No Building Implosion In Madrid

Only a smaller portion of a few of the upper floors of the Madrid Windsor building dropped on top of each other, much like they claim happened on 9/11, yet mysteriously the far hotter Madrid Windsor building did not begin a cascading "domino effect" of floors collapsing under the fallen weight, as happened with the WTC.

Most importantly, after 21 hours of super-hot blast furnace inferno conditions that clearly far exceeded those of 9/11, there was no exploding or pulverized concrete from the Madrid tower, as was the case with the WTC.

As the Windsor fire reached the scientific community's claimed melting point, the steel girders actually did start to become malleable and bend. Girders are seen curling up at the ends in many photos, yet the building never fell. (see Madrid Windsor gallery above)

It would seem apparent, according to the evidence from the Madrid fire, that the scientific temperature claim for melting a steel alloy is indeed correct. The features of the Madrid fire are undeniable proof that this raging inferno was indeed much hotter than the WTC.

Over 21 hours later, the fires were finally put out and the building was still standing.

Still standing?!

Burning Questions

Shouldn't a fire as intense as that in Madrid have dropped the building, just the same as the WTC towers allegedly fell on 9/11? The fire burned far hotter and easily twenty one times longer.

How is it the fire burned so hot in the first place? Some officials have questioned how anything inside the building could have fueled the fire to have burned so hot.

Many have suggested that an accelerant was used in the Madrid building to fuel the fire temperatures to the extremes that occurred. Again, that may sound far fetched, but then how do you explain the two men going from floor to floor in the middle of a raging inferno?

That's right, a couple videotaped the fire from a neighboring building and caught images of two people moving about. What were they doing inside the shut down Windsor building during this raging inferno?

Video: Spanish Video Showing Men Inside Burning Windsor Building

Couple Video Tapes People Inside Windsor Building During Fire

Spain Police Call Video on High-Rise Fire Authentic

A case could be made that someone or some group deliberately set the Madrid Windsor building ablaze in an attempt to discredit the U.S. government's official explanation for the destruction of the WTC towers on 9/11. That may seem a bit extreme and almost far fetched, but when you consider what is currently at stake in the world as a result of 9/11, the improbable suddenly becomes plausible.

The two biggest questions surrounding the blaze are...

How did it begin?

Who were the people inside, seen moving from floor to floor?

Is it possible that a foreign intelligence service was behind the blaze, in an attempt to disprove the US explanation for the World Trade Center destruction?

The alternative of course is to accept the event as just another of the myriad peculiar and timely coincidences that we have been urged to discount and disregard in order to buy the absurd convenience that appears to have been made exclusive to the official 911 explanation.

How Hot Was It?

The Madrid fire was originally reported at its peak to be a scorching 1500 Celsius! That is 2,732 degrees Fahrenheit and is very close to the 2,800 degrees that the scientific community claims is necessary to melt a steel alloy. This would be directly contrary to the official government claim of the lower melting point temperature of steel.



Part of the Madrid Windsor fire early on, before it really got going.

Video: The Spain Windsor fire (YouTube)

[ Archived News Webpages ]

Madrid Fire Originally Reported Up To 1500 Degrees Celsius



Madrid Fire Temp Rises

Immediately, the day after the blaze, the original fire temperature that was reported during the fire's peak was drastically reduced to nearly half of what had been officially reported the day before. (1500 Celsius to 800 Celsius.) That's undeniably a huge drop in heat.

Why the sudden change and the huge disparity in temperature?

If the Madrid building could burn so hot and yet still be standing when it was over, an argument could be made that there must be a flaw in the U.S. explanation for the WTC destruction. If those hotter temperatures are kept at the original 1500 Celsius, the government has a serious problem with its scenario of 9/11 because the Madrid Windsor tower was not falling down like the U.S. government said it should under temperatures far more extreme than the WTC.

Question: Why didn't the Windsor building thoroughly melt and implode in the first hour or two like the WTC?

The Windsor building should have dropped, beyond any shadow of a doubt... that is, if you buy into and believe the official government argument on the questionably low melting point of a steel alloy.

Remember, after 9/11 the U.S. government argued that the melting point of steel was 2,500 degrees F. That debate has fermented ever since in order for the powers that be to argue that, even though the buildings were not physically that hot, there was feigned scientific reasoning, jaded as it was, to support the destruction theory under a lesser temperature. The scientific community has long since argued that the temperature needed to melt a steel alloy is actually closer to 2,800 F.

So, if the original Windsor fire temperature is left to stand at 1500 C, or 2,732 F, as it was originally reported, that is 232 degrees hotter than the reported U.S. government claim of 2,500 F for the melting point of steel, as they argued in their WTC 9/11 explanation. The obvious point here is that the Windsor should have toppled easier than any of the WTC towers, but it didn't.

According to the U.S. temperature claim, the Windsor should have literally melted since the fire was a roaring 232 degrees higher than the government's own alleged benchmark for the melting point of steel.

Now ask yourself, according to the apparent evidence from both fires, who was right about the melting point of a steel alloy, the U.S. government or the scientific community?

If the government is proven wrong on the true melting point of steel alloy girders, this would undeniably contrast the administration's position and the official 9/11 explanation of the seemingly effortless and very questionable dropping of the WTC towers.

The crux of the matter in question is this... why did the Madrid Windsor tower withstand much hotter temperatures for twenty-one times longer duration and yet was still standing afterwards ?

This immediately begs the question: How did a lesser fire in New York drop two larger buildings in a scant fraction of the burn time, with much less heat and ferocity ?

That, in a nutshell, blows the entire U.S. government explanation out of the water for why the WTC towers imploded so easily. If the WTC towers could implode with very little fire and much less heat in less than an hour, why didn't the Windsor itself drop when it was clearly much hotter and burned undeniably far longer than the WTC?

And that is the trillion-dollar question in all of this, because this event was used as the basis of an attack on two countries, the start of an all-out Mid-East war, an attack on people's rights worldwide, and the usurping of the US Constitution. The horrific event of 9/11 is unarguably the infamous trigger for all that has been forced upon the world since 2001.

So which building do you think was hotter, the Madrid Windsor building or New York WTC?

Whether 1500 Celsius or not, the Madrid building undeniably far eclipsed the WTC towers in fire and heat. Look at the damn pictures for crying out loud. You don't need a thermometer to see that the Madrid building fire was clearly waaaay hotter than the WTC. Use your eyes and your God-given brain and decide for yourself.

So why didn't the Windsor tower in Spain fall, as the WTC towers so easily fell on 9/11?

Similarities And Improbabilities

It's interesting to note that the WTC in New York and the Windsor building in Madrid were both of late 60s / early 70s design and engineering. The Madrid building even had an inner concrete core for stability, very much like the WTC towers. There are some basic similarities between the WTC and the Madrid Windsor building.

But somehow we're left to try and understand why TWO buildings, with working sprinkler systems and built in fire-walls between floors, buildings that were clearly not anywhere close to as hot as the building in Madrid, Spain, BOTH imploded in :57 minutes and :102 minutes respectively.

When you add in the WTC 7 destruction later that afternoon, that makes three steel structure high-rise buildings in one day that allegedly fell due to fire for the first time ever in history!

Wow.

First off, what are the odds of a steel frame high-rise building dropping for the first time ever in modern history due to fire?

Secondly, what are the odds of that happening to three steel frame high-rise buildings for the first time ever... all in one day?

Whatever those odds are, they would most certainly break any bank in Vegas, many times over.

Meanwhile, another high-rise building that was indeed much hotter was able to burn uncontrollably, with no building sprinkler system at all, for over 21 straight hours , and yet was still standing when it was over.

Double-wow.

Actually, it's more like, unbelievable!

But how could this be?

For those that may be trying to keep track, or should be, that's 1,260 minutes of burn time for the Windsor building, which figures out to 1,203 minutes longer burn than WTC 2 and 1,158 minutes longer burn than WTC 1 . And once again, the Madrid building clearly burned at a much higher temperature than either building in New York.

The China BTCC Fire

The Windsor fire wasn't the only high-rise building to burn hotter and longer than the WTC and still not fall. In February of 2009 the Beijing BTCC building caught fire and also burned like a raging inferno, long past the burn-time of WTC towers one, two or seven.



The Beijing BTCC fire burned through the entire structure.

Video: Chinese BTCC fire (YouTube)

The 44-story structure, just three floors smaller than World Trade Center building 7, was under construction and near completion when allegedly set fire due to a new year's fireworks display. The blaze roared through the building for over six hours, longer than WTC 1 or 2, yet the structure did not topple into a cataclysmic free fall as those in New York did on 9/11, despite its top-heavy angular design.

So now we've had two high-rise fires since September 11th, 2001, both burning indisputably hotter and far longer, yet neither building imploded. Each building burned from top to bottom, unlike WTC 1 or 2, yet neither dropped within 57-minutes or even 103-minutes. Each building was totally consumed with fire throughout. Both of the buildings withstood the far greater fire damage and intense heat and were still standing when the fires were eventually put out.

As a point of fact, no steel framed building had ever collapsed due to fire in the history of high-rise structural engineering, not before or after 9/11. There have been many historical high-rise fires, but none of the buildings has ever collapsed. All of these fires burned far longer and much hotter than the WTC buildings. Some of these fires consumed the entire building all at once, with flames leaping out 30 feet from the buildings, yet all of them were still standing once the fires were out.

First Interstate Bank, Los Angeles (5/4/88) – 62 stories.

(Four floors burned for nearly four hours with no collapse.)

One New York Plaza, New York (8/5/70) – 50 stories.

(Five floors burned for 6 1/2 hours with no collapse.)

One Meridian Plaza, Philadelphia (2/23/91) – 38 stories. (Eight floors burned for 18 hours with no collapse.)

Caracas Tower, Caracas (10/17/04) - 56 stories.

(26 floors burned for 17 hours with no collapse.)

Windsor Tower, Madrid (2/12/05) - 32 stories

(29 floors burned for 21 hours with no collapse.)

BTCC Building, Beijing (2/2/09) - 44 stories.

(44 floors burned for 6 hours with no collapse.)

Chechnya hotel, Chechnya (4/3/13) - 40 stories

(30 floors burned for 29 hours with no collapse.)

Torch Tower, Dubai (2/21/15) - 79 stories

(Many floors burned for hours with no collapse)

Building Height Year Burn Time One New York Plaza 50 stories 1970 6.5 hours First Interstate Bank 62 stories 1988 4 hours One Meridian Plaza 38 stories 1991 18 hours WTC Tower 2 110 stories 2001 15 minutes WTC Tower 1 110 stories 2001 15 minutes WTC Building 7 47 stories 2001 3 hours Caracas Tower 56 stories 2004 17 hours Windsor Tower 32 stories 2005 21 hours BTCC Building 44 stories 2009 6.5 hours Chechnya high-rise 40 stories 2013 29 hours Torch Tower 79 stories 2015 3.5 hours

Numerous high-rise fires that all burned much longer and way hotter than the World Trade Center, yet not one building collapse from any of them . (except the WTC towers in red)

How is this possible, considering the feeble explanation given for the total destruction of THREE high-rise buildings on 9/11?

So Why Did Only The WTC Buildings Fall?

Why didn't the upper floors of the WTC just simply collapse on top of the building, rather than cascade all the way down in total destruction, without showing any physical resistance, nor any loss of momentum and speed?

Parts of the upper floors of the Windsor did fall, however the building below it held just fine, unlike the World Trade Center towers.

If anything, the WTC buildings should have only fallen down to the crash impact portions of the towers, rather than fail completely, falling to the ground in a finely pulverized pile of concrete dust. Not surprising to most building architects and structural engineers, buildings are built to actually resist collapse, not facilitate it.

Believe it or not, tall buildings are built with airliners and disaster in mind. They are not built to fall apart quickly. Our building standards are certainly much higher than that, contrary to what some would have us believe.

Many argue that the structure of the WTC towers was compromised due to the plane strikes and that is the reason they fell. According to the people who built the towers, nothing could be farther from the truth. The building was designed by engineers to withstand multiple large airliner hits. (see video below)

Video: WTC Built To Withstand Multiple Airliner Strikes

Was the WTC really as hot as officials have led us to believe? The woman below sure knew. She's standing right where the plane went through the building.

So how hot was it?

There were fires above and just below, but from all appearances the area you would think was hottest, the hole where the airplane entered the building and dumped its load of fuel, was actually okay to stand in.



A woman identified as Edna Cintron stands in the airplane crash hole of WTC 1.

Video: The woman shown above (1.23 MB)

DivX format, plays on most players

Underwriters' Labs Employee Slams WTC Collapse Report

In 2004, an intrepid employee of Underwriters' Laboratories called into question the official account of the towers destruction. Kevin Ryan of Underwriters' Labs wrote a letter to Mr. Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) which questioned the official collapse explanation. Underwriters' Labs is the company of record that certified the steel components used in the construction of the World Trade Center towers.

Read the letter yourself.

Underwriters' Labs Slam WTC Collapse as Fairy Tale

Unfortunately for Ryan the whistleblower, he was promptly let go after the story became public and is no longer employed by Underwriters' Laboratories.

Classified FDNY Dispatch Tapes- Say What?

Why were the FDNY dispatch tapes from 9/11 originally classified as secret?

Secret?! Seriously?

Court to Decide Access to 9/11 FDNY Tapes

What could possibly be in those audio tapes that someone wanted kept secret? Hmmm... what about the possibility that there were no horrendous infernos sweeping from floor to floor, as reported in the official WTC destruction theory?

Reports claim that firemen inside the WTC were heard saying that the fires were manageable and could be brought under control. According to them, there were only a few small fires reported and none were described as raging out of control.

In the 911 dispatch audio the firemen do not sound as if there are rampant fires raging throughout the WTC. One firemen on his way up even asks to be informed when they finally see fire. Odd for a building that was allegedly raging with enough fire to drop a 110-story building in less than an hour.

Again, the only floor reported with any fire is the 78th floor where there are two reports that describe it as being two isolated pockets of fire, able to be knocked down by only two lines. Two separate firemen radio this in and confirm it. Only two lines needed to put it out! That hardly sounds like a building consuming, steel girder melting and concrete pulverizing fire, does it? Once again, very strange for an alleged inferno raging out of control.

If the buildings were so hot, how were the firemen able to move effortless up from the lower levels of the building to the upper levels with no regard for any intense heat? Simple, because there wasn't any fire and that's the real reason the tapes were classified in the first place.

The tapes prove, through the firemen's own on-scene reports, that any claim of the towers allegedly melting from internal fires is undeniably and clearly an unsupportable claim.

All floors reported below the 78th floor curiously seem to be free from any structure threatening, raging infernos. Listen and see for yourself through the links below.

Audio: FDNY from 9/11 (edited without static)

Audio: Click here for the unedited FDNY recording with static

NY Firefighters’ Final Words Fuel Burning Questions About 9-11

Additionally, the firemen had also made reports of other explosions going off inside the buildings, prior to their destruction. If indeed this is the case, as many have testified to, it would most likely have a major impact on the official version of why the World Trade Center towers imploded.

Why were there numerous large explosions being heard and felt by eyewitnesses? Many reports were originally aired once, but never repeated nor followed up on by the networks.

The Lobby Explosion

What was it that blew the lobby out and caused some people to be set on fire? The official story says that fuel and a fireball traveled down the elevator shafts and blew up the lobby. How does the fuel travel that far and not burn out, nor lose its explosive force?

In the Naudet brothers film, many people are seen exiting from a trapped elevator car after the lobby had already been damaged. Apparently no fireball came down their elevator shaft.

Video: People leave elevator unharmed with no fireball

The lobby area was a considerable distance from the elevators and the windows were still blown out, while the areas directly around the elevators showed little fire damage. How is that possible? What actually hit the lobby? Eyewitnesses have reported that there was a large explosion heard from the bottom of the tower, just before the plane hit. What was the cause of this explosion? This report could clearly explain the lobby damage and the blown out windows.

Firemen Not Wanted At The Towers

What of the report after the plane strikes and before the towers fell, that FDNY firemen were asked to return to their precincts, rather than stay downtown and battle the tower blazes? That fact is also caught by the Naudet brothers on film.

Video: Firemen asked to return to fire station

Why was someone trying to keep the FDNY away from the towers?

Flying Body Parts

How is it that human remains were found after the 911 attacks on the rooftops of buildings over 400 feet away? How do body parts fly that far without an explosive force or something to accelerate them?

The Naudet film highlights this event with actual eyewitness firefighter testimony, talking of "raining body parts."

Video: FDNY fireman talks about the rooftop body parts

If the buildings collapsed naturally, how were the body parts, along with huge steel beams, thrown hundreds of feet away from the building, while the rest of the mammoth structure landed eerily in its own footprint? What extraordinarily powerful force blew the bodies and steel beams from those buildings?

Molten Steel?

With no raging fires burning out of control in the lower floors of the WTC, how is it that molten steel was found in the basement of the towers? How is it that after pouring water on the basement rubble that the steel was still red hot for well over six weeks afterwards?

That's right, not six days... over six weeks !

What outside reaction caused the basement steel to melt and stay hot for six weeks after 9/11, even after having water sprayed on it? (Other reports claim the fires burned until December. Whether six weeks or ten weeks, it is unheard of to have a fire burn that long, especially with molten metal flowing as a result.

Some have speculated that the explosions heard were from deeply mined low-yield tactical thermonuclear bombs, such as bunker-busters, buried deep in the basement of the towers. This might explain the red hot steel that still burned at an estimated 1500 degrees over six weeks later after the disaster.

Video: Molten Steel Red Hot for SIX WEEKS After 9/11?

If the top structure materials can been dowsed and put out, how does the core of the building remain so hot for six to eight weeks afterwards? This was never an area that was supposed to have been hot in the first place. What type of reaction would cause a fire to literally melt steel and keep it molten red hot for over six weeks after the event?

If not a controlled detonation, then what else does explain the remaining leftover molten steel in the basement, with no fire hot enough to produce it? And again... what were the tremendous explosions that so many people heard and felt just before the towers came crumbling down? The explosions were not the sounds of a building ripping apart as some wrongly claim, they were literal explosions.

Numerous firemen, policemen and eyewitnesses are on record saying there were a number of large explosions in the lower structure of the WTC. FDNY actually reported finding explosive devices in the building. Those reports were also broadcast in the media as well.

The molten steel report is well documented and cannot be refuted, as corroborated by NY Governor Pataki in a CNN news piece.

Airplane fuel burns out in minutes, so what could possibly cause huge steel girders in the lower basement to melt and then stay molten for weeks, all the while being sprayed by FDNY with water?

There are also many pictures and video before the destruction which show small localized areas of molten metal spewing from sides of the building, areas not particularly overwhelmed with fire. What then was causing this reaction without an overwhelming fire to drive the heat?

Cut Steel?

Why didn't all the girders melt if the fire was so hot?

Probably the biggest question of all regarding the girders, how were the solid steel beams cut cleanly in half, conveniently into easily transportable sections?

In the picture below, these beams have been cut cleanly in half. Note the absence of rivets or bolts. These beams did not come apart at a man made junction. They appear to be cleanly cut in half.

The other notable point to recognize is the diagonal cut seen in the circled support below. This is a technique in controlled demolition which promotes the girders to slide off each other in an effect known as "walking." This helps topple a structure quickly and efficiently.



Girders cleanly shaved off with signs of thermite melt. Click for larger pic

Many have speculated that one theory to explain the cut steel is a possible chemical thermite reaction. A known property of thermite is to burn extremely hot and literally melt its way through anything it comes in contact with. It would explain the ability to effortlessly shear through massive steel support columns without having to use smaller explosive charges, however, it fails to address the shattered steel, pulverized concrete and obliterated building objects.

Another interesting note was that beams and girders were being found with molten holes burned right through them. Many have surmised that these molten characteristics are the reason that 1) all pictures of ground zero were banned, and 2) why the steel debris was shipped away so quickly, out of the country.

The use of thermite, or a military grade known as thermate, could also possibly explain the molten red hot core of the WTC basement. One theory put forth is that as the girders fell, any residual termite would also fall. As the girders slammed to the ground, leftover nano-thermite (thermate) most likely fell off the steel beams, landing in the rubble, continuing to burn as it burrowed its way to the basement.

This is one possible explanation for the molten steel that was red hot in the basement of the WTC for over six weeks.

Active Thermitic Material Is Found

A 2009 discovery by a group of nine scientists and researchers has revealed that active thermitic material was found in individual dust samples from four separate locations in and around the World Trade Center. What was found is not just active thermite, but instead active thermate, a military version with a much lower combustion flashpoint which burns far hotter. This corroborated early suspicions from investigators who were questioning the presence of molten steel.

A scientific crew that included Danish scientist Niels Harrit, former Underwriters Lab researcher Kevin Ryan, as well as BYU physicist Dr. Steven Jones, found trace elements of military-grade thermate in many of the leftover debris and dust samples that were collected from the WTC debris.

O ther team members included Jeffrey Farrer, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, and Bradley R. Larsen.

The group co-authored a paper and published their findings in the Bentham Science Chemical Physics Journal. They wrote in their collaborative work, ' We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper.'

The paper goes on to note:



'The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic .'

The new scientific study strongly refutes the official story that there is no evidence for explosive-pyrotechnic materials in the World Trade Center 9/11 debris.

The article has been received by the 9/11 truth movement as "smoking gun" evidence, when in all actuality, it may very well only be but a single bullet n the chamber.

Read the complete report: Thermite Identified In 9/11 Dust



Back-scattered electron (BSE) photo from the newly released scientific study.

The finding of super-thermite, a specialized military grade known as nano-thermite, or thermate, is a very peculiar substance to find in the WTC debris dust. Who could have possibly procured such vast amounts of thermate to load three massive skyscrapers with?

It is hard to believe that a nano-thermite substance was the lone source for demolition of the towers. Thermite is not known to be highly explosive, so it more than likely would have had to be used in conjunction with another demolition tool, such as tactical explosives.

It is interesting to note that the 2009 story of the swine flu epidemic suddenly came out of nowhere, just as the 9/11 thermate story was building some interest. It essentially eclipsed and buried the thermate story in the media. What a coincidence. And when it was all over, they said the swine flu was never as dangerous as they had originally thought, although alarm quickly grew back, squashing the thermate story in the press. Hopefully one day the media will get back to the thermate-WTC connection and start asking some tough questions.

Remember the anthrax attacks after 9/11? Those media reports mysteriously went away immediately when it was found to be a special military grade anthrax that was traced back to Fort Detrick. And now we have military grade thermate found in the WTC debris. Very intriguing to say the least.

It should be noted that the professor who oversaw the publication of the scientific journal in which this WTC breakthrough research was published was asked to resign shortly after publication.

So now that evidence of a cutting charge has been found, will there be another event to stifle a new 9/11 investigation? It's a horrible thought to consider, but ask yourself this... what would you do to cover-up 9/11 if you were involved in the murder of thousands of innocent people and you were about to be exposed ? We can only hope that the rats start jumping off the NWO ship and start turning on each other. At some point, some of the groups involved have to say enough is enough already.

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center The Open Chemical Physics Journal - Volume 2 ISSN: 1874-4125

Whatever the value of its role in the towers destruction, the discovery clearly has to be recognized as making revolutionary inroads into the public's awareness of a controlled demolition for the WTC towers. While the discovery clearly does not explain everything in regards to the destruction of the towers, it undeniably cannot be disputed that it has been an integral key in opening the door of public consciousness towards accepting the theory of controlled demolitions on 9/11.

At the present, a debate rages within the 9/11 truth movement among researchers as to whether or not thermite, or thermate, could be the sole cause of the three WTC building collapses. It would seem to this researcher that it was part of the destruction, but it was more than likely used in conjunction with explosives, and possibly a third unknown technological weapon that I will get into shortly.

Researchers hanging their hats solely on the thermite (thermate) explanation might be selling short their explanation for the buildings collapse, but those resisting the substance in favor of another explanation could also hinder valuable inroads made towards public acceptance of the "inside job" theory.

Again, it is very possible, if not likely, that more than one demolition technique was used on 9/11. Perhaps the best idea when it comes to 9/11 research and the thermite evidence is, to coin a phrase, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

If anything, the thermate discovery will hopefully bring about renewed pressure from the public to re-open the 9/11 investigation.

Just The Facts

World Trade Center tower # 2 imploded first, at 9:59am.

Video: WTC 2 Tower Destruction

World Trade Center tower # 1 dropped second, at 10:28am.

Video: WTC 1 Tower Destruction

Both towers free-fell to the streets below in only :10 seconds time, or less. There was no impedance or resistance whatsoever it seems.



The top 34 floors of the south tower begin to topple over.

The top of the South tower actually began to fall away from the building, so why then did the rest of tower implode if it did not fall on top of itself? How did the bottom just fall out from under those top 34 floors as they were falling off the top of the building?

What could have caused thousands of tons of concrete to be instantly pulverized into a fine powder?

Controlled Demolition?

How does a 110-story building free-fall at the rate of gravity?

Video: Fast Free Falling Towers (time it for yourself)

If you tossed a hammer from the top of the WTC right at the exact second of the implosion, it would have hit the street at roughly the same time as the top of the building. That's not possible for a building that is falling apart and coming down naturally due to extreme environmental duress.

Video: NYC Firefighters: Collapse Was Like Controlled Demolition

Make no mistake about it, in the world of architecture and structural engineering, large buildings and high-rise structures are specifically built to resist collapse, not enable it.

Nowhere in the destruction of either WTC 1, 2 or 7 did the buildings ever exhibit any structural resistance whatsoever during their implosion. All three fell with extreme rapid descent. And all three exhibited demolition puffs of smoke, squibs, as they imploded.

Again... all three buildings gave no structural resistance whatsoever during their destruction . That is indeed very strange.

How is it that both buildings fell so quickly, without any resistance, and both at the same speed?

What could have caused the enormous rooftop antenna to drop in a perfectly vertical fashion, rather than toppling over onto its side or into a nosedive? It was as if all the supporting structure underneath it fell away with perfect symmetry and precision timing. The rooftop that supported this massive antenna had its base drop in a perfectly level fashion.

And why did eyewitnesses on the scene report that they heard numerous loud explosions and then actually felt the ground tremble before the towers fell? That's right, they felt the ground tremble. What force short of a large earthquake would cause that?

Finding The Weapon

As with any murder investigation, you need to find the weapon used. So, we have the discovery of thermate, as well as the numerous eyewitness accounts of tremendous explosions. Given the known properties of thermate, it would more than likely have to be used in conjunction with explosives, so the evidence at hand works together quite well to explain some things, however it does not entirely explain everything, such as the finely pulverized concrete and all other office items. That is one of the key mysteries. So much of the concrete and steel just turned to dust.

Another disturbing piece to the puzzle is the top portion of the tower that broke off and was falling off to the side. It should have ended up on the ground as a 30-plus story remnant, but it literally disintegrated on the way down, in mid air. How does that happen? The pile-driver effect that some like to falsely tout had no bearing on that piece of the structure, let alone the rest of the WTC.

Much of the steel also exhibited signs of rusting, an uncommon finding for these large beams. Some have attributed this to the Hutchison Effect, a telltale indication of Tesla scalar technology at work.

The nearby Bankers Trust building was rebuilt, but then later torn down. Why repair a building and then demolish it shortly thereafter? One clue might be that it too was showing the strange rusting of steel beams that weren't supposed to rust.

In conjunction with the steel beams, cars all around the perimeter of the WTC showed strange burn charring and unexplained rusting, some reported to be up to half a mile away. Some cars were flipped upside down, while they were in-between cars that were left right side up. It is as if objects were levitated and then suddenly flipped over.

One example of strange levitation taking place near the World Trade Center comes from photographer David Handschu who claims that he was running from the site when he was mysteriously levitated into the air and carried for nearly one block.

All in all, it would appear that there were indeed some very strange unaccountable forces at work on 9/11. Not only were the buildings and furnishings turned to dust, but hundreds upon hundreds of bodies were never ever found. That is indeed very odd. A few hundred or so bodies missing is one thing, but over a thousand is a another issue entirely. Not one single spec. People that absolutely just vanished into thin air.

After much analysis, it would appear to this researcher that another key element, an advanced technological component, was involved on 9/11. There is no other way to explain the absolute disintegration of these buildings without some form of exotic technology application that is not well known to the public. The research of Dr. Judy Wood regarding a directed energy weapon (DEW) appears very likely and deserves further scientific study.

A DEW is a likely possibility, but thermate and explosives were very possibly still in the mix in order to initiate the perfectly controlled demolitions. Maybe DEWs were used in towers 1 and 2 and conventional demolition techniques were used for building 7? After all, there were marked differences in those collapses. Towers 1 and 2 were both top-down destructions, while building 7 was a bottom-up collapse.

It is speculation only, but based on the evidence at hand, it is very possible that thermate and explosives were used with precision timing in conjunction with directed energy weapons, or another unknown tactical destructive force.

Much of what we place our assumptions on is known technology. Considering that advanced weapons research is easily 25 years or more ahead of what we know, the capability for an unknown weapon beyond our experience is very possible, if not highly probable, considering the intelligence operatives that were more than likely involved.

Enter The Landlord

Last, but not least, we have the story of WTC lease holder Larry Silverstein, who coincidentally had just purchased the center less than six months before 9/11, and then promptly had it heavily insured against terrorist attacks. The building lease was said to be finalized just six weeks before the attacks.

After 9/11, Silverstein literally made out like a bandit and was able to profit from 9/11 by winning a lawsuit against the insurance companies, claiming that 9/11 was two separate attacks, thus being awarded twice the insurance payout!

The total settlement was originally for $4.5 billion although a court decision in 2004 overruled the award and lowered the amount to $3.5 billion. That's way more than enough to rebuild the WTC and still have a hefty profit left over.

WTC Owner Wins Big On 9/11

Court Overrules Settlement Award

Some would argue that therein could be reasoning for possible criminal motive, setting Silverstein up as potentially the perfect patsy, but the issue has so far never been broached to this day. At least not yet.

Controlled Demolition!

When the 47-story Salomon building (WTC 7) came down, everyone was surprised. The official government explanation ranged from don't know to fire weakened steel, like WTC 1 and 2. By no means did anyone at that time mention anything about the building being brought down by a controlled implosion.

"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue." - FEMA Report on 9/11

FEMA's official report of Building 7's Destruction

Listen to Dan Rather of CBS television news as he describes the fall of World Trade Center 7.

"Amazing, incredible, pick your word... for the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before when a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down." - Dan Rather

Video: CBS' Dan Rather Talking about the WTC 7 Destruction

The most interesting part about Mr. Silverstein is that he went on record a year after 9/11, on a PBS program called America Rebuilds, saying that he actually gave the order to have WTC 7 "pulled" by means of a controlled demolition!

"And 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, ya know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is.. is pull it. And they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse." -Larry Silverstein

Video: WTC Owner Admits having WTC 7 "Pulled"

Video: WTC Owner Admits having WTC 7 "Pulled" (WMV ver)

Video: Eyewitness recounts explosions in World Trade Center 7

Silverstein made this blockbuster revelation well after the fact of the government's own statement, already on the record, saying that the collapse of WTC 7 was "unknown," and thought to be the result of extensive fire damage, the same as WTC 1 and 2.

So why did Silverstein ever say such a thing?

To "pull" a building is a controlled demolition term for bringing a building down.

It's interesting to note that Silverstein appears to have a nervous twitch in his right eye whenever he mentions having the building "pulled." (Watch the video above again in case you missed it.)

When Silverstein first made his startling revelation about "pulling" building 7, many holes in his story immediately became apparent.

First off, how was it possible to wire and mine a building with tons of explosives in just a few hours on 9/11?

Secondly, why did Silverstein claim that FDNY had the building pulled? Since when has the FDNY been in the business of imploding buildings?

Do the firefighters at the end of this video look like they were responsible for pulling WTC 7?

Video: Surprised FDNY "It's gone man."

After watching the video, do you really think that the fire department was responsible for this or even knew anything about it? It certainly seems a surprise to the firefighters in the above video.

When was Silverstein called by the fire commander and who was the person that called him? Was it Thomas Von Essen or Daniel Nigro? Perhaps Frank Fellini? The funny thing is, no one from FDNY admits to Silverstein's outrageous claim of calling him .

Who is Silverstein referring to when he says " they " made that decision to pull?

Silverstein's story about "pulling" building 7 started falling as fast as his buildings did.

You have to believe they were able to...

Find a demolition crew with explosives on hand.

Load literally tons of explosives quickly for transport.

Deliver the explosives, despite the New York traffic jams.

Unload the trucks of tons of explosives.

Move tons of explosives into WTC building 7.

Find all structural load bearing points and hastily wire and mine the entire building with explosive charges, regardless of fire.

Taking all of this into account, you can see the immediate error in Silverstein's judgment. It was physically impossible to have a building wired and mined with such short notice and imploded at 5:20 that day. It is just not humanly possible.

The only way to have a controlled demolition was to have the building wired in advance.

So after making such an incriminating public gaffe, it was clear to Silverstein that he had to somehow recant his meticulously worded admission, or at least attempt to.

So Silverstein tried to feebly explain that what he meant to say was to have the firemen pulled from the building. Unfortunately for poor Larry, there were immediate problems with that story as well, because the FDNY was not allowed to go the building 7. All firemen were ordered that morning to attend to the other World Trade Center buildings instead. Building 7 was evacuated of all personnel early that morning, before the towers came down.

Larry has now been ducking that comment ever since.

How Did The Building 7 Fires Start?

Much like World Trade Center towers one and two, how could such small fires ever compromise the entire structure of WTC 7 in such a short time period?

The building was alleged to be pelted by debris when the North tower imploded at 10:28, but it was not. WTC 7 was a good distance from the towers. Whatever the origin of the fires was, they were not burning in the morning. It wasn't until late in the afternoon that the building was actually reported to be on fire by the major media.

On 9/11, CNN News reported that WTC building 7 was on fire at 4:10 in the afternoon. The building fell in six and a half seconds at 5:20pm. No one ever reported that the emergency fuel tanks exploded, so how did this building allegedly burn out of control and drop in a symmetrical free-fall fashion?



These fires were too small to threaten the structure of WTC 7.

There are only two localized fires in the picture above. There are no pictures of building 7 raging out of control with fire. And don't forget, no plane hit that particular building.

Even if the fire reached the 23rd floor and ignited the Emergency Command Center's supply of diesel fuel, there is physically not enough time for a fire to undermine the structural integrity of this building. Again, the command center was reported on the 23rd floor. The fires in the picture above are no higher than the 11th or 12th floor. That's a full 11 floors to have to burn through first just to get to that fuel.

So how does the building burn in such a short amount of time? How did the fire spread that fast?

What Was So Special About Building 7?

Reports claim that vital SEC records regarding the WorldCom and Enron scandals were housed in WTC 7, as well as paperwork dealing with the Enron California energy swindle. The building housed offices for the IRS, Secret Service, the Office of Emergency Management, and the SEC, the Securities and Exchange Commission. The building was also alleged to have held offices for the NSA and the CIA.

What other vital records might have been in that building, or possibly shipped to it just prior to 9/11? Whatever they had stored there, it was all conveniently destroyed at 5:20pm that day. Many judicial cases were closed or severely damaged as a direct result of this lost critical evidence.

Building 7 also just so happened to have its own fortified command bunker. The building 7 command center was designed to survive a major disaster, such as the extreme forces of mother nature. It was intended in every way to be an impenetrable, secure, emergency fortress. Floor 23 was specially reinforced and hardened, most interestingly with bomb and bullet proof windows .

Why put bomb and bullet proof windows on the 23rd floor?

Considering that rooftop camera surveillance was clearly an option, why build an emergency bunker up high in the first place? Why not build it in the basement, safe from tornados, hurricanes and severe storms, where they could safely view their rooftop cameras from TV monitors?

If anything, they appeared to be building an observatory. From that 23rd floor command center, they had the best eyes-on view of the city. They certainly had a great view of towers 1 and 2.

If building the bunker up high was a safe thing to do, why was it so easily dismissed and discarded by Mayor Giuliani and the city of New York as an emergency operations command center? (They moved to 75 Barkley Street on 9/11.) .

The big 9/11 question for many is, how and why did WTC 7, the Salomon building, fall so easily with very little fire and no plane crash to threaten its structure?

The Buckle And Topple Theory

Many try to feebly explain the destruction by claiming that the fire undermined a lower section of supports, thus causing the building to fall. If that was indeed the case, then the building should have acted like a table without a leg and collapsed to the unsupported side.

Instead, this building did just the exact opposite. It fell as if all legs of support were removed at once. It falls level and evenly , all the way down.

The building falls flawlessly, in a free-fall fashion in just under seven seconds, very much like WTC towers 1 and 2 did earlier that day.

A perfect demolition by any standard.

Video: CBS: WTC 7 Destruction

Video: CBS: WTC 7 Destruction

The downfall of whoever wired this building is that they did too good of a job on it. It falls too precisely and flawlessly to have simply collapsed under natural duress.

It did not topple over as one might expect. Instead, this building, not hit by an airplane, fell in free-fall fashion into nits own footprint, just as towers one and two did, directly through its structural core and the path of most resistance.

Lastly, it is odd that it destructively collapsed, while all the other buildings around towers one and two did not. Many of those buildings took much larger debris hits, yet not one of those structures collapsed as WTC 7 did.

FEMA was able to acknowledge the total collapse of building 7, yet the 9/11 Commission felt it unworthy to even mention in their report.

FEMA Report on 911 - Chapter 5: WTC 7

Why does the 9/11 Commission mention absolutely nothing about the WTC 7 destruction?

Eyewitness WTC 7 Testimony Ignored

WTC 7 eyewitness Barry Jennings, an employee of the New York City Housing Department, said that he did not believe the official story of how WTC building 7 fell. His own account is drastically different and gives an entirely contrary view to the official story on the destruction of WTC 7, the Salomon building. He claimed that there were big explosions coming from the 8th floor, not the 23rd floor, nor the emergency generator fuel stored in the building for the command center's operation. He was adamant about that.

Another eyewitness described WTC 7 as something out of a Bruce Willis "Die Hard" movie. An interesting comparison.

Video : Barry Jennings Talks About Huge Explosions

Video: Barry Jennings Interview (Dylan Avery/Jason Bermas)

Barry Jennings went on public record saying that he and Michael Hess, the NYC Corporation Counsel, were stepping over dead bodies as they tried to escape WTC building 7. The b uilding was reported to have been evacuated early on that morning, after the first plane hit WTC tower one, the North tower. OEM Commissioner John Odermatt said that after the first plane hit the WTC, he left only two staffers there (at building 7). So where did all the dead bodies come from that Jennings claims to have been stepping over?

In an interview with Loose Change producer Dylan Avery, Jennings said that he was called to the WTC 7 command center, along with New York Corporation Counsel Michael Hess.

Jennings said the command center was empty when he and Hess arrived, and that was not normal. He said that when they got to the 23rd floor command center, no one was there, yet steaming cups of coffee still sat on the desk, as if someone had been there and left in a hurry.

According to Jennings, “Upon arriving into the OEM EOC we noticed that everybody was gone. I saw coffee that was on the desk, still, the smoke was still coming off the coffee. I still, I saw, uh, half eaten sandwiches and only me and Mr. Hess was up there. Uh, after I called several individuals, one individual told me that uh, to leave and leave right away."

Hess and Jennings left the 23rd floor command center, but when they reached the 8th floor, there was a huge explosion.

Jennings stated, “That day I will never forget and the explanations given to me were totally unacceptable. Totally unacceptable, because as I stated, I was there. I lived through it.”

He later concluded his remarks saying. “When I got home I sat down in front of the TV… I couldn’t stop watching it. And that’s when I found out that building 7 came down. I was so surprised. And I’m saying to myself, why did that building come down? And, I knew why it came down, because of the explosions. And it was not no fuel oil tanks..

Jennings was very matter of fact in his testimony, as can be seen in his video interview with Avery, but apparently, after much duress, Mr. Jennings later changed his story somewhat, excluding any mention of stepping over any dead bodies in World Trade Center 7.

It would appear that someone had apparently gotten to Barry Jennings and coerced him to change his testimony.

Unfortunately for Jennings, according to reports, he met an untimely death on August 19th of 2008, just two days before the final NIST report on WTC 7 was released. The NIST report said there were no explosions in WTC 7 and no eyewitness testimony. Very strange that the eyewitness whose testimony contradicted the NIST report should mysteriously die just before its release.

There was never any official report released explaining the cause of Jennings' death.

A private investigator was retained by 9/11 researchers to look into the demise of Jennings, however the case took a strange turn when the private investigator abruptly quit before finishing the investigation. A note was sent stating, "Due to some of the information I have uncovered I have determined that this is a job for the police. I have refunded your credit card. Please do not contact me again concerning this individual." (Investigator name withheld.)

His untimely demise is still a mystery to this day.

Rooftop Building Drops First

A looming question regarding the explanation for the destruction of WTC 7 is... if this destruction truly started at the bottom with the base imploding first, then how did the rooftop building at the top of building 7 fall before it ? That is indeed quite odd.

Watch the CBS Dan Rather video again and note the top structure on the roof of building 7. This small building drops first, before the bottom ever gives way.

If the bottom structure of the building is to blame for the building's destruction, how is it possible for the uttermost top structure, a small building on the roof, to drop first?

The Biggest Distinction Of All

The one notable distinction in the destruction of the twin towers and WTC 7 is in the way they fell. There was a difference.

WTC towers one and two both fell from the top down, but World Trade Center 7 imitated a controlled demolition in every aspect of its destruction. It started at the bottom and not the top , unlike towers one and two.

Compare the video (above) of the WTC 7 destruction with the following video of the twin towers falling.

Video: WTC 2 Tower Destruction

Video: WTC 1 Tower Destruction

How did nature decide to deal with towers 1 & 2 in a different manner than building 7? This is a very telling comparison in regards to the true nature of the buildings destruction.

Make no mistake about it, WTC 7 exhibits all the characteristics of a controlled demolition, just as Silverstein eluded to in his first PBS admission. It did not buckle. It imploded evenly, all the way down, but three large questions arise from that admission... 1) when was World Trade Center 7 actually wired and mined, 2) who was responsible for those orders and 3) who carried them out?

Make no mistake about it, Silverstein could not have ordered the buildings to be pulled that day as he claims, unless they were already pre-wired before that day.

The Silverstein Back-Pedal

It's easy to see that Silverstein's story of having building 7 "pulled" through controlled demolition on 9/11 had serious time constraints that hindered any immediate demolition work, on that day. His story had to change.

After the understandable litany of questions and the ensuing fallout from Silverstein's blockbuster admission on PBS, he indeed changed his story, saying now that having the building "pulled" in demolition terms was not what he meant at all.

Really?

Let's look at Larry's quote one more time.

" ...and I said, ya know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is.. is pull it. And they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse."

It's interesting that Silverstein would even attempt to refute such a deliberate choice of words and the seemingly transparent inference that they paint in regards to the event as it happened.

Silverstein now would have people believe that he was referring to "pulling the existing firemen from the building to evacuate it."

His excuse and the feigned logic behind it is considered by many to certainly be strained, at the very least.

First off, his reasoning starts, "We've had such a terrible loss of life." Certainly not at WTC 7. It was evacuated much earlier that morning. So he must surely be making an analogy to the earlier destruction of towers one and two.

But if there are no people in tower seven, where is the danger of another terrible loss of life, as Silverstein described it?

The basic problem with Silverstein's story is that building seven was already evacuated by the time that Silverstein was referring to. The building occupants were evacuated early on that morning.

As for the firefighters that Silverstein alleges to have wanted to "pull" from the building... they were told to move away from WTC 7 for safety reasons at 11:30 that morning by Assistant Fire Chief Frank Fellini.

So who was possibly in the building that Larry was referring to?

Who are "they" that Silverstein alleges to have made the decision to pull the building? He infers it was the FDNY. Which chief made that assessment and the alleged order to pull the building?

There were no firemen to pull from the building. Reports claim the water to the area was cut-off when towers one and two fell, so they reportedly couldn't fight the fire and therefore weren't needed inside the building.

According to the FEMA report, "no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY."

After he says they made the decision to pull, Silverstein's very next immediate statement is, "And then we watched the building collapse."

How coincidental is that? He mentions a demolition term and then in his very next statement he gives the result for using such a term.

How is it that the building suddenly collapses, strangely enough, exactly according to the demolition term he mentioned?

No matter how Mr. Silverstein tries to paint it, the term "pull" is a demolition term for imploding a building . He says they made the decision to pull and then they watched the building collapse. In that order.

Examine Silverstein's comments and he says four basic things.

We've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. They made that decision to pull. Then we watched the building collapse

How Larry can possibly try to say he meant anything different is beyond apparent reason, but the effort to try and recant such an incriminating admission as his can certainly be understood.

What Do Other Demolition Experts Say?

It's readily apparent to professional demolition experts what Mr. Silverstein was referring to when he used the term "pull." Watch the following video with demolition expert Danny Jawenko and his impressions from watching the destruction of WTC7.

Video: Demolition expert says WTC7 was imploded wmv

Video: Demolition expert says WTC7 was imploded YouTube

Video: Demolition detonation proof from WTC

Mr. Jawenko is on record as noting the difference in the way towers 1 & 2 came down and the way WTC 7 came down. Because of the bottom up demolition and the extremely controlled level implosion of Word Trade Center building 7, Jawenko said this was clearly a controlled demolition. (Jawenko is now dead from a car crash, driving home from church.)

View more on WTC 7, the Salomon Building

For coincidence sake once again, ask yourself this question...

How is Silverstein able to suggest that the building be "pulled" and then right after that, it gets pulled, as in a demolition?

The trillion-dollar question after Silverstein's admission is this...

When did they possibly have the time to actually wire the building?

"Lee Harvey" Silverstein

Why did Silverstein make such an admission a year after the fact? Why didn't he just let things go with the FEMA report and be done with it? Why come back a year later and say something that was never in the report? Was Silverstein encouraged to make those statements by someone else? And why back-pedal later on and then recant that admission of demolition?

It's almost as if Silverstein didn't know what he was getting himself into with the later admission of demolition charges. Once it became readily apparent that he was on the hook for a demolition that could not be explained, he quickly sang a different tune.

Silverstein is now in the unenviable position of being the fall guy for the New York end of the 9/11 attacks. If the media and others finally do wake up and start questioning the buildings destruction and how WTC 7 could possibly have been mined and wired with explosives, Larry Silverstein is clearly one man people will come to. God forbid that we should find Mr. Silverstein after an alleged suicide with a note of confession left behind detailing his remorse.

It's almost as if the corrupt powers that be have also planned for after the attacks with an excuse now that gives them exit from any blame surrounding the 9/11 event. Silverstein's payout was in the billions, so a case could easily be made for simple greed as the motive for 9/11. The case would probably state that he couldn't retrofit or clean the WTC towers of asbestos, so he had them heavily insured and then brought down to collect the insurance money.

None of this obviously explains the Washington attacks or the Pennsylvania crash, but then again, nothing the government has told us to this point makes sense, so why bother starting here?

The undeniable point to this is, after his PBS admission, Silverstein is now forever on the hook as possibly having implicit foreknowledge of the event, if not a direct hand in the destruction of his own newly leased WTC towers.

One would assume that Mr. Silverstein has possibly figured this out after the TV admission and that is why he is trying to now change his testimony regarding the destruction of building 7. Or once again, it could all just be another weird 9/11 coincidence. A very tidy one at that.

When Could The Buildings Have Been Mined For Demolition?

Many rightfully suggest the buildings had to have been mined in advance, perhaps months before when construction was taking place in towers 1, 2 and 7. A December 2000 NYC assessment had mandated that structural renovations be made to the buildings (even though WTC 7 was much newer). The company in charge of the work was Turner Construction, a resident of the WTC and one with close ties to Bush.

This provided a working window to rig the buildings. After all, if you go off Silverstein's initial "pull-it" statement, how was it humanly possible for anyone to wire the building in only a few short hours on 9/11?

There was also opportunity for some nefarious activity the weekend before. According to Scott Forbes, there was reportedly a "power down" condition in WTC tower 2, the south tower, when the building was reported to be undergoing late night cable retrofitting in the service corridors of the building. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approximately 36 hours from the 50th floor on up.

Audio: Witness testimony on WTC power down

Without any power there were of course no working security cameras and no security locks on the doors to prevent unwarranted access, allowing anyone much easier entry to many areas of the tower.

The possibility of a controlled demolition is not a pleasant question that one wants to ask regarding 9/11, let alone openly entertain, but on the other hand, the answers we've been given so far don't exactly inspire confidence in our government's official explanation of what happened on 9/11.

Why Destroy The World Trade Center?

Aside from creating a false terrorist attack that would provide an excuse for enacting an American police state, while allowing for unprovoked wars overseas, the World Trade Center was the perfect choice as a target for many other reasons. It was more than just a symbol of American financial power. There were other issues at hand that made it a target of convenience.

The primary two WTC towers were also said to be a huge loss leader for the Port Authority of New York and were said to be extremely costly to maintain, running in the millions per year for basic operating necessities.

Another possible reason for why the WTC towers may have been deliberately demolished is because they were constructed using literally tons of cancer causing asbestos as a fire retardant. The Port Authority was ordered to clean up the buildings. The cost to remove the asbestos from the buildings would have more than likely been more than the cost of the buildings.

Building 7 was much newer though. Built in 1985, it had no asbestos to remove, but it still had much sensitive evidence to get rid of, as previously outlined above.

From the testimony of Barry Jennings, the command center bunker was obviously in operation on 9/11. The presence of dead bodies after the building had been evacuated was another troubling situation that no doubt needed to be buried. WTC 7 was essentially a crime scene, so it had to go. There were too many questions that would be asked.

CNN, BBC Report WTC 7 Destruction Before It Happens

Another undeniably strange oddity from September 11th was the announcement from CNN and the BBC that the Salomon building, World Trade Center building 7, had collapsed, nearly 20 minutes before it actually fell. What a strange coincidence. Of all the buildings that were damaged that day, how did they get it right that WTC 7 was going to fall?

Both announced that World Trade Center 7, the Salomon building, had also collapsed just like towers 1 and 2. The only problem was, they actually announced it before it actually happened.

Watch the BBC video yourself and ask why WTC building 7 is clearly still standing in the background.

Video: BBC Prematurely Announces WTC 7 Destruction

Note: BBC Timestamp is 21:54 (GMT or WET?) The time date stamp says 21:54 in the video report. London is one hour ahead of Greenwich Mean-Time. One could possibly argue over whether the time stamp was GMT or WET for the English daylight standard. One could even claim someone goofed in the control room with the character generator and typed the time stamp incorrectly. What is hard to argue is the subject matter being reported and the stunning contradictory visual that is behind the reporter. The reporter is seen announcing that the Salomon Building (WTC 7) has just collapsed, all the while WTC 7 is still standing right behind her ! From what source did the BBC get this extremely prophetic report?

PHOTOS FROM BBC WTC 7 REPORT Building over left shoulder is WTC 7 still standing. Reporter is clueless on WTC 7 as she gives a better look. Compare WTC 7 picture here with pictures above. BBC Responds To The Charges The BBC has offered a response to the charges that they reported the destruction of WTC 7 before it had actually fallen. It can be found at the following link below.

First and foremost, interestingly enough, the BBC does not refute the charges. The response from BBC news editor Richard Porter was as follows: If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that.

-Richard Porter, BBC

Wow. They "coincidentally" seemed to have hit a huge event right on the head. To have a false report of this scope and nature that suddenly comes true is certainly news in itself, yet the BBC seems to blindly disregard the event as pure coincidence. Just another of the many wild coincidences in the incredibly tangled web of 9/11. So here's another coincidence, just as the WTC was actually about to implode, the satellite footage of the U.S. report suddenly gets lost. Is anyone counting coincidences yet? Screen break up as WTC 7 gets ready to finally fall. "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."

-Richard Porter, BBC

Wow again. A major faux pas such as that and an established news organization such as the BBC very conveniently loses the tapes from the most infamous day in recent modern history? Another 9/11 coincidence? After repeated outcries from the 9/11 truth movement, fortunately enough someone did come up with a copy of the broadcast, apparently misfiled in the BBC archives. It has long since been posted it on the internet.

( see movie link above )

BBC Anchor Forgets Role On 9/11

As if the above BBC broadcast doesn't give one time to pause and reflect, perhaps the anchor's initial denial and later alleged poor recollection of the event itself offers yet a bit more intrigue to the BBC 9/11 story.

Video: BBC anchor forgets his role on 9/11

How do you forget the events on 9/11? How is something that was reported worldwide missed as news by this intrepid news anchor, especially when he and the BBC were the focus of that news story?

News Media Pawns

The anchors of these premature news events may very well have been nothing more than unwitting pawns during this entire event, but the fact that the story was given at all to the media before tower seven fell is striking on its own merit. No steel structure had ever collapsed from fire in the history of steel high-rise buildings. Who could have possibly conceived the impossible for this building as well, when it was never hit by any large airplanes?

Building 6

Another building with just as much importance is building six, which was destroyed early on in the day. It housed the El Dorado Task Force, an interagency money laundering watchdog group responsible for all money laundering investigations in the US.

What a coincidence.



Also, official photographer Kurt Sonnenfield took pictures of the US Customs vault under WTC 6… empty with the door left open. Just like in WTC 4. Sonnenfield is now said to be wanted by the US government, allegedly for knowing too much.

Use Your Head

No matter what the official story was, use your own eyes and the brain God gave you when viewing the pictures and video of 9/11. There were no raging fires in the lower portions of either tower that were capable of undermining the structural integrity of the steel and concrete in those towers. Any fire that hot would surely have blown the windows out, as happens normally with extremely hot building and high-rise fires.

There was no significant smoke coming from any of the floors far below the damage. Odd for a raging inferno that was allegedly so hot that it burned out and weakened the entire structure of a 110-story building. That's a lot of steel and concrete to burn and soften up in only :57 minutes!

And since when does fire pulverize concrete slabs over a foot thick? Never before has there been a building so ravaged by fire that the concrete of the entire building became pulverized into such a fine dust. If the minimal 9/11 fire could do that, then the Madrid Windsor fire should have obliterated that entire structure, yet it clearly didn't.

[ See the link for the Madrid fire picture above ]

One thing does seem apparent, the impact of an aluminum skinned plane at far less than mach speed, plus a few sparse, short-lived fires, hardly seem worthy of any credibility whatsoever in regards to destabilizing WTC towers 1 and 2, yet it has been lapped up by every media outlet in the U.S. since 9/11.

With no fires burning longer than :57 minutes, how is it that the steel infrastructure for an entire 110-story building could become so thoroughly compromised so quickly. How is it possible under this scenario for floor after floor to pancake on top of each other? Most important of all... how does a building that is pancaking on top of itself do so in a free-fall fashion? Buildings just don't do that. The laws of physics quite simply do not allow for it. The only way to get a building to fall on top of itself in a free-fall fashion is with strategically placed explosive charges, such as dynamite or even thermate, a substance more powerful than thermite.

Video:

A natural collapse would not have brought any of the three World Trade Center towers down in less than :10-seconds. Cause & Effect When a building naturally collapses upon itself, it is with the aid of a fundamental principle of nature known as "cause and effect." In this scenario, the concrete from above collapses onto the floor below. The floor then gives way under the added weight, thereby crashing to the next floor, whereupon the action and reaction is continued over and over. Once again, cause and effect. You have an action take place and then an opposing reaction. Simple science. A chain-reaction is just that, a chain of reactions. Every event must wait for an action and the subsequent opposite reaction to take place. It takes time for the chain-reaction to progress and is nowhere close to a free-fall time. They are two distinctly different forces. Get a stopwatch and time the destruction of WTC buildings 1 and 2. Both structures undeniably drop in a free-fall fashion, not due to a series of natural chain-reactions. Each floor undeniably drops instantly under the previous floor. If each floor had truly undergone a real "cause and effect" chain-reaction, it should have physically taken much longer for each WTC tower to collapse. Consider the math needed to accomplish such a feat. Do the Math How long would it take for 110 floors to drop, if they were to drop one on top of the other, as WTC towers 1 and 2 did on 9/11? Consider the following scenario... the 110th floor of a building collapses onto the 109th floor. Now, how long for that floor to give way under the added weight? A few seconds? One second? Half a second? Just for the sake of argument, we'll take the least amount of time and select a mere half a second as our base time for each floor to collapse and then undermine the floor below, causing it in turn to also collapse and thus repeat the cycle over and over until the complete 110-story structure was down. So now do the math. Seriously. Take the little amount of time and effort that other investigators obviously didn't bother to contribute on their own. If each floor took a mere half of a second to collapse, then it should have taken around :55 seconds, almost a full minute for the entire structure to collapse. Gee, that's quite different than a mere :10 seconds, isn't it? And remember, we selected the lesser amount of time for our cause and effect reaction. Some might argue that one half second is too short of a time frame for a natural collapse to occur under, and they may very well be correct, certainly for the top floors of the buildings which would have carried significantly less weight and load at the onset of the collapse. If each floor took longer to drop, as they should have under a natural collapse with no demolition charges involved, then the time duration for the building's fall would also increase; again, not even remotely close to the :10-second free-fall that was witnessed live by millions worldwide. If it took a full second per floor, then the time doubles to 1:50 for a building to come down, almost two minutes to bust up and break down, not 8 to 10 seconds. To come down at the speed of gravity is unheard of. Quite literally, no known building in the history of engineering has ever pancaked like that, at a rate that fast, unless aided by precise demolition efforts. So how fast did each floor come down then? Again, do the math. It's simple enough to do, yet with the lack of interest in investigating 9/11, you get the idea that maybe no one has ever done it before. If they had, then maybe they might start asking some of these very same questions. One Hundred Ten Divided By Ten If you go with :10-seconds as the duration of the alleged collapse, which is the time most news accounts cited, that means each floor took less than a tenth of a second to collapse. Look at it this way... if the building was only 100-stories tall, then ten floors would have collapsed in one second of time. A rate of ten floors per second! That is far fetched and absolutely unbelievable under most natural cause and effect conditions, save for maybe an earthquake of 10.0 or greater, and even that might not bring a building of that size down that fast.

If anything, the building might start falling apart slowly, then increase its falling speed as the weight of the building's load increased with each collapsing floor, but that isn't what happened. Strangely enough, the building fell through the bulk of the structure below, the path of most resistance due to the floors underneath and the subsequent imposing physical mass involved, but it did so at near free-fall speed. Rather than topple and break apart slowly, it fell at pretty much the exact same speed from start to finish. Again, a very un-natural occurrence by any measure of science and physics. Those that hold fast to the official story on the collapse of the towers are being asked to accept an un-natural explanation with absolutely no base in scientific fact whatsoever. This, by many takes, was clearly a man-made disaster. The WTC towers should have slowly fallen apart, not drop in free-fall fashion in less than :10-seconds, no matter how they were designed. And just for the engineering record, self-pulverizing concrete was never part of the design either. The only way you get concrete dust is by using high explosives in a controlled implosion. One Thing At A Time First off, without question, a building cannot fall upon itself and cause a free-fall, not without the aid of explosive charges. It has to fall in segments, as the weight overcomes each section. Secondly, no engineer has devised a way to get a building to collapse upon itself in the free-fall time that the WTC towers fell in. No one has developed a free-fall formula for engineering design. It's certainly not possible by any engineering standards known to man today. We are still bound by the laws of physics, buildings have to have an action and a reaction, cause and effect, when they come down (without explosives). This fundamental principle is where most people are missing out and falling too easily for a very poor excuse that is not only illogical and implausible, but also physically impossible. Newton would absolutely roll over in his grave. Reports Of Explosions Many inside and around the WTC buildings reported large explosions before the towers came down. These reports came from the FDNY and NYPD, as well as various news sources. What was the source of these large explosions that literally made the ground shake and the buildings rattle?

The coincidence of numerous large explosions just before the towers fell is alarming. Why were these reports discounted? NIST Computers Can't Arrive At Solution For Natural Collapse The National Institute for Standards and Technology says that its computer models cannot explain the twin towers destruction, although they are still standing behind their assumption that the building failures initiated in the floors affected by aircraft impact damage and the ensuing fires that resulted. According to NIST, "At this point, because of the magnitude of the deflections and the numbers of failures occurring, the computer models are not able to converge on a solution." NIST then stated, “As we mentioned previously, we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.” The new study, well over 10,000 pages long, was not able to successfully address the glaring fact that the buildings fell with little or no resistance whatsoever, at literally free fall speed.

Information such as this does not confirm beyond a shadow of a doubt that the building fell due to fire and structural weakening.

They also added, "NIST has stated that it found no corroborating evidence to suggest that explosives were used to bring down the buildings." But in the next breath, they admit, " NIST did not conduct tests for explosive residue ."

How thorough of an investigation can the United States public expect when the National Institute for Standards and Technology admits something like this?

What we are being asked to swallow is an investigation heavy with assumption, rather than factual data with specific conclusions.

Disposal of Forensic Evidence

One of the most suspicious aspects from the aftermath of the event was the calculated and deliberate removal of evidence from the crime scene.

Why were the steel girders immediately removed and shipped overseas?

For what reason would the steel debris from the WTC be shipped out of the country so fast, without any further investigation?

Since when is forensic evidence disturbed at a crime scene, let alone physically removing it before it is thoroughly investigated?

Why was there no ongoing forensic or structural analysis performed on the steel girders?

Why ship the steel all the way out of the country when you have the world's leader in steel right next-door in Pennsylvania ? What could China or some other nation do with the steel that we couldn't do in Pittsburgh, the steel capital of the world?

Why did they send the steel and all its forensic evidence away?

This is unheard of in a crime scene investigation, but for 9/11 it is just another of many firsts that have become exclusive to to this sordid criminal event.

The editor-in-chief of "Fire Engineering" magazine, William A.

Manning, called for a forensic investigation and asked for the steel to be saved so that fire and structural investigators could determine the cause of the destruction.



Manning stated at the time, "Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a

thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced

collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over ten stories tall . Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers. Based on the incident's magnitude alone, a full-throttle, fully resourced, forensic investigation is imperative."



As expected, months later, the Science Committee of the House of

Representatives said that the World Trade Center investigation was

greatly "hampered" by the destruction of the critical evidence.

Even the New York Times was unable to find out who called for the destruction of the WTC evidence. According to the times, "Officials in the mayor's office declined to reply to written and oral requests for comment over a three-day period about who decided to recycle the steel and the concern that the decision might be handicapping the

investigation."



Added to that, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY)."I must say that the current investigation... some would argue that 'review' is the more appropriate word... seems to be shrouded in excessive secrecy. There are no clear lines of authority," he said. "No one is in

charge."



Before the fires were even contained, Mayor Giuliani and the city's Department of Design and Construction (DDC) Kenneth Holden, had contracted four major construction management companies to begin the removal of steel and the resulting debris from the WTC.

The Engineering And Clean Up Connections

When you examine the companies that were given clean up contracts, some intriguing relationships come to light. In all, four companies were contracted for the work. Strangely enough, two of the four contracted companies selected for the clean-up were primarily foreign owned corporations or subsidiaries.

Controlled Demolition, Inc.

AMEC Construction Management

Turner Construction

Tully Construction

Of significant note, one of the companies used to clean up after the Oklahoma City bombing disaster, Controlled Demolition Inc., was also asked to clean up as one of four crews contracted for the World Trade Center. Interesting that this company would be involved in the only two domestic attacks ever on American soil. The company was reported to receive $35 billion for the cleanup of the WTC site

From the CDI website: Controlled Demolition Inc., of Maryland was used at the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, as well as the WTC destruction in New York.

Controlled Demolition Incorporated (CDI) has the appropriate experience and expertise to assist Department of Defense (DOD) agencies and contractors in demolition operations on sensitive projects, domestically and internationally.

Another company, AMEC Construction Management, a London-based firm and subsidiary of the British engineering firm AMEC, ranked by "Engineering News Record" magazine as the world's largest firm. They were responsible for the new renovation at the Pentagon before 9-11. After their renovation was destroyed, they were then contracted to clean it up afterward. The company was paid from all phases of the project, the renovation, the subsequent clean up and also the rebuild.

AMEC was the only construction company that actually worked at both disaster sites, the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

From their website: On September 11 2001, AMEC was in the final stages of a major renovation and hardening project at the Pentagon that included a portion of the building that was struck by the hijacked airplane.

In the renovation of the Pentagon’s Wedge 1, AMEC implemented a building hardening system that included floor-to-ceiling steel reinforcing beams and walls lined with strong fibrous Kevlar-like material similar to that found in bulletproof vests. Whilst, blast-resistant glass, nearly two inches thick, was also installed in the windows.

Had it not been for that, you would have had a much larger collapse and perhaps many more casualties,” Lee Evey, Manager of the Pentagon Renovation project, said at a Department of Defense news briefing days after Sept. 11. After the terrorist attacks, crews from AMEC worked around-the-clock, seven days a week, completing the demolition and the removal of the damaged structure in one month, half the time of initial expectations.

AMEC also played a leadership role in the Pentagon’s successful Phoenix Project, the primary goal of which was to re-build the Pentagon and have employees return to the offices destroyed by the anniversary of the attacks. This goal was met a month ahead of schedule.

In addition to its special role at the Pentagon, AMEC also had a leadership role in managing the rescue, recovery and cleanup activities at the World Trade Center.

AMEC had just finished the renovation at the Pentagon when it was

called to manage the removal of debris there and at the World

Trade Center.

The company managed the Hudson River barging operations, moving the rubble and debris from the WTC site to a landfill on Staten Island and then on to steel recycling operations in New Jersey.

AMEC was in charge of organizing and engineering the around-the-clock clean up operation in the northwest sector. This included the North Tower and WTC building 6 (U.S. Customs House). They also cleaned up the 47-story WTC 7, which mysteriously collapsed late in the afternoon on 9/11.

AMEC Awarded Major Service Contracts by the US Department of Defense

Air Force Association to salute AMEC Chairman for company’s ‘outstanding leadership’ in Pentagon renovation and rebuilding

It would appear that AMEC indeed has a very close relationship with the U.S. government and its military.

Army Engineering Veteran Joins AMEC As Senior Program Manager

Homeland Security Expert Joins AMEC

U.S. Government Selects AMEC As Worldwide Environmental Services Supplier to U.S. Air Force

Air Force Engineering Expert Joins AMEC

It is quite apparent that AMEC has enjoyed a very close and most lucrative association with the U.S. government.

A third company, Turner Construction, another foreign held entity, is a subsidiary of Hochtief AG, an international firm headquartered in Essen, Germany. (Turner merged with Hochtief AG in 1999.)

As mentioned previously in this article, they were contracted in 2000 for recommended structural renovations to WTC towers 1 and 2, and also building 7, even though WTC 7 was much a newer building.

During the renovation, they were also said to have done fireproofing work on the impacted floors in WTC towers 1 and 2.

As just one more added coincidence to the 9/11 event, CEO Tom C. Leppert had close personal ties to George Bush.

Turner Construction has since been unwilling to discuss its role at the World Trade Center site.

Another company involved in the WTC ground zero clean up was Tully Construction from Flushing, N.Y.

Peter Tully, president of the company had this to say about the company's work at the World Trade Center site:



"I was there every day. The mayor's office and DDC called us on Sept. 11 ... on the site we had at least three meetings a day with Ken Holden and Mike Burton."

Wow. With everything going on that day, Giuliani and company actually took the time to look for a clean up company, before all fires were put out or any search and rescue operations could be completed. This just seems like a weird priority on that day. (?)

The WTC site was initially divided into four quadrants and Tully

Construction was assigned to Quadrant 3.



Tully has said that his company also worked on the South Tower,

WTC 4 and 5, and the 425,000 square foot underground retail mall. He commented publicly on the destruction of the WTC:



"Think of the thousands of file cabinets, computers, and telephones in those towers -- I never saw one -- everything was pulverized. Everything that was above grade, above the 6th and 7th floor... disintegrated ... it was like an explosion. "



Tully Construction just happens to specialize in concrete. Tully was asked if he had ever seen concrete pulverized as it was at the WTC.



"No -- never," he said.



Tully also stated that there were many hot spots where he observed "literally molten steel."

FEMA's Quick Response

While we're asking questions... ask yourself how clairvoyant our government was before 9/11? Allegedly not enough to stop the attacks, which they claim they could never have imagined, but apparently psychic enough to send FEMA to New York the night before.

FEMA rescue worker Tom Kenney told CBS' Dan Rather in an interview that FEMA arrived in New York late Monday night (before 9/11) and was deployed to support the city of New York for "this" disaster .

"We're currently, uh, one of the first teams that was deployed to support the city of New York for this disaster. We arrived on, uh, late Monday night and went into action on Tuesday morning. And not until today did we get a full opportunity to work, uh, the entire site."

Audio: FEMA's Tom Kenney Talking To CBS' Dan Rather

After the interview, a spokesman at FEMA tried to claim that Kenney had misspoken. FEMA actually went out of its way to deny that they had any teams in New York before 9/11.

FEMA: No Prior Knowledge of 9/11

It's hard to believe the FEMA line after the fact because Mr. Kenney did two things in his admission. First off, he gave specific days, as in Monday and Tuesday. He did not say "the day before" or "the day after," which is certainly more non-specific.

Kenney also qualified those dates by referencing the chronology of those days. He says they came in Monday night and went into action on Tuesday morning. 9/11 did happen that Tuesday morning.

Secondly, Kenney says FEMA was deployed to, "support the city of New York for this disaster ." He does not say they were there by coincidence for a later disaster drill. He says they were in town for "this" disaster.

But FEMA officials still tried to deny that they arrived in town the night before 9/11. They officially went on record to publicly deny the charge, saying Kenney had his days mixed up.

Really?

If FEMA came in Tuesday night as they later tried to claim, they would have immediately gone into action that night, no matter the time, to begin the act of disaster aid and search and rescue. It's very unlikely they would have waited to start helping until the next day. Not in the disaster aid business. Not for something like this. Not for 9/11.

When you're helping to combat a disaster, every precious second counts and is desperately needed. With lives in the balance and a national disaster such as 9/11, how strange would it be for FEMA to show up in New York City and then just check-in to their hotel and go to sleep for the night? Why wait to start rescue work the next morning for the worst disaster ever on American soil?

But wait... the story gets even murkier still.

Much like Larry Silverstein's one year later admission on the demolition of WTC 7, New York mayor Rudy Giuliani also stepped forward after the fact to testify that FEMA was there early after all! Only this time Giuliani tried to convince people that FEMA was coincidentally there the night before in order to set up on 9/11 for a reported biological warfare terror drill (Tripod II) on Pier 92 the next day.

Again, how extremely coincidental.

We are to believe that one branch of the government, NORAD, was involved in drills to stop hijacked airliners on 9/11, while another branch, FEMA, was also coincidentally getting ready for their own unrelated exercise against terrorism.

Why is it that FEMA couldn't get its own story straight? Why so many changes from the office of Emergency Management?

How Did OEM Know The Towers Were Coming Down?

Another disturbing aspect of the 9/11 event are the numerous reports that firefighters had warned people that the buildings were coming down. Mayor Giuliani admits being warned by the Office of Emergency Management that the building was about to come down.

“I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the Police Commissioner, the Fire Commissioner, the Head of Emergency Management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse."

Video: Giuliani Interview

Video : Warning About Tower Two

PDF: Firemen Talks of Warning

The fact that no steel frame high-rise building had ever collapsed from fire makes this comment very interesting.

What basis did the Office of Emergency Management have for concluding that the buildings were going to come down when this had never happened before in the history of high-rise buildings?

How did OEM know the buildings were coming down before the firefighters knew? Why didn't the OEM then warn all the firefighters?

To date, no FDNY or NYPD 911 audio has been discovered that shows a warning was ever broadcast to rescue members that the buildings were coming down.

Rudy Flip-Flops On Warning

Very much like Larry Silverstein's "pull it" admission, Rudy Giuliani did a sudden about-face on his comments regarding the warning that the towers were going to fall. While Silverstein tried to change the intended inference of his admission on "pulling" building 7, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani went a step further by totally recanting that he ever said that he was warned or knew that the towers were going to fall.

Watch Giuliani get testy as he is asked who warned him, and also who, if anybody, that he personally warned himself. Giuliani was then asked how he sleeps at night. The exchange immediately turned sour.

Video: Giuliani Denies Warning On Towers Falling

If you need to watch his warning again, just look back to the video a few paragraphs back.

Why would Rudy admit this publicly on television, then later try to say that he never said this?

Because of this glaring error in judgment, Rudy has now unwittingly placed himself in a horribly bad position, as a possible patsy to be framed, much like Silverstein did. He becomes "Lee Harvey" # 2.

Rudy & Bernie

Another of the interesting coincidences of 911 is that Rudy Giuliani just happened to replace his police commissioner before 911 and put an arguably questionable character in charge of the city's security, Bernie Kerik. The appointment was not exactly unanimous as some described Mr. Kerik as a somewhat shady figure with allegations of possible criminal connections.

As 9/11 coincidence would have it, Giuliani put Kerik in place as New York police commissioner just one year before 9/11. The two then left immediately after 2001, when Rudy was replaced by new incoming mayor Michael Bloomberg.



Bernie Kerik interupts Giuliani during street press conference.

Video: Kerik on the street with Giuliani

Mr. Kerik can be seen in the following video, racing up the street during a Giuliani press interview where he impatiently grabbed Rudy's arm as he was starting to answer a question on what the current situation was. Kerik then peeled away, shaking his head no as he faded back into the street crowd.

After 9/11, Mr. Kerik was indicted six years later on 14 counts of criminal corruption and tax charges.

Run Rudy Run

Many New Yorkers tell a different story of Mr. Giuliani from what the national press has officially painted him out to be. New Yorkers have openly criticized Rudy for running through the streets in a near panic after the WTC towers destruction, with no clear cut plan for action.

Giuliani has also taken extensive heat for purchasing faulty radio equipment which is blamed as the reason for the firefighters not hearing the evacuation order before the towers imploded.

Since 2001, Giuliani and his PR people have used the 9/11 event as a springboard for a 2008 presidential bid, saying that Rudy was a leader, even going so far as to proclaim him "America's Mayor."

If Rudy did such an outstanding job on 9/11, then why is his official video testimony before the 911 Commission not listed with the official records in the National Archives? Could it possibly be due to all the fallen firefighter families who were screaming out at Rudy about the radios that didn't work, not to mention other unfavorable comments regarding his handling of 9/11?

The fact that Rudy is making a run for the White House and his critical video testimony before the 9/11 Commission is left out of the National Archives official records is a somewhat glaring omission. Hopefully that clerical error will soon be corrected at the oft heralded National Archives.

Rudy & Company

Last, but certainly not least, are the recently surfaced rumors of "Mr. 911" having ties to the man who let the mastermind of 9/11 escape. How ironic is that? The Village Voice has the story below.

Giuliani business contracts tie him to man who let 9/11 mastermind escape

After 9/11, many of Giuliani's New York officials from 9/11 have now joined him in a new venture known as Giuliani Partners. Among their many services are security, public safety, and emergency preparedness, to name but just a few.



The team includes these former key New York City officials:

Former Police Commissioner, Bernard Kerik

Former Fire Commissioner, Thomas Von Essen

Former OEM Commissioner, Richard Sheirer.

These are obviously some very key figures from 9/11.

By the way, OEM is the Office of Emergency Management, the agency credited with warning Rudy that the towers were actually going to fall.



Rudy and his new team later established a bio-hazard clean-up company called BioOne to disinfect anthrax contaminated buildings, allowing Rudy to actually profit from the terror attacks immediately following 9/11. BioOne cleaned up the last building to be disinfected after the anthrax attacks, the American Media building in Boca Raton, Florida. BioOne then took over the building.

The Flight 93 Lie

Another incongruity about the 9/11 story is what actually happened to Flight 93 that supposedly crashed over Pitts