This is the ambush where this lie was feed to the masses. This is Prison Planet braging about it!!!
Notice the collapsed part of this steel and concrete building
It's the Steel stupid!!!
Fire not melting steel.
 |  |
Update: this is a transcript of the ABC Peter Jennings interview from the first clip with the omitted section highlighted: Note this is not sourced by me so I can not guarantee the accuracy. I will post a new update when I can.
"I--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. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit and got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us."
Kinda changes the story, doesn't it
Update: This ambush was part of an organized campaign.
Update: Transcript Confirmed
Update: final thoughts, If you watch the video of Rudy with Peter Jennings on prison planet.com you will see that right when he says he was told it was going to collapse the tape cuts out... then it says 10,15 minutes, making it look like he was told well in advance of the collapse, however the part of the tape that was edited out reveals that Rudy had no time. The building collapsed before he could get out of the building and it took him and the others 10, 15 minutes to find a way out.
Update: I made the mistake of posting stuff here before I could verify it. It has sense proven to be untrue and I have removed it. Rudy's comments were about the impending collapse of the south tower, however the impression that this was proof that of an implosion is quite a leap. The warning came with almost no time to evacuate before the collapse, the Tower was showing signs of its pending collapse, and others did get warnings, again as the unaltered interview show Rudy and his team did not have enough warning to get out of the building... Now has to this far out lie that no building has ever collapsed due to fire... I expose this lie with my first picture. Only a fool would not see that fire caused this building to collapse. To say that it didn't just because part of it is still standing is foolishness. This building is only 30 stories high so let’s add another 80 to it a see what would happen... This building, in fact all other skyscrapers, was built differently. The WTC was unlike any other because it was not built in a box fashion to maximize floor space. Now let us just think about the ideal of placing enough explosives in the WTC to bring it down, how could this be done? If you watch the discovery channel you’ve seen the shows where guys spend weeks in an empty building to set up the explosives and pre-weaken the building. They place charges on every floor and take out any objects and parts of the building that may interfere with the collapse. It is simply impossible to do this in a fully occupied building. Period!
Posts
22 comments:
You ask: "Kinda changes the story, doesn't it"
Um - no.
If Guiliani was told the building was going to collapse, that's the story right there.
I'm still trying to figure even why World Trade Center 7 collapsed, when WTC 3,4,5 and 6 didn't. WTC6 was in between 7 and 2. In fact, WTC6 was across the freaking street in another plaza. WTC 3,4,5 and 6 all sustained MAJOR damage from the collapse of 1 and 2, but all of them stood, but 7 didn't.
Wait a minute.
Nothing was omitted from the video you showed. Your transcript and the sound in the video match perfectly. Nothing was omitted. The section you highlighted was in the video.
Dude you need to look at the photos again they look pretty missed up to me. All of the building suffered some form of collapse, and in two of them only one wall survived, Unless WTC 3 was a two story building.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc3456.html
And has to the Interview it turns out they were not even talking about the collapse of the towers but of WTC 7 and by that time the building was groaning and leaning in a way that its impending collapse was clear.
The video that had the omitted portion was on the Prison Planet website follow that link :)
"Dude you need to look at the photos again they look pretty missed up to me."
I didn't say it wasn't "messed up" ever, I said that it was across the street and WTC 6 was between 7 and 1&2.
Why did it not collapse?
There are other bizarre things with this. The BBC reported that it collapsed 20 minutes before it actually did. They did this on 2 seperate occassions.
The speed at which it collapsed too. Do you know any physics, and I'm being snide, I'm asking - do you know physics? I'm an engineer. For it to fall that quickly, it would have to have very little resistance on the way down.
WTC 6 was 7 stories tall and had a building fall on it. It stood, but WTC 7 fell.
The pictures you provided of WTC3 was during demolition.
It's pointless to debate 1&2, but the explanation for 7 just stinks.
"and by that time the building was groaning and leaning in a way that its impending collapse was clear."
Got any video of it? I'd like to see the groaning and leaning. I don't remember that being reported.
The Merrill Lynch building which i 51 stories stood. That's across the street.
The Deutsche Bank Building stood, that is 40 floors, that stood.
The NY Telephone Building is 40 floors, that stood.
The Federal Building is 15 floors, that stood.
All I'm saying is that I'm very skeptical about WTC7. Lots of unanswered questions about that. Do the physics if you know how, find out for yourself, that's why I'm posting this. I did.
"The video that had the omitted portion was on the Prison Planet website follow that link :) "
I already have since looked it up via google.
Do you ahve other examples of prison planet doing similar stunts? I'm curious if this is a one off thing, it's difficult to obtain information fro 7 years ago, they may have been given that unaware that it was edited, and that being the best they had, posted it.
I'm wondering if you are aware of this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm
The people reported to have done the hijacking apparently (at least some of them) didn't.
If the government did set this all up, it would be strange if they didn't kill off all their patsies.
But it's strange that they haven't identified all the hijackers too, or that they haven't released the surveillance tapes from the airports to get help from the public to identify them.
There are a lot of unanswered and bizarre questions to have answered.
Operation Northwoods existed, just the President didn't sign off on it. In 1953, the CIA got a bunch of Iranians to collude with them to overthrow their Democracy. This may not be a government coverup, but there still very well may be a conspiracy here, and conspiracies to exist. If you want, I can rattle off several examples starting with the Pentagon Papers.
"however the impression that this was proof that of an implosion is quite a leap."
Drop the editorial comment. If anybody wanted to read that, they'd be reading the New York Times.
"Drop the editorial comment?"
Dude! This is an opinion blog. Not a news blog...I'm all about editorial comments!
The truthers are pathetic. They don't let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy. Way too much bongwater consumption going on here.
"The truthers are pathetic. They don't let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy. Way too much bongwater consumption going on here."
What "facts" are you bringing to the table here?
Here's a few for you:
The steel used in the WTC buildings was enormous and thick. Yes, steel under pressure, like rebar, can lose it's strength at temperatures that hydrocarbons can produce (remember that jet fuel is basically kerosene), but steel is also an excellent conductor of heat; a heat sink. The heat was drawn away from the hot spots, therefore the steel (very high grade, by the way) could not have been fatally compromised.
the evidence against tremendous heat in the buildings is shown by the picture of the woman standing in the open gash, and the recording of the firefighters in the building (North tower).
The NIST reported that none of the samples they had ever saw heat over 480 degrees Fahrenheit. My oven can get hotter than that.
Even if we were to accept the absurdity of buckling core columns, this doesn't explain the complete destruction of all the core columns below the impact zone, in such a way that the building could collapse in roughly 10 seconds; near free-fall. Don't assume that the floors above the impact zone collapsed them to the ground, indeed they disintegrated within a few seconds, so the mass reduced as they fell.
I'll stop here for now, to let this digest. All I can say is, do your homework.
Why stop there? Here's some more. This is recent news, so you're probably not familiar with it.
Physicist Steven Jones has done extensive testing on samples of WTC dust and found clear identifiers for the presence of thermate, military-grade thermite, a high-temerature incendiary substance.
The markers for this substance are an anomalously high presence of sulphur, manganese and potassium, along with iron. Yes, iron is a component of steel, but steel is not iron; it is an alloy. Alloys, when melted, do not simply return to their unalloyed state. For example, when you melt bronze, it doesn't separate into copper and tin.
How did the thermate get there? Scott Forbes, a senior database administrator for Fiduciary Trust, which leased space in the South tower since its completion, reported a shut-down of the building over a weekend some weeks before 9-11. This is corroborated by Willie Rodriguez, the janitor of the North tower, indicating that this event occured in both towers. Dozens of workmen came in and out over this period. It's not inconceivable that they were attaching thermate incendiaries to the columns. Remember that all that was necessary to bring down the Aladdin hotel in Las Vegas was approx. 365 lbs of explosives. And this was done using standard explosives.
Then there is the molten metal found below the structures (including WTC7) that persisted for weeks after 9-11. This can be explained using the incendiary thermate theory, but not the jet-fuel theory.
No 9-11 researcher has all of the facts regarding 9-11, unless they were involved. There are some looney theories floating around out there, most of it meant to discredit the movement. But the most implausible conspiracy theory is the official story.
OK, I know we are discussing Giuliani and his involvement. What needs to be remembered about him is his treatment of the police and firemen after the event, playing one group against the other, the hastey clean-up of the whole area (scoop and dump), the toxic nature of the dust, etc.
Giuliani is a criminal simply based on the destruction of a crime scene. This was unconscionable.
> "Drop the editorial comment?"
> Dude! This is an opinion blog.
> Not a news blog...I'm all about
> editorial comments!
You want to get to the truth or just push an opinion?
I want to get to the truth.
I see you've made no comment to the fact that several of the people blamed for the terrorist attack on 9/11 later showed up alive.
I see you've made no comment on the fact that the BBC reported the collapse of WTC7 20 minutes before it did collapse, and they have no explanation for how they did this.
I see you've made no comment on the fact that there were several buildings just as large as WTC7 and closer to WTC1&2 that didn't collapse.
All I expect from you is to be suspicious. We did have an Operation Northwoods which was LUCKILY not implemented. You're foolish to trust your government knowing full well that our government has made plans to murder US citizens to further their own agendas.
Look up Edward Bernays and what he did to get the US to attack Gautemala. Look at what the CIA did to oust the Democracy in Iran in 1953. It's not a fun or enjoyable thing to come to the conclusion that your government uses you, but it does.
There's plenty of examples. Nuclear testing on soldiers, of which MY family actually is the victim of. My uncle was sterile because of it. There's the Tuskegee trials.
I'm not saying that WTC7 was DEFINATELY taken down by my government, I'm saying it's a definate possibility and it should be investigated. Who knows, the official story may be correct but may not be. Our government lied about the reasons we went into Iraq and continues to lie about it today. Our government is lying about the consumer price index (i.e. inflation) and is lying about the seriousness of the housing market.
I know that I can't trust the government. Look at Waco, there's another example. Do you know who April Glaspie is? I can rattle off dozens of things you should look into. Did you know that it's illegal for the Federal Government to "borrow" money from the Social Security Trust fund but they've done it anyhow? In fact, they've bankrupted it.
I'm not a liberal nor a conspiracy cook. I'm just well read. Americans make the mistake of thinking their government is any more trustworthy than another government. It's naive to think this way although I understand the appeal. It's comfortable to think that government has your best interest at hearts, but they don't.
I see you've made no comment to the fact that several of the people blamed for the terrorist attack on 9/11 later showed up alive.
Not true! This story was big in the month after 9-11 but none of the stories panned out and no respectable news paper will touch this anymore. American Free Press is a not a respectable news source. I noticed that many of the sources in Loose Change are from AFP why don’t you direct some of you skepticism to them?
I see you've made no comment on the fact that the BBC reported the collapse of WTC7 20 minutes before it did collapse, and they have no explanation for how they did this.
Turns out that many news originations got word that tower 7 was about to collapse. It would not be the first time that a reporter got notice that some was about to happen and reported it has already happened.
I see you've made no comment on the fact that there were several buildings just as large as WTC7 and closer to WTC1&2 that didn't collapse.
Put an egg between your hand and squeeze, if you hold it side ways it will break, if you hold it by the end it will not, how force is applied is more important then how much force is applied, i.e. if you look at WTC6 you can see that most of the debris fell onto the top of the building but WTC had the whole of the face destroyed, Losing much of its structural strength. I always wonder why loose change never shows that side of the building when it says it was not heavily damaged. Maybe because they are lying!!!!!!!
All I expect from you is to be suspicious.
Please check your sources they are not reliable. They have an agenda, and they are lying to you. This question is a part of that lie, Rudy was told that the tower was about to collapse, this warning came only minutes before that collapse. Others were warned and others could see that this collapse was about to happen, again the warning was short. Visible signs of a pending collapse prompted this warning. Oh I guess Loose Change forgot to mention this.
I do not trust our government; I understand that governments do thing that are unsavory and out right bad. This is a fact of life, it will always be true of all governments What the people behind the “truthers” have done is a part of an attempt to overthrow this government. So what is the alternative? Ever read Marx?
I'm sure there'll be more from the person that started this dialogue, but I have to add my thoughts.
G'Willie wrote:
"Put an egg between your hand and squeeze, if you hold it side ways it will break, if you hold it by the end it will not, how force is applied is more important then how much force is applied, i.e. if you look at WTC6 you can see that most of the debris fell onto the top of the building but WTC[7?] had the whole of the face destroyed, Losing much of its structural strength. I always wonder why loose change never shows that side of the building when it says it was not heavily damaged. Maybe because they are lying!!!!!!!"
Here you expose yourself as not having done your homework in regards to the structure of WTC7. Yes, I've seen the one photo that shows A PART of the building was damaged, not "the whole of the face". The building was built in a similar way to the WTC towers, with 27 beefy central columns and a lattice of steel girders on the outside. In addition, the building was specially reinforced in such a way as to allow for the complete removal of any floor without compromising its structural integrity. Read this article.
Even if, as reported by some government "authority", nearly 25% of the building's bottom floor was "scooped out", then how did the building collapse straight down, instead of toppling over as would be expected? Here's another picture of WTC 7 before collapse. Clearly this part of the building is quite intact. Your allegation of damage cannot explain the complete vertical collapse at near free-fall speed of this building.
Your egg argument cannot be applied to steel-structure buildings. If you think so, then apply it the the WTC towers. Doesn't work, does it?
In order to save this nation, people like you are going to have to get over your emotional attachment to the mythical concept of America. I'm afraid it isn't really like that. And John Wayne was neither a soldier or a cowboy. He wasn't even John Wayne.
I love the principles that this nation was founded upon. I perceive that our nation has been corrupted by the undue influence of multi-national corporations, corporations that have no particular allegience to the Constitution, and are undermining American values to broaden their global influence. These are the kind of people that base their moral behavior on what they can legally get away with (there are far too many like this these days), and with their unbelievable wealth they can influence (corrupt) lawmakers (—that's most of them, whether Republican or Democrat) to make their immoral behavior legal.
Remember that everything Hitler did was legal under German law.
You present yourself as a Christian (I question this — sorry). Do you believe in Satan? Do you think that Satan, the master of deception, would make it so easy to be discovered by the masses? Do you think that, if a political "leader" professes to be a Christian, then he is a good person?
You shall know them by their fruits.
Please wake up. Your nation needs you.
Steve
So why do you feel the need to
question my faith?
What do you know of my faith!
http://geobent.blogspot.com/2007/05/end-times-are-here.html
G'Willie said:
"So why do you feel the need to
question my faith?
What do you know of my faith!"
A link to Christopher Hitchins condemning the ministry of Jerry Falwell upon the occasion of his death.
George, I question your alignment with Christianity based upon your implied defense of the ministry of Jerry Falwell (thanks, though, I now have a better opinion of Christopher Hitchins) and your obvious support for the Iraq invasion and the so-called "War on Terror". None of it is in agreement with the teachings of Jesus. Do you think that Jesus would be proud to be a part of an invasion that resulted in the killing of well over a half million people, especially one based on lies?
I have no patience with those that take the Lord's name in vain, declaring their faith in God and the Christ, yet giving suppport for torture, maiming, death, fear, and destruction. This indicates a lack of faith in the basic premise of Jesus' teachings, "Love one another as I have loved you". The world can no longer tolerate this perversion of the faith.
If this isn't your "faith", then you'll probably need to explain yourself better.
I noticed you zeroed in on this comment, but neglected the rest.
Cat got your tongue?
I should add that questioning your faith is in no way a "persecution" of Christianity.
> Not true! This story was big in
> the month after 9-11 but none of
> the stories panned out and no
> respectable news paper will
> touch this anymore. American
> Free Press is a not a
> respectable news source. I
> noticed that many of the sources
> in Loose Change are from AFP why
> don’t you direct some of you
> skepticism to them?
I've never seen Loose Change.
What are you saying, that the BBC's report that some of the named perpetrators was incorrect?
Incidentally, I don't trust US media either. This is the same joke media that rushed us into war over weapons of mass destuction and worry about the final proof being a mushroom cloud. It's silly to think the administration wasn't telling a bold faced lie. Scott Ritter himself contradicted them at every opportunity, but unfortunately the dopes of this country paid attention to all the smears against him.
> Turns out that many news
> originations got word that tower
> 7 was about to collapse.
From whom?
> It would not be the first time
> that a reporter got notice that
> some was about to happen and
> reported it has already
> happened.
How would anybody know that WTC7 was about to collapse, and again, who told them?
Remember, they weren't told it was ABOUT to collapse, the news was told it already had collapsed.
Who told the media this? What was the source? How did they know it was going to collapse?
> Put an egg between your hand and
> squeeze, if you hold it side
> ways it will break, if you hold
> it by the end it will not, how
> force is applied is more
> important then how much force is
> applied, i.e. if you look at
> WTC6 you can see that most of
> the debris fell onto the top of
> the building but WTC had the
> whole of the face destroyed,
> Losing much of its structural
> strength. I always wonder why
> loose change never shows that
> side of the building when it
> says it was not heavily damaged.
> Maybe because they are
> lying!!!!!!!
Well, first have you seen that side of the building?
Show me.
You don't need to explain forces to me, I did take 3 years of physics.
I'm simply saying it's awfully odd that there were 3 other buildings of similar size, that were all about the same distance from 1&2 and they all survived without any problem, but 7 came down.
> Please check your sources they
> are not reliable.
Which sources would those be, that you think are unreliable?
> They have an agenda, and they
> are lying to you.
Name the sources. I'm pointed to the BBC, only.
> This question is a part of that
> lie, Rudy was told that the
> tower was about to collapse,
> this warning came only minutes
> before that collapse.
More than 20 minutes actually. Both the BBC and CNN reported it. Do you deny this?
Again, who told CNN and the BBC WTC7 had collapsed, and how did they know?
> Others were warned and others
> could see that this collapse was
> about to happen, again the
> warning was short.
At least 20 minutes
> Visible signs of a pending
> collapse prompted this warning.
Got any video of this pending collapse?
> Oh I guess Loose Change forgot
> to mention this.
I wouldn't know, I've not seen it.
> I do not trust our government; I
> understand that governments do
> thing that are unsavory and out
> right bad. This is a fact of
> life, it will always be true of
> all governments What the people
> behind the “truthers” have done
> is a part of an attempt to
> overthrow this government.
Until the Federal government starts following the constitution again, it ought to be overthrown.
At this point, it's nothing but a bunch of mafia heads stealing enormous sums of money and creating excuses to steal it. The Federal government should be cut to be about 10% of it's size. There role is only border security and defense, and enforcing the constutition, nothing else.
> So what is the alternative?
> Ever read Marx?
How about freedom?
Marx was a man that didn't even bother to learn about political systems - he was an idiot and a dreamer.
The alternative is simply to strictly enforce the constitution. People have a right to freedom of speech, they have a right to life and liberty, their money should hold intinsic value to the US government can't impose an inflation tax on everybody. Abortion is not a federal issue, it's a state issue, and the federal government has absolutely no business getting involved with education or retirement.
I found 4 videos of the south side for you all 4 show extensive damage on the whole of the south face and three are being used by truthers. Let me share what I see in these videos.
The first on is a strait forward shot showing the south side of the building missing, and in the center of the building the gash is at least 20ft inward. (just my guess)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddTHS444Mn0
The next is from a goofball but it too shows damage to the south face and lot of smoke.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_bSzOP541s&mode=related&search=
This last one shows fire on multipliable floors and talks about the dangers of the building being unstable
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evdGMRYn3Iw&mode=related&search=
This one is from a debunker and show the firefights side of the building with fires and smoke…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U&NR=1
And for good measure here is a good one showing the south tower falling
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPUME7lvsLU&mode=related&search=
Anonymous said...
"I found 4 videos of the south side for you all 4 show extensive damage on the whole of the south face and three are being used by truthers. Let me share what I see in these videos.
The first on is a strait forward shot showing the south side of the building missing, and in the center of the building the gash is at least 20ft inward. (just my guess)"
I looked at all the videos you provided (it would make it easier if you knew how to make a link — oh, well)
In the first one, you said that you could see damage to the building, even going so far as to say it "is a strait (sic) forward shot (it's not, since it shows two sides of the building) showing the south side of the building missing(!), and in the center of the building the gash is at least 20ft inward".
I don't see it.
I see a lot of smoke, in a grainy video with a lot of compression artefacts.
I'd bet you could also clearly see flight 77 flying into the Pentagon from the five frames they provided from the parking lot.
In fact, the damage you claim isn't visible in any of the videos you provided. The one with the "brown line" is curious, but inconclusive. I don't buy into the DEW (directed energy weapons) theory. All of the videos show a 47-story building on fire. The only holes I saw were broken windows.
All in all, even if the building was destroyed on one side, then the building should have fallen over, not collapse without any resistance from its structural members. Then there is the issue of molten metal found under the rubble that persisted for weeks.
As for the last one, its title says "Proof of NO controlled demolition". How is this proof? The floors twisted in on themselves because the central core was cut into segments from the use of military-grade thermate, allowing for the complete, vertical collapse at near free-fall speed. What you observe in the video is quite consistent with that scenario.
By the way, what is your country of origin? Your struggle with the language is rather quaint, i.e., "strait" instead of straight, "multipliable" instead of multiple. Good try, though. Just curious.
For everyone's edification, here is the only image I have ever been able to find that shows damage to WTC 7, the Salomon building.
Clearly, the building did suffer some damage, but this is not sufficient to allow for the complete, vertical, free-fall collapse of this building. If you took the time to read about how the building underwent $200 million worth of reinforcement, then the whole thing looks very suspicious. Add to that Larry Silverstien's curious statement, "maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it", and it simply cannot be dismissed as easily as the 9/11 Commission report did (no mention whatsoever).
For background, you should watch Terrorstorm to understand that this was not just a one-off; an isolated event. This is a tried and true tactic to manipulate the public into a war frenzy, which the globalists (neo-cons, multi-national corporatists, pro-eugenics elitists, etc.) use to their advantage. It isn't just about the oil. Oil is only a part of it.
Oil represents power. Aren't you paying 3+ dollars per gallon for gas, like everyone else? The first thing the military did when Iraq was invaded was to secure control of the oil. Halliburton moved in and took over.
Answer this: if you had control of one of the world's largest oil supplies (with the lowest overhead in processing, thus the most profitable) and gas prices were climbing toward $5/gallon, when would you release the oil?
These people are ruthless businessmen, knowing that the world's most profitable commodities are oil, guns, and drugs.
Oh, yes, drugs! It's really no surprise to me that, since the invasion of Afghanistan, opium poppies have seen bumper harvests, flooding heroin into nearby Pakistan as well as the US. Everywhere, actually.
Until more people (like you) realize how they are becoming enslaved to this gradually encroaching police state, this tiptoe totalitarianism, the globalists get further and further along with their agenda.
It's not the "end times" unless we allow it to happen! That myth is part of the manipulation!
Here's some further reading, from a book called "They Thought They Were Free", written in 1955, about how the Nazi state came into being — gradually.
We can learn from history, only if we understand it.
Post a Comment