We Are Change UK - Phil Hayton and WTC7

Members of We Are Change UK interview ex BBC World presenter, Phil Hayton. Enjoy!

OK . . splain that Lucy

WTC 7 Foreknowledge

Over an hour before the WTC 7 demolition at 4:10pm, Aaron Brown reports - "building 7, in the wtc complex, is on fire and has either collapsed, or is collapsing".

BBC Reported Building 7 Collapse 20 Minutes Before It Fell
WTC 7 - Pull It By Larry Silverstein

Good video!

Mr Hayton seems sincerely interested..


Can We Are Change supply that address for Hayton? He is obviously lying, but maybe he would say where he got the news from. That is the crucial issue. Other pre-announcements of the WTC 7 collapse seem clearly traceable to Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management (cf. Griffin, 9/11 Contradictions), where it should also be pursued.

Watch his face for the tell

he isn't a sociopath


good job! seen a lot of liars in my day and he's either a master liar or he really just read what was on the teleprompter that day and went on with his life.... can't wait for a follow up on this after he's seen the info you send..

the following isn't a personal rant against you guys....this is in general...

one thing I've suggested again and again to the movement : bring a small video device (ipod, portable dvd player, laptop) with the footage your confronting the person on. Every single time these goons are confronted like this, they just say "I don't know" ..."I'm not aware" ..."your info is wrong" ... and then a video is created of the confrontation with the conspiracy footage edited in... now I know this questioning was done in private, but most are in public.... when it's in public and there are tv cameras around with many people, I think it would be much more productive to prove the person is lying on the spot.... because if not, then the last word that makes the news is "your info is wrong".... having them busted on the spot means the news reports the lying and the final video for the truth movement has the look on their face as they're looking at the proof... remember, for the most part, it's the news that gets out to the people who aren't woken up yet, not our videos...

I'm gathering the feathers...who's got the tar??!!!!!

Totally agreed

We have the technology!

He should have been able to see himself delivering the goods for the NWO overlords of hell. He seemed amazed by the UK Wearechange people - who did an excellent job with their informed, polite, and erudite questions.

More awesome stuff, I am constantly impressed by many many people involved with 9/11 Truth!!!

Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence.

~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Not a liar

Guys, what motive would this guy have to lie? I mean really. He may work for the media, but that does not make him complicit in such a crime in any way. We don't know anything about this guy, his politics or anything. Making leaps like this is what is wrong with 9/11 research.

Can somebody direct me to the BBC's official explanation? Thanks.
I'm really glad we are change found Phil Hayton and asked him, very well done on their part.

As regards the building 7 collapse, another dutch expert said that it wasn't a controlled demolition. Also, Josiah Thompson (author of 'six seconds in Dallas') was contracted by an insurance company to investigate how building 7 fell and I am satisfied with his explanation.

To say that no credible explanation has been put forward etc is just not very good research, all that means is that it was not available on the internet.

I'm all for a new investigation and I think that there is something extremely wrong with what happened that day, but I do not see anything suspicious with the collapse of any of the buildings. I think that the problem with the research on this topic is that for every book on the subject, there are 5 documentaries, most of which are worthless.

9/11 truth talks about infiltration, take a look around guys, you have former military men, ex Reagan admin officials, ex MI5, ex CIA, Thierry Maison and a whole host of others from the right. I must say that it feels to me that the research is being steered by one sector towards building collapse-something that I don't think is suspicious. It's like studying the events in Dealey Plaza for the last 40 years and talking about photo trickery endlesssly. Once you can prove that Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy you move out of the plaza and follow the leads on Oswald. The real research is Nafeez Ahmed, Peter Dale Scott etc. We know something is wrong. Regardless of whether you think there was a CD or not, proving it does not give you any good leads, finding who was behind the hijackers does.

Just my two cents friends. Once again, thanks for the video, this is an example of good research.


John, I think Hayton is not lying as well.

Here is the BBC's denial; "official explanation"

If I'm not mistaken, Thompson bases his belief in what happened at WTC7 upon as yet unreleased research by PSEs retained by Con Ed for a lawsuit that is still in production. At least, nobody I know can find evidence released to the public as disclosure, as part of a filed lawsuit. He can't reveal specifics about their research, but from my conversation with Thompson, early last month, he said that the NIST explanation of "single-column" failure is pretty much the path that the PSEs are travelling.

It's fair to note that since there was nobody in the building immediately preceding the "collapse", what happened on the inside is speculation, professional experienced speculation, extrapolated from observation of the exterior, to be sure, but still speculative.

Even Thompson admits that the "collapse" looks just like a CD. And it does.

(Photo-trickery. Jack White somehow found time for 9/11, not sure if you knew about that;
http://www.911studies.com/ )

Just to be fair, Josiah is a former military man himself;

"JOSIAH THOMPSON has studied as Oxford, the University of Copenhagen, and Yale, where he completed his B.A., M.A. and Ph.D. degress with time out for a two-year hitch as a naval officer (in 1958, when the Marines landed in Lebanon, he commanded the UDT detachment charged with beach reconnaissance). He has been an Instructor in the Yale Philosophy Department..." - (from Six Seconds book flap.)

UDT: Underwater Demolition Team.

Jesse Ventura is a former SEAL, and of course, SEALs conduct UD as part of their training. He thinks CD is entirely probable on 9/11.

Nafeez Ahmed acknowledges the possibility of CD, but leaves speculation to the scientists.

Peter Dale Scott co-edited 9/11 and American Empire;

...which is very friendly to the possibility of CD. Sadly, the book has a chapter by Morgan Reynolds, a "former" Bush man. (Luckily he just talks about the good old days with Robert Gates.)

People have followed the leads on Oswald for many years, and been misdirected many times. For instance, with false leads to Cuba and the KGB. Who supplied these leads? Western intel would be my guess. Who supplies the most detailed info on the alleged hijackers? Establishment friendly writers like Lawrence Wright, Steve Coll, and Peter Lance. Coll in particular had unusual (exceptional) access to the CIA, yet somehow never noted any drug connections. How could that possibly be? Wright provides us with the story that Al-Qaeda was a term in use for years before anyone used it publicly, allegedly because some reporter found some "notes" stored on an old PC. Dodgy, I say, dodgy! I think Adam Curtis is correct, and the term was coined much later.

I'll be much more accepting of hijackers, as opposed to "hijackers", when verifiable surveillance tapes are released showing Atta and the nasty 19 actually boarding the allegedly hijacked planes.

As far as defining Al-Qaeda, I am in agreement with Ahmed;

“It has no existence as an independent concrete entity. It designates a highly developed category of Western covert operations designed to secure destabilization through the creation, multiplication, mobilization, and manipulation of disparate mujahideen groups. The evidence suggests that this was certainly the case on 9-11.”

"Western" is kind of open-ended, but I think Ahmed means CIA/MI6, although there is evidence that MI5 uses them too, and it appears that the old links between CIA and GID apply to Al-Qaeda, and let's not forget ISI.

Compared to JFK research, 9/11 is truly nascent. We can learn from others that have preceded us.

I'm at a loss for words

"I do not see anything suspicious with the collapse of any of the buildings"

You can't be serious.


Apparently you don't see anything suspicious about the way WTC 7, for example, has been investigated either?

First destroy practically all the debris without examination. Some of the four pieces that were saved for investigation reveal "intergranular melting" and further investigation is called for. NIST doesn't like the idea. So what they start doing is speculate. For years and years and years... And that is absolutely worthless, because the reason for the collapse could have been determined by simply *investigating* the debris.

Show "Also" by johnlepo


You can watch the very building identified as building 7 collapse later on, from the exact same vantage point.

Good, simple, brief, straightforward, patient response

Good, simple, brief, straightforward, patient response by Reprehensor.
A good example for us all.

Here's the video, John...


There is a better (newer) one, but I don't have it handy. Anyone else?

Same building as abc reported from ..

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
"Listen carefully now : DO NOT DESTROY OIL-WELLS" Dubya

Fire Department Didn't Blow up Building 7

Larry Silverstein said:"...and they made the decision to pull...".He's talking about the New York City Fire Department.Are we still under the delusion that the NYFD blew up Building 7? Having an active imagination is one thing,but to believe that is bizarre.There is already enough suspicion surrounding this event without putting words into people's mouths.Yes,it appears to be a controlled demolition.No,Silverstein didn't confess to blowing it up,in cahoots with the NYFD,no matter how much anyone tries to twist his words.Let's make Kevin McPadden our video poster boy for this issue,he has something more substantial:the countdown.It seems that Larry is just a babbling schnook.

If Silverstein talked to someone...

it wasn't the FDNY man of the day, Daniel Nigro;

Silverstein knew

ae - my take on Silverstein for what it's worth.
None of the attempts to explain away his "pull it" comment sound coherent or convincing to me. He is evidently speaking about the building and not the emergency crew.

Watch his confrontation with "We Are Change": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtPC0W4HII8

Unlike Phil Hayton he does not look like a man who is telling the truth. Indeed, he refuses the opportunity to explain himself.

I don't jump to the conclusion that because he said he pulled it, therefore he pulled it. It seems probable though that he had foreknowledge. So why would he apparently confess to demolishing it? Context. The documentary "America Rebuilds" inevitably placed WTC7 before a prime time audience most of whom were not previously aware of it. Unlike the 9/11 Commission, they chose not to pretend the tower never existed, but by stating it was pulled, Silverstein very effectively directed attention away from it. Building 7? I recall something about it collapsing... Ah - it was deemed unsafe, so Silverstein had it pulled. No mystery, no need to look further. Of course, to the small minority who had already looked further it would be another red flag. These people are clever - they're much more concerned about mass perception. So far the calculation has worked and the wall between internet awareness and the mainstream news machine is unbreached.

I believe Giuliani was employing the same technique when he said "...the way buildings usually collapse, which is in stages... The way number 7 came down... over a period of time ". Red flag to us - Giuliani pretending the building didn't implode. To everyone else - 7 fell in an 'ordinary' fashion, so no need to look further.

Giuliani in on scam

Cognito,it's very intriguing,what you say,but it just defies logic to think that Silverstein would 'fess up well into the coverup phase.I mean,it's in a documentary that is perpetrating the myth that fires and plane crashes brought down the three buildings.Wouldn't PBS or whoever put this film together scrap the clip after getting a load of Larry blowing the story,if he indeed had made such a faux pas?I don't think so.It's not evident that "pull it" means the building.It could mean the operation,which did include search and rescue near Building 7.Pull and pulling are common firefighting terms as a perusal of the oral testimonies of the NYFD show. Now ,on the other hand,Giuliani's comment about Building 7 and the quotes elicited by We are Change(in their greatest moment) at the airport ,clearly show an attempt to obfuscate and deceive.He totally contradicts his earlier statement that he was told the Towers would come down.That's much more incriminating than Larry's words. Reprehensor,I don't think it's terribly important who he was talking to (he didn't say in that program).It's just too far to go to think he would just blurt out the real story and ruin the coverup.Was the controlled demolition option really in the arsenal of the NYFD at that point and they utilized it? Seems implausible to me.

Not if he didn't realize he was blowing the cover story

It's quite possible that, at the time he made the "pull it" comment, Silverstein didn't see it as defying logic, because he may not have realized the larger political implications of making such an admission. (In that sense, he may have not seen it as any kind of "admission" at all.) He hadn't necessarily thought through the fact that controlled demolition takes weeks to months to plan and set up, and that skeptics of the official explanation would catch onto that. It could simply have been careless thinking on his part.

Even the smartest and most experienced people make colossal goofs sometimes. That's one reason why savvy investigators and interrogators work diligently to catch people in their lies.

All this applies to the PBS producers. Indeed, unlike Silverstein, who knows much about real estate development matters, it may not have occurred to them that controlled demolitions can't be set up on very short notice. So it may only have been after the PBS "documentary" aired that word came in that Silverstein made a comment included in it that undermines the official line.

By that time it was too late. Is it not true that PBS has never repeat broadcast this documentary and does not make it available on DVD and videotape? (PBS documentaries from the last decade generally are available, so, if my impression is correct, it speaks volumes that this one isn't. Similarly, it would be unusual for PBS to not repeat broadcast any documentary that has garnered an unusual amount of attention.)

Most Interesting

'We Are Change' are doing fantastic work. Small correction - it was FEMA, not NIST that conceded their hypothesis had a low probability of occurring. Anyway, both employed several of the same authors. Phil Hayton seems genuinely shocked. I take two things from this episode. 1. the collapse of WTC7 was anticipated well ahead of its occurrence. There's ample other evidence of this fact anyway. The arguments really revolve around why and by whom it was anticipated. 2. The BBC (and other channels) all parrot a single source. This has become increasingly evident since 9/11. Who was CNN's source?

News channels experience precognition, fighter jets can't be scrambled, the Commander in Chief refuses to command, steel framed buildings implode, aircraft de-materialize upon impact with the ground and the Pentagon. Is that what they meant when they said 9/11 changed the world?

Point 2 well-taken

Building 7 got me interested in 9/11 Truth. Building 7 will get out us out of the nightmare (no countdown required!)

Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence.

~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Phil Hayton = U.K. Ted Knight?

Maybe, I'm gullible, but Hayton impresses as just a talking head who delivered the news? Hayton may very well been following his teleprompter and never knew WTC 7 was still standing?

On the other hand, Hayton may be playing coy, if so, he's a good actor? It's a great confrontation. I appreciate moments captured such as this--very interesting!

It's obvious some of the choreography of the day was off and Lucky Larry spoke before consulting his script.

...don't believe them!

Consulting the script

"Lucky Larry spoke before consulting his script"

On the contrary. It seems he was consulting his script closely (see my post above). Remember, he did not make this comment until the dust had settled in 2004. I believe it was carefully crafted and delivered to serve the purpose of obfuscation.

Other things to note about Silverstein:

On 9/11 he cancelled his habitual breakfast at the Windows on the World restaurant, located on the World Trade Center's north tower
(Wall Street Journal, May 12, 2007)

His daughter also missed her appointment in the WTC that morning.

In the category of hearsay - "We talked to their private security staff, we talked to people who were there with Larry on 9/11 - they said he got a phone call telling him not to show up to work and he called his daughter up and his daughter also never showed up to work," (Luke Rudkowski)

Also worth researching: Sliverstein's connections
and the particulars of his financial and insurance arrangements at WTC prior to 9/11.


"Remember, he did not make this comment until the dust had settled in 2004."

He made the comment in September 2002 in the America Rebuilds program.


Sorry, yes, it was 2002 - the dust had barely settled.

"a documentary that is perpetrating the myth that fires and plane crashes brought down the three buildings"
Does it actually refer to the fire bringing down WTC7? I don't recall.
It is available on VHS and DVD from PBS and elsewhere. I'll rewatch it.

This clip is on youTube describing the "molten steel" and 2800 degrees fires: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udAN-I_q4y4

Good Points, Cognito, Vesa

Cognito, you are probably close to the truth on the intent to obfuscate with the 'pull it' remark by Silverstein.

Let me understand, he's providing an explanation as to why WTC 7 came down to placate or even derail any further inquiry by those less inclined to think for themselves and willing to accept what is provided at face value?

Was it possibly paranoia on the parts of the perps? They anticipated more questions?

Vesa, thanks for the correction.

* * * *

Now, how about the later remarks which refer to 'pull it' as supposedly the evacuation of firefighters from WTC7?

Why not just stick to the original script?

At some point, Silverstein has been informed of the gap in his 'pull it' story if it refers to demolition? Questions on how the demolition took place the same day would certainly follow? It seems to be a misstep on Silverstein's part even if the statement did occur in 2002? If demolition took place in WTC7 it is only a glance across the WTC complex to revisit "the collapses" of 1 and 2, isn't it?

"On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement [on the issue of Larry Silverstein's "pull it" comment]:

...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. [US Department of State]"

Cognito, what' s your take on this? I accept your assertion the perps are more concerned about shaping the opinion of the masses with their input, but how does this later statement work for them? I suspect Silverstein misspoke and didn't adhere to the structurally unsafe WTC 7 script.

Silverstein's statements prove he's fallible and may be a reason he didn't respond recently to inquiries sent in his direction? He can't trust himself?

...don't believe him!

Change the script to match the audience

Full quote:
I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

The inescapable meaning is "maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull (i.e.. demolish) the building." The syntax of the statement requires it and the visual context of the collapsing building reinforces it. The final sentence in which "the decision to pull" is followed without elaboration by "and we watched the building collapse" implies the collapse was an inevitable, foreseeable consequence of "the decision to pull". If it was a decision to pull firefighters out of the building or away from the vicinity he would have said something like "they made that decision to pull and a few hours later the building collapsed". The use of the expression "pull it" rather than "pull the building" or "demolish it" provides a degree of plausible deniability.
Try an empirical test - show the YouTube clip above to an unprimed audience (still not hard to find) and ask "what is Silverstein saying?"

"he's providing an explanation as to why WTC 7 came down to placate or even derail any further inquiry by those less inclined to think for themselves and willing to accept what is provided at face value?"

Correct. A documentary about rebuilding the WTC could not easily forego a résumé of what was destroyed and how. It was therefore obliged to break a convention by re-showing the collapse of WTC7. A year after 9/11, with the horrors and chaos of that day no longer suppressing critical thought, that extraordinary footage demanded some sort of deflecting device. For most viewers, this would be the first they heard about WTC7. So just before they see it they're seeded with the notion they're watching an officially sanctioned controlled demolition.

The PBS documentary doesn't seem to be the only source of this meme. Demolition expert Danny Jawenko says "I'm sure I've heard in the journal that it's been imploded". Senator Kerry when quizzed about Silverstein and WTC7 says "I think that they made a decision based on the danger it had of destroying other things that they did it in a controlled fashion."

Thus far this technique of misdirecting majority opinion has worked. Yes, it caused huge controversy on the internet but not a murmur in the mainstream media (save perhaps the odd reference within the context of those 9/11 conspiracy loons).

Probably the perpetrators underestimated the online appetite for intensively scrutinizing such matters, however, they did not underestimate the mainstream media's readiness to do the opposite. Silverstein's spokesman is eventually forced to deploy the "plausible denial" in answer to persistent questions on the internet from those who spot the problem. But this damage limiting exchange takes place within the confines of "9/11 conspiracy" cyberspace.

Did Silverstein play a part in the demolition? That much is hidden. Contrary to what is sometimes said, it is perfectly congruous that the owner of the building would consult the fire chief prior to a demolition decision. In fact it would be mandatory. Jawenko's comments about fortune-saving decisions made quickly and secretly by interested parties on such occasions is instructive.

Giuliani said on 9/11: "We were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse."
Why admit to foreknowledge? He's deflecting suspicion from the collapses by implying they were an inevitable and unsurprising consequence of the plane strikes - so much so that certain unnamed authorities expected collapses. Most of us swallowed it at the time. He can count on no tough questions like "how did they know" or "why didn't you warn the firemen". When he's challenged years later the script becomes "I didn't realize the towers would collapse".

Again, exactly what he knew prior to the 9/11 is hidden, but his behaviour during and after is deeply suspicious.

"The Giuliani administration official who led the rapid cleanup of ground zero after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks now works for the private construction firm overseeing the troubled demolition of the former Deutsche Bank building." New York Sun 29 Aug 2007

Great work!

This is priceless footage. I only wish they would've asked Phil Hayton who told the BBC that Building 7 had collapsed 25 minutes before it actually did.