Was 10:45 a.m. the Originally Planned Demolition Time of WTC 7?

At 11:07 a.m. in the morning of September 11, 2001, a CNN correspondent in New York reported that a third tower had possibly collapsed. While this report was incorrect, it is interesting to note that the reporter's description could have applied to World Trade Center Building 7. This huge skyscraper was indeed the third tower to collapse on 9/11. However it did not come down until late in the afternoon, more than six hours after this report.

CNN correspondent Allan Dodds Frank reported by phone from Lower Manhattan. He described: "[J]ust two or three minutes ago there was yet another collapse or explosion. I'm now out of sight, a Good Samaritan has taken me in on Duane Street. But at a quarter to 11, there was another collapse or explosion following the 10:30 collapse of the second tower. And a firefighter who rushed by us estimated that 50 stories went down. The street filled with smoke. It was like a forest fire roaring down a canyon." [1]

WTC 7 was a 47-story tower, so would have fitted the description of the estimated "50 stories" described by Frank. And it did indeed collapse completely. One could in fact accurately describe its demise with Frank's words: "The street filled with smoke. It was like a forest fire roaring down a canyon." However, this collapse did not happen until 5:20 that afternoon.

What could have led Frank to make his incorrect report? Surely, even in the chaos of that morning, it would have been quite difficult for a mistaken report of another massive skyscraper coming down to have emerged out of nothing. Could the reason be that WTC 7 had originally been scheduled to be brought down (with explosives) at 10:45 a.m.? The incorrect information Frank reported had therefore been put out, by persons unknown, on the assumption that this would be the case. However, something--as yet unknown to us--happened that meant the demolition had to be delayed, and so Building 7 was not ready to be brought down until late that afternoon.

10:45 a.m. would certainly seem a far more logical time for the masterminds behind 9/11 to have wanted to bring down WTC 7. At that time, just 17 minutes after the North Tower had come down, the collapse of a third skyscraper would have appeared less obviously suspicious. It would have been easier for those involved with covering up the truth about 9/11 to claim this collapse was simply a consequence of the two earlier ones. Instead, however, the collapse at 5:20 p.m. appeared completely inexplicable. (Unless, of course, it was a controlled demolition.)

What makes Frank's report particularly notable is that there were other incorrect reports of a third building having collapsed--or at least being in danger of collapsing--later in the day, though these made specific reference to WTC 7. These went out in the hour or so before Building 7 came down:

At 4:15 p.m., CNN reported, "We're getting information that one of the other buildings ... Building 7 ... is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing." At 4:27, Greg Barrow reported from New York for the BBC radio channel Five Live, "We are hearing reports from local media that another building may have caught light and is in danger of collapse." He added, "I'm not sure if it has yet collapsed, but the report we have is talking about Building 7." At 4:54, presenter Gavin Esler reported on the BBC's domestic television news channel, BBC News 24: "We're now being told that yet another enormous building has collapsed. ... It is the 47-story Salomon Brothers building." At 4:57, presenter Phil Hayton announced on the BBC's international channel, BBC World, "We've got some news just coming in actually that the Salomon Brothers building in New York right in the heart of Manhattan has also collapsed." [2] However, WTC 7 (the "Salomon Brothers building") did not collapse until almost 25 minutes later.

These reports indicated that some people knew in advance that Building 7 was going to come down. This would have been quite a feat, since, as the New York Times put it, "before then, no modern, steel-reinforced high-rise in the United States had ever collapsed in a fire." [3]

Perhaps the real reason we heard these premature reports was that this information had somehow been passed to the media by the 9/11 perpetrators, as a cautious attempt at preventing speculation that WTC 7 was brought down with explosives. This was clearly what the collapse resembled, with the building falling completely and symmetrically into its own footprint in just 6.6 seconds. Indeed, CBS News anchor Dan Rather commented at the time that it was "reminiscent of ... when a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down." [4]

Speculation such as this would surely have been a threat to the official 9/11 story, as it might lead people to ponder whether--rather than being committed by Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda--the attacks were an "inside job." To stifle any such debate, an official narrative would need to have been put out promptly. Perhaps this was why at 5:10 p.m.--still before WTC 7 had come down--the BBC's Phil Hayton reported: "[Y]ou might have heard I was talking a few moments ago about the Salomon building collapsing and indeed it has. ... It seems this wasn't the result of a new attack but because the building had been weakened during this morning's attack." [5] It appears the information had been put out already, not only that WTC 7 had collapsed, but also that it had come down without the use of explosives: It collapsed because "the building had been weakened during this morning's attack."

And thus, the cover-up had begun.

[1] "America Under Attack." Breaking News, CNN, September 11, 2001.
[2] These reports are summarized in Richard Porter, "Part of the Conspiracy? (2)." BBC News, March 2, 2007.
[3] James Glanz and Eric Lipton, "Burning Diesel is Cited in Fall of 3rd Tower." New York Times, March 2, 2002.
[4] CBS News, September 11, 2001.
[5] Quoted in Richard Porter, "Part of the Conspiracy? (2)."

over a year ago, I talked with Newsweek Reporter Gretel Kovach

I was sitting at a coffee place, back when I had discretionary income, and struck up a conversation with a lady nearby. I found out she was a reporter for Newsweek, as well as the Dallas Morning news. I remember her unique name, Gretel Kovach. She was compiling a story about the feelings of the families of fallen soldiers. I brought up my feelings about 911 being an inside job, and said WTC 7 was the lynchpin of my beliefs. I said it was a controlled demolition.

She told me that she was there in New York on 911 and that she knew that WTC 7 was going to come down. She told me it was supposed to come down much earlier in the day. I neglected to ask from whom she got this information, but it is what she said in a matter of fact manner. She did not see the significance of the controlled demolition until I pointed out that setting up a controlled demolition of this size takes weeks.


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.

WTC 7 Reporter

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?

If she knew it was going to be...

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

Where are the private detectives we need?

Private Detectives for 9/11 Truth!

North Texans for 911 Truth (new site)
North Texans for 911 Truth Meetup Site

I thought she might be inspired to investigate for a new story.

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 found my notes on this meeting. It is dated 3/4/07

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.


I found my notes on this meeting. It is dated 3/4/07

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.


here is the exact text of my notes I recorded shortly afterward

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.

If she heard the countdown...

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

Could you - or someone - contact her?

This is speculative, but I

This is speculative, but I agree that it is a very likely scenario. We need to speculate like this sometimes.

Also, there are the supporting statements made by Barry Jennings, Deputy Director of the Emergency Services of the City of New York Housing Authority. He claims to have witnessed explosions in WTC7 before the Towers pulverized.

If he is right, looks like the demolition was started at that time, but ran into a problem and was not completed till late in the afternoon.

JFK on secrecy and the press

I don't know her, but her stories look very mainstream.

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.

Just the facts

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!"

I've often wondered why they didn't...

...implode 7 under the cover of the pyroclastic dust clouds from the Twins' explosions? Or why not wait until nighttime, when no one could really film it?

Then I came across the MITOP hypothesis: "Make it Transparant on Purpose"

Maybe the perps want those of us who care to look deeper into this to know, or they don't care if we know (since they think there is nothing we can do about it)?

9/11 Truth ends the 9/11 Wars

I think this MITOP is maybe too much

What if they just planned to blow WTC7 the 15 minutes after WTC1, but something went wrong and they were unable to pull the whole building? But then, they desperately needed to destroy it ASAP, because it was full of explosives which partially already exploded and full of a really hot paperwork.
To me it looks more probable, than any demonic MITOP hypothesis - if one considers how in fact amateurish the whole operation was - one with common sense sees it was a demolition in all 3 cases without much doubting it. The steel-frame skyscrapers really don't turn into dust and suitably long steel sections just because they decide to.

Indira Singh confirmed intention of earlier demolition

When she was interviewed on Guns and Butter, Indira Singh, who worked as a volunteer EMT that day, confirmed what appears to have been an intention to bring down WTC 7 earlier on in the day. She said, "By noon or one o'clock they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University, a little further away, because Building 7 was gonna come down or being brought down." But she added, "There was another panic around four o'clock because they were bringing the building down and people seemed to know this ahead of time so people were panicking again and running."

So this again indicates that something was delaying their plans to bring the building down. It was not therefore the intention to wait until 5:20 p.m.


Great work, Shoestring.

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.

not so fast

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

Maybe they had to re-adjust the plan?

"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

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

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

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

JFK on secrecy and the press

I agree, Alvin R

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.

The best way to drop WTC 7

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

Small correction

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?

Flight 93

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.


I don't think WTC 7

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.

Yeah, the UA93 was shot down!

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.

Again, WOW

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!

Firefighter oral testimonies

Speculation is not doing the truth movement any good.Indira Singh's statement ,which refers to the building "...coming down..." ,dovetails completely with the numerous testimonies from the NYFD that reveal an ongoing concern that the building's integrity was compromised by falling debris and raging fires.Unless we are positing that these testimonies were altered or elicited at the point of a gun,we ignore them at our own peril.

Singh went on to specify...

... that "they did use the word bring it down".

Still, hasn't only a handful of people come forward with such testimonies? One would expect more. Of course, many could be afraid to tell what they know.

Another question is how these testimonies should be used by the truth movement. So far they have only been advertised on web pages.

Most of the firemen at the WTC

on 9/11, didn't know one building from another. Most people didn't even know which one was Tower 1 or Tower 2.

There was major damage to a number of buildings around the site. I bet you could eliminate at least half of these reports, if the person had been asked follow up questions.

Here's my collection of

Here's my collection of WTC7 video's. This includes some rare footage that's not often posted, including video's of the fires, damage to the south side and the smoking rubble pile.

Visit my YouTube channel for more 9/11 video's, i add to it almost on a daily basis.

Please watch my movie: The Third Tower

Pennsylvania flight was supposed to hit WTC 7

But that didn't work out, so they had to take it down anyway.

I've wondered the same thing


Somebody knows these were drones. They will never come forward. They had no idea that they would be used in the manner they were. They were delayed for that reason.

They needed to clear the air before they would allow these planes to take off. They were not even scheduled to fly that day. They were not made aware of the importance of maintaining the exact schedule. Thus the delay and the wrench in the plan.

I personally do not believe that there were anyone on those flights..... If there were they were knocked out. These planes were remotely flown. It's not hard to program.... most commercial flights are flown that way to begin with.
Together in Truth!


There appears to be no shortage of 9/11 fact gems to be uncovered by independent investigators... which is why more should join in the treasure hunt. You never know what you will find, and many slip-ups come straight from the MSM. The MSM is sometimes very good at reporting facts, but not of ANALYSIS. Often, reports just go to the "memory hole" when they are destructive to the official story.

This is how all of the false flag operations are covered-up. At first the media does not know what to shut up about until they are told to shut up. In the mean time, Dan Rather will explain that WTC7 looked like a controlled demolition, witnesses will describe a plane being shot down, and even explosions in the lobby of the WTC buildings. The MSM is only good at covering up the facts by figuring out when they should shut up.

As for this information, I think many of the theories offered are plausible, but sometimes we simply need more facts to confirm the truth.

As for flight 93, it could have went a few places, and if we find out, it will probably mean that we have had the 9/11 truth trials.

Building 7 is a mystery for many reasons. Why this building? Why not just destroy the documents if that's what was needed to be destroyed. Sure, it could have been just part of the WTC "renovation" plan/insurance swindle, but why not just postpone a legitimate CD if it would be too suspicious? It raises a lot of questions. But there's no question that "fire" is not what knocked down that building. NIST is not even creative enough to BS an explanation yet.
Arabesque: 911 Truth

If the CD had been postponed

If the CD had been postponed the charges would have remained in the damaged building ready to be found, so the CD was forced, methinks.

Since it was a CD and since it almost certainly was forced at an inopportune time, it is reasonable to assume WTC7 was supposed to go down with the Towers.

Not sure if this has been extensively discussed elsewhere, but a dangerous part of the plan surely was what to do if one of the planes missed one of the Towers, or succeeded in no more than a glancing blow. The presence of the explosives, which would probably be found later, would have been devastating and very difficult to keep quiet. That means that there had to be a back-up. And that means that #93 was likely it. If anything went wrong with one of the strikes, #93 would be the back-up. Possibly #77 also had a second role as a second back-up if needed.

In this vein, we can also speculate (a good thing to do sometimes) that the planes must have been remote controlled because it was imperative that they hit their targets.

JFK on secrecy and the press

I certainly think they were

I certainly think they were remote controlled. If you look at the eratic flight paths, it almost seems like they used the confusion of the fake radar 'blips' to kill time until the explosives were set to go off. If you look at it this way then Willie Rodriguez's story of ground level explosion just moments before impact makes even more sense.

The planes (drones) were

The planes (drones) were flown into the towers by remote control. They could not have left such an integrel part of the plan to some crazy ,suicidal hi-jackers. It was absoutely essential that the planes (drones) hit the towers and cut through, making those horrific gashes. That would create the impression in viewers minds that the planes cut through the supporting core collumns below the undamaged parts of the towers, thereby making them give way and initiating both collapses. I believe the planes were specifically designed for the job. As for the collapse of WTC 7, my personal theory is that the plotters overestimated, or misestimated the amount and configuration of the pyroclastic dust clouds caused by the collapse of the towers, falsely believing that the dust clouds would completely envelope building 7. With the building completely unseen inside the cloud, they could then bring it down, later claiming that it fell because of falling debris from the collapsing towers. When circumstances proved to be other than planned, they had to make the decision to bring it down in full sight of all the news cameras. They coudn't wait until darkness fell, as this would make the internal detonation charges more visible. That is why they finally brought it down at 5:20 pm. Just my theory, who really knows? The theory that Flight 93 was headed for building 7 is a possibility also. I believe several things went wrong with their plan that day. There is no doubt in my mind that we are witnessing the most bizarre and massive coverup possibly in American history.

That's good about the flashes being visible....

...at night, if they blew 7 then; I hadn't thought of that, and it makes sense....

But didn't the envelop dust clouds envelop 7 enough that it could've been brought down when the North Tower went? It seems that way to me.

I agree with you that numerous things did not go according to plan that day.

9/11 Truth ends the 9/11 Wars


To me, it just sounds too implausible that a skyscraper just suddenly collapses in tandem with the collapse of another, especially one in a different block and closely surrounded by other highrises, such as Verizon, which don't fall. Then again, what happened isn't very plausible, either.

Bright cloudless day....

This could be why they picked such a bright cloudless day for the attacks,
they knew that if there was thick cloud cover and bad light, the flashes
of the detonations may have shown up also....like lightning in a thunderstorm....

"The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it,
but in the end; there it is." Winston Churchill

Fox news foul up on WTC7

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=GwUJ9MhzgKI This is one of my favorite WTC 7 videos similar to the BBC mistake etc. I guess it proves that in the MSM world sound (audio) can be faster than light(video).


Never saw this video

Thanks, incredibly damning.

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

~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Was WTC7 9/11 Central Command HQ?

Another possible scenario is that the whole operation was being co-ordinated from building seven, the computer controlled demolition , and possibly the remote control of the planes being guided in to the twin towers.

If this is the case and the perps had people in 7 as the planes hit, they would have had to have planned the CD of WTC7 for after both towers came down and their work was effectively over. This said, It seems likely then, that the original plan was to bring down seven soon after the collapse of both towers under the veil of the dust and smoke and something went wrong to delay it.

I always found it rather odd the way they brought down 7 and left 'the smoking gun' this has gone some way toward explaining it...Good Post.

"The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is."
Winston Churchill

What could be so important

that the perps would delay the CD of WTC 7?

Maybe they lost track of the star of the show, Rudy Giuliani?

Remember Rudy didn't go to WTC 7 like he was supposed to and ran around the WTC complex until after the Towers collapsed. If the folks at Command and Control couldn't find him, they would have no way to know if he wasn't somewhere in WTC 7 trying to get to his OEM bunker. Rudy was the highest level perp official, who had to actually put his physical ass on the line. I bet there would be a lot of bending over backwards to make sure he didn't get hurt.

9/11 Truth is stranger than fiction

Great, great find. The questions surrounding 9/11 only increase as the plausibility of the official conspiracy story is shredded on just about a daily basis. Worst. Coverup. Ever!

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

~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

New York magazine article - The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll

Mark Jacobson, New York magazine writer, has an incredible story about 911 and WTC 7:

" Hours later, I sat down beside another, impossibly weary firefighter. Covered with dust, he was drinking a bottle of Poland Spring water. Half his squad was missing. They’d gone into the South Tower and never come out. Then, almost as a non sequitur, the fireman indicated the building in front of us, maybe 400 yards away.

"That building is coming down," he said with a drained casualness.

"Really?" I asked. At 47 stories, it would be a skyscraper in most cities, centerpiece of the horizon. But in New York, it was nothing but a nondescript box with fire coming out of the windows. "When?"

"Tonight . . . Maybe tomorrow morning."

This was around 5:15 p.m. I know because five minutes later, at 5:20, the building, 7 World Trade Center, crumbled.


I screamed, unsure which way to run, because who knows which way these things fall. As it turned out, I wasn’t in any danger, since 7 WTC appeared to drop straight down. I still have dreams about the moment. Even then, the event is oddly undramatic, just a building falling.


Was the presence of agents in WTC7 taken into account ?

Herblay FRANCE

bonjour ,

I think that the implosion of WTC 7 went wrong and did not happen in the morning. Was the presence of Jennings and Hess a problem for stopping the implosion ?

Jennings and Hess subsequently become trapped in WTC 7, and have to be rescued by firefighters ==>


or was special officer Craig Miller part of the problem ?

Man Died in WTC 7 Collapse ==> http://www.911blogger.com/node/6108


Yours John

Investigation trumps speculation

Vesa,these testimonies are available on the New York Times website.They are numerous and detailed.Hundreds of firemen were interviewed.We in the Truth movement use them to show that 118 firemen say they saw and heard blast explosions and detonation waves in the buildings.They also show that there was serious damage and raging fires at Building 7 and concern that #7 was unstable.They also reveal that there were rescue and search operations in close proximity to #7.A decision was made to PULL any personell AWAY from the area because they were concerned it would COME DOWN.Unless you think the NYFD blew up Building 7, it would be useful to read the source material and make up your own mind.This story (#7) is a thicket of contradictions and anomalies,so I understand your confusion.I 'm sure a lot of us share it.For example,last summer I exited Grand Central Station and crossed over 42nd Street and started walking west. I came astride a fireman(he had a T-shirt full of NYFD logos,etc.).I asked him:"What do you think of the controversy?" He said:"Oh,you mean the new test?" I said:"No,9/11,you know,the reports of explosions,maybe there were bombs in the buildings,a coverup of what went down." He replied:"I'm not at liberty to discuss that." We went our separate ways at that point.Recently I became aware of the testimonies and the fact that raging fires and substantial damage from the Towers HAD occurred.It's not cut and dried and this area needs careful consideration.We've been under the delusion that this story is over because Silverstein confessed,there weren't any real fires,the building wasn't hit,etc.Well,it's way more complicated than that and we need to dig deeper and be careful with this one.