Giuliani foes hope 9/11 changes everything

Thanks to Eric for sending this in:,1,6708035.story?amp;ctrack=1&coll=la-headlines-nation&cset=true&ctrack=1&cset=true

Critics want to mar his hero image and hobble his candidacy by questioning his moves.
By Peter Wallsten, Times Staff Writer
April 8, 2007

WASHINGTON — Many Americans know Rudolph W. Giuliani only from his performance in the smoke and ashes of the Sept. 11 attacks on New York — a steely image that has propelled him atop the polls in the race for the Republican presidential nomination.

Now, some groups at the center of the 9/11 experience are laying aggressive plans to tarnish that image and undermine the central pillar of his candidacy.

Officials from a national firefighters union, along with some relatives of Sept. 11 victims, say they will publicly attack decisions Giuliani made as New York mayor before and after the terrorist strikes.

Among other complaints, they say that Giuliani failed to support modernized radios that might have spared the lives of more firefighters at the World Trade Center, and that he located the city's main emergency command center in the complex, even though it had been targeted by terrorists eight years earlier.

Giuliani aides say the accusations are baseless and driven by politically motivated unions with strong ties to Democrats.

So far, the International Assn. of Fire Fighters, the country's biggest firefighter union, says it will aim its anti-Giuliani effort at its own 280,000 members. But union President Harold A. Schaitberger said the group will also "stand ready" to support a much more public campaign by families of firefighters and workers who died in the World Trade Center.

Some organizers are comparing that potential campaign to advertisements by the group Swift Boat Veterans and POWs for Truth, which used personal testimonials from veterans to accuse 2004 Democratic nominee John F. Kerry of exaggerating his achievements as a Navy lieutenant in the Vietnam War.

Kerry disputed the claims, but many Democrats believed the Swift Boat group effectively pierced his image as a war hero and ultimately doomed his candidacy. "It might have the same effect [as the Swift Boat campaign], but our effort will be 100% accurate and truthful," Schaitberger said.

The union's actions are among several threats that could put Giuliani on the defensive in discussing the very aspect of his record that defines his national persona. Lawyers want to question the former mayor under oath as part of a federal lawsuit alleging that the city negligently dumped body parts and other human remains from ground zero in the Fresh Kills garbage facility on Staten Island.

Giuliani's testimony "could undercut his hero status," said Norman Siegel, the lawyer representing families who brought the suit. Siegel is also consulting with some families who have discussed forming a committee aimed at influencing the presidential race.

In a separate matter, one of Giuliani's most prominent political rivals, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), is considering calling the former mayor to testify before a Senate committee on whether the government failed to shield recovery workers from the effects of polluted air after the attacks.

The hearing could provide the unusual spectacle of one party's presidential front-runner questioning the other party's front-runner on an emotionally charged subject central to both of their campaigns.

Giuliani's televised news conferences and other actions after the Sept. 11 attacks helped him build an image as a cool and competent manager who counseled a frightened nation through unimaginable loss. That image has spurred his rise in surveys of Republican voters, acting as a counterbalance to his liberal positions on abortion, gay rights and other social issues, which typically disqualify a candidate in the eyes of conservatives.

But Giuliani has also left bitterness among the families of some Sept. 11 victims.

Representatives of some families said they have not yet decided whether to create a political organization but plan to speak out aggressively against Giuliani. The families are wary of being painted as overly political.

"This is going to be a war for truth," said Sally Regenhard, whose 28-year-old son, Christian, was one of 343 New York firefighters who died in the attacks. "I'll be speaking out as a mother and a parent."

Critics are considering ways to back up their claims with video footage, documents and perhaps audio from recently released emergency dispatch tapes — though no decision has been made whether they would create television ads with the material.

Anthony V. Carbonetti, a strategist for Giuliani who was also mayoral chief of staff and later a business partner, said Giuliani's presidential campaign would respond by showcasing Giuliani's long-standing relationships with rank-and-file firefighters and police officers.

The mayor opened firehouses, Carbonetti said, and pushed for new "bunker gear" that protected firefighters from intense heat. He attributed the union's anger to disagreements over city pay issues and partisan interests — the International Assn. of Fire Fighters was an early supporter of Kerry, the Democratic nominee, in the 2004 presidential campaign.

"The union is not the firefighters. You have to separate the two," Carbonetti said. "I don't think they'll have any success. The more we keep talking about Rudy's record, the more people will see how much he did to support all the uniformed services in the city."

Ghouliani says: "the World Trade Center is gonna collapse"

Ghouliani Tells: "the World Trade Center is gonna collapse"

This 2 minute video clip has Ghouliani admitting foreknowledge of demolition. It also has "Lucky Larry" Silverstein's "pull it" admission.

This clip should be sent everywhere.

The cbuilding was already

The building was already 'hit' when he made that admission wasnt it? or was it before? From the impression of the video I am thinking it was a while after the planes hit. or is he talking about WTC 7? Also where is the ABC bit about him being told to leave WTC 7?

Also, I am arguing on a forum about WTC 7 they say the Sliverstein quote is out of context. Does anyone have a link to the full clip cos i sure it is not but have never actually seen the whole clip.

"pull it"

Pull It' Explanation Examined
... be contained, Silverstein said "the smartest thing to do is pull it", and the fire ... State contends that Silverstein's "pull it" statement refers to withdrawing ...
Silverstein Answers WTC Building 7 Charges
Says "pull it" meant to evacuate firefighters, but there were no ... Silverstein told Smith that he "meant something else" by the "pull it" comment but ...
YouTube - WTC 7 Larry Silverstein
... billion dollar insurance policy, Larry Silverstein admits in a PBS special ... Pull it Re - revisited - type it into youtube. ... - 95k - Cached -
Larry Silverstein, WTC 7, and the 9/11 Demolition
A statement by Larry Silverstein indicates World Trade Center 7 was ... Silverstein said to the fire department commander "the smartest thing to do is pull it. ... - 20k - Cached -
Pull it! - 5k -
9-11 Research: Owner's Admission?
pull it,Silverstein's admission,WTC 7,pulling Building 7 ... The story that Silverstein assented to the demolition of WTC 7, based on an ... -
Killtown: Silverstein's First Public "Pull It" Response
Silverstein's First Public "Pull It" Response ... If that was the case, Silverstein would have said "pull them out", not "pull it" ...

All about the pull it quote

All about the pull it quote then.

The explosive would have had to be there before hand, they never would have had time to rig it.

Dont understand the quote from the mayor though. Unless he means before the planes hit. But being told it was going to collapse after the fires and the planes hitting. Thatt doesnt sound odd to me. Same with WTC 7 (not sure which building he is talking about, it could be the 2nd tower). Afer building had already fallen its seems to make sense they suspected others would fall.

Am I missing something?

It was hard watching that clip when you see the people fall out of the building. Sometimes I think we start to forget how shocking and horrible it all was


They had rigged those buildings to implode in 7 hours time.... I think they would have told us since no body died in the collapse. I think people would have been talking about how they accomplished this feat

as well as how and where they got the explosives to rig it in that time frame.



tell me who else would have gotten access to that building considering it's occupants.

They had the means and a motive that beats all motives..... and the banks were riding shotgun
Together in Truth!

They had to switch it to the

They had to switch it to the "pulling the firefighters" excuse once they realized that their original excuse of bringing down the building with explosives wasn't going to fly.

Even if it was humanly possible to rig a 47 story building up with explosives in 7 hours, think of the logistic nightmare it would be to truck in that many explosives into downtown New York after a terrorist attack.  The scumbags wisely backed away from this cover story.

On a somewhat related topic, remember those two water towers they brought down earlier in the year?  I have to think the transport of explosives for demolition must be highly regulated, and not just anybody can move that sort of cargo. 

Maybe thats why they brought down those water towers, that way they could get the necessary permits or whatever to get a large amount of explosives into the area, used a tiny bit of the explosives on the water towers, and put the rest into the twin towers.

Like I have always said

CDI is suspect!!!
Together in Truth!


experience only need apply

"While final decisions concerning the demolition were being made, CDI was contracted by the GSA to salvage sensitive government paperwork from the building prior to demolition."

What was the original story

What was the original story with WTC 7? I thought they always claimed it was a result of fire.


fire is what is claimed now. to date no one has been able to produce the context of the SIlevrstein "pull it" quote that would indicate without a doubt that he was talking about firefighters. in other words, what came before "I remember getting a call from the er fire department commander..."

What was the question he was asked? What was the set up for him to talk about it? And why doesn't he just have a press conference to lay to rest all this discussion?

I notice that some people are now trying to contact someone who they think MIGHT be the fire department commander he spoke with. Why not just ask Silverstein himself? If he has nothing to hide he should be all over the talk show circuit clearing up any misunderstanding.


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


The quote is far too vague.

The quote is far too vague. I am much more intrested into how the building fell so quickly.

Criminals are often vague when confronted about their crimes.

Oh, and criminals may lie at times, too. Hope this helps.

Show "The property owner was" by DHS

that's what they say now

But that's not at all what it sounds like in the segment from America Rebuilds, hence the desirability of some context for the quote...


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


that would be believable if

that would be believable if they werent all pulled from the building at 1pm...

or if Silverstein had any credibility...

check this out--

seems Larry has a bit of a shady past!


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


...or if building 7 had none of the

11 signs of a textbook controlled demolition.

Please list the 11 signs!

Thank you.

"But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."
~~ Dr. Shyam Sunder - Acting Director Building and Fire Research Laboratory (NIST)

I'll try

4.sudden onset
6.pyroclastic flows

Hm...8 ain't bad, is it? How about

9.special leaseholder
10."pull it!"
11. CDI involvement

interns < internets

According to the NYPost...

James Zadroga, "was in 7 World Trade Center when it started to collapse." He was a cop though, and not a fireman. And unfortunately, we can't ask him what happened because he passed away from the toxic dust.

"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

Do immaginary fire chiefs consult elderly shysters before

decided if/when to safely remove firefighters from a building? I don't think so!

(BTW, many reports stated that there were NO firefighters inside WTC-7 since the building was empty since the morning. Moreover, the NYC Fire Dept. does not implode buildings.)


This is the biggest load of crap i have ever read. The Author bases his conclusion solely on because they said so, instead of the logically proving his hypothesis. So many counterpoints were left out. The author states that the only evidence we have that says 7 was a controlled demolition was silverstein saying pull it. WHAT ABOUT THE FREEFALL SPEED NOT POSSIBLE WITHOUT EXPLOSIVES? Or the pools of molten metal that the fires could not have produced and th nist's reports blatantly ignoring them. ANYWAYS this article is great evidence to the propaganda and misinformation campaign the gov is using on the american people. Be strong openminded thinkers and stick to the facts

Oh please

Pulling a "contingent" or "brigade" of fightfightes:

Even the most eloquent linguist professors don't speak like that. Vagueness is not a common attribute of those with a mastery of the English language unless they're doing it on purpose. Anyone in the western world would have said "them", not "it" with regard to this "contingent" even though "it" would be grammatically correct. Nobody talks like this, folks....from the most colloquial to the most erudite and studied.

unless of course

they had been talking about "the contingent" right before he said it, in which case it would have been clear that "it" referred to the "contingent". Which is why he should be compelled to testify under oath as to everything he did that day (and more).

I'm going to be preparing a new blog post about it, but there is so much to Larry Silverstein that is never discussed--if you click on "tracker" above you can see my old blog post titled Lucky Larry's Lament, which I've added some thought provoking comments to...


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


Yeah, but even "if you pull a contingent of firemen" from WTC-7

the building then collapses as if on cue???

"They made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse"

(BTW, there were no firefighters in the building anyway.)

playing devil's advocate--literally :)

you're right about that--it really makes no sense and his statement was obviously scripted to be open to interpretation. pure hedging.

someone should try to contact, who made America Rebuilds...


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


The property owner...

...has said nothing, nada, zilch, zally, zip.

The explanation to which you refer was given by a spokesperson. This gives Larry an out. He has yet to clarify his statements made in the PBS documentary.

"But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."
~~ Dr. Shyam Sunder - Acting Director Building and Fire Research Laboratory (NIST)

They knew controlled demo

They knew controlled demo would eventually be exposed, so it is my opinion, that they were originally going to go with the "we pulled it" excuse. 

Hence Lucky Larry's statement on PBS, something steered them away from that method though, maybe when the BBC coverage wasn't discovered years ago like they thought it would have been. 

Its amazing it took over 5 years for that BBC coverage to come out, they must have been surprised as hell, and then decided that they could probably get away with just denying controlled demo, and "pulled" the controlled demo excuse.

Oh well, the BBC footage did come out, didn't it.Tongue out

perhaps... here is the state department's take on it...

Note how they mangle Silevrstein's actual comment... twice in two different ways! Again, the incredible thing about all of this is that Silverstein himself has never been asked to clarify his meaning in person (i.e. not through a spokeshill)

The Collapse of World Trade Center 7

Allegation: 9/11 Revealed suggests that the 47-story World Trade Center 7 building, which collapsed at 5:20 pm on September 11, was intentionally demolished. The primary piece of evidence for this is a comment that Mr. Larry Silverstein, who owned the World Trade Center complex, made on the September 2002 television documentary American Rebuilds. Mr. Silverstein said:

I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, “We've had such terrible loss of life that the smartest thing to do is just pull it.” And they made that decision to pull it and we watched the [World Trade Center 7] building collapse.

9/11 Revealed and other conspiracy theorists put forward the notion that Mr. Silverstein’s suggestion to “pull it” is slang for intentionally demolishing the WTC 7 building.

Facts: On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement on this issue:

Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology has stated unequivocally, “NIST has seen so evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition,” in its Collapse of WTC 7 report (p. 6). NIST’s working hypothesis for the collapse of WTC 7 is that it was caused by the collapse of a critical column due to “fire and/or debris induced structural damage.” There was substantial damage to WTC 7 when the nearby WTC 1 tower collapsed and fires began shortly afterwards. Also, WTC 7 was a very unusual building because it was built over an existing Con-Edison power generation substation, which contained two large 6,000 gallon fuel tanks for the emergency generation of power. The fuel from these tanks could have contributed to the intense heat that apparently weakened the supporting columns in WTC 7.


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



I have a friend who used to be in military intelligence, and he believes that Building 7 would have already been wired for demolition from the time of it's construction due to the sensitive nature of the various agencies that were housed there. Can anyone comment on the viability of this idea? Is there precedence for buildings to be pre-wired with explosives and to remain in that state for many years?
It doesn't seem safe or practical to me.

it's absurd, but some people are grasping

we've heard shills use the same explanation for the twin towers--pre-wired for demolition just in case...


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


You're Missing the Point

That's not necessarily shillery. The Towers were fitted with explosives upon construction because they were they were built for the purpose they ultimately served.
Plans and preparations for World domination are best laid well in advance, and the progress of history may just be far stranger and more occult than you seem to consider possible.

You have to ask yourself:

for what contingency?

It's almost like saying: Oh yea, all presidents have detonators implanted in their heads just in case -- and Kennedy was just about to catch the flu, so...

interns < internets

I understand that the idea

I understand that the idea itself is absurd; I totally agree. But what I want to know is: is it practical for a building that is pre-wired with explosives to be inhabited by tenants for years? Would that even be feasible from a liability standpoint? (OK, yeah, I know that's reaching - like these people would even consider liability to be an issue since clearly they already have the insurance co.'s in their pocket.) I know I wouldn't want to work in a building that was already wired for demolition. And what about the possibility of fire - what would that do to the explosives?

I need to be able to argue back effectively about what a stupid idea this is!

yes, a fire would spell disaster. nuff said.


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


Love the analogy!


I personaly do not believe

I personaly do not believe this theory, but I will say that in WWII they did build submarine bunkers with prepositioned explosives in case they lost the port.
Though I am not saying they build skyscrapers in Manhattan with the hostile takeover by another nation in mind, there is a precedent for building structures
with demolition in mind...
Again, NOT what i personaly believe happened in New York...

Similar comment...

NOT that I necessarily subscribe to "built-in demo charges" speculations...

but there are two very sound and historical perspectives worthy of keeping in mind. First, the at-time-of-build placed demo charges employed by bunker builders for the contingency of loosing a geographical location to the enemy, and at the push of a button, denying the enemy any possible use of the structure and its contents. Pretty basic example of forethought, with no implied malice on the part of planners and accumulation of requisite skills over the decades at least since, and likely before, WWII.

The second, which I can only invoke logic (absent documentation proofs, not being in the field myself), would be a perfectly innocent exercise of envisioning the inevitable need to demolish a structure one hundred years later when it's outlived its appeal. How to, where to place... knowing intimately the engineered loading by the original designers, such people are logically well suited to define a future demolition strategy. At the time of design and build, seems also a good time to [possibly] allow for access to load points, conduits and so forth... perfectly innocent, however this kind of information and blueprinting should naturally be considered 'sensitive' and NOT appropriate for filling with the city in public record.

Yet it would seem to me, to set up a strange dynamic between municipality, owner, insurer, and 'in the dark' occupants... non-the-less... this hardly strikes me as outside the realms of possibility, and even probabilistically arguable. Pretty valuable drafts, if a person ever wanted to quickly finish out the demo riggings and make the final connections, to a button.

The above is all purely academic, and has no barring on the actionability of criminal proceedings against un-trustworthy civil servants. We can march on, regardless.


"that is what the military does when there is nothing else to do." -911truthiness

'Probabilistically arguable?'

'...this hardly strikes me as outside the realms of possibility, and even probabilistically arguable.'

Yet still grasping, for all that.

Don't get me wrong--I'm trying to read each of these attempts at finding plausibility in the 'built-with-detonation-in-mind' contention, but I always wind up thinking:

Not bloody likely!!!

"Not bloody likely"?

Built with 'demolition', in mind.

This should not be confused with what would be bloody unlikely that being charges, explosives and/or incendiaries long "in place".

I was talking about the wholly practical task of original designers calculating [where] [if] [how to] and simply accommodating for such a logical eventuality... is that the part you find 'not bloody likely'? Probabilistically arguable, I still say. Forgive the word wrangling if you must.


"that is what the military does when there is nothing else to do." -911truthiness

And who would underwrite...

the stability or instability of any explosives pre-planted?

No one in their right mind. That's why it's preposterous.

Knowing where to place them is another story. Still, there is a heightened level of risk that the information could get into the wrong hands.

My little fire department does pre-planning in our response area. We note where all identifiable hazards are located on any given property. For us, this includes propane tanks, power lines, fuel storage, and sometimes ammunition. :-) This is for our own safety. If we git kilt, we caint help no one.

Find a firefighter who has been briefed on pre-planted demolition explosives in ANY building in the private sector anywhere. I've never heard of it. And as a firefighter, I know that I wouldn't want to go into a seriously burning structure that had them either.

Recall the firefighters in the film "9/11" discussing the explosions that they heard, "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, it was like they had detonators or something." To me, that sounds more like firefighters who were surprised at what they heard, rather than dismissive because it was something to be expected? What would the limits on liability be if a building owner failed to inform the fire department that a burning building contained pre-planted demolition explosives?

I would like to see the pre-planning that FDNY had for WTC 7. I'm particularly
interested in seeing a discussion therein of a possible BLEVE, Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion, involving the two 6,000 gallon diesel tanks that, according to NIST, were a part of a pressurized delivery system.

"But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."
~~ Dr. Shyam Sunder - Acting Director Building and Fire Research Laboratory (NIST)

Yes! Plus I'm sure that NYC building codes don't allow

dangerous, volatile things to be present in an office building, like a powder-keg just waiting for disaster! (And there weren't only gov't offices in WTC-7, btw! Thousands of different folks worked in and visited that building daily!)

On the topic of diesel fuel...

You mention the diesel fuel.

In the scenario by Manuel Garcia, so ably debunked by Kevin Ryan, the large quantity of diesel was what melted the steel columns of WTC 7.

I wonder if Garcia ever drives in a diesel truck. Even if he never does, I wonder how he would explain the fact that (steel) motors do not melt, despite constant and intimate contact with exploding diesel fuel?

Built in explosives

Thermate built in to the framework of the building thirty years ago? Stephen Jones research would indicate that such a cutter technology was not available until the 90's:

BYU's Jones describes a discovered patented device specifically designed for Thermite cuts of large objects, during a June 7, 2006 interview on the Alex Jones radio program:

"A patent back to the 1990's, which shows a cylinder ... you pack the cylinder with thermate or thermite ... specifically stated to be used as a cutting device based on thermite ... the molten iron shoots out of this groove in a line ... the patent specifically says this is designed to cut through thick materials"

its a disgrace...

that Rudy's even a candidate for president. if he becomes president im buying a pair of ice skates and moving to Canada. i dont wanna move to Canada!

"Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th;
malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty."

-George W. Bush November 11, 2001

I'll leave the country

I've said I would do the same thing if Rudy becomes President. But, I don't think Canada is far enough.

Regarding Seven

My theory is that 7 was rigged with explosives and was supposed to come down just after the North Tower came down, and the clouds of dust and smoke were obscuring lower manhattan. Then they could say that the tower falling caused 7 to go down too. No video evidence (or very little) and a somewhat plausible story. Little to no questions for them to deal with regarding 7 directly. Problem was when the time came to pull the plug on 7, something failed. Now you're stuck with a building thats rigged with explosives. That might be no problem in other circumstances, just send in covert teams to further hide or remove the evidence, but much more needed to be destroyed in 7, 7 had to go down regardless of what questions it would raise later. They fixed the problem and at 5:20 pm, mission accomplished.

Thats my theory anyway.

Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB

we know some explosives went off before 5:20

I forget his name but there's the guy in 911 revisited who is saying to the reporter something like: "I was on the eigth floor with Mr. Hess of the corporation council... big explosion--blew us back into the eigth floor."

He and Mr. Hess both claim amnesia from PTSD now, or something weird like that...


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



that is the somewhat heavy-set african-american gentleman's clip that shows up in a lot of the 911 documentaries, and yet none of them mention that his comment is regarding building 7.

Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB

I got his name from a Spanish book on 9/11

but I lent it out...

here is some interesting info about his buddy Michael Hess, the Corporation Counsel for New York City, and subsequent managing partner at.... drum roll....

Giuliani Partners! read all about it:

Man this sht is sick.... [EDIT]

OK here he is--Barry Jennings

7. After the initial blast, Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, re-ported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell," Jennings said.


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


more on Michael Hess - whoa!

Mr. Hess is a founding Partner and Senior Managing Director of Giuliani Partners LLC. Mr. Hess served as the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York under Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani. As the chief lawyer for the City, he supervised a Law Department of over 1,500 staff, including 700 attorneys. The Law Department is among the largest public law offices in the nation. In addition to litigating thousands of trial and appellate cases, the Corporation Counsel's Office performs the legal work for the municipal finance, real estate, and economic development projects of the City.

Mr. Hess commenced his career in the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. There he rose to Chief of the Civil Division, representing the United States in numerous major cases, including the Pentagon Papers case against the New York Times. Prior to serving as the City's head lawyer, Mr. Hess was a senior partner in three prominent New York City law firms, practicing in such areas as litigation, antitrust, bankruptcy, securities, finance, and commercial law.

In addition to practicing law, Mr. Hess has extensive business and management experience. Serving as a trustee appointed by the federal government, he operated the S&A Concrete Company, one of the largest concrete and construction businesses in the City. With Mayor Giuliani, he also supervised the revitalization of New York City’s Off-Track Betting Corporation, turning it around from a losing enterprise to one of the most valuable OTBs in the nation. Mr. Hess is a Phi Beta Kappa, magna cum laude graduate of Yale College. He also graduated from the Harvard Law School, which recently awarded him a Wasserstein Fellowship. He has lectured at the Yale School of Management and at many prominent law schools including Harvard, Yale, Columbia, New York University, and Fordham. In addition, Mr. Hess served for seven years as the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of New York’s Horace Mann School in Riverdale.


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

Skull and Bones, perhaps?

It would be hard to write something this juicy.

The perps days are numbered.

Keep pressing for truth, brothers and sisters!

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

If the two towers were

If the two towers were rigged wouldnt the explosion years ago have set them off? I dont buy the pre-rigged thoery but I am not sure how, in WTC 7, it feel so quickly.

Also not sure why they would want to bring it down, The Two Towers were the big ones. Why bring down 7?

WTC 7 is VERY intresting

ask yourself what was

ask yourself what was actually IN WTC7 then ask why "they" would want to bring it down.


A dick filling suit against some lone-off company, for his looses in the scheme to take over the world, because sad company used lesser quality rigging in Building C.


"that is what the military does when there is nothing else to do." -911truthiness

I don't buy...

that any of these buildings were pre-rigged from construction, I believe that it was done during the months leading up to 9/11 - just for the record.

Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB


Earlier today I typed "firefighter" into a search, came up with a variety of groups and orgs, then via their contact sent them the Giuliani foreknowledge Video clip. It wouldn't hurt for others to do so also.

Congressman Charles Rangel was on a Dallas PBS Radio Talkshow today.

I got through and said, " Congressman Rangel, you are well aware that there is about 20% of Americans that now know that 9/11 was a False-Flag Psy-op orchestrated by elements within our own government. My question to you is: When the full truth comes out, will it be your position that you had no idea?

He answered: "No, I know about the PNAC document "....then he went on to talk about how we would not have went to war had it not been for 9/11. All in all his answer was kind of unclear. and not the answer that I wanted.

If I can get the audio I will post it.

Rangel and $ilverstein

Rangel, Charles B

Rangel, Charles B

Rangel, Charles B


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


Off-topic: Dutch documentary on AIPAC

Off-topic: last week, a very, very interesting documentary was broadcast in The Netherlands (on Dutch national tv, yet mostly in English) on the influence of the Israeli lobby and AIPAC in the US, identical Israeli/US foreign policy etc. Here's a direct link to the streaming video file: Perhaps someone can spread this around on American websites...
More info on this current Dutch series of documentaries related to the Middle East at

EDIT: I just found it on Google Video as well, see Quality could be improved though... any volunteers?

Instead of...

spamming each topic with this, why not create a new blog entry so everyone sees it? I am a moderator on another forum and this type of multiple posting is usually met with a n00b slap.

Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB

-whatever, but thanks for

-whatever, but thanks for the tip!