BBC Scripted Coverage of WTC-7, The Motive

The following quotes can easily be found in the documentary September 11th Revisited *, which has an excellent compliation of news reports from 9/11.

47 seconds in:

"It looks like one of those scenes of an old building being, you know, purposely dynamited and blown up."
--Dan Rather, broadcast live on CBS News


"If you wish to bring uh -- anybody's who's ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows that if you're going to do this you have to get at the, at the under-infrastructure of a building and bring it down." --Ted Koppel, broadcast live on ABC News


"It's reminiscent of those picture we've all seen toom much on television before when a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down." --Dan Rather /CBS

"When you think that part of the component of news coverage around the country every year is the excitement and the fun that people get watching an old building being demolished and they're wired very careful for days, and it's a very careful operation in order to make sure a building comes down safely. I think the last one that we saw was when they brought down one of the old cadino's in Las Vegas. I mean this is just stunning to see one of these things come down."
--Ted Koppel / ABC


BBC could have been provided the "weakened" reasoning as an intentional cover story, so that BBC anchors would not speculate about demolition, as other anchors had. The perpetrators had 8 hours to try and influence contacts in the BBC to create a script for the WTC7 event.

Reading it too early could have been the "cock up." The source of the information and the foreknowledge are still not adequately explained by BBC. Richard Porter has not provided a documented link to their source, a source that provided BBC with three different broadcast announcements (according to him). This is suspicious behavior, and they have repeatedly acted in a manner suggestive of a cover-up.

They would rather that people believe that they are covering up incompetence (as the rest of teh 9/11 "incompetence theory" is still very popular with the public). But, the specific incompetence could be that they read a report too soon, not that they read an incorrect report. That is what we must press them to investigate.

* My main beef with the September 11th Revisited film is its inclusion and repetition of the Larry Silverstein "pull it" quote, which is taken out of context to imply that it means something other than "pull" the firefighting operation. I cannot recommend films with false claims and/or blatantly weak evidence.








Pull It

John-- I've been very impressed with your vigilance and attention to detail on this. But I am not sure why the big beef with the "pull it" quote. It seems to be a side issue. If WTC7 was prepared for controlled demolition, it seems highly improbable that such preparations could have been done in a burning building in just a few hours. It had to have been done much sooner.

So his comment just seems to be a disingenious cover story. Nobody is saying they BELIEVE his apparent assertion the NYFD organised the controlled demolition of WTC7. I recall it took many months before his spokesperson finally issued an explanation. Why couldn't he correct it himself? Seems like he goofed up and was afraid to discuss the matter again.

And since when does anyone refer to firemen in a burning building as "it"? To say much later "oh I meant by it - a contingent" seems lame to me as it's just too convoluted a way of saying "we pulled them out of the buidling".

And finally to immediately follow with "and we watched the building come down" connects the "pull it" to the building not the firemen who are never mentioned.

Perhaps the touchy thing about this is the finger pointing. When we name names who seem to be complicit in the crime, it gets real serious. But I think Silverstein needs to defend his spokesmans assertion a little better than he has. Especially in view of the massive insurance windfall he received.

Show "Because it's false evidence" by johndoraemi

John, quit being a clown & making excuses for Silverstein

johndoraemi wrote:
"The New York Fire Commander doesn't demolish buildings."

Tell that to Indira Singh...

-Guns & Butter Radio interview - April 27th 2005:
Hosted by Bonnie Falkner
Guest: Indira Singh (Ground Zero Emergency Worker)

Bonnie: How long did you work as an emergency medical technician and exactly what is it that you were doing (at ground zero)?

Indira: ...when I got there we were setting up triage sites (at ground zero), close, very close to the area. The triage site that I was setting up was behind, well, to the east of Building 7 where Building 7 came down...
...we were setting up triages as close to the pile as possible… so what we were doing was setting up different kinds of stations… IV stations, cardiac stations, wound stations, burn stations ...just trying to have an organized space. What happened with that particular triage site is that pretty soon afternoon, after mid-day on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down... I do believe that they brought Building 7 down... 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 going to come down or being brought down.

Bonnie: Did they actually use the word "brought down" and who was it that was telling you this?

Indira: The fire department... the fire department and they did use the word "we're going to have to bring it down."

Excerpt from above is heard approximately ten minutes into the interview.

And Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue, Kevin McPadden:

"They said you know you've got to stay behind this line because they're thinking about taking this building down."

McPadden's speech begins at 46 minutes into this audio:

"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace

Keep it civil

Whoa! I seem to have touched a raw nerve. There is no need to abuse everyone who does not agree with you! Of course his quote is not proof - only a judge in a court of law can determine that. Until then it is just evidence that is open to interpretation. Obviously you have a different interpretation to others, but please don't be so insulting just because many don't agree with you.

His comments were made on public television and it is reasonable to allow people to make up their own minds what his words meant to them. No amount of ranting from you is going to change what understanding they derived from those words. To many it seems a perfectly straightforward admission that the collapse was pre-planned demolition. The long silence before he offered a correction and his failure to ever again address this to my mind, and I'm sure to many speaks volumes that he made a serious blunder. Call me an idiot if you like. But that's what I think.

Show "Head clown, on schedule." by johndoraemi

Far easier to vote me down than to argue logically. (surprise)

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at--

How bout this--stop being

How bout this--stop being snarky about it and we'll respect your difference of opinion of this point. ;-)

Now don't make me regret changing your -3 to a -2...

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Your own reasonableness doesn't transfer over to others.


There are a lot of silly people in this movement. They scream things they have been told, without thinking. It is nearly impossible to have a debate with such people, and this is one of the main complaints in the media about the movement.

If someone points out that your "evidence" is weak and lacking, that should be a major red flag to go back and to investigate. It shouldn't be open season on the person who told you that you are in essence making a fool of yourself among the general masses who don't share your biases and preconceptions.

The opposite is usually true here. I'm not sure how many times I've been called a "spook" (Kevin Barrett), but the implication is clear. If you don't toe the party line, you will be attacked.

The main charge of the highly powerful corporate media is that 9/11 Truth is "faith based," rather than "fact based."

To some extent this is true, and needs to be addressed.

The corporate media is also faith based on 9/11 issues, coming from the opposite side (US government lies go unchallenged).

Two wrongs don't make a right though. And I will not countenance false evidence being put up as "proof" when it is nothing of the sort (i.e. "pull it"). Once false claims are acceptable (the Fetzer doctrine?) then this is not a "truth" movement at all, but something sick and self destructive.

And that's the facts.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at--

"There are a lot of silly

"There are a lot of silly people in this movement. They scream things they have been told, without thinking. It is nearly impossible to have a debate with such people, and this is one of the main complaints in the media about the movement."

I think you''ve got it backwards. Most of us had doubts and our own thoughts BEFORE we saw or read this, that or the other. The "screaming" comes from frustration--either with the OT boneheaded assertions or having reasonable questions mocked for years.

For instance--this is a very broad example--look at WTC7 collapse. Now, even if we're wrong(ha, ha) it LOOKS like a controlled demolition. But the spin-meisters don't say " I know it LOOKS like a CD but actually its....." No. As if going for maximum irritation, they say, "That's crazy for you to even THINK it's CD!"

Who wouldn't start screaming after years of this treatment? A saint would scream by now--and none of us here have the patience of a saint. Lord knows, Jenny doesn't... ;-)

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.