 in any way but what then were Mossad agents doing in New York with a van full of explosives?

[lerocket]

nonsence again, i was there, i heard no blasts before collapse, not one.

You probably got deafened after the first few explosions. But I think you're lying.

[flyingswan]

And the outcome of the damage and fire - an intact and structurally stable Bankers Trust building - suggests it was misguided to expect it.

You are still using strawman arguments. When did I say I "expected it"?

Anyhow flyingswan, I think we have given our views and covered most points of WTC7. The only outstanding item I can think of is you have yet to give your opinion of what the Israelis celebrating the Twin Towers collapse and subsequently arrested were doing. I understand you do not think they were complicit in the events of 9/11 in any way but what then were Mossad agents doing in New York with a van full of explosives?

How should I know? I have been trying to find some hard evidence on this story, but it seems very elusive. I can't even find a definite statement that they had any explosives, let alone a van-full. All I could find on this is that sniffer dogs got excited about the van, no mention if this was followed up with proper tests. Another point is that in 2004 it was reported that the Israeli's were suing for false arrest. Did that ever come to court?

[badeskov]

How should I know? I have been trying to find some hard evidence on this story, but it seems very elusive. I can't even find a definite statement that they had any explosives, let alone a van-full. All I could find on this is that sniffer dogs got excited about the van, no mention if this was followed up with proper tests. Another point is that in 2004 it was reported that the Israeli's were suing for false arrest. Did that ever come to court?

Good question. I looked around for supporting evidence as well and the only place I really found it mentioned was on conspiracy websites. To me this sounds like something blown way out of proportion and then used by some to fit their 'facts'. Any links to this event would be most welcome.

Best,

Badeskov

[Sunofone]

here is a wtc 7 testimony that is sure to ruffle your feathers and have you govt shills running for the hills--

********************************************************************************

******

9/11 First Responder Heard WTC 7 Demolition Countdown

Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue expert witnessed officials attempt to conceal planned nature of demolition

Earlier this year, 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.

That account was backed up by another ground zero rescue worker who went on the record with her full name. Volunteer EMT Indira Singh described to a radio show how she learned that WTC 7 was going to be "brought down" and the context was clear that it was to be deliberately demolished.

In addition, former NYPD officer Craig Bartmer described hearing bombs tear down the building as he fled the collapse.

Now another ground zero first responder has shed more light on how he heard the countdown moments before attempting to escape the collapse of Building 7 as a stampede ensued.

Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue expert, Kevin McPadden

"While we were on the right side, there was firefighters getting ready, they were bussing them back and forth, and a couple of vets that were there - they got the vibe that something was coming down," said McPadden.

"We started asking questions, everybody started asking questions, and the next thing you know there was a Red Cross representative pacing back and forth in front of the crowd holding his hand over the radio - I couldn't hear what it was saying but it was like pulsed - whatever the speech was on there it was pulsed - and that means to me most likely it was a countdown."

"But he took his hand off at the last three seconds and he gave this heartfelt look - like just run for your life - because he didn't want to bring it on his conscience - he didn't want to go to his grave with that - and then we had a couple of seconds to put our heads together," said McPadden.

McPadden then describes the frantic attempts to escape as the building began to collapse.

McPadden's account, when added to the testimony of other first responders, clearly suggests that officials knew the building was about to be brought down in a planned demolition, and that they made a conscious effort or were ordered to hide that fact from the first responders, though at the very end onlookers were given a brief warning which enabled them to escape safely.

watch video testimony here

denial is getting ABSURD