Gee whiz. The chart for the collapse of 7 WTC

Chart for the collapse of 7 WTC.

Would anyone like to have a gander at this chart? It’s a whole new take on 911. Here is that video of Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder for the building. So the official report ignores that the leaseholder authorized the destruction of the building?

Now look what went with it. The list is in the third paragraph of that section. Poof…all that paper…all that data…

31 thoughts on “Gee whiz. The chart for the collapse of 7 WTC”

  1. The David Kelly story is a goodie. (In the saddest, most cynical sense of that phrase.) One, it’s got all the hallmarks of a “good” whodunnit story we want to follow and thus sells papers/advertising space and becomes worth of the effort it takes to report on it; and two, Kelly personalizes the struggle we all face in discovering the truth of the war. What will it mean to us if we find we’ve been lied to? Many people thought the official story was hogwash from the beginning, but we want to know the particulars of this tall tale. We want to know just how far, and by what means were were sold this sham. Maybe, like “proving” 7WTC was intentionally detonated, we can “prove” our worst suspicions about the entire war effort. I think that’s why we continue to hear about his “suicide”. We want someone to ‘fess up about what we already know. We want a clean confession and something close to the truth.

    Another point. Kelly was a really smart person who spoke the truth and died for it. Much more difficult to sort out the 3,000++ lives of all those who dies 9/11 and in the wars afterward; much easier to understand the narrative of one intelligent, well-connected, articulate and brave man who stands for many of us (maybe not so smart, well-connected or brave) who also question the wars’ justification and purpose.

    Probably not anything you haven’t heard before, but just my thoughts this morning. Yes, I hope there’s another inquiry. Overall, I think we’ll see more thought in the US trending toward Doubt rather than Belief. Last weekend INSIDE JOB premiered at the Toronto Film Festival; wondering how this movie will play as the year passes and germinates amongst our collective cultural brains. A good story (like Kelly’s, like ALL THE PRESIDENT’S MEN, like TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD) can move “regular” people to change in the right direction far better than any letter writing/blogging campaign. Imagination is a powerful tool, as well all know.

  2. Nothing would surprise me. Nothing at all. CNN has always been the salesman for war, just like the yellow journalists before them.

    I don’t believe the Moon landing was a hoax, but if you told me it involved 911 I would consider the possibility.

  3. Fe,

    There’s been a constant drip of stories about David Kelly since the coalition came to power… not sure why…

    Interestingly, Hutton, who led the inquiry into his death, sealed papers vital to the case for seventy years. This is just one of the areas that is being looked at right now.

  4. Eric:
    What say you as to the possibility that the CNN 9/11 footage may have also been spliced ?
    This also would lead to the question of why, if it indeed was.
    Could the MSM, specifically employees within CNN, been involved in the spinning of the `Official Story` myth-making machinery ?

    Awordedgewise :
    Warner Brothers Studios was owned by the Time-Warner-CNN conglomerate in source confirms this…he worked there from 2000-2003. I am alluding to a possible nefarious connection concerning 9/11 between the Warner Brothers Studio and CNN.

  5. I know the Zapruder film was spliced — for sure. The frame numbers are available. I believe that some or all of the missing frames are now available.

    That was back when you needed an Abe Zapruder. Now every kid with an iPhone could be the one.

  6. “everybody” in Hollywood knows that Liberty Global bought up ‘all the little post-production facilities and cable companies and etc.’ a decade+ ago.

    They did some corporate tradin’ over the years – here’s some run-down:

    I don’t think TimeWarner owned WB at the time – but that connection would hardly have been needed to create a false video if one had been wanted.

    On the other hand, regardless of video tampering, I don’t personally think a false video was much needed for the 9-1-1 event.

  7. Eric,

    The infamous “Zapruder Film” documents portions of the JFK assasination in 1963….
    …or does it ?

    The `exclusive`, one-of-a-kind CNN footage on 911 of the second plane hitting the second tower contains a curious segment…

    If you watch if very, very closely…frame by frame…you will notice an odd micro-second `flicker` exactly at the crucial moment….indicating that it may have been spliced.

    All the major News Outlets around the world used this video as THE reference point throughout the day…all of them assuming that it was filmed in `Real Time`…but maybe it wasn`t.

    But how would this be possible ?…as the footage was shown on CNN within moments of the Talking-Heads reporting the impact.

    CNN is owned by the parent company of Time-Warner. The also own the Warner Brothers Studios , Hollywood.


    This could possibly have been a pre-planned `Postulate`…something that is `assumed` to be true…sort of a subliminal insertion into the mass consciousness…before any real ,hard evidence proves that it is indeed true.

    Any thoughts on this ?

  8. A writer for 911 Review, accounting for why Silverstein admitted he told the Fire Department it was okay to pull WTC 7, came up with the same analysis I wrote below.

    title: ‘Pulling’ Building 7
    author: Jim Hoffman

    A third explanation is less obvious but makes sense of the non-sequiturs in the above explanations: perhaps Silverstein’s statement was calculated to confuse the issue of what actually happened to Building 7. By suggesting that it was demolished by the FDNY as a safety measure, it provides an alternative to the only logical explanation — that it was rigged for demolition before the attack. The absurdity of the FDNY implementing a plan to “pull” Building 7 on the afternoon of 9/11/01 will escape most people, who neither grasp the technical complexity of engineering the controlled demolition of a skyscraper, nor its contradiction with FEMA’s account of the collapse, nor the thorough illlegality of such an operation. Thus the idea that officials decided to “pull” Building 7 after the attack serves as a distraction from the inescapable logic that the building’s demolition was planned in advance of the attack, and was therefore part of an inside job to destroy the entire WTC complex.

  9. This is from an interview with someone named Indira Singh. She is identified in the interview as such:

    “Singh is a private pilot and a climber. Prior to 9/11, she volunteered as a civilian emergency medical technician, until she was injured at ground zero.”

    Here is the full transcript.

    Q by interviewer BF: Did they actually use the words brought down, and who was it that was telling you this?

    IS: The Fire Department, the Fire Department, and they did use the word, we’re gonna have to bring it down. And, for us, there observing the nature of the devastation it made total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility.

    Given the subsequent controversy over it, I don’t know. I’m not an engineer, all I know is that was my experience. We backed off a little bit to Pace University, there was another panic around 4 o’clock because, they were bringing the building down, and people seemed to know this ahead of time, so people were panicking again and running… I went back to One Liberty, which was further south of where I was before and there were triage sites set up in there… we were treating basically people who were on the pile digging for survivors, if there were any.

    And it was basically chaos. I asked who was in charge for instance, because I supposed to check in with whoever was in charge, and no one seemed to know. It was complete and utter chaos there, if there was someone in charge… the normal response units around for a multi-casualty incident, they didn’t know.

    One of the big problems is that so many people in the Fire Dept. and in the Police Dept. at a high level had been already killed. There was complete and utter shock and disbelief and they were still trying to sort out the details.

  10. I’m in a discussion with Wiki editor Jorgette on the WTC 7 talk page. Jorgette is claiming that Silverstein meant “save” the building when he suggested that they “pull it.” In the extensive debate over this issue, other sources mull whether “pull” meant “pull people away from” the building, but they would not need Silverstein’s advice about that. Jorgette has been accused by at least one other Wiki editor of trying to conceal or obstruct what happened at Building 7 and from other comments on his/her user-talk page, seems to be committed to keeping this one quotation out of any article related to Silverstein or WTC 7.

    The conversation is happening here, top item. I am user “Dioxinfreak.”

    Here is the whole quote:

    Silverstein says, “I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said you know we’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made the decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”

    The quotation comes from the PBS documentary “America Rebuilds,” aired on Sept. 10, 2002. You can order that here; I’ve just done so. I am sure it will be interesting to watch.

    One other comment. Silverstein seems unusually, admirably candid here, and it is odd that this quotation doesn’t make it into any official record, so far as I know. However, in addressing fraud it’s important to study the point where the truth meets the lie. Silverstein makes it sound like you can just demolish a building in an afternoon, or on a few minutes notice. Very simple; he suggests to the FD commander that they pull it down to avoid further loss of life, and they do. But what that seemingly admirably candid statement conceals is the preparation necessary. The preparation involves time and the time implies foreknowledge.

    Here is a bit about how much time. We can assume they didn’t remove drywall or salvage copper wire. It is also noteworthy that the original WTC 7 sat on top of a Con Edison electrical substation.

  11. I don’t have time for this shyt. Seriously. I guess that’s part of the conspiracy… keep ’em down, workin hard, they won’t have time to figure it all out. WTF dude?

  12. And here we are in 2010, with Pluto getting set to turn direct at 2+ Capricon, talking about an 2001 event chart with the Nodes at 2+ Cap and 2+ Cancer. Like coming ’round the dial and looking at it all from 180 degrees on the other side –right on time. This IS the time for the discussion, I reckon.

    Wonder what’ll pop out after Pluto turns direct?

    Am interested to hear what you’ve got to say about 5/9th house connection.

    Mars in Cap on the Aries Point axis? Intentional act (wish fulfillment?!) of the government/corporate interests (Larry Silverstein)?

    Opposing the Moon? Against the People and their everyday lives –6th house. Definitely disrupted/destroyed the lives of so many average people. OMG. Obvious! Destruction of PAPERWORK. Der. So obviously 6th house business…government servants, civil servants, files, ledgers, electronic data, memos…Or, rather, the effort that went into creating that paperwork.

    I’ve forgotten: what house best represents lawsuits? I know this can get diced up a half dozen ways…

    Also gives pause to think of the WorldCom/Enron/ArthurAnderson scandels soon to hit the news that winter. Seems as if W7 was part and parcel of that bonanza.

  13. Bill McKibben’s is working to create as many initiatives as possible for 10/10/10. He had hoped to use that as the installation date for solar panels on the White House. He is asking as many people as possible to sign up for that day to do something to let the government know the people want change in the way that we treat our planet and each other. Can we organize a 10/10/10 initiative in the various cities/countries in which we live to let people know we want to make a change, now, today? October 10th is several weeks before the November elections in the US, so our actions will be doubly heard. Can we print flyers, stand on corners, put flyers under windshield wipers, knock on doors, use the same method used by Obama to get elected. Facebook, Twitter, whatever! It is truly time for action.

    A – C – T

    I – O – N

    ACTION!!!!!ACTION!!!!! WE WANT ACTION!!!!!!!

  14. When Harold Pinter was awarded the Nobel Prize for literature in 2005, his impassioned speech entitled, “Art, Truth and Politics” indicted Bush and Blair as war criminals. He was at the end of his life and laid it on the line clearly, truthfully. Pinter was one of the most important writers of the 20th century and could not remain silent. Using art as a means of dissent is historic and universal. Many artists read Planet Waves. Perhaps we can create a series of works that express our present view of what is happening in America and the world. Perhaps we could wallpaper them around our communities and send them out as emails, place them under the windshield wipers of cars at the grocery store. Start a movement. If we want people to wake up we need to do something to encourage them to do so. Let’s do it.

    On Friday, Bill McKibbon drove from Unity College in Maine with one of the original solar panels Jimmy Carter had installed on the roof of the White House in the late 1970’s. Reagan had them removed. The cafeteria at Unity College had put them to good use in recent years. They still worked. McKibbon and some students from Unity drove from Maine to Washington, DC, through Boston and New York City, holding events in both cities. The White House met with them and rejected the gift of the Carter solar panel as well as the offer of new solar panels for the White House. They were told the situation was “complicated.” Over 30 years ago, Jimmy Carter was proposing solutions for many of the problems we are facing today. He was ridiculed for his ideas, ideas that have now been validated by time.

    In both scenarios, oil is at the bottom of the story. 9/11 and Jimmy Carter’s solar panels.

  15. Michele, first and foremost, Neptune is rising. In a public horoscope, that is the chart of a lie, an illusion, a deception. That sets the theme.

    Next, the Sun is in the 8th house. It’s all about the (insurance) money. The 8th by definition is secrets-control-corporate-banking-the resources of others. That sets the theme as well.

    Next, the MC — the government angle — is in the last degree of Scorpio. That says ‘difficult to grasp’ and the Sabian symbol is about kids playing pranks. Not, in itself, decisive, but circumstantial.

    Next look at that Moon in Cancer; its last aspect was to oppose Mars in Capricorn on the South Node. That is a direct relationship. Let’s hold that thought — the Moon is very strong in this chart (in its rulership and on its own node).

    We see the Mercury-Saturn trine, just as in the 8:46 am chart. But now the trine is even more exact, and it goes from the 5th house to the 9th house. Let’s call that the 5th-9th connection — hold that thought; I have someone I need to ask about that.

    I can tell you that Saturn is extremely powerful. It shows up as the ruler of the 12th AND the 1st — the “secret enemy” (Lilly) and the issue at hand. Saturn is always a representative or symbol for the government or the system. So we have these two significated by one planet, and that planet is Saturn.

    I think that 11th house Capricorn is impressive. I didn’t see that much Cap in the original chart for 8:46 am. Now it’s more obvious. It’s also more obvious that the Cap stellium is going to be taking a lot of transits from Pluto the next couple of years.

    Ceres conjunct Nessus — well that is just dark. This is the fruit of the poison tree.

  16. The URL I posted yesterday seems to cover all of these topics and more.

    Here, for example is info on the BBC and CNN prior coverage of the pull of building 7:

    The site takes a little sorting through, as one page will take you to another article elsewhere, etc. But the Contents page has the basic list.

    (In addition to all the enengineering data that declares that nothing could have happened the way we were told, there is also, for example a tenant list – that is, the government agencies and banking industry tenants that just happened to have vacated their offices that day.)

  17. Eric,

    Hmm… If we’re following the data that was lost…

    Remember this extract of a speech made by Rumsfeld on 9.10.01?

    “The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it’s stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible. ”

    (accessed 16.36 bst 12th September 2010 via wayback machine )

    and then this newspaper report:

    “One Army office in the Pentagon lost 34 of its 65 employees in the attack. Most of those killed in the office, called Resource Services Washington, were civilian accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts. They were at their desks when American Airlines Flight 77 struck. ”

    (accessed 16.38bst 12th September 2010

    Never going to track that money down now are they?

  18. This is from the Talk page on the Wiki WTC7 page. The issue of BBC predicting the collapse of the building came up. Check out the video; it is ridiculous. She is standing in front of Building 7 and saying it fell down; then it falls down. Note the comment I’ve put into italics — about how firemen knew the building “would fall” for several hours. What does “would fall” mean? Would be demolished? Or was unstable, from a fire in the mid-floors (when such had never caused the collapse of a skyscraper)?

    But the casual reply from the Wiki editor Jordgette “there was lots of misreporting” that day is just an absurd brush-off. She cannot fathom that the whole thing was staged. It’s beyond the comprehension of most people; they can look right at it and not see it. Fuck, even when Larry Fucking Silverstein, the fucking leaseholder — in simple terms, the OWNER — SAYS ON PBS TELEVISION that the building was pulled after HE authorized it, nobody wants to hear that. If you think he meant “pull it” when he said “pull it” then you’re a conspiracy nut.

    So now that we’re on this page we need to ask: at what point during the course of the day was the building rigged for demolition? We need some research on this: on average, how long does it take to rig a large building for demolition, and then add in the factor of this being Sept. 11, 2001 at Ground Zero.

    Then we need to ask: uhmmmmmmm (don’t forget that part, the contemplative pause): the CIA has an office in Building 7, and the FBI and the governor of New York State…and they just…blow the place up? Or in the alternate, there’s a small fire in a steel building and the whole thing falls on its footprint in 6 seconds??? And if you notice…you’re a little weird.

    Anyway — here is the discussion.


    I believe the news report from BBC I believe is one of the more interesting facts about Building 7. It collapsed 20 minutes I think after the BBC reporter said it had collapsed – unfortunately the woman was standing directly in front of the building when she made her report. She thought Building 7 was down the street – SNL couldn’t do a better skit. (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

    (reply) There was a lot of misinformation and mis-reporting on that day. I have a tape of the CNN coverage, and for five minutes they were reporting that the Washington Mall was on fire. Never happened. -Jordgette (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

    This particular misinformation and mis-reporting happened to be prophetic. Is anyone suggesting that she just guessed that a building was going to fall – and she knew which one? We should see more of her reporting, not less – maybe she has some insight on war or economics. (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

    (reply) Nothing prophetic about it. Firefighters had been expecting the collapse for several hours at that point [3] — not surprising that someone would misreport this fact. Let’s discuss the article on this page, not speculate on other issues. -Jordgette (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

    Thanks for the information, I had never heard that fireman expected the tower/s to fall. Can you supply the quotes? Everything I have read says that the firemen etc were stunned. It’s nice to know that they were aware of this. This would make a good addition to the article – name of fireman/men etc. (talk) 11:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Concerning the news woman – does anyone have her name – would be interesting to know where she got her heads up – firemen? other source? intuition? (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

    (reply) The names and quotes are in the article (from “Firehouse” magazine) that I linked above… -Jordgette (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

    (surreply) some say they knew the towers would fall before the first plane arrived…. CybergothiChé (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

  19. Did you know that reportedly the BBC announced the collapse of WTC 7 23 mins before it actually happened?

    I think that somewhere back in the good old days (!) I was trying to pull some of these threads together …

    911 is the big elephant in the room. Many people go along with the official version because its kinda too big and scary to think about the alternative(s) that these people may have been murdered by people closer to home …

    Dwight Schultz (UFO & other conspiracy theorist + actor) once said (ironically *just* before 911) when asked about the theories about the faked moon landings, he said he believed the moon landings were true because it would do too much damage to the American people to find out they were fake. In this sense, the moon landings are an article of faith, the official story of 911 is likewise an article of faith – if you don’t believe it, you are a heretic, a disbeliever, not one of us.

  20. so… in all honesty.. what does a girl who lives in the far north do with all this info? i am far, i have a prime minister who is part of this shit, and i have no clue what is the truth… though i always did get what i was being fed was not quite right. i would appreciate ideas because in this instance… i simply feel inadequate. the small-ness in the big-ness.

  21. Looking at Wikipedia, this “pull it” phrase is omitted entirely from the WTC 7 article and discussion. I added a comment to the discussion and found this on the discussion page of the Larry Silverstein article. Please scroll to the last discussion item on this page, a “talk” page that is in the background of the main page. Every Wiki page has one, where the editors hash out the facts and work out their disputes.

    One Wikipedia editor wrote, “That he was attempting to authorize a demolition of the WTC building 7 on Sept. 11th now gives vindication to the probability that this indeed is what actually occurred. Try and feed this to the masses. If convincingly digested, we would have a revolution the size of which George Washington’s corpse would stand to attention!”

    And…they make it sound like it’s firing off a cap gun to demolish a 47 floor skyscraper. That had to be weeks, months or years in the planning, unless they build these structure with self-destruct mechanisms.

Leave a Comment