That is an important piece of info you got from that lady. Amazing. If this issue is further investigated, it could be another major selling point for people to see that this was an inside job. I mean, I know we already have more than enough facts on our side while they only have lies and a stupid theory! Just having one more nail to add to their coffin would be great!
Thanks for sharing your story.

In the afternoon of 9/11 a reporter for NBC or CBS was in the lobby of WTC7. Apparently, he had daringly crossed police lines to take a look into the building (which, by the way, further nullifies Larry Silverstein's quote explained as having firefighters "pulled" from the building because the reporter said the building was empty). In retrospect he was obviously a stooge to set up the notion of the WTC 7 collapse. The oddest thing was that he stood in the lobby and his cameraman was shifting the camera back and forth to simulate the building's instability while the reporter was saying he could hear the building squeaking as if it was about to collapse. He was definitely strange because no squeaking was heard and they were on the ground floor which could not possibly be shifting back and forth as dramatically as the camera tried to show. Another important note was that the lobby was blown out just like the WTC towers' lobbies. The windows had been blown out and things had been rattled off the walls, probably because of sub basement explosions. I have searched for this news cast over the years to no avail. I had also sent email request to all of the networks asking for a list of all the newscasters working ground zero; no one answered me. Does anybody else remember it?

... brought down, shouldn't we be in a hurry asking her where she got this information?

Where are the private detectives we need?

North Texans for 911 Truth (new site)
http://tellstruth.webs.com/index.htm
North Texans for 911 Truth Meetup Site
http://9-11.meetup.com/249/

I remember that I urged her to check into it. I wonder if she did. Because she was really a nice person I only told a few of my friends about it. At the time I thought the thing would surely be blown wide open by other more significant revelations. I told myself the truth would be revealed without publicizing this little chat. I also thought there was a possibility that she would be inspired to investigate the issue and maybe even write a story about her findings.

I guess I also had concerns about bringing the spotlight down on anyone. I don't think she was "in the know" about the inside job. I think she just believed they could set up a controlled demolition more quickly than they really can. She was just in the mainstream haze, like so many are.

I distinctly remember making notes about this meeting, but I thought that I saved it as a Stickies file. Earlier this year I tried to back up my hard drive to my outboard hard drive. I didn't do it properly. I mistakenly thought that you just dragged and dropped files into the backup drive willy nilly. As a result I lost all my Stickies files.

Well I just searched my back up hard drive and found my notes after all. I actually made the notes as an Apple Works word processor file.
The file is dated 3//4/07. On the page I have typed March 1, 2007, so I guess I made the notes or edited the notes on 3/4/07. I was surprised that my memory was even correct on the fact that it was over a year ago, even though just barely. I was wondering as I opened the file whether I may have missed on the specific time frame. It could have just as easily been less than a year ago, but I just knew it had been a long while.

I am trying to post my notes here, but I don't know how to post a .cwk file. Could someone help me on this?? I am using Mac OS 10 Panther and a Safari browser. I want to get this page up as soon as possible.

Thanks.

I distinctly remember making notes about this meeting, but I thought that I saved it as a Stickies file. Earlier this year I tried to back up my hard drive to my outboard hard drive. I didn't do it properly. I mistakenly thought that you just dragged and dropped files into the backup drive willy nilly. As a result I lost all my Stickies files.

Well I just searched my back up hard drive and found my notes after all. I actually made the notes as an Apple Works word processor file.
The file is dated 3//4/07. On the page I have typed March 1, 2007, so I guess I made the notes or edited the notes on 3/4/07. I was surprised that my memory was even correct on the fact that it was over a year ago, even though just barely. I was wondering as I opened the file whether I may have missed on the specific time frame. It could have just as easily been less than a year ago, but I just knew it had been a long while.

I am trying to post my notes here, but I don't know how to post a .cwk file. Could someone help me on this?? I am using Mac OS 10 Panther and a Safari browser. I want to get this page up as soon as possible.

Thanks.

Thursday Afternoon

March 1st, 2007

Starbucks in Lakewood on La Vista in East Dallas

Had conversation with Gretel of Newsweek Magazine

She was doing field work on a story. She was interviewing family of fallen soldiers to get their feelings about the war, I think.

I asked her if they all said that they felt Bush should be impeached, would you print it?

She said that they are mostly supportive because they don’t want to think that their loved one has died in vain...for no cause...for nothing.

I brought up my feelings about 9/11 in the conversation. I told her I believed it was an inside job.

I pointed out the WTC 7 stuff. That it was imploded, that larry silverstein was on the PBS documentary saying to pull it...

She said she knew that the building was imploded. She said it was supposed to be imploded earlier in the day. She said she was there and heard the countdown.

She did not know the significance of this fact. She thought that they must have set up the implosion really quickly during the chaos of 9/11. She was unaware that it takes 10 guys a month to set that kind of implosion up.

We discussed my belief that Al Queda was a CIA trained group who we supported in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union...and that I thought they were probably still CIA. I said Osama Bin Laden is a manufactured Boogie Man that helps them carry out their agenda.

She said she did a story on Mohammed Atta.

I introduced myself after a long conversation. I offered her a blue tube t-shirt that I was going to photograph for eBay. I told her she should be more skeptical, and to check into what I said.

I told her my name , Rob, and she said her name is “Gretel”.

She was a tall attractive woman about 35 yrs old. wearing black. She had reddish brown to blonde hair... She was online looking at addresses and phone numbers of contacts.

... she has to testify to the police and inform NIST. And ASAP.

Could you - or someone - contact her?

I will attempt to contact her, but she may end up being hostile to my publicizing our chat. She seemed to be resistant to considering the possibilities. I only had that one contact with her over a year ago. It was a chance meeting which allowed me to share the truth with her. She was a nice person, as I stated earlier, but she does work for Newsweek. That magazine is not known for deviating from the script. I will see what I can do. Newsweek is owned by the Washington Post. Once, a long time ago, a couple of brave reporters for the Washington Post cracked the Watergate case and brought down the criminal Nixon administration. That was one of the Post's shining moments of investigative journalism. Where are the Woodwards and Bernsteins when it comes to the BushCo Mafia? I don't see anyone in the mainstream media that comes close, except for maybe Keith Olberman at MSNBC. Times have changed.

I suggest you don't discuss her opinions about what happened. The important thing is to record her unvarnished testimony - what time she was there, what she saw and heard etc.
Possibly a short video interview. She needs to put her name (or face) to the statements, and provide any supporting documents such as notes taken, job sheets etc. that show she is bona fide and was there that day.

She may in fact be more open to candid disclosure if she is not fully aware of the implications.
Perhaps as a young journalist she would not anticipate the risk to her professional life the story could pose. If nothing else, she'd be labelled a lying twoofer and her personal life trawled for anything that could discredit her. To be fair, she should be aware of this before releasing her testimony.

If she was willing to submit it to the FBI she could at least curtail the inevitable "if she has this damning evidence - why would she post it on the internet instead of going to the police!"

Great work, Shoestring. Just recently, a friend of mine (an ATC) recommended to be to check out your stuff.

I totally agree with you on this working hypothesis. 10:45 is right in between the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2.

I'd also agree that FL 93 may have been intended to hit WTC 7 at around the time Jennings and Hess reported the huge explosions. That would have been around 9:20, in between the time WTC 2 was hit and the Pentagon.

If you look at the flight path of FL93, it turns right towards NYC right before it spirals to the ground (I believe that talk that FL93 was headed for DC was just clap trap to scare us. None of the flights hit any buildings of historical value).

Also, Giuliani remarked that another plane was headed towards the WTC, that is why he did not go to his command bunker.

FL93 was caught in the runway 40 ,inutes, so it never completed it's mission.

That would be odd considering Building 7 was a bottom up demolition..

"That would be odd considering Building 7 was a bottom up demolition.."

maybe it was supposed to be top down like WTC 1 and WTC 2, and that's why it took so long to actually take it down. They had to re-adjust the plan.

I tend to think that 93 was a back-up for the Towers. If either of the primary flights had missed or stuck only a glancing blow, one of the Towers would have been left standing all wired up and set to go.

Most plausible seems to be that WTC7 was supposed to go down in the morning under the clouds of dust but something went wrong. Jennings' statements on what he saw are strong corroboration for this scenario.

What you say might also have been the case, but seems less likely.
________________

JFK on secrecy and the press

I agree. Most likely Flt 93 was supposed to hit another high profile target. It looks like something went wrong with the WTC 7 demolition and they had to go back to rewire it. I suspect they tried to bring down WTC 7 right after the collapse of the North Tower in the midst of the pyroclastic cloud, perfect cover.

I'm guessing that there were not many wires. One of the ways they obscured the planting of these explosives as well as the added work needed to plant them was to use a remote detonation system.

They probably just needed to rework the program and set a new order of detonation for the planted explosives.

They were not sophisticated enough to make it look a bit more random in the way the building was brought down.

Each floor was set to a different frequency and there was not time to alter their settings to create a more random collapse.

Wires were few and far between.
___________________
Together in Truth!

100% agree. "Wired" was a poor choice of words.
________________

JFK on secrecy and the press

My working hypothesis is that they brought the first tower down way before they wanted to because those brave FDNY were up there radioing down that they only needed two crews and two hoses to fight the "two small pockets of fire" and the hoax was about to be exposed. They simply were not ready to bring WTC 7 down that early and were not able to "hide" its demise in the dust clouds.

They would not want to do it at night as the explosive flashes would be quite visible. Imploding the building as late in the day as possible allows the "raging fire for hours" story to have more plausibility. Not that it has any for anyone who takes the time to really look at it, but it gives the msm a cover story to print.

I also think that both 93 and 77 were potential back-ups to be diverted to secondary targets should 11 and 175 hit the primary targets, as they did.

This is all speculation and all the more reason to get new investigations.

Let's get busy in the streets, brothers and sisters!

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

was from the bottom, because of the cantilevered truss system that held up the building, between floors 5 - 7.

10:45 would have been after both towers had already come down.

Where are all the photos people must have captured in which the south side of WTC 7 can be seen?

I also think WTC 7 was the intended target for flight 93. The timeline matches well, and the lack of a debris field at the "crash" site could be indicative of a shoot down, possibly by a Canadian NORAD pilot. Although it originated in Newark, public opinion seems to have been manipulated towards the idea of flight 93 heading towards the Capitol. This is the result of an interview given to Connie Chung in 2002 by a man named Peter Bergen, another mysterious terrorism "expert". Notice that flight 93's intended target being the Capitol is the only information revealed, highlighting it's importance. They knew WTC 7 was a smoking gun.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/17/bergen.otsc/index.html

was a high enough profile target, to risk flying another plane into it. Before 9/11 very few people had ever heard of WTC 7 or even cared about the place.

There is actually the smoking gun of it directly in the USAF radar data.
A while ago I was working on the analysis of the 84Rades radar data. And there is clear, that just before the "UA93" crashed, there were two separate flying objects in the air the USAF tryied to conceal from its "UA93" flightpath analysis for the FBI. But in the raw radar data one can discover them. see: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?s=&showtopic=8959&view=fin...

The USAF analysts included in their analysis just the orange blips, the brown ones were "ommited" from their "UA93 flightpath study". But if one gets the blips from the raw data and compares then the times when the blips were swept, then there is 100% sure that from the radar data one can distinguish two separate flying objects in the air distant aproximately 2 miles. No mistake! All data before this event are missing, or are out of range of PLA radar.
This is most probably a smoking gun of the shotdown of "UA93". Everyone can look into the 84Rades data and verify the ommited blips are actually there. To my knowledge so far nobody did it and the John Farmer - a former 9/11 Omissioner - who obtained the 84Rades data on FOIA and who was normally communicating with me for a while, have deleted the whole its 84Rades forum just after I've posted there my extensive findings from my 84Rades data analysis. (especially about the very improbable radar invisibility periods on the "AA77" flightpath!) When I've asked him then politely, where the forum is (I thought he moved it elsewhere), he replied me: "It no longer exists...."
My working hypothesis is that the "UA93" was shot down either by a (stealth) plane launched missile, or ground-air missile, and the two blips on the radar is actually most probably the missile just before it hits the plane.
There are also many other anomalies in the 84Rades data which lead me to the conclusion the data are at least partialy manipulated an/or the result of military injects due most probably to the Vigillant Guardian and Global Guardian exercises held on 9/11. Some data there just simply don't add up. So I'm quite reluctant to base on it some crucial conclusions before the FAA radar data would be published - if in fact they will be published some day - to corroborate them. (I don't believe the FAA radar data will be ever published, because - if one sees what is in the USAF data - they would be most probably the final orbituary of the 9/11 OCT) But why would somebody put there two separate flying objects just before the "UA93" crashes ??? It makes to me no other sense than the blips are a badly concealled record of the real 9/11 events.
But for one thing the 84Rades data analysis served well: It helped to expose the disinfo agent "Factfinder General" on Pilots for 911 Truth forum and chase him out.

We definately should document all of the foreknowledge of WTC 7 coming down. All that foreknowlege lumped together and see how Larry can explain that away!