Memo: Giuliani ignored warnings about WTC7 (nytimes.com)
AJFan Sat, 01/26/2008 - 5:01pm
Memo Details Objections to Command Center Site
By WILLIAM K. RASHBAUM
Published: January 26, 2008
The New York Police Department produced a detailed analysis in 1998 opposing plans by the city to locate its emergency command center at the World Trade Center, but the Giuliani administration overrode those objections. The command center later collapsed from damage in the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.
“Seven World Trade Center is a poor choice for the site of a crucial command center for the top leadership of the City of New York,” a panel of police experts, which was aided by the Secret Service, concluded in a confidential Police Department memorandum.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/26/us/politics/26emergency.html
- AJFan's blog
- Login to post comments
Nice leak
Nice of somebody to leak the memo during the election campaign. Rudi obviously has a lot of friends.
Took the opportunity to send the editor an email
"The site was completed in the summer of 1999 and was destroyed when the 47-story building at 7 World Trade Center collapsed on Sept. 11 after a fire there burned for much of the day."
NIST has - once again - postponed its report on the collapse of WTC 7. It must indeed be challenging to explain by random fires what corresponds to a skillful controlled demolition. Or do fires routinely cause steel-framed buildings to collapse symmetrically and without structural resistance in the New York Times world?
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
How come when I posted this
here I was criticized for suggesting it should be on the front page?
Anyway, the bombshell information here is at the end of the article (not included in this post):
"The memorandum sets out in detail the reasons why the Police Department concluded that the site was a poor choice for a command center, including its vulnerability to a biological attack and the ease with which a bomber could have damaged the building and crippled the center.
It has nine sections, the longest one headed “Explosives.” It describes a blast analysis conducted by the Police Department’s bomb squad, aided by the Secret Service, which looked at the likely impact of bombs of varying sizes, from one that could be carried in a car or a van to a large truck bomb.
The analysis, a standard practice used routinely to determine street closings when the president or another dignitary is in New York City, uses a computer system derived from the military and based on projections by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
It concluded that the largest of such bombs would have led to the collapse of the building."
I understand some will think this is limited hangout material, and maybe that's how it is intended. But I think it's pretty important to note that the Secret Service participated in a "blast analysis" that showed a bomb planted in the basement could topple the entire WTC7. This supports our contention that WTC7 was demolished. It may be used here as limited hangout because it suggests the building was vulnerable to collapse; however, I still think this is very important information.
Thanks for the heads up!
Thanks for the additional explanation, simuvac. I couldn't agree more. They're rather significant observations that further pull back the curtain on how things developed over the years.
Jerome Hauer, always turning up in close proximity, and Giuliani pointing fingers at each other, it's pretty interesting:
"In response to questions about the site selection, Mr. Giuliani has typically said he relied on his emergency management director, Jerome M. Hauer, to find the best site and suggested he had little role in the process.
Mr. Hauer, however, has publicly disputed Mr. Giuliani’s assertion, saying that although he helped pick the site, he did so only after mayoral aides had told him the command center had to be within walking distance of City Hall. He has said he originally recommended a site in Brooklyn."
I believe, both figures, understand far better than we do the importance of the site. It seems, neither wants credit for it! Yeah, it's a poor choice but their denials may imply more?
Good Stuff, thanks.
...don't believe them!
packed solid
>>"a confidential Police Department memorandum. The memorandum, which has not been previously disclosed . . ."
But notice, too, that the release for the NIST report on B7 is set for just one month before 9/11/08.
None of this is coincidence. And Guiliani is MIA in this election no matter how hard the MSM is trying to resurrect him, so this is clearly not aimed to take him out, but to plant the seed for B7's limited hangout "bomb" via the excuse of needing to take him out. If they wanted to only take him out, there are 1000 other ways to do it. But they kill 2 birds with one stone this way.
Notice too that they say:
"the likely impact of bombs of varying sizes, from one that could be carried in a car or a van to a large truck bomb," and then they say, "the largest of such bombs would have led to the collapse of the building."
So they are saying that if a LARGE TRUCK were PACKED with explosives, it would collapse the building.
Gee, can we name any building that would be assured to survive a LARGE TRUCKFUL of explosives?? And how would such a truck full of explosives have gotten in there, anyway?
They are covering all their bases. I'm counting on those on here to expose the easy finds . . .
NIST Projected Schedule of B7 Report:
1/08 Complete analysis of initiating event.
3/08 Complete analysis of global building response to initiating event.
4/08 Identify leading collapse hypothesis.
5/08 Complete draft reports for NIST Team review.
6/08 Revised draft reports transmitted for NIST level and NCST Advisory Committee Review.
7/08Release draft reports for public comment.
8/08 Release final reports on WTC 7 Investigation.
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTAC_December18(Sunder).pdf
Bombs vs. bombs
"So they are saying that if a LARGE TRUCK were PACKED with explosives, it would collapse the building."
I don't think the *way* in which WTC 7 collapsed can be explained by a random bomb in the basement, no matter how big. In my view, only CD can cause a symmetrical collapse straight down. A single bomb is very likely to topple a highrise.
Yes
Yes, they won't likely say it was a literal random bomb in the basement -- although who knows! -- but they will use this idea to hammer home the distortion that this was a "vulnerable" and "fragile" building, headed for disaster at the slightest thing -- even the bomb squad said so.
But when you take apart their evidence, you see how they are engaging the distortion -- they are using an example of something that would bring down ANY building -- so the distortion itself needs to be front and center to take it down before it spreads as "truth".