Ground Zero EMT: Told Building 7 Was to Be Pulled

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by sensfan
If the basement sub structure of the building was blown, or cut to cause a collapse, why did the building collapse from the top down instead of the bottom up like all controlled demolitions?? That doesn't make any sense. And no, he wasn't talking about bldg 7 in that quote, it specifically states he was in one of the towers helping injured.

If the core structure was severed, the inside would fall first and drag everything with it. This would in turn make the outer columns collapse from their weekest part (the impacted columns). Thus would essencially make it look like the building started to collapse at the impacted floors. We never got to see what was happening inside the building. We only got to see the outside of the structure fail. Just my opinion on how it could have been done to look like it failed at the impacted floors.

How do you explain how much of the inner skeleton of the building was seen still standing after the collapse then?





If the core was severed first, then this remaining structure should not be there.

Sorry for the double post, but AJ hits it on the head when he states...

This testimony demands an immediate grand jury inquiry into both monolithic insurance fraud, potential manslaughter, and a complete re-appraisal and re-investigation into everything else that happened on 9/11 in an effort to discover what else the government lied about concerning the events of that day and its aftermath.

It's time the criminals get their due and that justice is served. I'm tired of the corporate criminals getting away with murder while our government officials, the ones in their back pockets, cover their backs!

Originally posted by sensfanHow do you explain how much of the inner skeleton of the building was seen still standing after the collapse then?

Isn't that WTC1 or WTC2? How do you know its WTC7?

Well, let's see what the official people have to say about this. They have given their names if you want to check out their stories. So, what is going to be the excuse now?

Originally posted by sensfan
How do you explain how much of the inner skeleton of the building was seen still standing after the collapse then?

If the core was severed first, then this remaining structure should not be there.

My theory is that the thermite took longer at the base because of the massiveness of the columns. And also the possibility of concrete reinforcement. Watch how the columns collapse after the building is already down. If they were "hit" by falling debris, they wouldn't just fall straight down into themselves. That's a clear indication to me that they were brought down by some other force....gravity. But, how does gravity bring down columns that have stood for decades and are imbedded into bedrock?

Edit to add. Do an experiment. Put a bunch of straws together and imbed them into the ground. Keep adding them until they fall. Do they fall straight down into themselves? No, once the center of gravity becomes a large distance away from the ground, there will be a moment created that will cause them to fall like a tree. This didn't happen to the "spire"...it fell into itself.

[edit on 2/9/2007 by Griff]

Here's an interview with Indira Singh done in April of '05...

Indira Singh Interview, April, 2005, Part One

...What happened with that particular triage site is that pretty soon after noon, after midday on 9/11, we had to evacuate that because they told us that Building 7 was coming down.

If you had been there, not being able to see very much, just flames everywhere and dark smoke, it is entirely possible… I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down, because it was unstable, because of the collateral damage.

That I don’t know, I can’t attest to the validity of that, all I can attest to is that by noon or one o’clock, they told us we had to move from that triage site, up to Pace University a little further away, because Building 7 was gonna come down, or being brought down.

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

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

I hadn't heard about this until now but since the interview was in '05 it looks like people aren't just now coming out to tell their stories.

The thing I still don't get though is why aren't their more people talking about this... like the firemen or police who told everyone to get away because it was going to blow? Where are they?

Originally posted by mecheng
The thing I still don't get though is why aren't their more people talking about this... like the firemen or police who told everyone to get away because it was going to blow? Where are they?

I've heard of gag orders. Also, if you were one of them, would you put your life and/or career on the line to be the first? I know I wouldn't (which probably makes me a coward) but it's the truth.

If true. I'm not sure if they did send out people knowing they would get sick because of the dust. I don't think anyone really knew how bad the impact of all that concrete in the air would do. God what a way for hero's to die.

Originally posted by Griff
I've heard of gag orders. Also, if you were one of them, would you put your life and/or career on the line to be the first? I know I wouldn't (which probably makes me a coward) but it's the truth.

They could do it anonymously (which admittedly brings into question the stories authenticity). Or have a group of people come forward which makes it much harder to be silenced and makes the story more credible.

I would like to think that I would come forward. I think most would. When a lie as big as this needs to be told. Plus, if it was you, and police and firemen tell you to get away becasue they're bringing the building down, and a few days later your EMT boss tells you "keep your mouth shut about the building being pulled!" wouldn't that kind of make you want to tell the story more? Wouldn't you be curious as to why there is a gag order?

Question: Does anyone know if there were any deaths related to the collapse of WTC7?


[edit on 9-2-2007 by mecheng]

Originally posted by mecheng

Question: Does anyone know if there were any deaths related to the collapse of WTC7?

As far as I know, none.

Which is why I think Silverstein thinks of himself as a hero. I'm going to butcher the quote so don't come in here yelling at me for it. "We've had such terrible loss of life, the best thing to do would be to pull it". So, in his mind, he saved people that day whether it was pulled intentional or not.

Originally posted by Griff
Which is why I think Silverstein thinks of himself as a hero.

Some Hero!

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. This building's collapse alone resulted in a payout of nearly $500 million, based on the contention that it was an unforeseen accidental event.

What I ment was: in that interview, I believe Larry wasn't even thinking about what he was saying when he said "pull it". I think he was having delusions of grandure by trying to make it look like he was the one who told the firefighters to pull out and such. Thus, him trying to make himself look the hero. But this is going off topic. I have a tendency to do that sometimes.

Back to ground zero heros. The REAL heros of that day.

Sorry about the Copy and Paste but this huge NEWS!!!! From 911blogger.com

Two more ground zero emergency rescue personnel are on the record as stating they were told Building 7 was going to be brought down on 9/11 hours before its symmetrical implosion, completely contradicting the official explanation of accidental collapse.

The new revelations provoke urgent questions about how a building was rigged with explosives within hours when such a process normally takes weeks or months and why the decision was taken to demolish the building amidst the chaos of the situation on that day.

Yesterday we reported on the testimony of an anonymous EMT named Mike who told Loose Change producer Dylan Avery that hundreds of emergency rescue personnel were told over bullhorns that Building 7, a 47 story skyscraper adjacent the twin towers that was not hit by a plane yet imploded symmetrically later in the afternoon on 9/11, was about to be "pulled" and that a 20 second radio countdown preceded its collapse.

Shortly after this article was released we uncovered more astounding testimony of ground zero rescue workers who are fully public and on the record in repeating the same claims, that Building 7 was brought down deliberately and that its collapse was not accidental as the government claims.

I have to say that there are a shedload of things that worry me about this story's credibility but there is one which stands out above all the others. With regard to the fall of building 7 the article describes how...

...a 20 second demolition countdown broadcast over radio preceded its collapse.

I would be very interested to hear if anyone has heard this accusation before because I certainly haven't. We are not being told of warnings of a possible collapse or even a danger of an imminent collapse, (although these are well documented as having been made since relatively early in the day because of the damage suffered by the building), this is quite different, it is an unequivocal report of a countdown to a premeditated demolition.

And yet, (to my knowledge at least), despite the legions of emergency workers listening to radios all over the area and an army of journalists who would have been monitoring the emergency service radio traffic no one has reported or even hinted at this before. Never mind all of the half baked so called smoking guns that have been thrown into the mixer over the years, if we accept this story as true this would appear to be undeniable proof of a premeditated controlled operation to bring the building down and yet somehow no one has got around to mentioning before.

So, more than five years after the event a brand new claim emerges and it comes anonymously from someone who has since been fired and fined for disorderly conduct and damaging equipment. I am going to take more than a little convincing that this bloke, always assuming that he actually exists at all, is anything more than either a fantasist or a disgruntled ex employee with a grudge.

As for the "astounding testimony" of two more rescue workers which has now conveniently been received, who are they and where is this "public" testimony.

[edit on 9-2-2007 by timeless test]

Here's a whole list of 37 people (with names) who were warned ahead of time of the collapse of WTC7...

WITNESSES WHO WERE WARNED OF THE IMPENDING COLLAPSE

However, none of the statements made by these firechiefs seemed to indicate that the building was going to come down because of a controlled demolition. They seeemed to believe the building took a lot of damage from teh collapse of the towers and that sooner or later it was coming down.

5) Fire Engineering magazine: "FDNY chief officers surveyed 7 WTC and determined that it was in danger of collapse. Chief Frank Cruthers, now the incident commander, and Chief Frank Fellini, the operations commander, both agreed that a collapse zone had to be established. That meant firefighters in the area of the North Tower had to be evacuated. This took some time to accomplish because of terrain, communications, and the fierce determination with which the firefighters were searching. At 5:30 p.m., about 20 minutes after the last firefighters evacuated the collapse zone, 7 WTC collapsed. It was the third steel-frame high-rise in history to collapse from fire--the other two had collapsed earlier that day." ("World Trade Center Disaster: Initial Response," Fire Engineering, 9/2002)