quote:Giuliani Caught In Bizarre Building 7 Lie
Claims WTC 7 collapsed in stages, Kerry Building 7 admission explodes on You Tube popularity charts
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Rudy Giuliani has been caught in a bizarre lie about WTC 7, in which he claims the building collapsed in stages over a sustained period of time, when in reality the structure fell in under seven seconds. Giuliani also reveals that he expected the twin towers to collapse but "not in the way they did."
Giuliani was a speaker along with former Oklahoma City Mayor Ron Norick at an April 19th event held at the Oklahoma City Museum and National Memorial in Ahoma City, Oklahoma. The entire video can be viewed here courtesy of C-Span, but the pertinent clip is embedded below.
Giuliani is asked if he had expected the twin towers to collapse on 9/11. Here is his response.
"Yeah, but not in the way they did."
"It occurred to us all that they might ultimately collapse over....the way buildings usually collapse, which is in stages."
"It looked like at some point the top of the building would come off, and then maybe the middle of the building and then maybe there'd be a shell left....the way number 7 came down 4 or 5 o'clock in the afternoon - over a period of time - but the idea that it would implode, the implosion that took place, I actually didn't realize that until much later."
Building 7 collapsed in just 6.5 seconds - videos of the structure before its collapse show the building fully intact and suffering sporadic fires across a limited number of floors.
It has since also been proven to a reasonable degree that the smoke seen emanating from the area of Building 7 was mostly coming from Buildings 5 and 6, which had taken the direct brunt of the collapse of the twin towers and were completely ablaze.
WTC 7 imploded at near free fall speed and fell in its own footprint, barely even blocking the adjacent road. Giuliani's emergency command bunker was located in the building but he and his crew evacuated just before the collapse of the twin towers. Building 7 had been structurally reinforced to compensate for numerous floors to be taken out without compromising the integrity of the building.
For Giuliani to claim that Building 7 collapsed in stages is completely bizarre and totally inaccurate. One has to wonder if he is intentionally attempting to mislead with such a wildly false statement.
Is Giuliani attempting to re-write history in an attempt to deflect clearly documented accusations that Building 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition?
In addition, his claims that the collapse of the twin towers, though not in the fashion they eventually fell (controlled demolition), was expected, completely contradicts the words of the very people who designed the World Trade Center, who are on the record on multiple occasions stating that the towers were designed to absorb airliner impacts without collapsing.
No steel framed building had collapsed from fire damage in history until September 11 2001 when three fell within the space of seven hours, so for Giuliani to have both expected the collapse and have received a warning immediately beforehand is highly suspicious.
In a related story, John Kerry's comments that Building 7 was deliberately demolished during an Austin Texas speaking event have gone viral since the You Tube video was posted and featured in our story on Monday. Despite receiving massive traffic, Google does not list the Prison Planet.com article in its search results nearly two days after the piece was first posted.
Just one version of the video has already received over 42,000 views and rising and features in multiple different You Tube most popular categories. The clip is currently the 5th most discussed video on You Tube today.
Calls to Kerry's office for a further clarification on his comments were not returned.
quote:John Kerry: Building 7 Was Deliberately Demolished
Massachusetts Senator's conclusion directly contradicts 9/11 official story, multi-billion dollar insurance lawsuit
Paul Joseph Watson & Aaron Dykes
Prison Planet
Monday, April 23, 2007
At a recent speaking engagement in Austin Texas, Senator John Kerry responded to a question about WTC Building 7 by concluding that according to his information, the building was brought down as a result of a controlled demolition, directly contradicting the official line that the structure fell as a result of fire and debris damage.
WTC Building 7 was a 47-story building in the WTC complex that collapsed at 5:20pm on September 11. The building had been structurally reinforced and was not hit by a plane yet collapsed in a uniform implosion within its own footprint in a matter of seconds after sustaining relatively light debris and fire damage following the collapse of the twin towers.
News networks like BBC and CNN were reporting that the building had collapsed before it fell, indicating that the media were being handed a script of events that had yet to even unfold.
Ground zero EMT's, firefighters and police were all told hours in advance to clear a collapse zone for Building 7 as it was going to be "brought down."
Questioned on WTC 7 by members of Austin 9/11 Truth Now at a Book People event in Austin Texas, 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."
Kerry is basically saying that the building was intentionally demolished to prevent a random collapse from damaging nearby buildings, but that premise has never been explicitly admitted, with officials clinging to the notion that the collapse was expected but was not aided by means of explosive charges, because to admit to a controlled demolition would be to expose foreknowledge of 9/11 itself.
Whether Kerry is basing his response on inside knowledge or hearsay is largely irrelevant, the fact that a sitting United States Senator is openly contradicting the official 9/11 story as well as a multi-billion dollar insurance lawsuit strikes at the root of the controversy surrounding Building 7.
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 accidental event caused by the fall of the twin towers.
EMT's, firefighters and first responders all knew the building was pulled, anyone with an ounce of common sense can watch the videos and understand that building's don't commit suicide - and yet Silverstein, the government, and their propaganda arm Popular Mechanics, are wedded to the myth that the structure fell as a result of fire damage. They are beholden to this explanation because any revision on their behalf would undermine the entire sequence of events on 9/11 and call into question other aspects of the official story.
Their credibility rests on sweeping the issue of WTC 7 under the rug, which makes it our responsibility to keep beating the Building 7 drum.
Official reports from both NIST and FEMA state that they cannot explain why Building 7 fell, but maintain that it was related to a terrorist attack on the complex on 9/11. However, the FEMA report concludes that, "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. The best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."
NIST is currently undertaking a study of WTC 7 to determine if bombs or incendiary devices were used to bring down the building.
Controlled demolitions expert Danny Jowenko was shown footage and building schematics of Building 7 by Dutch television and immediately concluded that its collapse was a result of deliberately placed explosives.
Preparing to demolish even a moderate sized building takes weeks of preparation. A building as large as WTC 7, a 47-story skyscraper, must have taken at least as long. Therefore, the idea that the building was demolished in response to fires spread from the twin towers is not a satisfactory response, as the building could not have been set up for unexpected demolition in only a few hours, much less while fires burned inside. All personnel were withdrawn from the area very early, meaning the explosives which can clearly be seen in the videos were placed days or weeks before 9/11.
Kerry was also asked about the research of Dr. Steven Jones, who has tested both samples of steel from the twin towers as well as recovered dust, which have both tested positive for the chemical signature of Thermate, which is used to cut support beams in localized reactions during a controlled demolition.
Kerry stated that he was not aware of the research and is "open to hearing anything based in fact and evidence."
Since John Kerry is a fellow Skull and Bones member with President Bush, allied to the fact that he took a dive despite massive evidence of vote fraud during the 2004 election, we won't hold our breath on the possibility of Kerry being a torch bearer for a new investigation into 9/11, but his conclusion that WTC 7 was deliberately demolished adds substantial weight to a 9/11 enigma that officials are terrified will reach critical mass.
quote:Whether Kerry is basing his response on inside knowledge or hearsay is largely irrelevant,
Ook wel grappig dat die lui blind varen op Nederlandse explosieven expert die een internet filmpje heeft gezien.quote:Controlled demolitions expert Danny Jowenko was shown footage and building schematics of Building 7 by Dutch television and immediately concluded that its collapse was a result of deliberately placed explosives.
laat maar horen dan!quote:Op donderdag 3 mei 2007 09:09 schreef Lambiekje het volgende:
Zou deze topic weer open mogen. Er valt weer wat te melden.
Ja ik ben ook nieuwsgierigquote:
misschien moet je een stap verder denken...quote:Op donderdag 3 mei 2007 14:14 schreef gorgg het volgende:
En dat moeten dan de mensen zijn die het ingewikkelste, moeilijkst uitvoerbare complot ooit zonder fouten tot een goed einde hebben weten te volbrengen.
Maar je hebt dus geen concreet idee over de dingen die lambiekje nou weer beweerd?quote:Op donderdag 3 mei 2007 21:44 schreef Orwell het volgende:
[knip]
Ik gaf geen antwoord. Ik stelde een (nieuwe) vraagquote:Op donderdag 3 mei 2007 23:45 schreef huupia het volgende:
hou eens op met dat "knip" van je
quote gewoon waar je op reageert , dat is wel zo handig voor degene die je antwoordt leest
dan hoef je ook niet te quoten lijkt mequote:Op donderdag 3 mei 2007 23:47 schreef calvobbes het volgende:
[..]
Ik gaf geen antwoord. Ik stelde een (nieuwe) vraag
Misschien moet je een stap verder denken...quote:Op donderdag 3 mei 2007 21:44 schreef Orwell het volgende:
[..]
misschien moet je een stap verder denken...
ze zijn niet achterlijk, in tegendeel
hoe krijgen we redelijk nadenkende mensen (zoals bv jij) zover om hen te laten denken dat we niet involved zijn.....
antwoord: misschien door exact datgene via de media naar buiten te brengen wat ze naar buiten gebracht hebben
"play stupid" is een oude truck, ik trap er niet in
Hoeft idd niet. Maar het mag wel. Toch?quote:Op donderdag 3 mei 2007 23:51 schreef huupia het volgende:
dan hoef je ook niet te quoten lijkt me
quote:Dit bijna 6 minuten durende fragment hebben de meeste vaste Zapruder bezoekers wel eens gezien. Blijkbaar is het niemand opgevallen dat rond het moment dat een explosie klinkt er ook nog een kort gesprek plaatsvindt.
Het Italiaanse netwerk Canale 5 lette beter op en dat leverde nieuw bewijs op dat gebouw 7 is neergehaald met met van te voren geplaatste explosieven op een gecontroleerde manier.
Video: "Seven is Exploding"
"7 is exploding"quote:
niet zo frusti man, als je een keer (terechte) kritiek krijgt op die " knip" shit , die je wel vaker uithaald.quote:Op donderdag 3 mei 2007 23:54 schreef calvobbes het volgende:
[..]
Hoeft idd niet. Maar het mag wel. Toch?
Heb je verder nog wat zinnigs bij te dragen of zijn al je argumenten al weer op en denk je door dit soort gezeur in de marge wat bij te kunnen dragen?
Het mag wel ja. Maar ik moet het in dit geval toch eens zijn met Huupia dat het dan weinig nuttig is om een reactie te quoten, vervolgens die reactie te vervangen door [knip] en dan een nieuwe vraag te stellen die niets te maken heeft met hetgeen je net gequote hebt.quote:Op donderdag 3 mei 2007 23:54 schreef calvobbes het volgende:
[..]
Hoeft idd niet. Maar het mag wel. Toch?
Heb je verder nog wat zinnigs bij te dragen of zijn al je argumenten al weer op en denk je door dit soort gezeur in de marge wat bij te kunnen dragen?
Ik ga geen offtopic discussie voeren aan de hand van beweringen die niks met het topic te maken hebben.quote:Op vrijdag 4 mei 2007 14:47 schreef CoolGuy het volgende:
Het mag wel ja. Maar ik moet het in dit geval toch eens zijn met Huupia dat het dan weinig nuttig is om een reactie te quoten, vervolgens die reactie te vervangen door [knip] en dan een nieuwe vraag te stellen die niets te maken heeft met hetgeen je net gequote hebt.
Als mensen zich er al aan storen omdat je niet iemand zijn (hele) reactie quote, dan ben je imo zeer snel geirriteerd...quote:Als je dat zo vaak doet terwijl je daar al op gewezen bent dan denk ik dat je dat gewoon expres doet omdat je weet dat bepaalde mensen zich daar aan storen.
Verder heb je niks zinnigs bij te dragen aan dit topic?quote:Op maandag 7 mei 2007 15:15 schreef huupia het volgende:
jij je ziin man![]()
heb helaas weinig tijd uitvoerig in te gaan op het moment, ik zag alleen wel hoe kinderachtig jij bezig bent en niet tegen kritiek kan .quote:Op maandag 7 mei 2007 15:26 schreef calvobbes het volgende:
[..]
Verder heb je niks zinnigs bij te dragen aan dit topic?
Geen aanvullingen of onderbouwingen op Lambiekje zijn beweringen. Wederom alleen maar gezeur op anderen....
Forum Opties | |
---|---|
Forumhop: | |
Hop naar: |