Interesting comment from FDNY lieutenant on Building 7, "it would be taken down"
Xenomorph911 Mon, 12/22/2008 - 4:43am
MSNBC live video during building 7's collapse.
Note FDNY lieutenant David Rastuccio's comment at 1:20 that the building had been allowed to fall on it's own but also mentioning a plan that, "it would be taken down". I've heard others such as Alex Jones mention he had heard similiar statements in the newsmedia that day, thought I'd share this one I found.
- Xenomorph911's blog
- Login to post comments
Thanks for the front page! I
Thanks for the front page! I have this bit I put togethor too.
Fuji News Network reporting on the collapses, including Building 7, I have no clue what they are saying, perhaps someone fluent in Japanese can find something interesting?
Front Page Here Too!
http://www.infowars.com/?p=6770
FDNY Lieutenant Admitted Plan To ‘Take Down’ WTC 7
Reinforcing conviction that Silverstein was referring to demolition with infamous comments on PBS documentary
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Newly uncovered video from 9/11 featuring an interview with FDNY lieutenant David Rastuccio on MSNBC confirms that there was a plan to deliberately demolish WTC Building 7, as was originally indicated in Larry Silverstein’s infamous statement on the PBS documentary, America Rebuilds.
In the clip, Rastuccio responds to the host’s statement that “You guys knew this was coming all day,” by stating, “We had first reports that the building was unstable and that it was best for it to come down on its own or it would be taken down, I would imagine that it came down on its own.”
Though Rastuccio expresses his opinion that the building had collapsed without the aid of explosives, he admits that a plan had been in place to deliberately demolish the structure.
This reinforces the fact that when Larry Silverstein infamously told a 2002 PBS documentary that a consideration had been made to “pull it,” which is a demolition industry term for deliberate implosion, he did indeed mean that WTC 7 was considered for deliberate demolition.
This would mean that Silverstein’s later qualification of his comments, that “pull it” simply meant to pull the firefighters out of the building, despite FEMA’s assertion that no firefighting operations even took place inside WTC 7, was an outright lie intended to deflect possible ramifications arising out of the $7 billion dollar payout Silverstein received in insurance after the WTC complex was destroyed.
Numerous other eyewitnesses have come forward to express their conviction that WTC 7 was deliberately demolished.
Emergency Medical Technician Indira Singh described to a radio show how she learned that WTC 7 was going to be “brought down” and the context was clear that it was to be deliberately demolished.
“After midday on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. If you had been there, not being able to see very much just flames everywhere and smoke - it is entirely possible - I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable because of the collateral damage,” said Singh.
Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue expert Kevin McPadden also reported his conviction that a countdown preceded the collapse of the building.
“While we were on the right side, there was firefighters getting ready, they were bussing them back and forth, and a couple of vets that were there - they got the vibe that something was coming down,” said McPadden.
“We started asking questions, everybody started asking questions, and the next thing you know there was a Red Cross representative pacing back and forth in front of the crowd holding his hand over the radio - I couldn’t hear what it was saying but it was like pulsed - whatever the speech was on there it was pulsed - and that means to me most likely it was a countdown.”
“But he took his hand off at the last three seconds and he gave this heartfelt look - like just run for your life - because he didn’t want to bring it on his conscience - he didn’t want to go to his grave with that - and then we had a couple of seconds to put our heads together,” said McPadden.
Former NYPD officer Craig Bartmer also reported hearing bombs tear down WTC 7 as he ran away from its collapse.
Several TV news networks received advance knowledge that the building was likely to collapse, with both the BBC and CNN reporting at least 26 minutes in advance that the building had already collapsed when it still stood.
Rastuccio’s newly uncovered comments about a plan to demolish Building 7 are likely to provoke a firestorm of fresh suspicion surrounding the implosion of the structurally reinforced 47-story skyscraper, which collapsed in 7 seconds within its own footprint despite suffering relatively minor damage from the collapse of the twin towers.
Demolition Likely A Very Covert Operation IMO
I'd be surprised if anyone outside of the federal intelligence community would remain silent about foreknowledge of the demolition of WTC 7, given the obvious implication that WTC 7 would have to have been set for weeks, months or years in advance to come down. This would made WTC 7 in effect a ticking time-bomb - a massive public safety hazzard in the middle of Manhattan.
For this reason, I'd be surprised if any NYC public safety official would remain silent about foreknowledge of the deliberate demolition of the WTC 7.
WTC 7 was almost certainly demolished, perhaps to destroy SEC investigation records regarding the 1990's economic scandals (perhaps by the same financial interests who were moving tens of millions of dollars through WTC computers as 9/11 unfolded, as demonstrated by Convar).
I've come to believe that Silverstein may have had foreknowledge of 9/11 and took financial advantage of this foreknowledge, but probably did not conspire with NYC public safety officials to manage a controlled demolition.
WTC 7 was probably destroyed by intelligence assets who gained access via the WTC 7 CIA field office or Marvin Bush's/Wirt Walker's WTC Securacom activities.
Agreed
You covered most of the important points.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it
Steven Jones has evidence of
Steven Jones has evidence of unexploded component of thermate, red and blue caps still intact.
Red and gray chips
I believe you meant red and gray chips of thermate, not red and blue caps, unless there is something new I haven't heard about.
I have to quibble on a couple points
"I'd be surprised if anyone outside of the federal intelligence community would remain silent about foreknowledge of the demolition of WTC 7, given the obvious implication that WTC 7 would have to have been set for weeks, months or years in advance to come down. This would made WTC 7 in effect a ticking time-bomb - a massive public safety hazzard in the middle of Manhattan.
"For this reason, I'd be surprised if any NYC public safety official would remain silent about foreknowledge of the deliberate demolition of the WTC 7."
I don't see that. Almost surely an FDNY lieutenant would know that setting up the demolition of a huge skyscraper takes weeks to set up and couldn't be accomplished on the spur of the moment in a burning building. To deliver such a statement with a straight face, he would've had to know long ahead of time and gotten approval from higher-ups.
Similarly, we know that the city's emergency headquarters in Bldg. 7 was quickly and quietly abandoned before the second plane hit -- presumably implying that they knew their headquarters was superfluous to the events planned for that day. Giuliani's extraordinarily smooth media exploitation of that day amid the horror and chaos suggests a man and his top aides who'd planned and mentally rehearsed things thoroughly.
I submit Giuliani, the heads of the PD and FD, and at least a handful of other trusted city employees and political aides -- as well as Silverstein -- knew what was coming at least a couple weeks ahead of time. (I know, it says a lot about the make-up of big city officialdom that they could all be counted on to facilitate this mass murder. That they could all be trusted by the federal perpetrators suggests years of preparation for such an event -- it seems likely that early planning must've gone back well into the Clinton administration.)
"WTC 7 was almost certainly demolished, perhaps to destroy SEC investigation records regarding the 1990's economic scandals (perhaps by the same financial interests who were moving tens of millions of dollars through WTC computers as 9/11 unfolded, as demonstrated by Convar)."
Fair enough, but Bldg. 7 was an unprofitable, asbestos-laden white elephant like Bldgs. 1 and 2. Silverstein most certainly would've screamed blood at the idea of taking down the big two and still be stuck with a roughly $1 billion demolition of 7. (Remember: Being an immense asbestos structure, to comply with federal requirements, 7 would've had to be dismantled -- _not_ demolished -- section by section, at gargantuan cost.) The original plan, as many have noted before, was for 7 to go down simultaneously with the closest Twin Tower, but something went wrong with initiating 7's demolition so that something had to be fixed and then 7 brought down hours later.
"I've come to believe that Silverstein may have had foreknowledge of 9/11 and took financial advantage of this foreknowledge, but probably did not conspire with NYC public safety officials to manage a controlled demolition."
It's hard to believe that wiring the WTC for controlled demolition would've been attempted without Silverstein at the very least signing off. (More likely co-planning the thing.) It seems most likely Silverstein agreed to lease the money-losing WTC in the first place because he was working closely with those who were hoping to use the WTC for this particular massive false flag operation. (The payoff for Silverstein being the insurance coverage he'd procure and then the prospect of replacing the lost structures for far more profitable ones.)
"WTC 7 was probably destroyed by intelligence assets who gained access via the WTC 7 CIA field office or Marvin Bush's/Wirt Walker's WTC Securacom activities."
With the conscious complicity of Silverstein, Giuliani, and certain high-ranking city officials.
Rastuccio's statement makes Sunder look really bad.
When NIST officials such as Shyam Sunder are prosecuted, David Rastuccio's statement will easily convince the jury that Shyam was trying to create a myth. Used car salemen tell better lies than NIST.
Your headline is misleading
Rastuccio says "we had heard reports that the building was unstable, and that it would eventually need to come down on its own, or it would be taken down. I would imagine it came down on its own...."
I agree that it's significant that there was a backup plan to take the building down. But it's not clear from his comments whether the plan was implemented. A real investigation would obviously use this quote to find out details about such a backup plan, what it would entail, who would authorize its execution, etc. Maybe somebody could ask Rastuccio these questions?
http://www.therealnews.com
http://www.pdamerica.org
http://www.change-congress.org
"Taken down" in this case
could refer to the sense in which WTC6 was later "pulled". Notice he prefaces "taken down" with the reports of the building's instability.
Building instability sounds like a bogus ploy
The building instability reports sound like propaganda that was being put out, as a cover for dropping the building.
Think about what it would take to make a 300 foot long x 145 foot wide steel framed building unstable.
I know we all heard about "the bulge" in WTC 7, but how would a bulge on one wall threaten the stability of the entire building, and what would the bulge have really been? Steel framed buildings aren't swimming pools. If it even existed it would most likely have only been the curtain wall or facade not structural elements.
The holes from debris damage to WTC 7 were simply bridged over, with the load redistributed to adjacent columns via their interconnection from the beams and girders.
The building was obviously allowed to burn for reasons other than "they didn't think they were going to be able to put out the fires". The building had a standpipe system and even if local city water mains were broken due to the tower collapses (and that is a big if), hoses could have been run from a mile away or from fireboats that were there and the standpipe system used, without even needing to enter the building.
True yeah, however I just
True yeah, however I just wanted to highlight this comment. I've heard such mentioned before but never saw beforehand any accompanying news coverage.
More WTC7 Warnings
Compiled here: World Trade Center Demolition Warnings
There was a "countdown!"
I remember reading a report and even hearing someone admit that there was a "countdown" for the demolition of Bldg 7. I went out over the radios as in " ten, nine, eight, etc.." Does anyone else recall that from some years ago?
Also, it has been my presumption that Flt 93 was intended for Bldg 7, and something went awry (as it was most certainly shot down) and they had to revert to "plan B."
I believe that many things did not go according to plan that day and that if they had, there would've been much more death and destruction, immediate "martial law" and infinitely less room for conspiracy theories to fester as they have.
I also remember reading, soon after that infamous day, that C4 explosives were actually "built in" to the construction of all of the WTC complex in anticipation of bringing them down in the future using a technique developed during the "Cold War" for demolishing missile silo's and the like. In fact, here's the link discussing this : http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1154643
The C4 angle would explain many things, would it not? Certainly nobody would like to "know" that they are working in a skyscraper whose rebar is packed to the gills with a plastic explosive. It would have to be a "big secret". Consequently, when a building is laced with C4 in the rebar, it is also built with an easy delivery method for the "detonators" which are of course, needed to begin the demolition sequence. This is probably what the "power down" the weekend before was all about. From all I've read, it would've taken a very large team to do the demo "from scratch" in a weekend "power down", but a few skilled workers to install detonators.
Peace always and all ways,
Truthman
C4 laced with the rebar?
No chance. Ignoring a hundred other problems with that.... the window for discovery is far to large.
But it's a repeatedly "floated" idea.
The chemical evidence strongly points toward advanced thermite analogs.
Sorry,
This vid aint a smoking gun. Our opposition can easily use this as a straw man. Metamars is correct that the blog title is misleading, as I was looking forward to an "undebunkable" statement, which we didn't get.
"Seven is exploding" is by far the best "smoking gun" video with regards to on-the-scene comments about actually "bringing" the building down.
IMO "Sh*t Is Exploding" Being Said
The referred to video seems to contain the statement: "We gotta get out of here. Sh*t is exploding"
Just for the record, here's the vid so people can make up
their minds:
nothing here
this adds nothing but more speculation which we've enough of.
MechanicalEngineerPE
Here is a clip I'd never seen before
Wow. Interesting.
She is clearly testifying to explosions occurring after BOTH towers collapsed. She speaks of being overcome by the dust cloud of the first collapse, which she says was about 45 minutes before this interview, meaning the second collapse would have been about 15 minutes ago. But she speaks of having "just heard" another explosion, which she claims the police are attributing to either car bombs or exploding cars from exposure to fire. I think this could be the confusion of the fog of war on the polices' part. The explosions very likely originated in WTC7, imo.
car bombs?
Car bombs? I haven't heard anyone saying explosions were car bombs since that day. Are there other reports of cars blowing up? Is there any video? Are there any stills? Any eyewitnesses? Thanks for the post Joe.
More on car bombs
from the testimony of an EMT:
"As I was running up here, two or three more cars exploded...."
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/...
Timing a bit off - probably a mistake
About WTC 7, the reporter says a is 7 hours after the terrorist incident, and the letters on the screen say it is past 6 P.M. The time on the screen is probably a mistake - the reporter is talking about fires in the building and about how the police are concerned the building might collapse, so it must be sometime around 4 or 5.
Then as the building is going down, the reporter says it is 8 hours after the terrorist incident.
Nothing struck me as new.
Whoops - this was in reply to the Japanese TV video above.