Video: Building 7 Reporter Byron Pitts "Number of things don't add up."

"It was the one calamity that was not a surprise..."

Note: But it should have been a surprise. This is very impressive - to know with absolute certainty that something without precedent is about to occur - the collapse of a steel-framed fireproofed skyscraper due to office fires. At near free-fall speed. Very impressive indeed. Perhaps not to reporters employed by the American corporate-controlled propaganda apparatus. But I'm impressed - and even intrigued at such predictive capability.


  1. This clearly wasn't a surprise to the goose-stepping MSM, given that BBC/ABC reported 7 had "collapsed" well before it actually imploded with state-of-the-art precision.

    However, that it was a "surprise" to engineers at the time is well documented, as are the plethora of exotic explanations furnished over the decade to account for it, beginning on 912 with this howler:
    The shock wave hypothesis - New Scientist:

    Who can forget the November 2001 report, titled:
    Google hasn't forgotten.

    But this search also reveals that the original report at the New York Times was tweaked months later by the Ministry of Truth, with the same engineers in exactly the unsame report retrospectively double-plus unbaffled!
    "Engineers Have a Culprit! Diesel Fuel"
    (Who controls the past, controls the future)

    And as that story became less certain, The Ministry of Truth intervened once more:
    "Engineers SUSPECT Diesel Fuel"

    In fact, by 2008---7 years after the fact---the BBC was still conceding that the collapse had been a "mystery" all along, one that was to be imminently resolved:

    9/11 third tower mystery 'solved', BBC:

    Indeed, it was a completely unsurprising and unbaffling mystery to behold.

    Another unbaffling mystery solved:


  2. HI Leon,
    Thank you for commenting - please never hesitate. Regarding this part of your comment:

    Leon says:
    Regarding: "This clearly wasn't a surprise to the goose-stepping MSM, given that BBC/ABC reported 7 had "collapsed" well before it actually imploded with state-of-the-art precision."

    JR says:
    I posted this Fox News - NOT ABC, NOT BBC : http://americansjourney.blogspot.com/2009/08/fox-news-5-reports-wtc-7-collapse.html and in the comments section you can see someone gave me an earful about "we have to have our facts straight" and that she'd checked the timestamps to verify.

    I have not checked her work - but the vid is there for you. The BBC Jane Standley one is here somewhere - I have to quit writing and fix this site up - sorry.

    The ABC one - I don't know if I've seen that. Is it in one of the links above?

    Oh by the way - you will notice on the left side of this blog Counterbunch is listed - they feature some great writers - but they are also anti-911 truth and feature people who see hear and speak no evil.

    I wonder if you've had a chance to read Manuel Garcia's article on the WTC7 collapse. I found that it read just like the 911 Commission report - like a Novel - fiction that is - but was missing that spark that makes a great novel.

  3. Leon,

    I posted her link to the timestamp stuff in the Fox News pre-reporting article at the link above about halfway down the page. I also noticed just now big brother erased another video from a post - I'll have to straighten that out. "Terms of use violation" - I think that means I was using it to try to determine the truth. Obviously not within the terms of use.

  4. Jack Rabbit,

    Mea culpa!
    The collapse prediction was not ABC, but CNN.
    "CNN predicts collapse" will locate the CNN video via google:
    ... which I presume you have seen.

    The FOX video you highlighted is interesting. Even if the footage was broadcast 5 minutes after "collapse," your posters complaint about the accuracy of timing on this issue is moot: the broadcasters presented the footage as live. "Oh, it's going down now!," she said, somewhat surprised.
    She didn't say, "We have footgage of that collapse from a few minutes ago."

    I don't think I have read Garcia's article, but if it is titled "Thermal expansion brought down WTC7," then I am not going to read it, because I don't have any anti-nausea medication!

    Besides, I remember when it was (1) a "Shock Wave" that brought down the tower.
    I remember when it was (2) "Diesel Fuel" what done it.
    I also remember when Popular Mechanics were desperately trying to sell the idea that (3) the building was "scooped out":

    "CHARLES GOYETTE: You represent that there is a third of the face to the center and to the bottom, app 10 stories, about 25% of the depth of the building that was scooped out beforehand."

    DAVIN COBURN: Yeah. When the north tower collapsed, all of the debris and the wreckage from that collapse actually
    took a massive chunk out of World Trade Center 7, and the first time that, you know, FEMA released its initial report, that wasn't entirely clear. (!!!)
    It wasn't known exactly how much damage that building had sustained, uh, because obviously no planes hit that. It was sort of standing off to the side and then eventually collapsed. Uh, and what we've found through the NIST report and through talking to other experts was that, like you said, about 25% of the buildings' south face had been carved away from it.

    Yet none of these causes of a state-of-the-art building implosion had any impact whatsoever on the controlled demolition industry.
    (state-of-the-art, magnificent, very quiet)

    When you google "ENGINEERS ARE BAFFLED", NYT, and you get "ENGINEERS HAVE A CULPRIT" in the results, you know you are living in the dark pages of 1984.

    I hope you had a chance to glance at my metal fire post. It can no longer to be found via google (as was the case only last week!)

    Thanks & Regards,
    Melbourne, Au.


Only by exercising YOUR freedom of speech shall you keep it. Comment now - I can handle it....

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.