Open Thread.

So what did we miss?

Several people posted this one in comments, but never made it to front page, about the only US mainstream coverage out there on the Psychic Network -- I mean, BBC, unless Wonkette is "mainstream". Thanks, Joe.

Devin Green signing off, 03/01/2007 -- Good morning and good luck

"Why aren't the big TV news programs and newspapers covering the BBC's remarkable gift for clairvoyance? If you want them to demand it of them.

Better yet, take matters of informing yourself into your own hands. As I hope this blog entry has demonstrated, we have the technology with the Internet to move from the old autocratic information paradigm into a democratic system. Instead of today's five media companies who own most of the news industry dictating self-serving knowledge to millions of Americans, information can be traded freely based on its inherent merits in a diverse and widespread self correcting network.

But to come to face the ground truth we must take the time to ween ourselves from the old pipeline and open up to a bigger picture. 911blogger is a useful site for 9/11 news in this process. Alex Jones is an excellent news source to start looking at to understand the forces of fascism, tyranny and corruption taking control of the highest levels of our government. If you like the videos I used to post occasionally in my blog there are many more in a new feature called Rense TV part way down There are many others out there as well, but use your discernment to weed out disinformation. Check the sources for yourself and confirm.

Obviously I don't agree with everything presented at these sites. But that's the point. Think for yourself. Push your limits. Become your own Editor."

Germans all over the BBC story.

From our German connection; Heiner.

Sueddeutsche Zeitung - mainstream Daily
quite negative article - theories mushrooming ......
but basically sticking to the facts of the story

same goes for
Focus online edition
main german News Magazine

Nearly all comments sceptical

and only lame excuses from the denialistas...

e.g. "They wouldn't do this"

take a look at what the #1

take a look at what the #1 discussed video on is this week:

remember to RATE the video

as well as leave a comment... gives it more "juice" for the rankings

///////////////////// - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

Has anyone noticed that the in-studio announcer....

....uses the phrase "catastrophic attack" at the 4:42 mark?

Words that would have special resonance in the years to the PNAC RAD document gained fame....

Was that part of the script too?

I guess it was too early to use "catalyzing"....

Poltergeist Osama Makes His

Poltergeist Osama Makes His Return
Friday March 02nd 2007, 2:19 pm

Asia Times Online usually runs decent articles, but a recent piece by Syed Saleem Shahzad, Pakistan Bureau Chief, is nothing less than a Brothers Grimm fairy tale on steroids, not surprising as Pakistan serves as an ISI disinfo hub.

“Al-Qaeda will this year significantly step up its global operations after centralizing its leadership and reviving its financial lifelines. Crucially, al-Qaeda has developed missile and rocket technology with the capability of carrying chemical, biological and nuclear warheads, according to an al-Qaeda insider who spoke to Asia Times Online,” writes Shahzad.

Of course, the media, reading straight from a Pentagon script, has told us the CIA-ISI manufactured terrorist group has been “centralizing its leadership and reviving its financial lifelines” for years now, not that this supposed reorganization and infusion of operating capital has produced tangible results. However, now that Iran is in the crosshairs, it makes perfect sense “al-Qaeda” is “reviving” itself.

As for the claim al-CIA-duh “has developed missile and rocket technology” supposedly capable of “carrying chemical, biological and nuclear warheads,” this is simply and utterly absurd as it obviously requires the apparatus of a state and industrial complex to produce such sophisticated technology, unless we are witless enough to believe the sort of nuclear weapons and the missiles required to deliver such payloads are easily manufactured in Waziristan with parts smuggled in under cover of sheep-herding Wazir tribes.

“While al-Qaeda will continue to operate in Afghanistan and Iraq, it will broaden its global perspective to include Europe and hostile Muslim states, Asia Times Online has learned. For the first time since its attacks on the US on September 11, 2001, this could be al-Qaeda’s year on the offensive.”

In other words, the neocon agenda needs to be completed before Bush leaves office in 2008, thus we are to be sold on the idea that 2007 may represent “al-Qaeda’s year on the offensive.”

“Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden has not appeared in a video since October 2004 or on an audio tape since January 2006. He is by no means out of the al-Qaeda picture, although his deputy, Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri, claims the media spotlight.”

By this, no doubt, Mr. Shahzad means the fake Osama, or fake Osamas (or computer generated Osamas), because the real Osama, a former CIA asset, is long dead and buried.

As we know, Ayman al-Zawahiri got his start by way of the long ago U.S. and British intelligence penetrated Muslim Brotherhood. For some odd reason, the corporate media never mentions that al-Zawahiri worked closely with Ali Mohamed, a former officer in the Egyptian army’s military intelligence who was also “cross-trained” at the U.S. Army Special Forces school at Fort Bragg. It is sincerely interesting that the American-hating al-Zawahiri would work with a guy who was recruited by the CIA to infiltrate Hezbollah. It should be noted that Mohamed was eventually put on a terrorist watch list but managed to get a visa to enter the country with al-Zawahiri in tow. But then this is apparently routine, as Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman, also on a “terrorist watch list,” effortlessly entered the United States and was eventually framed for the February 26, 1993, WTC bombing, an event with more than a little input from “double agent” Ali Mohamed, who just so happened to work for the FBI at the time. Coincidence, no doubt.

Reportedly recovered from ill health, bin Laden—possibly even sporting a trimmed beard—is active in al-Qaeda’s planning, according to the contact Asia Times Online spoke to. ‘He could be in Chechnya, Somalia or Iraq,’ the man said coyly, obviously not about to divulge bin Laden’s whereabouts. Or even in Iran, some insiders hint.”

Osama bin Laden in Iran? Stands to reason, of course, never mind Bin Laden’s Salafy branch of Sunni Islam is highly intolerant of Shiites, and Iran is primarily a Shi’a nation. Not that it matters, as most Americans, easily frightened by the very prospect of dark-skinned Freddy Kruger-like bad guys in turbans or keffiyehs, do not know there are two Islamic sects.

Search feature completely useless

I've emailed about this, but as I'm not sure my emails are going through, I readdress this issue here.

The search functionality (the "search" tab) on this site is completely useless. When I use it to search for my own previous comments, I can only find some old comments of mine.

Trying to track down one's (or someone's) comments from, say, two or three days ago (for example, to see if someone has responded) is very *time-consuming* and often results in mere frustration. This is killing a lot of my enthusiasm for this site. Today I was preparing a post to BBC and would have needed some information connected with previous comments. Didn't find them.

Some other posters have expressed the same concern.

Could something be done about this? Would having an effective search function be expensive?

Could something be done

Could something be done about this? Would having an effective search function be expensive?

Use the "Google tab for Search only on 9/11blogger" and use keywords to highlight what you are looking for.

Vesa: use tracker

To find things on 9/11 blogger it is very effective to use "tracker"

For example, click on a user name (such as your own) and then click on "track" it gives you a list of all of the blogs you have commented in.

here is your track:

tracker is also very useful because it will tell you if there are new comments from the last time you viewed the blog if you are logged in.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Yes, "tracker" is great.

The main tracker page is a very good way to see at a glance which topics are generating the most discussion, and how recently.

The main tracker page is my

The main tracker page is my 911Blogger home page. From there, you see the news, the blogs and where the latest discussions are taking place.

tracking problems

I have used the tracker to see what is being discussed.

However, when I click "My recent posts", it takes me to my own blog entries, not to my latest comments.

I went through several tracker pages, but my name didn't show up on any of them so that I could have clicked on it and then clicked on "track". I'm sure it would have turned up *eventually*, but...

Sorry for being so thick-headed -- am I missing something?

Wouldn't it be user-friendly to have a tracker button "my latest comments" so that one wouldn't have to search for one's name on the tracker pages first?


If I can click on your user name and go to "track" and see all of your comments on different blogs, you should be able to see it. It should work.

Or click "my account", "track" and you should see all of the blogs you have commented in.

You can always just bookmark this link if you want to keep going back to it.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Finally there

Ok, so on the tracker page I have to

1) click "My recent posts" (which takes me to the "recent posts for Vesa" page)

2) click my name in the author column on that page (which in turn conjures up the "track" tab)

3) click the "track" tab (which shows the list of blogs in which I have participated)

That is two steps more than would be necessary for normal everyday comment tracking (cf. my previous comment), but I guess I can live with that. (Did anyone guess I enjoy doing usability testing at work? ;-))


"Use the 'Google tab for Search only on 9/11blogger' and use keywords to highlight what you are looking for."

That's precisely what I had been doing with poor results.

Thanks to all who replied.

A Senior Administration

A Senior Administration Official has said there is no connection between building 7 and building 18.

BUILDING 7 VIDEO (Best Video Yet!)

Someone with know how should take the BBC "Smoking...Jump the Gun" video and add The "Lucky Larry" comment with "PULL IT" add to that Rudi Ghouliani stating how the command center was moved to the pier cause the "building are gonna collapse", add to that video of firefighters telling how it's gonna blow, some mention of FEMA's "low probability of occurance", and the blatant OMISSION from the Omission Report. Then for the Finale the IMPLOSION of Bldg 7 itself (various views, multiple clips) and Jennings' and Rather's comments on what it looked like

Strike while it's hot.!

I can picture the entire video but lack the expertise to put it together.

Try this

That has most of it!

Where did that come from?


that is a bloody good video.

that is a bloody good video. btw how many people died as a direct result of wtc7 coming down?


Only 1, or maybe zero. I've heard reports that a SS agent was in there when it came down. I've not yet memorized his name.

I'm sure others here can give you the evidence for (or against) this 1 death.

Want to figure out 9/11? Ponder the 9/11 "Mineta Stone"

"information can be traded

"information can be traded freely based on its inherent merits in a diverse and widespread self correcting network."

this is exactly right--in principle. if it sounds like free market economics, you can bet there's a reason. Like we don't really have a free market--just the illusion of one, it stands to reason that like the stock market, the information market will look competitive from the outside but inside will be the same old characters with their same old schemes. if we're not vigilant! or maybe even if we are.

never stop questioning!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Can someone...

Please explain to me the significance of the BBC and CNN reporting that WTC7 was going to come down?

I've thought about it, and to me, it hurts our case for Controlled Demolition. There was obvious damage to WTC7, and as a result, it's very possible people assumed the building was going to come down, and reported it as such.

It just seems to me that this is being used as proof of a Controlled Demolition, and that is simply not the case.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

I agree Jon. I get voted

I agree Jon.

I get voted down every time I say this, but this story isn't a big deal and actually helps out the debunkers.

People are looking at things from post-research on 9/11.

Going back to that day, on 9/11/01, not too many people were saying,
"Of course WTC7 won't come down, its a steel structure building and no building like that has ever come down until the twin towers which were hit by airplanes".

What it means is, a hell of a lot of people thought WTC 7 was in danger of coming down. And they were perfectly reasonable in thinking that.

The fact that WTC 7 came down isn't the smoking gun. The smoking gun is HOW WTC 7 came down (which NIST still can't explain).

You shouldn't...

Get voted down for having a legitimate question.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

And yet...

I am getting voted down in this thread. All the way through. This "Miss Congeniality" contest gets harder and harder. I'll have to remember, legitimate questions and concerns are bad, following the choir, blindly, is good.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton


you are justifying that a major news channel can make up future news because they think it might happen:?

thats insane! and its just as insane to think that anyone could have predicted that a steel building was going to collapse .

That's not what's being said...

What's being said is that because of the damage WTC7 received, people assumed it was going to come down, and reported it as such.

BTW... I'm not taking anything away from Veritas911. Certainly, it would be nice to know who originated the report that WTC7 was coming down, and why.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Circumstantial Evidence

The BBC and CNN report provides powerful circumstantial evidence that, when considered together with the direct visual evidence of WTC7 being demolished, infers that a conspiracy was concocted to destroy building 7 while simultaneously using the media to make it seem as if the building collapsed of its own accord.

The fact that this would occur directly following the demolition of the two towers is further corroborating evidence that 9/11 was an Inside Job.

The story devised to cover the WTC 7 demolition was absurd on its face, thus another conspiracy was concocted after the fact, to bury the live televised news reports because they clearly contradicted not only the visual evidence of WTC 7 being blown up, but the fact that the reports went "live" too soon, also succeeded in completely destroying the time line of events necessary for their story to "hold up" under careful scrutiny.

Of course this careful scrutiny never occurred. The story has since been absolutely censored by the mainstream media and the government at large. So great was the conspiracy to cover-up the demolition of WTC 7, that it was not even mentioned in the official 9/11 Commission Report.

What's so ironic about all of this is, many people point to the Bush Administration's incompetence as "proof" that they were unable to pull off 9/11 as an "Inside Job". It would seem that they were essentially right. Their ineptitude resulted in the smoking gun which is WTC7; thus, they have effectively failed in their attempt to pull this off!

When all the facts are considered together with available direct and circumstantial evidence, it becomes clear that 9/11 was an Inside Job. It can no longer be denied. The only question remaining is, what are we the people going to do about it?

You said...

"infers that a conspiracy was concocted to destroy building 7 while simultaneously using the media to make it seem as if the building collapsed of its own accord."

That's an interesting thought, and certainly possible. However, we can't make a leap like that based on the information that we know. If the media was told by Karl Rove that building 7 was going to come down, then yes, absolutely, I would agree with that hypothesis.

We need to know where the report originated from.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton


Once we know where the report originated from, this "circumstantial evidence" becomes "direct evidence". ESPECIALLY if it orginated from Karl Rove.

It is also important to remember however, that "circumstantial evidence" is used in criminal courts to establish guilt or innocence through reasoning.

Mr. Rose...

You don't have to tell me about Circumstantial Evidence. I love Circumstantial Evidence. Circumstantial Evidence is a good thing. Circumstantial Evidence is your friend.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Mr. Gold...

I have been most impressed by your depth of knowledge on more than one occasion. Forgive me but my comments are not always written expressly for you.



"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

So Jon

Unless I missed something here all of these Media reports are not saying they "think WTC 7 is going to collapse" they said that "it has already collapsed" and they seemed quite certain of it as they read it off their pre-prepared script given to them by the Neofascist.

The ones that said they thought it was going to collapse were Ghouliani & I think NYCPD which was probably informed by Ghouliani to say that.

While there is nothing conclusive here to be sure, it does further the notion & circumstantial evidence that WTC 7 was taken down by controlled demolition and that many people knew about it.


Reported both.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

All I know is...

It's a good thing they spent the $20 million on the emergency management floor #23.

Came in real handy, especially if it was built on such a shoddily-erected building....

oh when will this all end?

///////////////////// - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

Keep in mind that such a Psy-Op

needs to be accompanied by media, to get the right conclusions.

As you can see with Jerome Hauers script:

So for me it makes perfect sense that someone spread rumors, that WTC7 has to come down, because in the original plan it has to come down.

How high was the probability that this remains undetected if they don't make this frontrunning before the collapse?

You bet.

It's not a stupid question

It's not a stupid question -- no such thing in my book. I'm glad you brought it up because it helps us think logically through the ramifications. I don't think this is as self-evident to everyone as we may want to believe; the implications are more nuanced.

Having said that, I think this is a huge blow to the official story. The reason it is significant is that there were buildings in the WTC area which had much, much greater damage from the Twins. The damage to WTC7 was not then at ground level (and is not now in hindsight) consistent with a global collapse (implosion). If the teleprompters had read "We are getting word that another WTC building is in imminent danger of falling/ toppling/collapsing" or some such, one might believe it was consistent with a predictive scenario that is inconsistent with a pre-planned demolition. No one could have predicted the nature of the collapse if it had been happenstance, if the area had been cordoned off and all of the buildings left to their own devices. And when combined with ALL of the video of workers saying the building would be blown up/ brought down just before it happened, that the area had to be cleared, etc....?

Remember that the live feed was cut before it actually happened; Aunty Beeb failed to show the money shot. Now THAT was a big "D'oh!" moment. Once it did blow, the area was engulfed by another ginormous pyroclastic flow which was impossible to miss for miles -- and impossible to fail to train live cameras toward. If we were talking about an oopsie moment, where was the correction? If it was a matter of chaos on the ground that led to a game of "telephone" where the final delivered message is quite different from the original, one would have expected both the Beeb and CNN to self-correct and get in on the live action. "This just in! We are getting word that the building has indeed INDEED collapsed ..."

I thought...

There was footage from one of the mainstreams at the time of collapse. Besides Dan Rather.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

I believe Rather was

I believe Rather was commenting after the fact over a taped shot. I think the same is true of Peter Jennings' commentary -- but I will have to go back and watch. (Or wait and hope to be corrected here.) I checked and couldn't find where BBC showed it live either.

Footage of WTC7 collapse

The footage shown on BBC Newsnight (shown in the smoking gun video) isn't the same shot as behind Jane Standley on BBC World as the former is from a higher angle.

If there is any footage shown by the BBC on any of its news programmes of WTC7's collapse from the same window behind Jane, then that confirms that her team did in fact capture it just minutes after the live link was lost and therefore the BBC would have known that they pre-empted the collapse on that day rather than 5 years later.

If anyone has access to all the BBC archived footage for that day and the next, then this could be confirmed.

Here's a few shots and a bit of info...

I'm currently building the 2nd part of continuous footage.

14:40 - 17:18 already done.

17:18 - 20:26 working on now.

09:19 - 14:40 to be started.

Been skimming through the evening stuff, could do with further full reviewal (some good footage in it).

They don't show WTC7 coming down from the famous window (well not in the 3hrs 7mins after, that I have).

Throughout the 3hrs, they have a few brief shots of WTC7 collapsing, all that I have seen before elsewhere.

Below are a couple of screen snaps.

Here's the shot from the "famous window" to get your bearings at 17:12 EDT.

Here's the first shot of the collapse, shown on BBC World at 17:42 EDT (different camera angle, much higher and to the right).

Below is the first time they go back to Jane Standley, by the famous window, time is 20:25 EDT.

Hope this helps a bit...

Best wishes

So she's still there then!

Thanks for this

So unless the entire team left the room straight after 17.12, someone would have seen the building collapse at 17.20, or at least seen the extra dust cloud created by it.

I do think that she should be asked about whether anyone on her team saw it happen after it was reported and whether they conveyed that fact back to London. Perhaps they went for a pot of tea ;-)

The footage shown by BBC World at 17.42 looks like the same shot as that shown by BBC Newsnight. I would say that this is the from the same building as Jane Standley is in but higher up and zoomed in. So it could still be exclusively a BBC view...

Congrats on all your amazingly hard work and excellent research on this topic.

Same building, higher up....

I believe you may very well be right...

I've just "gridded" the images and it does look like it's from the same horizontal position.

FYI, I make the feed going out at 17:17 - 17:18 EDT.

So unless she packed up and left (unlikely I feel) within a couple of minutes, she would have had an unforgettable "ringside" view.

Best wishes and thanks for the feedback.

Can you please repost your notes

on the BBC behaviour after the event here?

I did read them, but could not find them anymore!


Perhaps the "self-correction" footage exists...

But may have subsequently been "buried". It took us 5+ years to find the incorrect footage. Perhaps we need to keep digging. There may very well be more buried treasure.

Certainly would help explain the "sudden" announcement of a BBC + Google + YouTube deal all of a sudden.

Me thinks BBC wants to do everything possible to contain further leaked footage.

how many news people knew

how many news people knew off the top of their head what was the details of WTC 7's construction, how those details related to the likelihood of its collapse?

Like I said, people are looking at this from after having done research on 9/11.

Take yourself back to that day. On 9/11/01, did you know for sure that what you saw was impossible without explosives? If so, give yourself a star. But MOST people did not. So after watching WTC1 and WTC2 collapse into dust, if I was in NYC and saw WTC 7 on fire and damaged, I would worry that it was going to collapse as well.

There were reports all through the day that it may collapse sometime that afternoon or evening or the next morning.

That doesn't mean that everyone who reported that was a plant. The story is definitely fishy, and a great catch by 911veritas, but people thinking that WTC 7 was going to come down sometime is entirely reasonable.

This is the case

No steel Building had ever collapsed from fire before 911. Until 1&2 came down there was no reason to assume it would fall.


IT REVEALS FOREKNOWLEDGE THAT IT WOULD BE COMING DOWN. The only way to be certain that it would come down was to have it demolished.

Most will take a step mentally and conclude foreknowledge, and "damage control" to the official story being created.

The report was meant to come out after the implosion.

This is the first time a great number of people ever heard of 7.

How many are questioning why they never heard of the third building?

Why has it been hidden by MSM?

A Press Release to control the spin when it happens. Create the meme. Telling what brought it down while it still stands?


Lucky Larry tells they decided to PULL IT.

FEMA's report states that their best guess at what happened had a low likelihood of occurance.


You said, "Until 1&2 came down there was no reason to assume it would fall."

And then you said, "The only way to be certain that it would come down was to have it demolished."

You're right, before 1&2 came down, there would be no reason in the world to think a skyscraper would collapse. However, after their collapse, people might have been more open to the idea. You can't say "the only way to be certain that it would come down was to have it demolished". Someone may have thought that it was going to come down because of the damage it sustained, or was told by someone that the building was going to come down because of damage it sustained.

That doesn't mean the person who gave the reporter the information that it was going to come down didn't have prior knowledge of a Controlled Demolition. It just means that there is the possibility people thought it was going to come down because 1&2 did.

I think it's important to know where the report originated from, and the reasoning for it, but I don't think this story, in and of itself, proves Controlled Demolition.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

7 was not hit by a plane

and therein lies the distinction.


It did have visible damage.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

minor visible damage

and relatively small fires on a couple of floors of which no reason for these fires is even evident in the first place, just how did 2-3 totally separate fires spring up in this building and then the building sprinkler system fails completely to take out a couple minor office fires?

The original lie that day was that the planes along with huge amounts of kerosene was what brought down the towers. This is utterly absurd of course but if you were in shock enough & ignorant enough to buy that lie then I guess it is not that much further to go to swallow that a 47 story building with minor damage on one side and a couple small fires just decided to collapse like a house of cards.
I suppose people ignorant enough to swallow that could have also been made to believe that any building with a few broken windows was about to collapse into a dust pile.

Just goes to show how gullible & stomp down stupid the average American citizen is and because of that how powerful & persuasive the MSM really is.

Manipulating the MSM

is the neocons' biggest strength.

Philip Zelikow is an expert in "“‘searing’ or ‘molding’ events [that] take on ‘transcendent’ importance", according to the Expertise section of his Wikipedia entry. There is also mention of a 1998 article he wrote about "Catastropic Terrorism" which is very similar to the PNAC ideas.


Taking this to the next level


I agree that foreknowledge of the collapse does not prove controlled demolition. However, once and for all this does prove that someone was feeding BBC and CNN information about the WTC7's mpending collapse.

That may sound obvious, but remember that we have spent much time trying to convince the doubters about foreknowledge.

Look at our efforts to promte the videos of fireman who say things like "that building's gonna come down."

To take it to the next step, we need to add the testimony of various EMTs that spoke of a "radio countdown." THAT will prove controlled demolition.

If we can show that various media were saying the same thing about the collapse before the collapse, then we can prove that BBC did NOT make a "mistake." We can then prove that the media outlets were reading from the same script The authors of that script will point us to the true perps....

Check out the post by Jesse at He speculates that the stories about the imminent collapse of WTC7 was to setup the cover story of it's eventual collapse. He further speculates that flight 93 was supposed to hit WTC7 which would have formed a credible rationale for its collapse.


How did CNN and BBC have foreknowledge of the WTC7 collapse, yet five years later, the government cannot explain it?


It does help the case for foreknowledge.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

it also pushes people over the edge

just ask my brother and sister, who have ignored every piece of evidence thrown their way....until this!. jon gold, your family members and press for truth shtick has worn thin. i was also more than a bit embarrassed with the way you handled the "reporter" at the press conference and your subsequent juvenile email exchange with him. to me, it almost seemed as if you were working with him, not against him. that said, the bbc blunder is huge!


I was working with him directly, and I promote the family members, and press for truth to hurt the movement.

Shouldn't trolls like this be banned?

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Ooh! Look at the widdle wanna be troll!

It's not amateur's night, love.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

that's exactly my point. If

that's exactly my point.

If people would try to think back before they did research on 9/11, they would understand. After the twin towers came down, almost everyone in NYC or around the world for that matter felt that fire and damage could take down a sky scraper. We just watched it happen twice.

Does it make sense that the perps used plants to start getting the word around that WTC 7 was going to come down? Yes.

Does it also make sense that people who saw WTC 7 on fire and damaged from debris started getting the word around it would collapse sometime soon? Yes.

We need to get back to the source of those reports. That could be really incriminating.

Focussing on Building 7

How could it be known so precisely about when Building 7 was going to collapse?

- That building will be coming down soon
- That building is about to blow up
- People stood watching Building 7 waiting for something to happen – and then it did
- Video cameras were pointing at Building 7 waiting for something to happen

The only conceivable answer to this is that it was brought down by controlled demolition. It would not be possible to predict when a building would collapse if the collapse were due to structural damage.

I think the debate should shift towards the collapse itself, rather than pursuing the BBC, but any debate around Building 7 has got to be good for the truth movement.

As it stands it neither

As it stands it neither hurts nor helps the case for controlled demoltion in my opinion. We've known for awhile that there were warnings that WTC 7 was going to come down, and the debate about what those warnings mean has always been unresolvable. The BBC clairvoyance gives us an opportunity to push for information. If we can track the source of the story we might be able to resolve the debate, or at least shed considerable light on the subject.

But you're right, it doesn't prove that WTC 7 was CD, and we have to be prepared to get answers we don't like to any further inquiry. That's what pursuing the truth means, of course.

Jon, you claim that there was "obvious damage to WTC-7, and as

a result, it's very possible people assumed the building was going to come down, and reported it as such."

Let me remind you that WTC-7 was not a log cabin in the Ozarks. It was a massive steel-framed 47-story building completed in 1987, having about the same square-footage as one of the towers . It was 350 feet away from the nearest tower, and had some superficial damage from debris & some flames coming out of about 6 of its 2,000+ windows.

Why the hell would anyone state that the building had collapsed, or was even in danger of collapsing??? Furthermore, why did this building implode in a controlled demolition at near free-fall speed, a half-hour or so later???

"Why the hell would anyone

"Why the hell would anyone state that the building had collapsed, or was even in danger of collapsing???"

Because it was on fire and damaged from the debris. If you were at ground zero on 9/11/01 and had seen the towers crumbling to dust you would say that WTC7 was in danger of collapsing too.

One problem with this line of thought

One problem with this line of thought is that the windows of WTC 7 did not blow out until just before the building fell.
This raises the probability of controlled demolition to nearly 100% as there is no such thing as a fire hot enough to weaken steel throughout the building but NOT hot enough to blow out the windows.

Watch this video "WTC7 The Smoking Gun of 9/11."

One of the eye-witnesses in the vid describes the windows blowing out just before the building fell.

Add to the above that the BBC clearly states that the building "has indeed collapsed." They were reading a report that had been given to them by a reliable, trusted source. There is zero speculation in what the anchorman says.

Sorry, love, high rises that

Sorry, love, high rises that are on fire, look like they're ON FIRE!

Like the Towering Inferno, not dimly flickering flames through INTACT windows. ;-)

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

The significance of BBC WTC7 story

The building shouldn't have collapsed at all.
The fact that they reported it collapsed before it collapsed shows that there was likely foreknowledge of its collapse.

A controlled demolition is foreknowledge of collapse because it would have to be pre-planned BEFORE 9/11. Knowing 9/11 is going to happen and doing nothing to stop it is criminal negligence.

Cumulative evidence shows that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. The BBC WTC 7 story does not "hurt" the controlled demolition theory. It gives it even more credibility.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Take this news to the mainstream blogs

we all have to take to the mainstream political blogs - both republican and democratas and show them this story, the media isnt going to do it.
Dont waste time writing on 911 blogs, read them and then send the news to the normal blogs, those are the people who need to see them.

I send the Best stuff to most of these

"AirAmer POST" , "American Progress"
,,,,,, "" ,,,,,,,, "Marc Ash Truthout" , "Marianne Williamson" , "Michael Moore" ,,, "pr@"
, "publicinterestpictures" , "" , "senator_leahy" , "Thebuzzflash@aol" , "" , "Wait Wait Don't" , "WhiteRoseSociety" , "William R Pitt" , "wnycRadio"
, "Zinn Howard"

Send this story to other news blogs

I agree that the best way to gain leverage with this story is to send it on to other mainstream blogs. I did exactly that and found that censorship or omission were at work- in particular at TRUTHDIG where my letter to Robert Scheer to post the story was ignored,as were comments with links to the WONKETTE's story, and Jim Hoffman's site, that were removed after I posted them. TRUEBLUELIBERAL.COM did post two of my links however, complete with thumbnail photos and a summary of the BBC story. TRUTHDIG had Colbert's rant against the media's Anna Nicole Smith feeding frenzy well covered. Gatekeeping is as much the problem as is indifference by the public to real news.

Mine Often Disappear

"Gatekeeping is as much the problem as is indifference by the public to real news."

Cindy Sheehan on video last night may get a whole lot through the gates past the gatekeepers. Think how many have a stronger allegiance to Cindy than to the COWARDLY GATEKEEPERS.

No Censorship on this Blog.

There doesn't seem to be any censorship on this blog.

This is surprising to me, but we might as well attack it while we can.

For wider dissemination, we need..

The whole story, written really well, with all relevant accompanying links. Then we can scoop that up and begin posting throughout the blogosphere. Once we penetrate the blogosphere with this story, then we SHOULD see the mainstream media beginning to run with it, lest they begin to apppear to be part of an effort to censor the news.

I say give it a few more days. Sometimes it takes time for these things to percolate through the system.

If the momentum on the net regarding this story keeps up, then the Corporate Media (CM) will for FORCED to cover it.

I can't see how they cannot do so. Every paper and news channel is NOT owned by the same big three or four.

It's a VERY intriguing story, no matter what people think about 9/11.

I say we need a boiler plate story to employ, and that we might begin by getting it into all the Europian newspapers and the like, as a starting point.

Do we even have a listing of all news media emails, in the USA and in Europe? That too would be a good idea.

Just with those two items, a pre-made story, and a listing of all media emails, and our influence would increase immeasurably.

Our own press release?

Being that the ball started rolling here, with the obvious help by 911 Veritas, why not do our own press release?

Someone with good journalistic skills could put it together, aong with relevant links and blast it out to the written, radio, and tv media.

I agree that the story is compelling no matter what you think about 9/11.

The problem is, as I see it, is that the controlled media won't touch it, just like they avoid talking about WTC7, because THEY KNOW that people will really start to think about the possiblity of an inside job!


How did CNN and BBC have foreknowledge of the WTC7 collapse, yet five years later, the government cannot explain it?

The whole story, written really well...

like this one in TIKKUN a Jewish Magazine

DR Griffin The American Empire and 9/11

Editor’s Note: Because we at Tikkun are aware of extensive arguments that have appeared elsewhere against the perspective presented by the author of this piece, we debated long and hard about whether to present David Ray Griffin's argument here. We decided it was still important, given that if his view is true, the position he articulates would provide adequate grounds for impeachment of the president, grounds far more substantive than those that formed the basis of the impeachment by a Republican dominated Congress of President Bill Clinton. You are invited to give your responses to this piece.

Submit this as a news item

Joe, I think you should submit this as a news item here. This is not a small matter. Lots more people will read it if it is one of the news items, and/or a blog entry.

Assemble video evidence of WTC7 demolition

I'd like to second Robert Rice's suggestion that a well-linked and comprehensive account of this story be written up, with the added suggestion that such a story be accompanied by a comprehensive video stitching together the most salient and cogent evidence of WTC7's demolition, including Silverstein's gaffe, 911veritas' BBC clip, the Aaron Brown CNN clip, the firemen recounting the foundry-like conditions beneath the buildings, the clip of authorities sweeping bystanders away from the collapse zone, statements from EMTs and other on-scene personnel, an excerpt from one of Dr. Steven Jones presentations, et c. I think such a tableau would do much to convince the many people who've heretofore only viewed the great body of evidence as if through a prism, not realizing the harmony of the parts.

$50,000,000.00 Reward Offer for 9/11 Conspiracy Proof

Does this organisation

have a website?

Also it seems to be debunker's style of challenge, i.e. proof that it was not caused by islamic terrorists. This is like the either/or questions they like with no inbetween. For example - What if the hijackers were only patsies paid by neocon allies, that proves that it was a joint venture, does that count? etc etc

yes, very good point CJCRANE

yes, very good point CJCRANE !

Sorry, my sloppy mistake, I did not put in the entire reward offer link in my previous post !!

Here it is.

This seems more

like a PR stunt to me. Anyone who can afford $50M could afford a few thousand for a decent website and bespoke email address.

Also Bushco offered $25M for the capture of Osama and that didn't do much good.

When you're in the inner circle of any ideological group it will take a lot more than monye to break cover. We're talking about loyalty but also about the safety of you and your family. It's a lot to risk.


Hillary was in LA today. We need a way to keep track of these scoundrels. They're flyin' below the radar.

Spidered News UK

Open threads...

Hey, I kind of like the idea of an Open Thread being permenant... just a place to drop links and small stuff that isn't worthy of a full entry... and maybe bandy about some ideas. I think it should be a fixture and also it should show in reverse by default so the newest items are at the top.

Anyway... something I've been noticing of late is a concerted attack by the Left on 911 truth. I'll write a full piece on this later, but I think anyone who's been paying attention will agree just from memory. It smacks of collusion. The other side of the scale, which makes this almost funny is that Guiliani has pulled way ahead as the GOP frontrunner - and it's all due to his 9/11 reputation. I don't know who could possibly be better equipped to undercut, debunk and destroy that reputation than us truthers... and normally, I'd be interested in writing hit pieces on that guy on general principles alone, but as we've just been hit by a wave of Left based attacks I find myself wondering... why would we want to help them? It's time we started exerting some influence I think and twisting some arms.


Video of Ghouliani's Foreknowledge....

One question is this:

If he was told that "the WTC is going to collapse", why weren't the firemen told?

Why didn't HE tell them?

This needs to be asked everywhere.

I haven't studied this

I haven't studied this element of 9/11 but... is this where the comm equipment trouble comes into the picture?

Want to figure out 9/11? Ponder the 9/11 "Mineta Stone"

Attacking the Internet

60 Minutes Hit Piece

PLanting the seeds in people heads once again that if we are going to defeat the terrorists we must take control of the internet.

They are profiling a government paid internet disruptor who attacks jihadist websites.

They just said terrorists hacked a government site and was using it to host the terror film material??

This story is such a joke!

The internet is the number one place to recruit suicide bombers????...Yea right!

"I was thinking about killing myself because they have blown up my whole family"

- "Can you drive stick shift?"

Ignorance is NOT Bliss

We are the topmost threat to them

so, no surprises. The internet was originally conceived and funded to maintain communications even after a full-grown thermonuclear war. And now the MIC would love to be able to just pull the plug. Quite the Ironic twist of fate.

"I have need of Thee!
From the spirits that I called
Sir, deliver me!
Back now, tubes,
into the closet!
Be thou as thou
wert before!
Until I, the real master
call thee forth to serve once more!"

Excerpt from Goethe's "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" (Broom exchanged for tubes)

Whats missing here is the more "damaged" building

that didn't collapse,WTC 6. The one that was closer to the twin towers and received more damage from their collapse. I rarely see anything that pertains to WTC 6 being a threat for possible collapse. Most likely the reason for this is it did not have the type of sensitive offices that WTC 7 had, so no reason to mention it. It had more damage done to it, but no mention of it being a concern for collapse. Am I wrong here? The point I'm trying to assimilate here is if the focus is made on how WTC 7 is damaged and could collapse. "Pulling" it would not be the first thought people have in their mind about it. Rather the " it received enough damage from debris and fires and was believed it could collapse" reports would establish the Psy-op in the minds of people so they would not connect the resulting symmetrical collapse with controlled demolition. Prior to WTC 7's collapse though, there is no mention of WTC 6 of being in immenent danger of collapse. Only the AMEX is the other one mentioned.
Just My two cents.

The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles.

Peter Lance

Either a schill or this guy just doesn't get it.

I'm Guessing he's just a shill

He's on C-Span Book TV right now talking about his book "Triple Cross"
Ignorance is NOT Bliss

Peter Lance is certainly passionate about what He does

He certainly gives insight into the mindset of the FBI. He brings up good points about those involved who could be charged with obstruction of Justice by leaving out important information for the 9/11 commission. He did not say it directly, but the mindset of the FBI Heirarchy is to look over the shoulder of subordinates...To keep them concerned about procedures and not screw up. After time they would not be so apt to become whistleblowers because of this. It makes sense, since some people wonder why there hasn't been more to come forward.
As far as being a shill, I haven't made that decision on him yet.
But I do a lot of research involved with him, He is a valuable source of information.
In his book, Cover Up, the case of Greg Scarpa Sr. is the story of how the FBI and the U.S. Justice Department covered up a scandal involving R. Lindley DeVecchio, a retired SSA known as "Mr. Organized Crime." DeVecchio is charged with helping his informant commit four mob murders in the 1980's and early 1990's, accepting weekly payoffs totaling more than $66,000. His informant was Gregory Scarpa Sr., a notorious killer for the Colombo Crime Family, aka "The Grim Reaper," who was a Top Echelon (TE) informant for DeVecchio for many years.
This burial of evidence had the effect of suppressing loads of intelligence on an active al Qaeda cell in New York City and the possible connection between Ramzi Yousef, the original WTC bomber, and the downing of TWA Flight #800 on July 17th, 1996. But even more significantly, it kept secret a catastrophic blunder in which the FBI blew a chance in 1996 to apprehend Yousef's uncle, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in Doha, Qatar. KSM is the man the Bureau now calls "the mastermind of 9/11." If followed through by Congressional investigators, this could open up a possible new vein in the 9/11 investigation. Lance thinks this is possible. We shall see.

The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles.