‘BOMBS INSIDE WTC’ - FIRE OFFICER SAYS FIREMEN, COPS KNOW TRUTH

Bullshit they know that.

Wanna talk to a few NYC Cop and NYC Firefighter friends of mine?

They´ll be more than happy to tell you their version of events.

You arab-loving PUSSIES.

"Wanna talk to a few NYC Cop and NYC Firefighter friends of mine?"

In those type of bars i doubt politics is ever discussed.......

That´s right.

Anyone who tells you the truth about this tragic murder is an "arab loving pussy".

There you go.

Tell em David said so too.

145,...cowards like you will be the death of us all.








Z

Lots of powerful people were behind 9/11.

PNAC was where it was born, imho.

Not that its going to work out for them in the long run.

The truth is simply the truth.

145,
Yes, we would like to talk with your friends.
Please provide their names so we can interview them.

In an interview with a fireman inside the towers, published the day after 911, he said he heard "the bombs going off"...yet there was no further mention after that.

Why don´t a bunch of the fire officers who know about all the bombs get together in a public press conference and just TELL the world? This is far more important than losing jobs. If they spoke out in large enough numbers, the powers-that-be would be too afraid to sack them all because the genie would then be out of the bottle. Strength in numbers.

allowing the truth to come out, which bytheway we all know, would bring down this entire government...

...bring it on~

145 you are such a piece of shit.....

"NEW YORK CITY, N.Y.—

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2005, New York City auxiliary fire lieutenant Paul Isaac Jr.
asserted, yet again, that 9-11 was an inside job. “I know 9-11 was an inside job. The police know it’s an inside job; and the firemen know it too,” said Isaac."








Z

For this to be true than Bush and Cheney couldn´t be a part of it. Thus all of this makes sense to thier aproach ofthe war on terror. Elements in the government that they cant figure who it is.

Excellent post 1539!!!

My thoughts exactly

wtc7 was ´pulled´ as per Silvestein and Giuliani the snake, both of them in on it up to their eyeballs

WTC7 is THE smoking gun

3 PERFECTLY vertical controlled demolitions

all 3 PERFECT

straight down

WTC7 hardly damaged at all, some small and contained fires

PULLED PERFECTLY by pre-planted explosives

For the towers to collapse as they did, in their own footprints so to speak, every single steel support had to collapse at the exact same time. Each tower 1,2 and 7 collapsed at different times, but all of the beams in each tower collapsed precisely together.
If they didn´t collapse exactly precisely and simultaneously together, the buildings would have tilted sideways.

"The scariest thing here is that some of you are stupid enough to believe it."

No, what´s scary is that people like you are too stupid not to.

If I was a gambling man I’d bet the farm. WTC 7 was originally meant to collapse a few seconds after the North Tower hit the ground. Not seven hours later. I can’t think of a single reason that these guys would want to keep this World Trade Center complex building intact all day long.

9/11 skeptics, well versed in this esoteric field, know what I’m talking about. Something went very wrong that day. Some signal got crossed, maybe there was sabotage from within, we’ll probably never really know for sure. But if we accept, as most of these fine researchers, writers and activists do, that the Twin Towers and WTC 7 were finished off with preplanted explosives (the coup de grace in what was essentially an inside job), then it’s the only scenario that fits.

Think about it. How would it possibly benefit the perpetrators to wait hours, until late in the day, to finally push the button on Building 7? The whole world would be watching. That handy cloud of powdered debris that enveloped lower Manhattan would be long gone, your cover all but blown. Why draw out the spectacle any longer than necessary?

And it explains some things that have always needed explaining. For instance, we have several photographs of marginal, struggling fires burning on the 7th and 12th floors of Building 7, ones that, according to “official” reports, were supposed to have melted the building and brought it crashing down. But does that scenario really make any sense at all? Did it ever? Could it be, instead, that these inconsequential fires in Building 7 provide us with clues about what was really going on inside? Doesn’t the following scenario make more sense: when WTC 7 failed to collapse on schedule, the conspirators scrambled to bring the demolition system back on line. With their original plan in ruins, they finally made the decision to set fires in WTC 7 for the same reason they’d been set by the planes in the towers: to provide a plausible pretext for the building’s forthcoming demolition.

But the fires, set by desperate men in a tight spot, never quite caught on the way they should have. But why? If the original plan had been (for some inexplicable reason) to keep WTC 7 intact all day long and start fires in the afternoon that could be blamed for the collapse of the building, wouldn’t they have lit up WTC 7 like a roman candle to enhance the effect? We know that these guys can build a serious fire when they apply themselves. We have the photos of WTC 5 and 6 burning like blast furnaces to prove it. But the well planned and executed arson in these buildings required time and resources that the guys in Building 7, working on the sly, just weren’t able to produce on such short notice, especially when the building was surrounded by chaos, emergency workers and a moonscape of destruction. So they threw together what fires they could using whatever they had on hand and then beat feet for Fleet Street. The resulting blazes, barely discernable from without, took hours to grow to the size necessary to sustain the illusion (barely) that, like the Twin Towers, WTC 7 just couldn’t stand the heat. And then, late in the day and with lower Manhattan in lockdown, the Keystone Konspirators finally pulled the plug on 7 at 5:25 PM.

This revealing fact, that fires in Building 7 weren’t even called in until late in the day (approx. 3 PM), is a glaring 9/11 anomaly because of how harshly it conflicts with “official” reports that raging fires were ignited by debris from Tower One’s collapse that morning. But what kind of “raging” fire takes hours to build to even a modest size before finally getting “called in” late in the day?

Officials have offered speculations on WTC 7´s (and the towers) unprecedented vulnerability to fire but nothing that’s ever held water. And this story about the 40,000 gallons of diesel fuel catching on fire and burning down the house, what nonsense. If that gas tank became involved there wouldn’t have been a fire, there would have been an explosion (a big one), and then a fire, a huge fire. And it’s for this reason that the perps would never have torched the diesel tank to set their little dummy blaze. That kind of inferno would damage explosive systems and cause all kinds of problems. Remember, their goal was the total destruction of the entire structure as planned, not an unwieldy blaze within. But these guys knew better and made sure to set their fires well above the huge diesel tank on ground level.

WTC 7 still on its feet hours after the attacks was problematic in other ways. The “official” story has always been that the North Tower’s plummeting debris impacted WTC 7 (which was one full city block from the North Tower with WTC 6 standing in between) and ignited a dynamic inferno that caused the 47 story, steel framed structure to suddenly drop like a stone hours later, a phenomenon unprecedented in the history of firefighting and one that occurred not once but three times on September 11th. But Building 7´s longevity undoubtedly increased the likelihood of people noticing and possibly photographing the obvious lack of damage to Building 7 from the collapse of Tower One. Isn’t it extremely suspicious that absolutely no photographs of WTC 7´s “damaged” face have ever been released to the public? The building was standing there all day long. Isn’t it more likely that when WTC 7 didn’t go down on schedule, Plan B became containment, much like it had been at the Pentagon (and Oklahoma city for that matter). What few photogs, film crews or onlookers that penetrated ground zero would have their materials confiscated for “security purposes.”

But there were also conflicting reports about a man said to have been the only person to die in the collapse of WTC 7. The US House of Representatives website posted a tribute to Secret Service Special Officer Craig Miller whose body was found in the rubble of Building 7. According to this posting, Officer Miller apparently died during the “rescue effort” that day. After the Towers were hit, Building 7 (the Manhattan HQ of the Secret Service) was quickly evacuated and everyone survived, all except this lone SS guy. Not a firefighter. Not a rescue worker or a cop. Other accounts record no fatalities whatsoever in 7. Why the confusion? There was either a body in the rubble or there wasn’t. Was an autopsy done on this man?

And who on earth was this SS guy rescuing? WTC 7 had been evacuated. Are Secret Service officers mandated to rescue people from (empty) burning buildings? The fires in WTC 7 were burning on the floors just above and below Secret Service offices on the 9th and 10th floors. Could this man have played a role in the days events that got him into trouble? Could he have been an amateur arsonist who got too close to his fire? The story of Larry Silverstein claiming to have ‘pulled’ WTC 7 is well known among 9/11 researchers. The only explanation that’s ever been offered in Silverstein’s defense was that he meant ‘pull’ the firefighters out of the “dangerously burning” building. But if that were true, why didn’t this Secret Service guy get the message? But then no nostalgic look back on WTC 7 (and the Trade Center in general) is complete without reacquainting ourselves with the inscrutable Manhattan real estate mogul Larry Silverstein. Sooner or later, history is going to have to decide how it remembers this guy. With all we’ve learned about September 11th there are still only a handful of actual, individual suspects. I’d like to nominate Mr. Silverstein to this elite fraternity.

World Trade Center 7, or the Solomon Brothers Building, was owned by Silverstein Properties and had been the headquarters of his development company, Westfield America, for years. But it also housed Rudy Giuliani’s Office of Emergency Management (OEM), a reinforced, Arab proof control center oddly located at the number one terrorist target in the country (a baffling choice of locations considering that the WTC had already been attacked once in 1993). This incomprehensible (and very “unheroic”) decision proved its absurdity on 9/11 when, in the midst of an actual emergency, Giuliani was unable to access his control center for obvious reasons.

WTC 7 also hosted offices of the DoD, the IRS and the SEC, as well as a handful of private financial institutions. In addition, 7 was the storage center for millions of files on active cases involving organized crime, international drug dealing, money laundering and terrorism, all of which have demonstrable links to US intelligence. So a New York Times report that Building 7 was also the secret location of the largest domestic CIA station outside of the District of Columbia probably shouldn’t come as a surprise. The addition of “the agency” to this already scintillating list of tenants would appear to make WTC 7 a kind of nexus for what many researchers consider to be key entities in this sprawling conspiracy. But the fact that Larry Silverstein was the CIA’s secret NYC landlord for years is a point I made sure to jot down too.

Some researchers have made the shocking claim that the OEM was just a cover for its real purpose, the conspirators attack operations center (now that would explain the poor choice of locations). This recently armored facility, high on the 23rd floor, had a bird’s eye view of the unfolding spectacle, the perfect vantage point from which to guide the planes to their targets and fine tune the demolition strategy for the Twin Towers (when to detonate, which floors to blast first, etc.). But once you’ve cooly orchestrated the collapse of the safely distant South Tower (murdering hundreds of fleeing office workers and firefighters) and programmed the explosives in the North Tower, doesn’t it then make sense to set the timers, vacate the building, say a Hail Mary and then watch the North Tower and WTC 7 collapse at the same time, neatly wrapping up the mornings work? Whatever Giuliani’s control center had been used for, the evidence would be obliterated, along with years of CIA secrets, government files and the ghosts of WTC 7.

If this dizzying, Danté-esque spectacle is, in fact, a reality and does, amazingly, feature “America’s Mayor” in a leading role, what do we know about Giuliani’s movements at the time? Officially, he was at a makeshift command post at 75 Barclay Street until just before the collapses when he claims that he and his staff were evacuated from the building. He later told Peter Jennings, “We were told that the WTC was gonna collapse,” a prophetic remark considering the fact that no steel framed highrise had ever collapsed due to fire before. But WTC 7 is on Barclay Street, just at the evacuation perimeter, proving that Giuliani was indeed in the area at the time. But he was evacuating the area, not setting up shop in WTC 7 for a hard day of directing traffic from above.

This idea, that the mayor’s command bunker was meant to be used throughout the day before being demolished, I just don’t see it. The mayor of New York City (or whomever), orchestrating the aftermath of 9/11 in the upper floors of a burning building? And what would he (they) be doing up there? Seems to me that the day’s to-do list had already been checked off. And for the life of me, I just can’t imagine that the original plan would ever have included the re-entry of any of the structures after the devastation that occurred earlier.

There is, in addition, a compelling connection to be made between the mayor’s OEM and the fires in WTC 7. The lower of the two fires in WTC 7 was on floor 7, the location of the OEM’s emergency generators. If the arsonists were indeed OEM men, they would not only have had access to this floor, they would also have had a ready supply of accellerant (i.e. gasoline) at their disposal (the upper fire was on one of 3 floors used by the SEC).

So the mayor (and others) may have had access to his command bunker after all, but just long enough for it to serve its purposes that morning. And, as for being told that “the WTC was gonna collapse,” well, if you already knew this for a fact because you were gonna make it collapse, it’s as good an excuse as any to cover a timely exit.

As 9/11 researchers are well aware, Larry Silverstein took over control of the World Trade Center just a few weeks before the attacks of 9/11. After ramping up the insurance on the complex (an act of uncanny foresight considering what was to come) he then set to work replacing security personnel in a building complex that hadn’t changed hands in thirty years and had never before been privately controlled. His 2001 sweetheart deal with the Port Authority and the City of New York was for a 99 year lease worth much more than the $3.2 billion he and his firm had contracted for. And later, when he tried to sue the insurance companies claiming that two planes means two terrorist attacks, therefore twice the settlement (bringing the total, in Silverstein’s mind, to $7.2 billion), the courts cried foul and sent Larry packing (after the attacks, one WTC insurer sued Silverstein for apparently paying lobbyists to try to limit his liability to the victims families). Funny, I don’t remember the headline; “Manhattan Tycoon Exploits National Tragedy for Personal Gain” appearing anywhere after 9/11.

But the real specter haunting Larry Silverstein involves a growing body of evidence that Zionist extremists may’ve had a hand in the attacks of 9/11. There are some who believe that Mossad (Israeli intelligence) fingerprints are all over the attacks, and I’m not so sure I disagree. Israel has a well documented history of framing Arabs for attacks on Americans, a fact that never seemed to make its way into the mainstream mind in the months after September 11th. And the Zionist fanatics who’ve pulled off this kind of “op” in the past have a history of tapping the diaspora for talent. And Larry Silverstein is just their kind of guy.

Ex-president of the United Jewish Appeal (the largest Israeli fundraiser in the US) and a highly connected supporter of Israel, Silverstein has strong ties to the Israeli political and business establishments. His colleague, another UJA leader, Lewis Eisenberg — former chairman of the Port Authority, finance chairman for the RNC and former VP of AIPAC (American/Israeli PAC) — negotiated the deal that put the WTC in Silverstein’s control. Add to this the many examples of Israeli foreknowledge of and proximity to the attacks and the plot begins to thicken considerably.

There are a host of disturbing ties between Israeli hardliners and September 11th (too many to list in detail here) but none more compelling than the basic issue of motive. It simply cannot be argued that no single player stood to gain more from the attacks (or, more accurately, from the response to the attacks) than the Zionist hardliners who’ve been envisioning a Mideast under their control for decades. For many years before 9/11, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, William Kristol and other powerful, highly placed American Zionists had advocated for increasingly aggressive US military actions towards a host of Muslim states. All that was needed to get the ball rolling was the Pearl Harbor-like event mentioned so often in their pre-9/11 literature. And it’s working. Our bludgeoning of Afghanistan and Iraq represent bold steps towards the fulfillment of the sulphurous neo-con agenda.

Given the fact that Silverstein’s name pops up in many dark corners of the 9/11 shadow play, is it really unfair to view him as a “person of interest” in the horrendous crime and coverup of September 11th? And if he was a player in a subterfuge of this magnitude, is it really such a stretch to imagine that he might have been “in the room” when the pseudo-hijackings were being planned? And if he was, might he have suggested tweaking the plan just a little to include a detour by Flight 175 south? Knowing that the Air Force would be AWOL that morning, the plane’s scenic side trip would surely be, at worse, a minor adjustment — but with major implications. This one, small alteration to the aircraft’s flight plan would not only result in the planes hitting from opposite directions, it would also increase the length of time between the first and second hits. And these two points combined might go a long way to supporting Silverstein’s claim of two separate terrorist events.

It’s a matter of record. Flight 175 (the second plane to strike the WTC) came barreling out of the north, flew south far past Manhattan before circling back towards the city, a peculiar deviation that took the plane a good fifteen minutes or so out of its way. This odd, time wasting and risky maneuver has never been explained. Certainly the “hijackers” wouldn’t have thought it was a good idea. Wouldn’t they want to secure the objective ASAP before the fighter jets showed up? It just doesn’t compute. But there’s one man who might’ve done very well by this short trip south if only his fortunes had unfolded according to plan in the courtroom. And all Silverstein had to do was give Dov Zakheim a call.

With close ties to the Israeli government and reported duel Israeli/American citizenship, Bush’s Texas buddy and undersecretary of state, Dov Zakheim, boasts a long list of impressive credentials. Ex-DoD CFO (chief financial officer), Zakheim joined the Pentagon staff in May, 2001, shortly before the attacks and at a time when the Pentagon couldn’t account for $3 trillion in spending. A longtime DoD consultant and neo-con insider, he’s also a senior figure at the Heritage Foundation, the Center for International and Strategic Studies and the Center for Security Policy — not to mention the Council on Foreign Relations and the PNAC. But before his Pentagon gig, he was also VP of Systems Planning Corporation and CEO of one of its subsidiaries. SPC is a high-tech outfit that specializes in, among other things, the remote control commandeering of aircraft and the technical support required for live flight military exercises.

This bizarre but entirely viable theory, that some or all of the “hijacked” passenger jets on 9/11 had been remotely commandeered and guided to their targets, has been (despite its Buck Rogers kind of aspect) a key speculation among the very best 9/11 researchers. This technology has been with us for decades and Zakheim’s SPC specializes in it. SPC’s Flight Termination System is a fully programmable tool to retrieve aircraft remotely. But this technology is also a key element in the kind of live flight war games the military was conveniently conducting on 9/11. These cold war drills in Northern Canada and Alaska drew interceptors away fron the Northeast US and, using false radar blips, effectively paralyzed defenders who might otherwise have reached their targets. But it also eliminated the need for a peculiar and very risky general “stand down” order from Pentagon brass during the attacks, a command that would create disbelief and suspicion among hundreds of patriotic military people.

A couple of years ago, PBS aired a program entitled “America Rebuilds,” a documentary detailing the cleanup effort at ground zero. The comments Larry Silverstein made in an interview in this program have become a “point of interest” among 9/11 researchers and I’ve enjoyed watching this story steadily gain a following. Specifically, he described being on the phone with the FDNY commander and coming to the conclusion that there had “been such terrible loss of life maybe the smartest thing to do is, is ‘pull’ it,” (referring to WTC 7). Then, according to Silverstein, “they made that decision to ‘pull’ and we watched the building collapse” (the same documentary quotes a demo worker: “well, we’re getting ready to ‘pull’ building 6" moments before demolishing its burnt out carcass, a comment that would appear to support the meaning of the industry term ‘pull’).

Many have asked how he could possibly have been so careless as to make such an admission publicly. But what if circumstances compelled him to do so? What if his comments were a discrete response to growing suspicions surrounding the botched attempt to ‘pull’ WTC 7 earlier in the day? The powers-that-be have brazenly used PBS programming to spin other aspects of 9/11. The NOVA program that espoused the theory of the “pancaking” of the Twin Tower’s floors is infamous in the 9/11 skeptics community. PBS programs relating to 9/11 typically feature “experts” who unanimously support the party line. I remember one such “authority” solemnly offering his professional opinion that the paper we saw falling like confetti as the WTC burned undoubtedly contributed to the raging fires within and played a significant role in the collapse of the towers!

With WTC 7´s obvious demolition caught on film from at least three excellent perspectives, it’s an understatement to say that Silverstein and his cohorts had a big problem on their hands. Could it be that his comments about ‘pulling’ WTC 7 were a carefully choreographed “hang out” of the issue? Using Karl Rove-like sleight of hand, he offers a vague accounting of the anomaly delivered to us on an almost subconscious level. I’ve watched that video clip hundreds of times and to this day I hear only one thing: that he and his people made the decision to demolish WTC 7 citing the “terrible loss of life” suffered earlier that day. His body language, his wording, his tone, all seem to point to this one terrible conclusion. Paradoxically, his comments may have been intended to steer us in the exact opposite direction: that, despite how it may have appeared, heroes in high places stepped up and made the tough choices.

The expression ‘pull’ relates to the word ‘demolition’ the same way that the expression ‘wind up’ relates to the word ‘pitch.’ In both cases they represent one event occurring in two stages. In this sense, Silverstein’s use of the word ‘pull’ to mean ‘demolition’ seems clear and may also have served to cover the sudden and suspicious evacuation of rescue personnel from the disaster zone shortly before WTC 7´s bizarre suicide — a necessity when you’re about to demolish a building. A photographer on the scene described the evacuation of firefighters as they “prepared for the collapse of Building 7...I was 150 yards away when I saw the firefighters raising the flag.” Excuse me? Steel framed highrises don’t collapse! Firemen, knowing this to be true, typically approach steelframed buildings (just like they did the towers that morning), especially if the structures are only marginally involved. Isn’t it highly suspicious that the firefighters seemingly just gave up on this exceedingly important and valuable government building that had only modest fires burning within? Doesn’t this fact support the theory that WTC 7 was essentially a crime scene that needed to be destroyed?

This man’s statement (which, by the way, proves that photographers weren’t barred from the scene and could very well have produced images of WTC 7´s “debris damage”) describes the behavior of workers who were evacuating a building that was about to be demolished, not trained emergency workers worried about something that never happens. Silverstein’s remarks replace this problematic scenario with the tall tale of wise (and clairvoyant) public servants acting in the nick of time to save lives (not scatter potential witnesses). Either way Mr. Silverstein has some explaining to do.

The plan to obscure WTC 7´s implosion with the billowing dust cloud created by the collapse of Tower One is too good an idea for these guys not to have considered. And it would have worked like a charm. The flattened 32 story Marriott Vista hotel (or WTC 3), nestled snugly between the towers, is long forgotten in a world that barely remembers the life and times of Building 7. If WTC 7 being ‘pulled’ when it was mostly hidden from view (and as chaos reigned on the streets below) wasn’t the original plan, it should’ve been. And considering all the hubbub created by its remaining intact, it makes sense that this was indeed the original idea.

The unintended survival of WTC 7, shortlived though it was, has proven itself to be a gift from providence to the good people of the world on a day when it seemed as though providence had abandoned us. Those of us who know that 9/11 was conceived, written and directed by, well, the usual suspects, find, in Building 7 and it’s dark pedigree, the Achilles heel in the “official” fairy tale sold us in the wake of the most vile deception history has ever recorded. Let’s hope we make the most of this gift.

If you can judge the substance of a new paradigm by how thoroughly it displaces an old one, than maybe we’re onto something here. Since this possibility occurred to me, I simply cannot remember the WTC disaster the way I used to; that for some inexplicable reason Building 7 just lingered for hours after the attacks before they finally ‘pulled’ it. And after years of sifting through this material and scrutinizing 9/11, I will never again see WTC 7 as anything other than what it surely was. A dud. An epic, 47 story, steel-belted dud that, later that day, blew up in Larry Silverstein’s hand.

Copyright 2005 Darkprints

For a video of Silverstein’s comments about ‘pulling’ WTC 7, go to: [link to www.infowars.com]

To see three excellent videos of WTC 7 imploding, go to: [link to www.wtc7.net]

Wow. Excellent thread.

Anyone who has done ANY research on 9/11 knows the story we were fed does not match what actually happened.

The second plane was not civilian. It was military. It was not the plane we were told it was.

You can see it in the videos.

Also, the explosions in the buildings BEFORE the plane even touches it.....

Well, if anyone is curious about who did it, just look at who profited.

um, let´s see....

who had raised the insurance on the wtc within a week of this?

who got to go to war in Iraq? Who made money in Iraq?

So, my main suspects are the oil companies, starting with haliburton.

There is much more. Follow the money.

Peace.
David.