https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/Sep11-Pentagons-B-Movie/

Foreknowledge of World Trade 7's Collapse:
The Challenge to the Official Hypothesis
21 Mar 2011

Dr. Graeme MacQueen

                         Auto-Generated Raw Text Transcript

=================================
TIME STAMPS ARE OFF BY 17 SECONDS
=================================
... to introduce dr william pepper
0:32
dr pepper is an english barrister and american attorney focusing on international human rights
0:38
he has worked with and was a friend of martin luther king during the last year of dr king's life martin had read
0:45
articles on vietnam where william pepper had been a journalist and asked to meet with him
0:51
bill bill showed him from his photo essays in the 1967 ramparts
0:58
when when martin saw that the photos he wept and asked bill pepper to work closely
1:03
with him as dr king turned hard against the war nine years after the assassination
1:09
family and friends of dr king asked bill pepper to interrogate james earl ray
1:14
he did in 1978 and ten years later after becoming convinced that rey was an
1:19
unknowing patsy agreed to represent him two books and an unscripted television trial later
1:26
and having been denied by the sixth circuit and then certified by the supreme court ray died in custody
1:34
bill pepper continued with a civil trial in memphis in which he represented the family of martin luther king
1:40
the trial lasted for 30 days with the questioning of over 70 witnesses exonerate exonerating rey and setting
1:47
out how dr king was killed the jury took just 59 minutes to sow rule
1:53
and lay blame on agents of the u.s state and local governments
1:58
a similar scenario scenario followed as bill pepper examined the assassination of robert f kennedy as it turns out bill
2:06
had been the citizen chairman for robert f kennedy's 1963 new york senate campaign as his
2:13
investigation of rfk's assassination progressed new evidence of sirhan's actual
2:19
innocence emerged that was even stronger than evidence that he had presented in the martin luther king case
2:25
bill has now become lead counsel for sirhan sirhan
2:31
bill bill pepper also convened the seminar on international human rights at oxford university for two years and
2:38
is currently the expert to the magistrate's court in spain on universal jurisdiction with an
2:43
opinion before the court urging the prosecution of members of the bush administration for war crimes crimes against humanity
2:50
and violations of the torture convention
3:02
bill has advised a number of 911 victim families has admired the efforts and good work of many 911 researchers
3:09
and has long advocated the necessity of an independent investigation in order for the truth to see the light
3:14
of day to this end bill pepper played an active role as legal adviser to the nyc
3:20
can ballot initiative a 9 11 family member supported campaign for a new
3:26
new york city investigation of the 9 11 attacks with that ladies and gentlemen it's my
3:31
great honor to introduce dr william pepper
4:09
thank you for that i have a very minor role here today
4:16
and i i primarily want to pay tribute and recognize the efforts of the
4:23
uh the families of victims of 9 11. i want to pay
4:31
tribute to the new york group that have worked so hard to push this building 7 campaign forward
4:40
ted walter and dennis mcmahon and that entire group down there
4:46
and i want to compliment and um express my appreciation personally to the group here who once
4:54
again have stirred the pot and caused this
4:59
important issue to be put into the limelight and brought forward in a very important and forceful way
5:08
my role really here is to introduce primary researchers people who have
5:14
really done the work on this case i've not done any research i've read their work
5:20
i've been impressed with uh with all of the work of uh of graham and kevin and tony and from
5:28
the outset uh of the with the work of david ray griffin who has uh become a friend
5:35
it's these individuals and their effort that are making a difference at this point in
5:42
time the task will always be how to survive how to have
5:47
how to cause the truth that they espouse over this terrible tragedy to
5:52
survive all of our passing and not just go into the dust spin of history
5:58
but to somehow bring forth a significant proceeding
6:04
somewhere in this land so that in fact the truth can be brought out and given credibility under
6:12
under oath and that that really is the task and you'll see the importance of it as you
6:18
see the depth of the work that they've done which is unknown throughout america
6:24
totally unknown now because damon has mentioned the prosecution in spain
6:31
which has lingered now for so long i appeared before judge garzon must be now nearly a year ago balthazar
6:39
garzon and testified in his court and
6:44
he accepted the opinion and judge garzon as some of you know
6:49
no doubt was the the man who went after pinochet from spain tried
6:56
to have him extradited from the united kingdom so he's a man of enormous courage
7:02
the united states government under the obama administration has done everything it can do to stop
7:10
the spanish court from investigating and prosecuting individuals who were responsible for the
7:17
torture and the criminal acts against seven spanish nationals on that basis spain does have
7:25
jurisdiction this the spanish high court has agreed unfortunately judge garzon was taken off
7:31
the case all of the pressures the political pressures
7:36
permeated the supreme court they found a reason to lay charges against him and so he has
7:43
been removed from that case but pablo pablo ruse uh a much
7:51
less publicly known judge but an independent magistrate
7:57
under the civil code system an independent magistrate is not politically accountable to anyone
8:05
uh and he has decided to go forward and he is going to investigate this
8:11
crime he's starting he's starting with a subpoena uh to be issued to uh jeffrey miller who
8:19
was in as you know was in charge of guantanamo which is an aftermath of 9 11. and that
8:26
would be the tip of the iceberg from there uh the investigation will proceed in a
8:32
in a timely fashion so um this
8:38
911 catastrophe and i see from the banner down there certainly was the most uh earth-shaking
8:45
outstanding event of our time um when you look at the other areas of
8:53
criminality by public officials and by the state going back in our history very far back
8:59
in our history this one stands out it stands alone
9:05
for the power and the effect that it had not only upon this republic but upon
9:12
the entire world everything changed after 9 11.
9:18
in my view and i think the view of many this republic became a rogue state after 9 11.
9:26
there was no rule of law anymore there were no boundaries what they could do
9:35
they could kidnap they could torture they could kill they could use
9:42
extraordinary rendition to pick people up off a street and and have them sent to egypt
9:48
or syria or morocco oh yes or even to eastern europe where
9:54
the torturing would be done by by surrogates they would engage in
9:59
two wars one as you know had nothing to do whatsoever with
10:07
9 11. that was the illegal war against iraq the second one in afghanistan had the
10:13
portent of having something to do because forces that we had supported
10:18
trained armed financed uh decided that they were going to
10:25
take control of the of their country and espouse a a degree of fundamental islam that was
10:32
unpalatable so there was no stopping the
10:38
the stretch of the of the republic as it became a rogue state
10:43
and everyone everyone in this room everyone and every citizen
10:48
was susceptible you're susceptible to being even ordered uh to be killed as you know
10:55
that president obama has given those instructions for the first time even though americans
11:03
and american officials and intelligence agencies have done this forever now it has become an official part of
11:09
american policy so what we're up against here and the
11:15
rock that's being pushed up this enormous hill uh is um a major challenge of our lifetime
11:23
and must be the challenge that we we continue in the interests in the
11:29
interests of our children and grandchildren so there's no mistake about it
11:35
um the work that people like like graham kevin and tony are doing has
11:42
to go on it has to be absorbed and it has to has to permeate the
11:47
the entirety of uh of this land i tend to find more more
11:54
receptivity in europe than i do in the united states about the truth of this
12:00
maybe because they're the europeans tend to be over the over the centuries much more
12:05
politically uh skeptical and just suspicious of their of their rulers
12:13
but nevertheless um they're there
12:19
european public officials have spoken out a european intelligence officials have spoken out at various times
12:26
and uh and relayed a truth a major problem here with respect to the
12:32
work of these these good researchers and yourselves indeed all of us is the control of
12:39
mainstream media the control of the corporate media is virtually complete at this point in
12:47
time and it's very very difficult to overcome those that control
12:53
sadly even the left has its own gatekeepers and those gatekeepers on the
13:00
left are also well known to to those of you who have tried to get this story told
13:08
so it's it's not going to be an easy task to uh to overcome the dark night
13:15
of silence that that surrounds this issue the threats
13:21
that go to individuals who were eyewitnesses who did see things
13:26
and who are afraid of the loss of their pensions or uh or even their lives or the lives of
13:32
their families so it's it's not going to be a an easy struggle and i just simply applaud again
13:39
all of you um who can continue it and um are willing to
13:46
continue to wage this struggle now here today
13:51
we're going to hear the work of critical work of three people
13:59
and we're going to look at it as a as they when they finish speaking
14:04
in terms of what could be presented actually could be presented possibly in a court of law
14:10
so that if one takes the combined works and research and scholarship and of of these people to a a prosecutor
14:18
uh to a district attorney somewhere one could argue convincingly that look
14:24
this is hard evidence this would be admissible before a grand jury and
14:30
um we're going to we're going to take that kind of of of legalistic look admittedly it'll
14:37
be in summary fashion we're going to take that kind of legalistic look at at some of the work to see what actually
14:43
has gone on and what could be brought there i believe at some point in time with an
14:49
adequate record that's compiled and this may have to be done through a civil action that in my view
14:56
is i very carefully planned civil action not the one that that happened in uh in
15:02
washington that my dear friends of motley rice brought but an and ver another very carefully studied civil
15:10
action and so that there is a a record under oath that has the credibility that
15:16
contains the work of these people and that's what i think we'll have to do when that is done and that will be done
15:22
eventually it's a question always of money in these these kinds of cases
15:28
when that is done i find it hard to believe that there will
15:34
not be available in some corner of this republic
15:39
some prosecutor some local district attorney from northern vermont or
15:46
western new hampshire or somewhere like that who will say i'm going to run with this i've had
15:51
victims in my jurisdiction i've had i've had i have families who live here
15:57
who have lost family members and i'm convinced and i'm going to run with this and it will only
16:04
take in my view one such prosecutor with that kind of courage and frankly i think ultimately we're
16:11
going to find him but we have to stay the course until then and that's what i'm asking you all to do
16:17
so let's let's keep that in mind with that in mind let me begin this
16:25
let me begin this list of witnesses with um with graham mcqueen
16:35
graham is going to be discussing um the foreknowledge of the world trade center's collapse
16:42
the challenge of the official hypothesis and which as you know was a 47-story
16:49
building that steel structured building that was felled by fire when i read judge hesseltine's comment
16:56
on that it was and it was an is incredible but nevertheless they they continually try to assert
17:04
what is convenient graham received his phd in comparative religion from harvard
17:09
university taught in the religious studies program and department at mcmaster university in
17:14
canada for 30 years 1989 he became the founding director
17:20
the center for peace studies at mcmaster after which he helped develop the ba
17:25
program in peace studies and co-directed peace building projects in sri lanka
17:31
gaza croatia and afghanistan he has also contributed to the development of the women's peace brigade in north india
17:38
active now in several states and was involved for some years in the third option
17:44
a peace initiative for afghanistan he has published numerous peer-reviewed articles book chapters as
17:51
well as four books he took early retirement from mcmaster university
17:56
to devote his energy to peace and justice work ladies and gentlemen please welcome
18:03
graeme mcqueen
18:19
thank you mr pepper
18:25
thanks to the organizers for inviting me to join this fascinating day's activities it's a
18:32
great honor to share the podium with so many wonderful speakers and individuals
18:38
also an honor to be introduced by william pepper as i said to kevin the other day this is
18:43
the world turned upside down since of course i should be introducing him
18:50
my topic today is for knowledge of will world trade center sevens collapse
18:57
but i was asked to say a couple of words first about the building in general i think most of you know this but it
19:04
won't hurt to go through it i won't spend too much time just to locate you in the right spot
19:12
we are after all talking about a specific building today and the collapse of that building it
19:19
is an important collapse not just to architects and engineers
19:25
in terms of political history i would say this is probably one of the most important building collapses in modern
19:31
history certainly worth our days study
19:37
so here's where it's located this picture is taking on taken obviously from the air and somewhat to the south
19:43
the tall building closest to you is world trade 2 the south tower then world trade 1 the north tower
19:50
with the big aerial on top and then across vesey street is our building
19:55
world trade seven it was about 350 feet from the
20:02
north side of the north tower here's a shot from the north south tower in the
20:09
distance then the north tower and then our building world trade seven seven was 47 stories
20:16
high as you've heard 650 feet a big building by the standards of most of us from the
20:23
towns and cities that most of us come from each floor was about had about the same
20:29
area as a football field so it's a large building this building was not struck by a plane
20:35
it did suffer some damage when the north tower came down here you see this enormous steel structure
20:41
called the north tower which has been reduced to uh rapidly moving cloud of pulverized
20:48
material and seven is standing in the midst of it it also suffered fires on the day which
20:56
you can see here and just before 5 21 in the afternoon
21:05
there was a little tremor of the earth which registered as a seismic signal
21:11
and 10 seconds later the building came down and you've seen it before i'm sorry
21:18
you've seen it before this collapse you'll probably see it many times today but it's definitely worth looking at
21:24
more than once
21:33
ten seconds after the earth shook now it took the national institute of
21:40
standards and technology which is an agency of the u s department of commerce
21:45
quite a few years to come up with its final report but finally in 2008 they came up with
21:52
their final report on the collapse of this building in so far as we can talk about an
21:59
official story about the collapse of world trade 7 it would be the story found
22:05
in this report so you'll re you'll find us the three speakers this afternoon all
22:13
referring to this report we'll call the national institute of standards and
22:18
technology nist because it's easier to say and we'll be talking about
22:23
this particular report when we refer to the nist report the gist as
22:31
william pepper just said the gist of their conclusion is that this building came down in the
22:36
way that you just observed because of office fires
22:41
many many people reject that explanation including all the speakers today that is
22:47
all the speakers certainly this afternoon many of us think that
22:53
this building came down because it was intentionally and skillfully
22:58
brought down on 9 11. in other words it was subjected to a controlled
23:04
demolition i imagine most of you here have heard this
23:09
claim before some of you may still find it outrageous
23:15
the implications of it if we're right are of course huge we would then have to
23:21
say why have we all been lied to for nine and a half years we would have to ask what else may have
23:28
gone on that day that we don't know about how about those other buildings that collapsed
23:34
what about 911 as a whole what about the global war on terror now we're not going to explore
23:42
those wide wide important questions today we're going to focus on seven
23:47
building seven but i did want to mention them to you because that's the context
23:52
in which we study this building and that's why it's one of the most important building collapses in modern history
24:01
now that's my little intro to building seven and i now want to move into my specific topic
24:08
and to do that i am going to begin by showing you the way building seven's collapse was dealt with
24:16
by the bbc if we can turn the sound up for this one
24:22
it's sometimes a bit quiet
24:28
now more on the latest building collapse in new york you might have heard a few moments ago i was talking about the
24:34
salomon brothers building collapsing and indeed it has apparently that's only a few hundred yards away from where the
24:41
world trade center towers were and it seems that this was not a result of a new attack it was because the building
24:48
had been weakened uh during this morning's attacks we'll probably find out more now about that from
24:53
our correspondent Jane Stanley. Jane what more can you tell us about the salomon brothers building and its
24:58
collapse well only really what you already know details are very very sketchy there's
25:05
almost a sense down town in new york behind me down by the world trade centers of uh
25:11
just an area completely closed off as the rescue workers try to do their job but this isn't the first
25:18
building that has suffered as a result we know that part of the marriott hotel
25:23
next to the world trade center also collapsed as a result of this huge amount of falling debris from 110
25:31
floors of two the two twin towers of the world trade center as you can see behind me the uh trade
25:37
center appears to be still we'll cut off jane stanley there
25:44
jane stanley talks for about seven minutes altogether after seven minutes
25:50
her image breaks up and the anchor says unfortunately i
25:57
think we've lost the line with jane stanley in the meantime
26:02
however we have those remarkable seven minutes uh two things i want to note first of
26:08
all the red arrow shows you the caption at the bottom which confirms what she's saying the 47-story solomon
26:14
brothers building that's another name for the world for world trade 7
26:19
close to the world trade center has also collapsed and of course the second thing that's
26:25
worth noting is that the building is standing behind her the entire
26:30
time she's speaking world trade center seven has not
26:36
collapsed nor is it collapsing nor will it collapse till over 20 minutes after its collapse
26:43
was announced now when this little
26:49
video clip from the bbc was rediscovered and posted on the internet in 2007 it raised a lot of controversy
26:59
firestorm of debate and dialogue and the bbc removed received many letters of
27:04
complaint and query to which finally they they felt an obligation to respond so the head of
27:11
news for bbc world said the following
27:16
we're not part of a conspiracy nobody told us what to say or do on
27:24
september the 11th we didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down
27:30
if we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so it would have been an
27:36
error no more than that
27:43
well perhaps your laughter indicates that i don't need to analyze that too much
27:48
more but i will anyway because that's what academics do they go on and on you
27:54
know even when it's not necessary they flog dead horses so
28:02
let's just examine let's just think about that claim it was just an error and nothing more
28:09
suppose one of the organizers of this event were to pop up right now and say
28:14
unfortunately graham mcqueen fell and hurt his knee on the way here today
28:20
and that's why he's just collapsed and died hopefully some of you would point out
28:26
that i haven't collapsed and died i'm here well
28:32
then we would have to ask what kind of a peculiar situation was that how what do we make of that announcement
28:40
now so far we probably would agree that it was an error albeit a bizarre
28:46
error it's a bizarre error not only because i'm still standing but because
28:51
hurting your knee doesn't normally lead to you collapsing and dying nonetheless we
28:57
might pass it off but supposing 20 minutes later i did collapse and die
29:02
at the podium then the situation has completely changed hasn't it
29:08
now we still have error there was an error in the timing of the announcement but we also
29:15
have tremendous accuracy we have truth being communicated
29:20
and when i say tremendous accuracy that's because my collapsing and dying could not
29:26
apparently have been predicted through my through what happened to me
29:33
you see the point if you were a police investigator trying to figure out why i'd collapsed
29:39
and died don't you think you'd have some pretty tough questions for that person who popped up and said i'd already
29:46
collapsed and died now some of you may think it's a bad analogy because after all people don't
29:52
normally die when they hurt their knee whereas this building was clearly on fire and surely that's a more
29:59
natural thing to expect it's collapsed but it isn't you've been told this
30:04
before but i'm going to say it again this direct quotation from the nist report you should paste on your
30:11
foreheads it's so important this was the first known instance of the total collapse of
30:17
a tall building primarily due to fires we could we could put it more powerfully
30:22
this is the first time in history that a building like this has come down from fires this is a unique
30:30
unprecedented and therefore unpredictable event so if it was fishy
30:39
to somehow think i was going to collapse and die because i'd hurt my knee it was even fishier to expect that this
30:46
building would come down simply because it was on fire
30:51
now i want to stop and make a little distinction here it may be a bit pedantic and that's
30:57
unnecessary but i want to take my time with this if you were that police investigator
31:04
looking into my death you would you would be asking tough questions because at some point you
31:10
would understand the difference between two two types of foreknowledge
31:16
one we might call evidence-based foreknowledge and the other we might call action-based
31:22
foreknowledge evidence-based foreign knowledge is when you see some you observe something study it measure whatever and
31:29
you find evidence that rationally leads you to conclude that something for sure is going to
31:34
happen you gain your foreknowledge through the study of the evidence action-based foreknowledge is when you
31:40
know something's going to happen because you're darn well going to make it happen it's the human will and human action
31:47
that brings it about now that's quite a common form of foreknowledge we know about things that are going to happen in the future
31:53
because we're going to do them or people we know are going to do there's nothing inherently fishy about
31:58
it but it becomes fishy when we pretend it's something else so the investigator looking into my
32:06
death would consider the possibility that the person that said i had already collapsed was maybe
32:12
an extremely skilled physician good at prognosis sees all the signs
32:17
knows i'm going to die and just jumps the gun a little that would be a legitimate evidence based for knowledge but the investigator will
32:25
also consider the possibility that's perhaps the person who talked about me collapsing had poisoned my coffee that
32:32
morning in other words had done something which led them to know
32:38
that that was going to happen excuse me for for for having to kind of go through these
32:44
distinctions but they're important because my main contention my argument
32:50
is that nist has tried again and again and again first of all to ignore the foreknowledge
32:57
of building seven but when it has finds itself unable to avoid the topic
33:02
it tries to present it all as prognosis as the evidence evidence-based
33:10
estimation that something is going to happen whereas i'm claiming it can't be
33:16
the evidence is such that that cannot be true that what is true is that it's
33:22
action-based foreknowledge people knew that building was coming down because somebody had determined
33:27
to bring it down that's my argument now of course you would expect those
33:36
tough questions that were asked of the person who predicted my death to be
33:41
asked of the bbc did the fbi or the 9 11 commissioner nist ask tough questions at the bbc
33:49
as far as we know they did not as far as i know they did not ask tough questions
33:54
of any of the individuals or groups or agencies that had foreknowledge
34:00
of the collapse of world trade seven and that tells you something about the quality of the investigation
34:08
now i'd like to back up for a moment and start defining a couple of terms i've talked about for knowledge
34:15
but i haven't told you what it is and it turns out that this is quite important to what i want to say today i'm taking a
34:22
standard definition for knowledge from merriam-webster's third international
34:27
dictionary foreign knowledge is knowledge of a thing before it happens or exists knowledge
34:34
it's a form of knowledge and i'm going to try and distinguish this from other
34:40
kinds of awareness that we have of the future because we all live in some degree of awareness
34:46
of our futures and our past and we have a broad array of terms that we use
34:51
when we talk about our awareness of the future prediction forecast prescience
34:58
hunch all kinds of terms that we use but foreknowledge is a very specific
35:05
term and a very specific concept and i'm going to suggest to you
35:11
that there are three major elements that are crucial if we're going to use the term
35:16
foreknowledge certainty confirmation and detail
35:22
certainty is a state of the knower of the person doing the knowing how you
35:27
feel you feel certain you feel confident free from doubt
35:33
or uncertainty confirmation is not a quality of the knower but of
35:39
the events in the world your the thing that you think is going
35:44
to happen has to happen otherwise we don't call it knowledge
35:50
you could be convinced something is going to happen you could be certain but if it doesn't happen we don't call
35:56
it knowledge and we don't call it foreknowledge and finally detail maybe that one's a little trickier so let me
36:03
pause on that if someone were to say i know that i am going to die someday
36:13
they're speaking in certainty undoubtedly what they say will be confirmed in time
36:21
but we don't normally call that foreknowledge it's awareness of a general truth that
36:27
human beings are mortal but it shows no specific knowledge of your particular of that person's
36:33
particular life and death there must be sufficient detail present in which to convince us this is
36:41
what we want to call for knowledge so if the person says i know that i'm going to die in march 2015
36:49
and if in fact they do we'll call that foreknowledge and then of course we would be forced to
36:55
ask what kind of foreknowledge it was evidence-based action-based or whatever
37:00
you see the distinction now the reason this is important is because i'm going to systematically go through all three
37:06
of these criteria in order to argue that there was in fact
37:12
foreknowledge not just hunches and the rest of it because nist will try and make this just
37:19
as vague as they possibly can and that's why i want to make it clear
37:24
i want to show that there is that there was widespread foreknowledge of world trade 7's collapse
37:35
we'll blank that screen for a moment because i want to discuss some textual
37:42
evidence at this point a couple of years ago i went through the oral histories of the new york
37:49
firefighters actually this was the second time i'd gone through them there's about 10
37:54
000 pages of primary source extremely valuable documents here i wanted to see what kind
38:02
of awareness there was among the firefighters of world trade 7. and of the 60
38:08
firefighters i found who had some clear awareness that it was going to come down i asked
38:15
the question was there uncertainty or certainty you find both you find
38:22
firefighters who say the chiefs were concerned about building seven or they thought it might come down
38:30
but you also find a really surprising degree of certainty and so in exploring this
38:37
first term this first concept of certainty i thought it would be worth looking at
38:42
that material and slightly over half of the firefighters expressed certainty
38:50
that they had been told that building seven was definitely coming down some had been told half an hour before
38:57
it came down some an hour before it came down sometimes two hours and sometimes even four hours before it
39:04
came down they were told it was definitely coming down and i thought that was quite
39:10
extraordinary especially given the uniqueness of this event there's another way to
39:18
approach this topic of certainty let me go back to the little analogy of me at the podium
39:24
supposing while i'm talking here some guys file in and they're looking bored and they're
39:30
looking at their watches and not listening to me you walk over to them you say what are you doing and they said we're just waiting for
39:36
mcqueen to collapse and die because we've got some things we have to do backstage here
39:43
and you know we just we're just waiting for him to get on with it
39:50
that would show a high degree of certainty that i was in fact going to collapse and
39:56
die now why am i bringing up that silly analogy well i'm going to quote you from the
40:02
testimony of the new york firefighters firefighter burke the rest of the day we
40:09
were unloading trucks we were just doing whatever little things we could do but they were waiting
40:14
for seven world trade center to fall donato we came around i think we took
40:20
murray street down the west side and we stopped the rig and pulled over to the side we all got out of the rig we were
40:26
standing waiting for seven to come down we were there quite a while a couple of
40:31
hours wallace they were saying building seven was gonna collapse
40:37
so we regrouped and went back to our rig we went to the building building 4 building 3 i don't know we're
40:43
going to set up our tower ladder but they said no good because building 7 is coming down so we
40:49
waited for building seven to come down fortis they pulled everyone back
40:55
everyone stood there and we actually just waited and just waited and waited until it went
41:00
down firefighter massa i remember later on in
41:07
the day as we were waiting for seven to come down they kept backing us up vesey almost
41:13
like a full block the whole time we while we were waiting there were hours that went by
41:20
firefighter pilla we walked back we didn't go any further noon waiting not waiting to see if it would
41:28
come down waiting for it to come down and lastly if you have any doubts still
41:33
on this issue of certainty how about firefighter long they were just adamant about seven
41:40
coming down immediately i think we probably get out of the rubble he's talking about the rubble of world trade one
41:45
and 18 minutes later is when seven came down or kennedy the only guy i remember that really
41:51
stands out in my mind is chief visconti on the radio i remember him screaming about
41:56
seven number seven they wanted everybody away from seven because seven was definitely going to collapse
42:03
and finally cassidy building seven was an imminent collapse they blew the horns they said everyone
42:09
clear the area i think you get the point this was not
42:15
a hunch this was not people having a concern that the building might come down this
42:21
was hundreds of people standing around waiting for what they had been told was definitely going
42:27
to happen that fits the criterion of certainty the next criterion that i raised for you
42:34
when talking about foreign knowledge was confirmation and that's an easy one yes
42:41
their confidence was warranted it was confirmed it came down 5 21
42:48
in the afternoon which brings us to my third criterion
42:53
which is detail two points i want to make here one has
43:01
to do with the nature of the collapse and the second has to do with detail about time
43:07
you know several firefighters when you read their accounts say things like you know they mainly say
43:13
this by the way about the towers we could see these towers were really hurt you know and i expected there might be a
43:19
collapse but by that i meant a partial collapse none of us ever dreamt the entire
43:26
building would collapse but in the case of world trade 7 which
43:32
had not even been damaged the way the towers had been damaged
43:37
it appears that people were standing around waiting for a total collapse there's very little
43:44
surprise amongst most of the firefighters when it eventually comes down that's the kind of collapse total
43:51
collapse they had been led to expect in light of that a collapse zone had
43:56
been established around world trade 7 and listen to this fascinating interview to get a sense of how precise that
44:03
collapse zone was this is decosta right the interviewer
44:10
in the would would be an fdny uh authority chief of some kind asks the
44:16
question were you there when building seven came down in the afternoon answer yes you were still there
44:24
yes so basically they measured out how far the building was going to come so we knew exactly where we could stand
44:34
question so they just put you in a safe area safe enough for when that building came down
44:40
answer five blocks five blocks away we still could see
44:45
exactly right on point the cloud stopped just there well that shows to me
44:53
considerable precision this meets the criterion of detail in terms of knowledge of the kind of
45:01
collapse the nature of the collapse and finally how about detail when it
45:07
comes to time we've already seen some accounts of this the bbc
45:13
gets the time right within about 20 minutes that's actually staggeringly close when
45:19
you consider how unique this collapse was to come within 20 minutes is really
45:24
quite precise we also had the reference a moment ago to somebody who said
45:30
they told us it was going to collapse in 18 minutes later it did but you know what i think we can even
45:35
get more precise than that i'm going to take you now to cnn to
45:41
watch to show you how they reported this important building collapse
45:48
we may have to turn this one up a little bit too where are you perez the israeli foreign
45:56
minister a long time israeli leader in any number of governments joining us from jerusalem
46:02
tonight where it is a little bit after 11 o'clock about 10 minutes after 11 thank you sir for
46:07
joining us we are getting information now that one of the other buildings building seven
46:12
in the world trade center complex is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing
46:18
and i i you to be honest can see these pictures a little bit more clearly than
46:23
i but building number seven one of the buildings okay let me just repeat to you what he
46:30
said what aaron brown who's the anchor here has set up to this point we are getting information now that one
46:38
of the other buildings building seven in the world trade center complex is on fire
46:43
and has either collapsed or is collapsing and i i
46:51
to be honest you can see these pictures a little bit more clearly than i can why is he saying that because he's
46:58
staring at his monitor and the building hasn't collapsed and brown and by the way i would never
47:06
claim aaron brown was in on this because he looks baffled the whole day
47:13
well that could be i don't watch it enough to know in any case mr brown uh
47:20
you know says it's collapsed or it's collapsing and i i you to be honest can see these
47:28
pictures a little bit more clearly than i because look what he's looking at it's standing there so now he does
47:34
something that i find quite rare for a tv newsman you see because the actual world trade
47:42
center is behind him he's in new york he's in manhattan he's giving this with the world trade center behind him
47:48
he can't believe his monitor so he turns his back to the camera and
47:54
looks at the actual world trade center
48:03
and guess what it is still there
48:09
and in this case his caption is a little bit softer than what he's saying the caption
48:16
says building seven at world trade center on fire may collapse somehow mr brown has gotten just a
48:22
slightly different message than is given to the caption but nonetheless
48:28
he has announced the collapse of world trade 7 one hour and 10 minutes before it came
48:35
down now that would be interesting enough in itself
48:41
but i find the whole cnn coverage of this quite fascinating if i had announced falsely that a
48:49
building had come down i might apologize i might explain but at least i would
48:54
flee from building seven for a while we blew that one and go on to other topics on the
49:01
contrary for the next hour and ten minutes building seven seldom leaves the screen
49:08
i believe someone has told them don't worry folks it's coming down we get it
49:16
on split screen we get it in full screen and throughout that time the caption remains the same building
49:22
seven blah blah blah may collapse here it is as an example i thought i would just pick this frame as an example
49:29
half an hour before the collapse full shot by cnn of the building building itself hasn't changed as far as
49:35
we can see building seven blah blah blah may collapse and i this caption is
49:40
something i would use as an example of normalizing the abnormal builds
49:47
building seven on fire may collapse it's a little bit like saying mcqueen hurts knee may die
49:56
it looks normal people look at that and they think okay you may collapse but as we've already seen these
50:02
buildings don't collapse from fire anyway the plot continues to
50:09
thicken because look what happens when we get four five four point five minutes before the collapse
50:16
look at the caption building seven ablaze poised to collapse
50:22
suddenly we know the damn thing is coming down and it's coming down fast and one last little change to
50:29
confirm that 1.5 minutes before it comes down on verge of collapse
50:36
and it then does come down and we get the confirming shot
50:43
well i don't think it's too much to say that people at cnn were told first of
50:50
all that this building is coming down keep your camera on it and secondly that they were updated and
50:57
were told that it the the end is approaching
51:02
and they knew it at least five minutes before the end and i gave you all this to
51:10
make the point that we have a really quite amazing amount of detail in this
51:16
foreknowledge of building sevens collapse they know the nature they know how far the cloud is going to
51:22
come and they know quite precisely when it's going to come down therefore the last criterion that of
51:29
detail has been met and we may now speak of foreknowledge of building sevens collapse
51:41
the next thing i want to address very briefly with you is how the national institute of
51:46
standards and technology has dealt with this issue and how it has responded to us when we
51:52
make these points i have scoured the final report
51:57
on world trade 7 a couple of times and the only statement i have found that addresses
52:02
this at all is the following the emergency responders quickly recognized that world
52:09
trade 7 had been damaged by the collapse of world trade 1. as early as 11 30 a.m fdny that is
52:16
department of the surrey fire department of new york recognized that there was no water coming into the hydrant system
52:23
to fight the fires that were visible with the collapses of the towers fresh in their minds
52:28
there was concern that world trade 7 might collapse that's it folks
52:36
all of the evidence that i've presented to you is simply omitted
52:41
no attempt to ask whether this is a vague concern or whether it's precise foreknowledge
52:48
the implication is it was a vague concern we don't even know if it was a legitimate concern it could be the
52:53
firefighters were traumatized when the towers came down and therefore made the completely invalid
53:00
conclusion that this utterly different building injured in an utterly different way
53:05
would also collapse they don't tell us they leave it vague it just isn't good enough to deal
53:12
with these major anomalies the only other instance i know of although maybe some
53:19
of you have found others in where in which nist has addressed foreknowledge is when in august
53:27
25th 2008 i had the opportunity on a radio station in canada
53:34
to debate shyam sunder the lead investigator for the world trade 7 study and it was a
53:42
fairly long debate and one of the things i got to ask him was about foreknowledge
53:48
and his reply is as follows i've edited it a little to make it shorter but i have not changed the meaning there was
53:56
an engineer who was providing advice to city agencies on 911 about the condition of
54:02
buildings in particular building seven and it was his judgment that he was hearing
54:08
creaking sounds which was entirely appropriate and consistent with fires
54:13
causing damage to connections in members and he was hearing such sounds that would suggest that the building may come
54:20
down and he of course was observing the fires in the building as well
54:25
so it was based on that advice that the fire department decided around mid-afternoon around 2 30 in the
54:31
afternoon to abandon fighting the fires in that building so it is something and this is the gist this is what he's saying he
54:38
sums it up nicely so it is something that people were expecting could happen
54:44
based on what they were seeing and hearing i have to hand it to dr cinder i mean
54:50
he's made the best possible case he could really um he's he's made the whole thing vague which is
54:58
to nist's advantage he said there was an engineer he doesn't even know who
55:03
and given that nist apparently has the power to subpoena witnesses it's peculiar that he
55:09
wouldn't try and find out who this engineer was he doesn't give us a specific time
55:14
though other sources placed this engineer on the scene around noon all we know
55:19
from sundar is that it's before 2 30. the engineer hears creaking in the
55:24
building and sees fire in the building and concludes that it might collapse
55:34
well the point is creaking could mean quite a number of things and that's why
55:41
this this observation creaking and so on is not adequate to the task
55:48
now i think i've said enough by now to show you that actual foreknowledge existed and that in
55:54
both of these responses by nist the one about the firefighters at 11 30 and the one about the engineer there is
56:02
no acknowledgement that foreknowledge existed instead it becomes
56:07
a concern based on what people see and hear and i'm telling you that
56:13
general vague concern does not explain how cnn knew 4.5 minutes in
56:20
advance that it was coming down it does not explain 100 firefighters standing around for hours
56:25
waiting for it to come down and so on and so on they make their hypothesis
56:31
work by ignoring the evidence the last point i want to make on this particular issue
56:37
is that when people try to explain this foreign knowledge as natural and rational and this applies
56:43
even to nist they tend to revert to various vague hypotheses that existed before
56:50
2008 and before their own report their own report and i think kevin ryan
56:57
is going to say more about this in a minute has a very particular collapse hypothesis
57:03
which is completely incompatible with foreknowledge
57:10
for example the idea that the building was a raging inferno and that the the steel was being
57:15
weakened and that's why it came down they brush it aside the fact that it was it took a a
57:21
structurally significant hit from the north tower the brush it aside why did it come down well you'll hear
57:28
more in detail later i just want to say three things that characterize their final
57:33
collapse hypothesis first of all it even it emphasizes the uniqueness
57:40
of this event not just the first building to come down from fire but there's a whole series of unique events
57:49
that there was a long span beam and there was a certain amount of fire
57:55
that heated it up to a certain extent and that beam was connected to this which was connected to that
58:01
and the whole thing is unique and has never happened before and i'm asking you how that uniqueness
58:07
fits with foreknowledge that people had several hours before the event it's
58:14
impossible it doesn't fit people couldn't have known that was going to happen secondly not only is it
58:20
unique there's a high degree of randomness in this hypothesis
58:26
for example you have fires burning and there's 10 floors on fire and then there's six
58:31
floors there's two floors the fires wander they end up at one point in the northeast
58:36
corner well that happens to be crucial to the hypothesis if they didn't end up in that corner the
58:42
building wouldn't have come down according to them how could anyone have predicted they would end up in the northeast corner
58:48
answer they couldn't did they did the fires in fact reach the northeast corner by the time the engineer was on the
58:55
scene nope they weren't even there when the engineer made his prediction
59:02
so there is randomness does not go well with foreknowledge
59:07
astronomers can tell you there will be a lunar eclipse next week because the movements of the
59:14
heavenly bodies are very regular and well-known but weather prediction is
59:19
much more difficult because there are many events many of them random that interact it's very difficult
59:25
to have foreknowledge with weather prediction and i'm telling you that nist 2008 hypothesis
59:33
says that this was not like the heavenly bodies this was more like weather prediction
59:38
many random elements combining and that makes for knowledge frankly impossible
59:44
and finally according to nist's hypothesis these crucial events in the building were invisible
59:51
it wasn't the outward raging fires it was the heating of specific elements
59:57
in the floors which then led to this and that and nobody could have seen that from outside
1:00:02
so talking about what people saw at 11 30 in the morning is not really all that relevant my
1:00:09
conclusion is that nist's 2008 collapse hypothesis
1:00:17
is incompatible with the knowledge with the evidence of foreknowledge that
1:00:22
we possess and that nist has repeatedly denied
1:00:30
and tried to obfuscate tried to blur that evidence in order to
1:00:36
maintain its hypothesis i further want to affirm although i
1:00:42
won't be able to have time to argue this in detail here that i've looked at other hypotheses as
1:00:48
well the ones that existed before 2008 and the only collapse hypothesis
1:00:55
that i have found that's compatible with this for knowledge is it the action-based hypothesis
1:01:04
they knew people knew this building was coming down because somebody was going to bring it
1:01:10
down and that's where the knowledge came from and that's why i say only the controlled
1:01:15
demolition hypothesis is compatible with this evidence of
1:01:21
foreknowledge now there's one more stage in my talk today i'm sure there are some of you
1:01:27
particularly those of you who are encountering this uh discussion for the first time who are
1:01:32
thinking well you know that foreknowledge is certainly weird and it doesn't seem to fit very
1:01:39
well with the government hypothesis but mcqueen seems to be going a little too quickly to control demolition
1:01:46
you know couldn't there be some other explanation well first of all you're going to be hearing from other speakers today and
1:01:52
they will make the case different parts of the case and they'll make it more comprehensive
1:01:58
than i have done i'm giving you one piece of the puzzle however i'm going to start you off
1:02:04
on the next stage of our thinking about this by looking very briefly at three types of witness evidence
1:02:12
and i think when you've seen these witnesses you'll realize that there are many
1:02:17
reasons why we gravitate to the controlled demolition hypotheses
1:02:23
and i'm giving these in this talk because each one of them supports the claim i've been making that
1:02:29
foreknowledge indicates controlled demolition so we can get to the uh these witnesses
1:02:36
that i'm going to present quite briefly to you today by asking three questions first of all
1:02:44
were there any authorities on the scene on 9 11 before the collapse of world
1:02:50
trade 7 who said
1:02:55
that bringing the building down deliberately was an option was being discussed on 9
1:03:03
11. in other words if if say firefighters were standing around saying well maybe
1:03:08
we'll have to bring it down that would mean we would have no choice but to consider
1:03:14
the controlled demolition as a possible hypothesis and the second question that we would
1:03:21
want to ask is are there any insiders anybody are there people with inside knowledge who said after 9 11 that
1:03:28
we did bring it down that would be nice to know and thirdly are there any witnesses who
1:03:34
claim to have experienced explosions in world trade seven
1:03:40
and the answer to all three questions is yes i will be going through them briefly
1:03:46
because i don't want to go on too long today we start with the first
1:03:51
issue were is there evidence that controlled demolition was being discussed as a possibility
1:03:58
before this building came down now this witness indira singh was a senior consultant for
1:04:05
j.p morgan chase and on 9 11 was working as a voluntary emergency medical worker she was
1:04:12
interviewed by bonnie faulconer in 2005 on guns and butter and this little short excerpt sorry is from that
1:04:25
and all i can attest to is that by noon or one o'clock they told us we had to move from that
1:04:30
triage site up to pace university a little further away because building 7 was going to come
1:04:36
down or being brought down did they actually use the word brought down and who was it that was telling it
1:04:43
the fire department the fire department and um they did use the word we're gonna have to bring that we're gonna have to bring
1:04:49
it down that's a remarkable statement so
1:04:55
question is there any corroborating evidence has any other witness said the same thing yes this next
1:05:03
footage is live from msnbc right after the collapse
1:05:08
of world trade seven fascinating clip
1:05:15
actually i think we're okay all right we're gonna have to move this way we're gonna have to move we're gonna have to move that cloud is coming this way
1:05:22
ashley get out of there leave the camera on man if if you uh need to and get out of there
1:05:29
what we've been fearing all afternoon has apparently happened we were watching number seven world trade
1:05:35
which was part of the ancillary damage of the uh explosion and collapse of the
1:05:41
other two we've been talking all day about how fast these plumes of smoke move you're watching one on the move
1:05:48
right now that is building dust look at the wider shot on the left
1:05:54
from across the river in new york this was a 40-story building they've
1:06:01
been watching all day this is like watching the collapse of an active volcano
1:06:07
and the dust from it is is not unlike that from a volcano we are on the phone
1:06:13
with uh new york fire department lieutenant david restuccio lieutenant where are you
1:06:19
right now i'm at the corner of norm north moore street and greenwich street can you confirm it was number seven that
1:06:25
just went in yes sir uh and you were you guys knew this was coming all day
1:06:30
we had been had we had heard reports that the building was unstable and that it eventually needed to come
1:06:36
down on its own or it would be taken down i would imagine it came down on its own
1:06:44
i'm going to assume you heard those last few words but i'm going to read them again anyway tv anchor you guys knew this was coming
1:06:52
all day isn't that remarkable you knew this was
1:06:57
coming all day all day long you've known this building is going to come down that's for knowledge again and it shows
1:07:02
that the news stations had gotten information of this sort restuccio gives a very careful reply
1:07:11
we had heard reports that the building was unstable and that eventually it would either come
1:07:17
down on its own or it would be taken down i would imagine
1:07:22
it came down on its own in other words if i could reword rastuccio's last statement
1:07:30
this building has just utterly and completely collapsed i guess it's probably a gravity driven
1:07:37
collapse but it might be controlled demolition because that was discussed during the day
1:07:44
so we have two highly credible witnesses who say that this was discussed as an option during the day
1:07:50
we now move to our next question and you've already seen silverstein but it won't hurt to see him
1:07:55
again of of silverstein development corporation that owned building
1:08:01
seven and i think we need turn up the sound for this by debris when the north tower collapsed
1:08:08
seven burned until late afternoon allowing occupants to evacuate to safety
1:08:14
i remember getting a call from the fire department commander telling me that they were not sure they're gonna be able to contain the
1:08:20
fire i said you know we've had such terrible loss of life maybe the smartest thing to do is pull
1:08:27
it uh and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building
1:08:32
collapse right many of you have already seen that
1:08:39
clip and perhaps it's not necessary for me to discuss it at length it's not surprising that people took his
1:08:45
comments about pulling to refer to removing getting rid of demolishing the building
1:08:53
silverstein later said that all he meant was that they should pull firefighters
1:09:00
out of the building or of the area many people including me reject that explanation however we don't
1:09:07
have time to get into the details of that debate here let's because we're talking about the kind of
1:09:14
investigation that nist did let's just ask whether they had tough questions for mr
1:09:22
silverstein and i believe it's manny who already told us just how tough those questions were
1:09:29
they accepted immediately his explanation that he'd referred to pulling people out of the building
1:09:35
and when i think it was uh lori van aaken asked him to asked sunder directly
1:09:42
if they had interviewed silverstein he basically said we didn't interview him and we don't intend to so much my friends for tough
1:09:50
questions and so much for a serious investigation of the collapse of world trade seven and i move on to my
1:09:58
last witness were there any people who actually experienced explosions in world
1:10:04
trade seven and there were several but the most famous is Barry Jennings
1:10:09
because my time is just about over i'm going to show you only a very brief clip
1:10:15
so you'll see who barry jennings was on 9 11 itself and then i'll explain why his
1:10:22
testimony is important uh for the past couple of minutes it has been clear from this space back on
1:10:28
chambers in that area so now they're walking back toward the world trade center and as we keep letting you hear the personal stories the survivor stories
1:10:35
of exactly what happened inside the world trade center when that first plane went in and of course the collapse is since then
1:10:41
we're going to bring more of those to you now barry jennings you're on the eighth floor you work for the city housing department
1:10:46
explain to me the moment of impact well me and mr hesh the corporation council were on the 23rd floor i told him we got
1:10:53
to get get out of here we started walking down the stairs we made it to the eighth floor big explosion
1:10:58
blew us back into the eighth floor and i turned the hesh i said this is it we're dead we're not
1:11:03
going to make it out of here i took that's all i'm going to show
1:11:11
Barry Jennings at that time was Deputy Director of the Emergency Services Department of
1:11:17
the New York City Housing Authority highly credible man a very articulate man who was
1:11:23
interviewed many times subsequent to this the gist
1:11:29
of barry jennings story is that he and michael hess corporation counsel for
1:11:35
the city of new york went up to the 23rd floor of world trade 7 which is the building he's talking
1:11:41
about here in other words they went to the office of emergency management
1:11:47
as they were supposed to do when there was an emergency in new york
1:11:52
he says they went up there very early he thinks it was sometime just before or just after nine o'clock
1:11:58
in the morning they got there and the place had already been abandoned and someone on the phone told them to
1:12:03
get the heck out of there as fast as they could so they began running down the stairs to
1:12:08
get out of the building they made it to the sixth floor jennings says the eighth floor on this
1:12:14
little clip but he later uh clarifies he said no we made it to the sixth floor
1:12:20
when there was a big explosion blew out the stairs even blew out the landing he was standing on
1:12:25
so that he had to grab hold of the railing and pull himself up they retreated to the eighth floor they
1:12:31
couldn't get down the stairs because they were blown out and they were trapped there and they thought they were going to die they were saying their prayers hours
1:12:39
later well after the collapse of both towers they were finally rescued by firefighters and it was shortly after
1:12:45
that then mr jennings gave this little interview now the gist of this is as follows if
1:12:52
he's right there was at least one major structurally significant
1:12:58
explosion in the world trade center early in the morning world trade center seven i don't know whether that was an early
1:13:05
and unsuccessful attempt to demolish the building or whether it was the beginning stages
1:13:12
of weakening the building so that it would come down later i don't know but that explosion did not exist
1:13:19
according to nist they are adamant that it did not exist
1:13:24
so what did they do to mr jennings testimony in order to deal with him they changed
1:13:31
two major things first they say mr jennings did not perceive an explosion
1:13:39
we've heard from bob earlier this morning how much nist hates explosions and how much they
1:13:46
hate anybody who refers to them some of you know i've now catalogued 155
1:13:54
eyewitnesses to explosions in the twin towers at the time they came down i've published 118 of those
1:14:02
nist waves them all away people like you and me who perceived
1:14:09
explosion some of them were thrown 40 feet some of them talk about seeing them tearing the buildings apart
1:14:16
they're all wrong they're all wrong what kind of a governmental system has been
1:14:22
created where ordinary people can not only think we can apparently not even use our
1:14:28
five senses we're all wrong so it wasn't difficult in that light to
1:14:34
dismiss mr jennings and say he was wrong he didn't perceive an explosion
1:14:40
what did he perceive then debris debris from the north tower falling on
1:14:47
world trade 7 confused him and he thought it was an explosion
1:14:52
and that requires them to say that mr jennings was also off by roughly an hour
1:14:59
in his time he thought he experienced that somewhere around 9 30 but actually
1:15:05
it was when world trade 1 came down at 10 30. well all i'm going to say is this mr
1:15:12
jennings cannot defend himself or speak up for himself because he died on august 19th two days before the
1:15:19
announcement of the final nist report we don't know why or how he died but he died
1:15:25
and in the meantime until i see evidence to the contrary i am going to believe
1:15:30
his testimony i'm going to accept that he perceived what he said he perceived
1:15:36
at roughly the time that he said he perceived it and that means there were explosions in
1:15:42
world trade seven my friends my time is up and i am going
1:15:47
to sum up my talk as i end with the five major points there was widespread foreknowledge of
1:15:54
world trade 7's collapse this foreign knowledge is incompatible
1:15:59
with nist's collapse hypothesis therefore nist's hypothesis is wrong
1:16:06
the control demolition hypothesis is compatible with the evidence of foreknowledge
1:16:12
there is also witness evidence that supports the controlled demolition hypothesis thank you very
1:16:18
much for your patience
1:16:54
graham thank you very much and thank you for all of the work that you've done that's given you the capability to to
1:17:02
give us the summary that you have this afternoon
1:17:08
if we were to take what you have presented to this group and we were to look at how
1:17:15
we could use it legally i think there's a lot of fruit
1:17:20
on the on the tree there silverstein's
1:17:26
clip is certainly an admission against penal interest uh
1:17:32
and could be used um jennings interviews and his statements
1:17:41
um virtually come close to being excited utterances since they happened at the
1:17:46
time around the time that he had the experience so he's unavailable so that
1:17:54
that film material could be used in conjunction with the reporters authenticating it who
1:17:59
who actually uh interviewed him and who interviewed silverstein
1:18:04
i think the number of first responders who are on record as having heard uh
1:18:12
explosions throughout those three buildings uh is very impressive there there seems
1:18:20
to have been a um serious possibility that has been overlooked and that that
1:18:26
the buildings were all wired and that they were all wired in advance this is not something one does
1:18:31
in a short period of time to bring effective wiring into place from what i
1:18:38
understand not all having the expertise but having heard this from others would would require a planned effort
1:18:45
over quite a period of time in advance of the explosions themselves um
1:18:51
and it's a very sophisticated job indeed what you have described does appear to
1:18:58
be an internal wiring operation that was that was triggered at a
1:19:03
point in time either as you said to weaken the structure so that debris could have an impact on
1:19:10
it and bring it down or uh to actually begin to cause it to
1:19:15
fall itself the firemen that you have interviewed
1:19:20
could certainly be brought in and statements could be taken from them under oath
1:19:26
as well as they could their superiors be brought to testify
1:19:32
so i think this has not been done obviously nist didn't do this and there
1:19:38
has been no proceeding that's effectively
1:19:43
done this so i think it's um it would be an important legal exercise
1:19:49
to to engage massively in in this kind of discovery and put on the record
1:19:56
in detail what you what you have uncovered and thank you for that effort
1:20:02
um