By M.K. Styllinski

“This is a controlled demolition which was carried out by a team of experts.”

– the late Danny Jowenko, demolition expert, making the comment before he was told he was watching a video of the destruction of WTC building 7.



One of the most outrageous events of September 11th and even harder to explain using the official story is the destruction of one of New York City’s larger sky-scrapers, the 47 story Building 7, part of the WTC complex and which occupied an entire city block, it’s height reaching 600ft above street level. Whereas the Twin Towers exhibited an array of strange anomalies, Building 7 imploded in a manner wholly indistinguishable from a conventional building demolition.

According to a Zogby poll in 2006, 43 percent of Americans didn’t even know Building 7 existed, let alone that it was destroyed. What the public also may not know is that no plane hit the building, suffering only minimal damage after the destruction of the Twin Towers. By 2011, Siena Research Institute Poll commissioned by “Remember Building 7” Campaign showed that there was substantial skeptism about the official story. Almost half of the 643 New Yorkers polled were in favour of a new investigation into WTC 7’s collapse. Amidst the constant stream of propaganda-saturated media pumped into American living-rooms every day this is a significant rise in awareness.

The World Trade Centre complex buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6 were damaged more severely than Building 7; firstly, by falling rubble from the tower collapses, and then from fires which burned for hours on various floors. None of these buildings decided to implode. WTC 7 fell into its own footprint at 5.20pm on September 11th with a precision even more characteristic of a controlled demolition than the Twin Towers. No other explanation can account for this scenario unless it was simply the most mysterious, catastrophic structural failure in history. In which case, the laws of physics will have to be quickly re-written. Persistent attempts by the MSM to paint this destruction due to intense fires the evidence simply doesn’t add up.



Sequential stills from the collapse of WTC 7 from video footage: ttps://www.youtube.com/

The official line is that these fires continued to burn throughout the afternoon on the lower floors due to the building’s suppression system lacking water pressure to fight the fires, causing a collapse at 5:21 pm. This is said to have combined with the failure of a major internal column which buckled triggering a structural failure throughout, the visible signs of which can be seen in video footage of a rooftop penthouse structure crumbling at 5:20 pm. [1]

On the morning of September 11, 2001, the late Barry Jennings, a City Housing Authority worker and Michael Hess, New York̵ corporation counsel, became trapped inside Building 7. After trying to find their way down from the 23rd floor during a power outage they both heard what sounded like loud explosions below them when they reached the eight and then the sixth floors of the building. These were heard before 9:59am when the Twin Towers were still standing. Hess and Jennings were rescued by fire-fighters later that day. [2]

Confirming the story of Jennings and Hess, another eyewitness Craig Bartmer, Former NYPD, and 9/11 First Responder gave a vivid account of the WTC 7 as it fell into its own footprint:

“All of a sudden, the radios exploded and everybody started screaming, ‘Get away, get away, get away from it!’ And, I was like a deer in the headlights. And I looked up, and…Two guys that I knew were on the transit radio. I don’t know if those tapes are out there… And I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. You know the thing started peeling in on itself and, I mean there was an umbrella of crap seven feet over my head that I just stared at. Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit’s hitting the ground behind me. And the whole time you’re hearing, ‘THOOM! THOOM! THOOM! THOOM! THOOM!’ So, I, I think I know an explosion when I hear it, you know? So yeah, I wanna know what took that building down. I don’t think it was a fire and it certainly wasn’t a plane…It had some damage to it but nothing like what they’re saying…I am shocked at the[official] story we’ve heard about it, to be quite honest.” [3]

Eyewitness Kevin McPadden, Emergency Medical Technician, and 9/11 First Responder had a similar story to tell:



“And, at the last few seconds, he took his hand off [the radio] and you heard “3-2-1”, and he was just saying, ‘Just run for your life, just run for your life.’ And then it was like another two, three seconds, you heard explosions. Like BA-BOOOOOM! And it’s like a distinct sound…BA-BOOOOOM! And you felt a rumble in the ground, like, almost like you wanted to grab onto something. That, to me, I knew that was an explosion. There was no doubt in my mind.” [4]

Just as it was in the case of the Twin Towers, the matter of a 100 steel-framed, high-rise fires which have occurred in the past not one building has ever collapsed. The conundrum also applies to Building 7. How the sky-scraper instantly went from full support to zero support was a matter that the NIST didn’t want to explore, despite its remit to do so. While initially claiming that WTC 7 collapsed slower than free-fall acceleration, it later confirmed the obvious due to pressure from certain members of the public. In the final report in November 2008, the “… free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft.), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds]” with the final duration at 6.5 seconds. Tellingly however, the NIST did not include why Building 7’s 2.25 second collapse could have occurred. To do so, would have meant deviating from the official conspiracy theory. [5]

Plan of the World Trade Centre | Source: University of Maryland at www.terpconnect.umd.edu/

The interested member of the public who took NIST to task was a Mr. Chandler who explained what the free-fall really meant: “The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.” [6] A steel-cored, 47- story sky-scraper untouched by aeroplane impact and with minimal damage and limited fires decided to collapse in a uniform, symmetrical fashion through the path of greatest resistance – with 40,000 tons of steel designed to resist this load – straight down into its own footprint in just 6.5 seconds and still people have a hard time considering that only explosives could achieve such a result.

Photo taken 9/12 – Image source: FOIA documents release 41

Head of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Richard Gage is in no doubt that the fires and the temperatures achieved in Building 7 fell far short of the required heat to melt steel: “Such temperatures cannot be achieved by oxygen-starved hydrocarbon fires. Such fires burn at only 600 to 800° F”. [7] Gage also draws our attention to the evidence of: “… mistimed explosions (squibs?) at the upper seven floors on the network video recordings of the collapse. And we have expert testimony from a European demolitions expert, Danny Jowenko, who said ‘This is controlled demolition… a team of experts did this… This is professional work, without any doubt.’ ” [8] (More from Jowenko later).

Parallel to this conclusion and similar to the Twin Towers, evidence recorded on video at the base of WTC 7 confirm reports from fire department personnel who saw: “molten steel running down the channel rails … like you’re in a foundry – like lava from a volcano.” [9] Gage continues: “Appendix C of FEMA’s BPAT Report … documents steel samples showing rapid oxidation, sulfidation, and intergranular melting. A liquid eutectic mixture, including sulfur from an unknown source, caused intense corrosion of the steel, gaping holes in wide flange beams, and the thinning of half-inch-thick flanges to almost razor-sharpness in the World Trade Center 7 steel. The New York Times called this ‘ the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.’ ” [10]

None of this was addressed in any of the NIST reports. International experts weren’t consulted either, despite their reservations about NIST conclusions. Even their very own former head of the Fire Science Division of NIST and one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, Dr. James Quintiere Ph.D., called for an independent review of the World Trade Centre Twin Tower collapse investigation and referring to the NIST investigation: “I wish that there would be a peer review of this, I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view … I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable.”

Kamal S. Obeid, a structural engineer, with a master’s degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, stated: “Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well-planned and controlled demolition.” [11]

One of Europe’s top demolition experts was Dutch-born Danny Jowenko. His reaction to seeing WTC7 collapse was shown in a widely seen video. Before being told that it was the WTC 7 building that he was seeing, Jowenko was in no doubt whatsoever that what he was watching “…was a controlled demolition carried out by a team of experts.” [12] When he is informed that the collapse happened on September 11th later that very same day, his shock is palpable. The demolition expert asked repeatedly “De zelfde dag??” (The same day?) As the video of the collapse plays out Jowenko searched for an explanation and told his interviewer that someone must have wired the whole WTC towers for demolition in a few hours though it is clear his facial expression and body language shows that he doesn’t really believe it himself. When the interviewer informed him that FEMA excluded the possibility of a controlled demolition as an explanation for WTC7’s collapse it is then that Jowenko begins to process what this means. [13]

In a later 2006, telephone interview with journalist Jeff Hill, Jowenko was convinced that there was a cover up and that a highly sophisticated controlled demolition did in fact, take place. The fear and self-censorship related to the issue is the deciding factor. Here is a small snippet of the entire interview:

Jeff Hill: Are you still sticking by your comments where you say it must have been a controlled demolition? Danny Jowenko: Absolutely. Jeff Hill: Yes? So, you as being a controlled demolitions expert, you’ve looked at the building, you’ve looked at the video and you’ve determined with your expertise that — Danny Jowenko: I looked at the drawings, the construction and it couldn’t be done by fire. So, no, absolutely not. Jeff Hill: OK, ’cause I was reading on the Internet, people were asking about you and they said, I wonder — I heard something that Danny Jowenko retracted his statement of what he said earlier about World Trade Center 7 now saying that it came down by fire. I said, “There’s no way that’s true.”

Danny Jowenko: No, no, no, absolutely not. Jeff Hill: ‘Cause if anybody was — Like when I called Controlled Demolition here in North America, they tell me that , “Oh, it’s possible it came down from fire” and this and that and stuff like that –. Danny Jowenko: When the FEMA makes a report that it came down by fire, and you have to earn your money in the States as a controlled demolition company and you say, “No, it was a controlled demolition”, you’re gone. You know? Jeff Hill: Yeah, exactly, you’ll be in a lot of trouble if you say that, right? Danny Jowenko: Of course, of course. That’s the end of your — the end of the story. Jeff Hill: Yeah, ’cause I was calling demolitions companies just to ask them if they used the term, “Pull it” in demolition terms and even Controlled Demolitions, Incorporated said they did. But the other people wouldn’t — didn’t want to talk to me about Building 7 really because obviously ’cause they knew what happened and they didn’t want to say it. Danny Jowenko: Exactly. [14]

Danny Jowenko died in a car accident in July 2011.

When the Twin Towers remains were rapidly sold off to scrap merchants the exact same thing happened to the rubble of Building 7 with safety protocol and crime scene forensics ignored. Building 7 was destined for the blast furnaces by high level directives. All the clues as to why such as powerful building would just decide to collapse vanished with the scrap merchants, to be melted down so that nothing would ever be traceable. Unlike the Twin Towers, everyone had been evacuated so there was no reason not to document and catalogue each piece for further study. And since the collapse neatly conformed to a text book demolition other streets were relatively untouched providing easy access and a reduced possibility of disruption to the immediate area.

Along with family members, safety officials and just about anyone paying attention, Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer, an associate professor in the Fire Protection Engineering Department at the University of Maryland, added his voice to the actions of FEMA claiming: “I find the speed with which potentially important evidence has been removed and recycled to be appalling.” [15] Which brings us to WTC owner Mr. Larry Silverstein, who must have been positively jumping for joy at the supernatural “luck” he enjoyed on September 11.

On July 24, 2001, just seven weeks before the attacks, Larry and his Silverstein Properties signed a $3.2 billion deal to purchase a 99-year lease on the WTC complex including the Twin Towers, World Trade Centre Buildings 4 and 5 (two nine-story office buildings), and about 425,000 square feet of retail space. It was the first time that the WTC was placed under private control in its 33 year history. Silverstein made a down-payment of $124 million and quickly insured it for $3.6 billion. In this insurance contract he was conveniently covered against “terrorist attacks” and specifically given the right to rebuild the structures if they were destroyed. What makes this move doubly suspicious is that the building itself was worth considerably less than the amount he had it insured for. In fact, the World Trade Centre towers were “filled with asbestos” and deemed “nearly worthless” at the time. [16]

Very soon after the attacks Silverstein, now 83, declared his intent to re-build but not before he filed for damages of over $7 billion from his insurers. He claimed the attacks on the World Trade Centre constituted two separate events and thus entitling him to double the pay-out. [17] (After years of financial wrangling with the insurance company, Swiss Re, he was paid $4.6 Billion)

Not being one to ignore safety and security (especially when his own skin is involved) Mr. Silverstein changed the security company for Securacom (now Stratosec). The board of directors included George W. Bush’s brother, Marvin Bush and the CEO was none other than Marvin’s cousin, Wirt Walker III. (Securacom’s job was to provide electronic security for the WTC and also Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, both of which had a key part to play in the 911 attacks). [18]

Members of the Silverstein family and associated high level business colleagues survived the WTC tragedy. Instead of the usual, scheduled breakfast meeting to take place at the WTC, Larry had a doctor’s appointment on September 11th.

One year after the September 11th attacks Silverstein gave an interview for the 2002, PBS documentary America Rebuilds. He then makes a serious gaff by telling the PBS reporters: “I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”

It seems to me – and one would imagine anyone hearing words like “pull” and “collapse” in the same sentence – that this would be referring to demolition of a building. Journalist Joël van der Reijden, writing in a 2005 article on 9/11 contacted implosionworld who told him the following:



“There is no such phrase in explo-demo. Most likely he meant “pull out” as in have people evacuate. Conventionally, “pull a building” can mean to pre-burn holes in steel beams near the top floor and affix long cables to heavy machinery, which then backs up and causes the structure to lean off its center of gravity and eventually collapse. But this is only possible with buildings about 6-7 stories or smaller. This activity was performed to bring down WTC 6 (Customs) after 9/11 because of the danger in demolishing conventionally.” [19]



It is also worth remembering that he said “pull it” Not “pull them”. The word “it” was referring to the building as anyone can logically deduce. Later attempts by Silverstein to claim that he was talking about pulling the fire-fighters from WTC 7 is implausible in the extreme considering there was no one left inside at the time of the statement. This is verified by the fact that Silverstein has admitted that he made his “pull it” statements “at about 3:30 or 4:00pm,” [20] with the official NIST report indicating that Building 7 had already been fully evacuate between 12:30pm and 2:00pm. [21] So, when Silverstein and the fire commander were apparently having this conversation to “pull it” everyone was long gone.

However, there is something odd about the whole thing. Would Silverstein really have let slip such a thing if he did indeed have insider knowledge? We hardly need such an obvious statement to deduce that building 7 was demolished. Reijden believes it is a red herring, which may be the case. As to Silverstein’s “need-to-know” role in the events of 9/11 is obviously vague. Financially however, he was set to gain by this tragedy and gain substantially.



A 2010 Fox News report by Jeffrey Scott Shapiro reported on an alleged discussion Silverstein had had with his insurance carrier about demolishing Building 7:

“Shortly before the building [Building 7] collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein … was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall. A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option.” [22]

Shapiro ended up shooting himself in the foot with this admission because the report was designed to be a hit piece against Governor Jesse Ventura who is highly sceptical of the official story. Finally, if true, Shapiro’s statements not only suggest foreknowledge and criminal culpability on the part of Silverstein, but confirm the reality of a controlled demolition.

Fourteen years later After Mr. Silverstein used the insurance proceeds from the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks to help fund the construction of 4 World Trade Center and 7 World Trade Center, Silverstein Properties is still busily raking over the mythos of Ground Zero and making considerable profits to boot. His latest building project is World Trade Center Tower 3 a planned 80-story, 2.5 million-square-foot, $2.3 billion office tower in the financial district of WTC. [23]

Unfortunately, for Larry, the construction loans amount to $1.1 billion, a sum that the Port Authority refused to guarantee, much to his apparent “surprise”, citing doubts about profitability amid a depressed market. According to Crain’s New York Business:

“Mr. Silverstein has burned through more than $460 million that was available for 3 World Trade Center building the property’s below-grade infrastructure and first eight stories, where it is currently capped. That space will be used for retail and the mechanical systems for the neighboring PATH hub—areas of the building that Silverstein Properties does not control.” [24]

Since he and his private sector cartels are used to profiting from tragedy if need be, this must indeed be a blow. As Chris Ward, the former executive director of the Port Authority mentioned, no doubt with a wry smile: “Larry was used to getting everything he wanted at the site,” … “To lose the support he was hoping to get, I think must be a shock and a blow.”

Poor Larry.

This set back didn’t stop him in his decade-old bid to recover billions of dollars from two airlines whose planes were used in the 9/11 attacks in order to rebuild the World Trade Centre. Having already collected the tidy sum of $4.1 Billion from insurers over the WTC destruction U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein thankfully rejected his bid on July 19th 2013.

Perhaps he should hold out for another “terrorist” attack on his latest rebuild?



The Old WTC 7 (left) and the New WTC 7 started in 2002 and completed in 2006 | Source: Wikipedia and www.911review.com/

There are other reasons why WTC 7 may have needed to be “pulled “on 911. The sky-scraper wasn’t just another office building but housed financial institutions and government agencies including the offices of the IRS, Secret Service, SEC and the CIA (though the latter was not listed). The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) had their work cut out after the financial terrorism of 2008. But SEC had been working hard on many case files for 3000 – 4000 of its cases, a “substantial” number of which were stored in building 7 and reportedly destroyed during the implosion. The EEOC reported that documents for 45 active cases were also destroyed. [25] SEC was still covering investigations of corporate fraud by companies such as Enron and Worldcom before the 911 attacks though nothing more has been heard of these and similar investigations. (See Table below).

This is not the only whiff of opportunism in the air. According to a New York Times report from November 2001, the CIA’s clandestine New York station “… believed to have been the largest and most important C.I.A. domestic station outside the Washington area,” was also destroyed. The Times continued: “The agency’s New York station was behind the false front of another federal organization, which intelligence officials requested that The Times not identify. The station was, among other things, a base of operations to spy on and recruit foreign diplomats stationed at the United Nations, while debriefing selected American business executives and others willing to talk to the C.I.A. after returning from overseas.” The agency’s officers in New York often work undercover, posing as diplomats and business executives, among other things, depending on the nature of their intelligence operations. [26]

The reporter gives us the background about the stalwart defenders of US freedom had sharpened up their act since the Iranian embassy hostage crisis of 1980. Since then, no classified documents would see the light of day even under such dire circumstances as the 911 attacks. One could also speculate that there would have been even less of a paper trail if this CIA front wasn’t solely an intelligence hub at all but served as the central command centre for the demolition(s) themselves. The report goes on to say that: “… the C.I.A. seems poised to begin focusing its resources on terrorism in much the same way it once focused on the Soviet Union in the cold war.” [27]

Which is exactly what may have been required: a new reason for those tax dollars and the introduction of a whole new episode in Cold War propaganda to fuel that insatiable military-corporate-intelligence machine. After all, this is standard Zio-Conservative ideology: perpetual war serviced by the a global financial shock doctrine.

Tenant Square Feet Floor Industry Salomon Smith Barney 1,202,900 GRND, 1-6,13,18- 46 Financial Institution IRS Regional Council 90,430 24, 25 Government U.S. Secret Service 85,343 9,10 Government C.I.A. N/A N/A Government American Express Bank International 106,117 7,8,13 Financial Institution Standard Chartered Bank 111,398 10,13,26,27 Financial Institution Provident Financial Management 9,000 7,13 Financial Institution ITT Hartford Insurance Group 122,590 19-21 Insurance First State Management Group, Inc. 4,000 21 Insurance Federal Home Loan Bank 47,490 22 Financial Institution NAIC Securities 22,500 19 Insurance Securities & Exchange Commission 106,117 11,12,13 Government Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management 45,815 23 Government

Organisations, agencies and companies in Building 7 on September 11th 2001. (And the CIA). [Courtesy of Jim Hoffman http://www.WTC7.net.]

If the above love-in between intelligence and financial sharks all under one roof doesn’t cause concern then I’m not sure what does. Right at the bottom we find our super-hero Mayor once again. Rudy Giuliani received an honorary knighthood by the Queen and managed to have his mug plastered across Time magazine as person of the year 2001, despite the Fire and Police department offering a very different view of Rudy’s contribution. [28] As we know, Mayor Giuliani vacated WTC 7 just a few hours before it was “pulled.” His Office of Emergency Management, and its emergency command centre was on the 23rd floor, and against considerable public protest had already received 13 million dollars’ worth of renovations, “… reinforced, bulletproof, and bomb-resistant walls, its own air supply and water tank, beds, showers to accommodate 30 people, and three backup generators.” It also had: “… rooms full of video monitors from where the mayor can oversee police and fire department responses and where it was: “… staffed around the clock and … intended as a meeting place for city leaders in the event of an act of terrorism.” [29] The centre was ridiculed as “Rudy’s bunker,” and according to author Philip Shenon it: “… seemed the supreme example of how Giuliani’s ego and arrogance knew no bounds after four years in office.” [30] In Giuliani’s modestly named biography Leadership (2002) he states: “As shocking as [the first] crash was, we had actually planned for just such a catastrophe.” [31] All of that being so, as 9/11 journalist Jim Hoffman at WTC7.net mentions: “How curious that on the day of the attack, Giuliani and his entourage set up shop in a different headquarters, abandoning the special bunker designed precisely for such an event.” [32] It is commonly known that various officials on the day relayed warnings that something was afoot with Building 7 – namely, that it was in danger of coming down. The rumour that the building was falling was in the air. The ubiquity of foreknowledge seemed to extend to the TV networks in what can only be described as a major glitch in communications. Yet, two TV networks announced the collapse of WTC 7 before it had actually happened. Discovered in a vast archive of broadcast footage publicized in late February of 2007, a video clip of CNN anchor Aaron Brown was seen announcing live, that: “We are getting information now that one of other buildings, building 7, in the world trade centre complex is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing.” Allowing for confusion, who was it that told him that a collapse was even a possibility? [33] BBC journalist Jane Standley on end of a confusing cock-up in timing. Someone let the script out of the bag at the wrong time. | Source: The Goddard Report archives Similarly, archived footage of television broadcasts from 9/11/2001 shows the BBC’s Jane Standley reporting the collapse of WTC 7 about 23 minutes before it actually occurred. She is unaware that the building is still standing behind her. At 4:57pm the BBC News anchor Philip Haton announced: “…We’ve got some news just coming in actually, that the Salomon Brothers’ [WTC 7] Building in New York, right in the heart of Manhattan, has also collapsed.” At 5:07 pm he continues: “Now more on the latest building collapse in New York … you may have heard a few moments ago we were talking about the Salomon Brothers Building collapsing and indeed it has, and apparently it’s only a few hundred yards away from where the World Trade Center Towers were. And it seems that this was not the result of a new attack; it was because the building had been weakened during this morning’s attacks. We’ll probably find out more about that from our correspondent Jane Standley. Jane, what more can you tell us about the Salomon Brothers’ Building and its collapse?” [34] Standley explained in a later interview: “It’s very unfortunate that this whole conspiracy – kind of – ridiculous situation has grown out of what’s really a very small and very honest mistake.” [35] Actually, it was a rather enormous mistake, the import of which seems to have been lost on her. Reporting that the Solomon building had collapsed, while it actually remained standing in the live shot behind her head until the BBC promptly cut the feed seems more than a little odd. Just 23 minutes later when WTC 7 did collapse suggests scripted foreknowledge on the part of someone, though not necessarily the reporters in question. The BBC’s Richard Porter defended the organisation from accusations of foreknowledge stating: “We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I’d love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don’t help clear up the issue one way or another. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error – no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today ‘so the guy in the studio didn’t quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy…’” [36] Porter’s protestations are correct in that foreknowledge does not necessarily imply complicity on the part of the BBC reporter and staff. What he fails to acknowledge is why such a precise “cock-up” regarding the collapse of WTC 7 was even on the table. Who was it that communicated the information to create such a scenario? Who planted the seed?

Notes



[1] Gilsanz, Ramon, Edward M. DePaola, Christopher Marrion, and Harold ‘Bud’ Nelson (May 2002). ‘WTC7 (Chapter 5)’ (PDF). World Trade Center Building Performance Study. FEMA.

[2] BBC Conspiracy Files: “9/11 – The Third Tower.” June 7 2008. | ‘The Survivors inside the Towers “they scrambled”’ By paul Vallely, The Independent, September 13, 2001.

[3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uso9sCOakEQ. Starts at 2:05 into the video; ends at the 3:40.

[4] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STbD9XMCOho

[5] This is excluding the Penthouse residing on the top floor of WTC 7 which began to collapse before the primary structure and should be taken as a separate entity in itself as Mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti describes: “The WTC 7 East penthouse had columns on its perimeter and none in its interior. On three sides these columns mounted near the edge of the roof of WTC 7. It is unlikely that a collapse of any core columns of the main building could have pulled them completely down without the roof beams breaking completely loose from the exterior columns and moving down completely also. It is unlikely that the roof beams were severed from the exterior columns, which is what would be necessary for a core collapse to cause the penthouse to collapse.”

[6] NIST WTC 7 Technical Briefing, August 26, 2008. http://www.911speakout.org/NIST_Tech_Briefing_Transcript.pdf Transcript p.16

[7] ‘Undisputed Facts Point to the Controlled Demolition of WTC 7’ By Richard Gage, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth March 28, 2008.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] op. cit Roberts

[12] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I

[13] Ibid.

[14] Danny Jowenko: – Proprietor, Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie B.V., a European demolition and construction company, with offices in the Netherlands. Founded 1980, Jowenko Explosive Demolition is certified and holds permits to comply with the Dutch Explosives for Civil Use Act and the German Explosives Act. Jowenko’s explosives engineers also hold the German Certificate of Qualifications and the European Certificate for Shotfiring issued by The European Federation of Explosive Engineers. | Telephone interview with Jeff Hill 2/22/07 http://www.patriotsquestion911.com /engineers.html | For mp3 recording of telephone conversation go to: http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/danny_jowenko_022207.mp3.

[15] ‘Experts Urging Broader Inquiry in Towers’ Fall,’ New York Times, December 25, 2001.

[16] ‘Asbestos in the WTC’ Towers’ Destruction ‘Solved’ Asbestos Problem’ www 911research.wtc7.net/ | “The Twin Towers had large amounts of asbestos fireproofing which would have necessitated costly removal had they remained standing. The exact amount and distribution of the asbestos in the Towers remains unclear, like other details of the buildings’ construction and history, but the evidence suggests that the cost of its removal may have rivaled the value of the buildings themselves.”

[17] ‘Magnate’s Tower Plan Under Threat’, By Simon English, Daily Telegraph, October 10, 2001.

[18] ‘Larry “Lucky Larry” Silverstein’ September 7 2006. http://www.informationliberation.com

[19] ‘9/11 – My own review of the entire event’ By Joel van der Reijden, March 19, 2005. | http://web.archive.org/web/20050327052408/http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/911_my_own_review.htm#222

[20] See “WeAreCHANGE confronts Larry Silverstein 3/13/08,” http://911blogger.com/node/14361,(1:45)

[21] NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7, Draft for Public Comment, August 2008, pages 301-302. See http://www.wtc.nist.gov/media/nist_ncstar_1-9_vol1_for_public_comment.pdf

[22] ‘Shame On Jesse Ventura!’By Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, FoxNews.com, April 22, 2010.

[23] ‘Silverstein: Build it and they will come’ By By Konrad Putzier, Real Estate Weekly, April 2, 2014.

[24] ‘The toughest test of Silverstein’s nine lives’ By Daniel Gieger, Crain’s New York Business, June 1, 2014.

[25] ‘SEC & EEOC: Attack Delays Investigations’, National Law Journal, September 17, 2001.

[26] ‘Secretive CIA Site in New York Was Destroyed on Sept. 11’ by James Risen, New York Times, November 4, 2001.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Rudy seemed to revel in the attention. In August 2007, Giuliani claimed that “I was at Ground Zero as often, if not more, than most workers…. I was there working with them. I was exposed to exactly the same things they were exposed to. So in that sense, I’m one of them.” This understandably caused anger amongst New York’s Fire and Police personnel 911 workers. In actual fact, Rudy was had also been telling porkies it seems. “He had spend a total of 29 hours over three months at the site; with his appointment logs unavailable for the six days immediately following the attacks. This contrasted with recovery workers at the site who spent this much time at the site in two to three days. The recovery workers often spent hundreds of hours working 8 to 12 hour shifts.” (Wikipedia: http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudy_Giuliani_during_the_September_11_attacks#During_the_attack

[29] ‘New York City’s Anti-Terrorism Efforts go Hi-Tec’ CNN.com, June 7, 1999.

[30] ‘Mayor of the World’ by Eric Pooley, Time, December 22, 2001.| The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation by Philip Shenon. Published by Twelve, 2008. | ISBN-10: 0446580759 (pp.346 – 347)

[31] p.3-6; Leadership by Rudolph W. Giuliani Published by Miramax Books, 2002.

[32] Jim Hoffman, http://www.wtc7.net/background.html

[33] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o

[34] www.http://ia311517.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111654-1736/V08591-16.mpg

[35]’9/11: “Honest Mistake” or BBC Foreknowledge of Collapse of WTC 7? Jane Standley Breaks Her Silence’ James Higham

Global Research, August 18, 2011-nourishingobscurity.com 18 August 2011.

[36] ‘Inside the BBC: Mission and values’ Richard Porter, February 2007 http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/whoweare/mission_and_values/