Half of WTC1 Demolished Later? Or WTC7 Foreknowledge?
Transcript (via here):
CNN 11:07am
Aaron Brown: In New York, Allan Dodds Frank joins us on the phone, in lower Manhattan. Allan
Allan Dodds Frank: Aaron, just a ... two or three minutes ago there was yet another collapse or explosion — I am now out of sight. A good Samaritan has taken me in on Duane Street — at a quarter to eleven there was another collapse or explosion following the 10:30 collapse of the second tower, and a firefighter rushed by us estimated that 50 stories went down. Um, the street filled with smoke, it was like a fire ... a, like a forest fire roaring down a canyon. Now as I think Patty has said, and others told you, all of Manhattan — all of downtown Manhattan — is covered with thick white ash and building material. The ambulances have been coming now from as far as Long Island. All the rescue workers are being equipped with gas, or face-filter masks, and firefighters have been arriving even by pickup truck. Otherwise the streets now are deserted.
Aaron Brown: Allan, thank you. Allan Dodds Frank.
Steven Warran thinks this is a premature call of WTC7 going down.
That's possible, but I also wonder if this was the demolition of a lower section of WTC1 (or WTC2)-- that occurred at a later point than the initial demolition. It would actually make sense if more demolition was done after the upper section went down, as stronger bombs could be used to take out the stronger lower section and they would be obscured by the smoke and the general shock of the initial event.
UPDATE 2: By pure coincidence, I see a blog I just found, Shoestring911, actually back last April posted the same thing as Stevenwarran did, with similar conclusions.
posted by spooked at 6:12 PM
5 Comments:
hey each tower was demolished in only 10 seconds each as recorded for posterity on several videos.
whatever this "50 stories destruction" is referring to, it can't be referring to the total destuction of either WTC1 or WTC2.
Spooked, this is about Building 7. It is "an elegant proof" that "pre-planted talking points went off before pre-planted explosives did."
Do we need to remove the cowl from your eyes before you can see?
The destruction of the lower 50 stories of WTC1 (the second tower to collapse) was visible in a series of images as the core structure is seen being dustified. Oops!
Never mind.
Like the "ambulances coming from as far as Long Island," and "firemen arriving on pickup trucks," we must begin to hear the scripted quality to the news reporting (both of those "facts," especially in a post second-collapse, man-on-the-street report are false.) That makes at least four specious details in Mr. Franks report.
I am so tired of Googling these elite East Coast journalists and reading their New York Times' wedding announcements. I'm voting for Sarah Palin
Thanks for the visit, Spooked! No one who reads your blog has ever had a wedding announcement in the NYT have they?
SW--While you may be right about this being a pre-programmed talking point, I don't see any of those phrases as particularly scripted-- and I don't consider it "proof".
I did wonder if maybe this 50 stories was a belated call on the core coming down.
Or maybe it's just random bull from CNN.
I think if it was WTC7 he was supposed to be talking about that he would have said something about a new building going down.
Spooked, your logic is faulty. What would be the reason for a segmented destruction of the two tall towers?
It would be logical to take down Building 7, or anything else, when "they would be obscured by the smoke and the general shock of the initial event."
Short of that, what interest would it serve to announce that a segmented destruction of one of the tall towers had occurred?
We all could wish for neural-linguistic perfection and combine the "yet" from "there was yet another collapse" with "at a quarter to eleven there was [yet] another collapse or explosion following the 10:30 collapse of the second tower," but isn't 15 minutes enough of a lag to speak clearly and unequivocally to a third tower collapse?
May we talk brass tacks now? Are you sure you aren't just resistant to the concept of deep media involvement in the plot? All the resistance to no-plane theory, for instance, is really just a limited hangout meant to protect the media.
SW-- for the record, I think the major media are war criminals, and are completely complicit in 9/11.
However, I tend to believe a reporter on the street more than a talking head in a studio.
As to the post, I find the Franks' report confusing and I am trying to make sense of it. Right now I am not convinced that this was a premature WTC7 talking point. If he was talking about WTC7, why would he mention an explosion? Why wouldn't he just say collapse? And why wouldn't he mention a third tower?
As to a segmented destruction, the answer is the demolition may not have gone as they hoped and they needed to finish the job
Or it's a mistake --something misheard or misunderstood. Or it could be outright disinfo.
I'd be happy if it was a misfiring on the WTC7 "collapse". I just am not sure that's what this is.
Post a Comment
<< Home