Yet more archive news footage unearthed from broadcasts on 9/11 offers further evidence that the media were being fed a script in which a cover story was quickly groomed to offset questions about the highly suspicious collapse of the twin towers.
Two weeks ago we highlighted BBC World footage from September 11 in which a correspondent reports the collapse of Building 7 as it remains standing in the live shot behind her head. New footage unearthed from Britain's Channel 5 news coverage provokes more questions about 9/11 scripting in a similar vein.
"Sections of the other tower are also crumbling - now the reason this is happening, according to the website for the World Trade Center, they're actually telling us that the structure, the outside cladding of this building is integral to the safety and security of it," states the news anchor following the collapse of the south tower.
"Once you penetrate that apparently the very structure of the building is under threat and that's why one tower has already collapsed."
The suspicious rapidity of the instant press release aside, why did the World Trade Center's website carry such a blatantly fallacious explanation for the collapse of the first tower? Even the layman knows that any modern building is anchored by core columns, not "outside cladding," and the twin towers were no different . To rest a building's integrity on its "outside cladding" is a reversal of all commonly accepted architectural knowledge. Why was the World Trade Center website peddling this nonsense in contradiction with the words of the twin tower's own designers ?
Included in over a dozen examples compiled here , Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, said that the towers could sustain "multiple impacts of jetliners" without collapsing.
In addition, Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, stated that, “The twin towers were in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane.”
The twin towers were desgined to absorb airliner impacts by means of their 47 huge core columns. The twin towers could not be compromised simply by damaging their "outside cladding," such a claim is patently absurd and why it was immediately peddled as an explanation for their collapse is highly suspect.
Later in the clip, the anchor comments, "It is completely enveloped in smoke, it is on fire, and we understand that this other tower is also in a situation of near collapse."
Based on the testimony of the experts who designed and built the twin towers, how on earth could officials and the media be so sure that the towers were going to collapse unless they were being fed a script by individuals who knew they were about to be imploded and were carefully preparing the cover story?
Another video that was shot before the first tower had even collapsed shows people on the street telling others to get back from the towers because they are about to "explode." Since no modern steel building had collapsed from fire damage alone and the fires were almost out, as described in the firefighter tapes , to forecast that the towers were about to crumble, a fortuitous act of clairvoyance that was also enjoyed by Rudy Giuliani , was an impossible prediction to make unless a pre-planned script was already circulating.
There are also videos of "experts" in news studios and even eyewitnesses on the ground intricately detailing why the towers collapsed within minutes and hours of them falling.
As the video below makes clear, if a crime were committed and immediately afterwards "experts" appeared on the scene claiming knowledge that no one could possibly have about the crime, would this be in the least bit suspicious?
Shortly after the collapse of the towers, a "random" eyewitness on the street interviewed by Fox News states with perfect clarity, "I witnessed both towers collapse, one first and then the second - mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense ." The individual sounds like he is reading a prepared statement. There is no "I think" or speculation in the statement, it's boldly proclaimed as an undoubted fact, despite the many reports of additional explosions relayed by firefighters, first responders and journalists that preceded the towers' collapse.
How did this "average Joe" manage to get ahead of NIST and FEMA in clearly annunciating what would later become the official cover story - especially considering that by the time the towers collapsed most of the "intense" fires had been replaced by oxygen starved black smoke?
In addition, more BBC video from the day of 9/11 has been unearthed in which a correspondent, within hours of the towers coming down, claims the reason for the collapses is because of their design. He then provides blatantly false information about the designs to justify the statement, without referring to any sources and negating the fact that the towers had 47 massive central core columns.
The news anchors in the Channel 5 clip also make mention of a car bomb at the State Department and the bombing of a shopping mall in Washington DC. These were not rumors generated as a result of "confusion" as is often the defense - the anchor cites a "senior U.S. law enforcement official" as the source. Why did officials inform the news agencies of these events when in hindsight we know they never happened?
The State Department bomb report was also picked up by Forbes , who attributed it to "State Department sources." Reports of suspicious packages would be expected in a time of such hysteria but can "confusion" account for reports of actual bombings attributed to senior officials?
It is commonly accepted that the breadth of the 9/11 attack was planned to be larger in scope because Flight 93 did not reach its target. Were the State Department and Washington Mall "bombings" intended to go ahead but for whatever reason failed or were called off? Was the media fed the script too early as in the case of Building 7?
By the evening of September 11, following a "perimeter walk around our building," the State Department publicly stated that no such bombing had taken place.
Why were senior State Department officials telling the media that there had been a bombing without even conducting a basic appraisal of the building's perimeter? Can this all be put down to "confusion" or were some elements of the 9/11 script changed according to how events were unfolding on the day?
No comments:
Post a Comment