Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Ron Ecker]

The only thing that would cause the American people to rise up and force anything would be the cancellation of American Idol.

[Jack White]

9/11 First Responder Heard WTC 7 Demolition Countdown

Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue expert

witnessed officials attempt to conceal planned nature of demolition

Paul Joseph Watson

Prison Planet

Thursday, September 13, 2007

A 9/11 first responder has gone on the record to describe how he heard a demolition-style countdown precede the collapse of WTC 7, eyewitness testimony that dovetails with other EMT's and rescue personnel who were also told that Building 7 was going to be "brought down".

Earlier this year, we reported on the testimony of an anonymous EMT named Mike who told Loose Change producer Dylan Avery that hundreds of emergency rescue personnel were told over bullhorns that Building 7, a 47 story skyscraper adjacent the twin towers that was not hit by a plane yet imploded symmetrically later in the afternoon on 9/11, was about to be "pulled" and that a 20 second radio countdown preceded its collapse.

That account was backed up by another ground zero rescue worker who went on the record with her full name. Volunteer EMT 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.

In addition, former NYPD officer Craig Bartmer described hearing bombs tear down the building as he fled the collapse.

Now another ground zero first responder has shed more light on how he heard the countdown moments before attempting to escape the collapse of Building 7 as a stampede ensued.

Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue expert, Kevin McPadden traveled to ground zero completely of his own accord and spent the next four days searching through the rubble and nearby buildings for survivors.

In a speech given at this week's 9/11 truth events in New York City, McPadden describes the shocking details of what he witnessed shortly before WTC 7 imploded into its own footprint.

Watch the video.

 

"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.

McPadden then describes the frantic attempts to escape as the building began to collapse.

In a taped interview with us after the event, McPadden made it clear that he and onlookers clearly heard "three, two, one" from the radio before the building collapsed. We will be releasing that tape over the next week. We also talked to other first responders who verified the story.

McPadden's account, when added to the testimony of other first responders, clearly suggests that officials knew the building was about to be brought down in a planned demolition, and that they made a conscious effort or were ordered to hide that fact from the first responders, though at the very end onlookers were given a brief warning which enabled them to escape safely.

The following video from CNN clearly shows firefighters and police telling the public to get back because Building 7 was about to come down and in the words of the cameraman was about to "blow up."

 

In June it was revealed that an individual who had a high level security clearance and was stationed in the Office of Emergency Management in World Trade Center 7 witnessed explosions and damage to the lobby of the building before either twin tower had collapsed.

The testimony of these individuals meshes with others in confirming that Building 7 was deliberately brought down on the day of 9/11, a fact that eviscerates official investigations into Building 7 as nothing more than part of an orchestrated cover-up.

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. This building's collapse alone resulted in a payout of nearly $500 million, based on the contention that it was an unforeseen accidental event.

A cursory insight into professional building demolition tells us that experts are required to spend weeks and months planning the demolition of any building, ensuring that the explosives are placed in exactly the right spots, that the collapse will not impact surrounding buildings, and that a myriad of sufficient safety procedures are followed.

To imagine that demolition experts could rig such a huge building amidst the chaos of the day, unsure of whether further attacks were coming, in a matter of hours and bring the building down neatly in its own footprint without afflicting major damage to adjacent buildings is beyond belief.

Even if one entertains the notion that this is within the realm of possibility, the fact is that the federal government, FEMA and NIST and Silverstein Properties are all knowingly lying in claiming that the building collapsed by accident as a result of burning debris from the twin towers.

Now it is established that they lied about Building 7, how can we trust their often changing explanations of the collapse of the twin towers, especially considering the dozens and dozens of eyewitnesses who have gone on the record to report the fact that explosives were seen and heard on all levels of both towers, including underground explosions before the planes even hit?

We are being asked to put our faith in either the federal government, who deliberately lied about 9/11 in the very days after the attack in telling emergency workers and firefighters that the toxic air was safe to breathe, or the emergency workers and other rescue heroes who risked their lives and are still suffering the consequences of their courage.

This testimony demands an immediate grand jury inquiry into both monolithic insurance fraud, potential manslaughter, and a complete re-appraisal and re-investigation into everything else that happened on 9/11 in an effort to discover what else the government lied about concerning the events of that day and its aftermath.

[Ron Ecker]

Conspirators would not have rigged WTC7 and brought it down with no sufficient cause to point to (i.e. hit by a third airplane). It seems like an act of desperation or no-choice, either to destroy something that was in the building, or to hide the fact that it was rigged, or both. This leads me to believe that Flight 93, which was delayed in taking off, was supposed to "take out" WTC7, and of course didn't show up.

[Ron Ecker]

What secrets did that building hold they wanted destroyed?

Perhaps it contained an operations control center (i.e. guiding the planes to their targets) that they wanted destroyed after the operation. The mayor's emergency operations center was there, perhaps put to nefarious use. The building also housed CIA and Secret Service offices. If targeted for destruction, it would be a good place to file any "unwanted" records (JFK docs, for example). I also recall reading that there were many records in WTC7 involved in securities investigations, which powerful people in the government may well have wanted destroyed.

Just as there were many reasons to get rid of JFK, there may have been many reasons to destroy things inside of WCT7.

[Jack White]

CLICK ON:

http://911foreknowledge.com/staged.htm

Jack

[Len Colby]

9/11 "conspiracy" theories challenged by Cambridge research

11 September 2007

A new mathematical analysis of the collapse of the World Trade Centre has been published by a Cambridge University academic, with results that challenge conspiracy theories surrounding the September 11th attacks.

The new paper, by Dr Keith Seffen, uses established engineering models to demonstrate that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total.

Read the rest here:

http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/news/stories/2007/twin_towers/

[Duane Daman]

Awesome article Jack !

It will be interesting to see how Agent Colby will pretend to refute this one .

[Len Colby]

The guy claims the count down was heard over the radios which makes absolutely no sense that means thousands or at least hundreds of FDNY personnel would have heard it but so far no one else has reported this. Anyone who heard this who would have known the building was CDed and unless he (or she) was an idiot understand that meant foreknowledge. So how come no firemen have come forward? These are the same people who chose a not very well paying career that entails risking their lives to save other. Are we to believe they would keep quite about something that would indicate hundreds of their colleagues were murdered? The same colleagues for whom hey rioted when Giuliani wanted to end the search for remains at Ground Zero.

Wasn’t this supposed to be some top secret operation? Why share it potentially with not only every firefighter at the scene (or monitoring that frequency) but an unknowable number of unknown people listening and possibly recording that frequency on a scanner?

One also wonders why it took him years to come forward?

Completely absurd

As for Singh she seemed a bit unsure of exactly what she heard:

SINGH: "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. That I don't know I can't attest to the validity of that all I can attest to is that by noon or one o'clock they told us we need to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or be brought down."

HOST: "Did they actually use the word "brought down" and who was it that was telling you this?"

SINGH: "The fire department. And they did use the words 'we're gonna have to bring it down' and for us there observing the nature of the devastation it made total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility, given the subsequent controversy over it I don't know."

.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/febru...broughtdown.htm

Note also that she said she heard this “by noon or one o'clock” which would have been at least 4 hours and 20 minutes before 7 WTC collapsed. Numerous emergency personnel said they were told the fire department had been expecting the building to collapse all afternoon. Singh and McPadden either misunderstood or misremember what they heard of are making things up

Bartmer only claims to have heard “explosions” AFTER the building started to collapse but if &WTC had been CDed we would expect to hear explosions BRFORE. Most likely the noises he heard were generated by the collapse. Note he says nothing about hearing a count down or that the building was going to be “brought down”.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/febru...7heardbombs.htm

As with the others one wonders why it took him years to say anything. He has a grudge with the department and has been reading a lot of “inside job” propoganda, might this have colored his memory

[Len Colby]

The author is quite long winded, can you sum up what you think are the salient points?

[Duane Daman]

It will be interesting to see how Agent Colby will pretend to refute this one .

Well, maybe not so interesting after all .

As with the others one wonders why it took him years to say anything. He has a grudge with the department and has been reading a lot of “inside job” propoganda, might this have colored his memory

So now you are accusing the 9/11 HEROS , most of whom are now dying , of lying ?

Completely absurd

Not nearly as absurd as your arguments .

[Ron Ecker]

Wasn’t this supposed to be some top secret operation? Why share it potentially with not only every firefighter at the scene (or monitoring that frequency) but an unknowable number of unknown people listening and possibly recording that frequency on a scanner?

It's possible that those on the scene had no idea it was "a secret operation" and were just following orders to bring down the building. (That's how conspiracies work. A few know, everybody else follows orders.) Even Silverstein seemingly failed to comprehend for a time that the demolition was the result of a secret operation, though he must have known that the rigging was secretly done. He stated on national TV that a decision was made to "pull" the building. He subsequently tried lamely to explain the statement away.

Silverstein was saved BTW on 9/11, by another grand 9/11 coincidence, because his wife had made a doctor's appointment for him that morning, and he just begged her to cancel it so he could go have breakfast in that restaurant high in the tower as usual, and the wife said no way.

A cousin of George Bush who was supposed to be in the tower was also serendipitously saved that morning by moving a meeting to across the street. Doesn't the Lord work in mysterious ways?

I often wonder what it would take for the official 9/11 story to start to stink for you. I don't think anything would do it.

Edited September 15, 2007 by Ron Ecker

[Duane Daman]

I often wonder what it would take for the official 9/11 story to start to stink for you. I don't think anything would do it.

Some people , aside from not seeing very well , have no sense of smell either .

[Duane Daman]

The author is quite long winded, can you sum up what you think are the salient points?

This might not be the authors salient points about the Naudet film , but these few paragraphs pretty much sum up his opinion about who attacked innocent American citizens on September 11 , 2001 .... and I coudn't agree with him more .

"For the record, my own opinion is that 9/11 was commissioned by that cliché of American politics — the military-industrial complex: the one Eisenhower warned us about — and he should have known — he was one of them; and that the lead role in organizing the attacks (and failing to respond to them) was played by the Pentagon, in particular the branch of the armed forces that took zero casualties when that building was hit — the US Air Force — in which formerly served General Richard Bowman "Star Wars" Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (until his retirement on 30 September 2005) and prime 9/11 suspect. "

"Considering method, motive and opportunity, the USA's military leaders could unquestionably be said to have method and opportunity for being able to fail to defend the country - at best — or to actually attack it themselves — at worst. Killing people is, after all, their job, and the Pentagon's version of morality is, and always has been, what works - not least in the nuclear age, now 60 years old, with its scenarios of dead and dispensable Americans by the millions, not thousands. "

"Another aspect of method, the multiple deceptions of 9/11 — like having Bin Laden playing his part as the Muslim Lee Oswald, or Hitler, or Satan, or whoever — would have gone to the specialists in that area, George Tenet's CIA. The motive would be what it always has been in the USA's 200-year history of warmongering: greed; in this case the greed of men - and, these days, the odd token woman - in the boardrooms of companies selling oil and weapons. The chances, however, of a single shred of evidence emerging from those boardrooms, or from offices at the Pentagon or the Capitol or the White House, proving - or even hinting at - the involvement of any of these people in the 9/11 attacks, must be virtually non-existent."

"If we are to get to them, it will have to be indirectly, and I think the Naudet film is the most promising method of doing it. Some people claim to have established as fact that the Twin Towers' collapses were caused by demolitions, which must have been planned long in advance, but where does that get us? The central question was never "how?" but "who?" - and we have no evidence of charges being planted or of who might have done it. Al Qaeda could have done it, which takes us back to the official story - and that's no use. The film of Flight 11 must have been planned in advance, too, but in this case we can put an actual name to the deed, and we have at least a chance of getting from that name to others perhaps more deeply involved. In the fog of lies, theories, speculation and disinformation around 9/11, the Naudet film offers something solid and tangible, that might, eventually, lead us towards the guilty: it may only be a start, but the people who changed the world that day, incalculably for the worse, are not going to be voluntarily throwing themselves in jail in the near future. "

Edited September 15, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Evan Burton]

"...uses established engineering models..."

"Dr Seffen, a Senior Lecturer in the Structures Group in the Department of Engineering..."

"Dr Seffen's new analysis, which will be published in a forthcoming issue of the American Society of Civil Engineers' Journal of Engineering Mechanics..."

That's no good, Len; you know that. A qualified person publishing in a peer-reviewed journal of the subject being discussed? Rubbish.

You need unqualified people giving scientifically unsound theories being reviewed by people are likewise unqualified to assess the work. Maybe a philosopher talking about engineering in a sociology magazine. Now THAT'S evidence!

Edited September 15, 2007 by Evan Burton
corrected spelling

[Michael Hogan]

That's no good, Len; you know that. A qualified person publishing in a peer-reviewed journal of the subject being discussed? Rubbish.

Evan's sarcasm aside, presumably there is no need to read the actual article or wait for the peers to review.

Let's just accept his conclusions now....why wait? After all, he lectures at Cambridge.