CNN may have lied about WTC Building 7

On Wednesday, November 10th, Anderson Cooper featured Kyle Hence and Jimmy Walter regarding the latter's TV ad campaign to expose 9/11 truth on WTC 7 and the Pentagon strike. Although Cooper also introduced "official story" apologist Gerald Posner to discredit the ads (with already stale and discredited excuses), the viewers were apparently not impressed and 89% of respondents to the show's online poll remain convinced there's been a government cover-up.

I won't show the entire Transcript due to ATS policy, but here is a section of it, and here is the entire Transcript www.911truth.org...

SHOW TRANSCRIPT

COOPER: Jimmy, your other major assertion is that the World Trade Building Number 7 was detonated from within. And in your commercial, you say that there's never been any public explanation given for why the building collapsed. What is your theory or belief on that?

WALTER: The building is brought down by explosives. Clearly if you look at Larry Silverstein in a movie he claims he told the fire department of the city of New York to pull the building. That's a construction industry specific term to bring down a building with explosives. Larry Silverstein is not an official of the government. He does not represent every person...

COOPER: He's the man who helped police on the World Trade Center. Gerald, let me bring in you here because I've read, this commercial said there's no evidence ever publicly been given. I've read evidence that there was diesel fuel inside the building, being stored there. What do you know about building number 7, why it collapsed?

POSNER: Building number 7 is one of the clearest examples, it's actually a slam dunk in terms of engineering. That's how it came down. I don't even know why this one is a mystery at all and I'll tell you why. It happens to be built over two electrical substations owned by the old electrical utility Coned (ph). It's an unusual design. It has a crosshatch of steel girders that are literally holding it up and after it was built, not the original designs, they stored 45,000 gallons of diesel fuel there, that was used for emergency fuel for generators, for Mayor Giuliani's emergency operations and for the Secret Service.

When that caught fire after the World Trade Center was hit and some of the damage is done to the fire retardant materials in that building there's a fire for five to seven hours. Just the opposite of what you heard in the ad. It slowly burns through those steel birders, fueled by the diesel fuel, and if you watch the tape that's on that ad, 30 seconds before the building implodes, you see the actual mechanical room crash through exactly where you expect it to. There's a clear engineering explanation for that building.

COOPER: We're going to have to leave it there tonight. Gerald Posner, appreciate you joining and Jimmy Walter, as well, thank you very much.

WALTER: It's totally wrong.

COOPER: Well, I know that is your theory and you have been airing those commercials.

(AUDIO GAP)

COOPER: Right. And I think what he is saying is that the wings disintegrated while hitting the ground. That's what I heard him saying. But people can go to your website, they have seen your commercials and you have spent $3 million propagating this. And we appreciate you joining us. Thank you very much. We are going to be doing a special series on conspiracy theories after thanksgiving, and we'd like to hear from you. What's the big story that you think has been covered up that you want us to look into. Email us now. [email protected]
__________________________________________________

click here it's an Alex Jones documentary radio.indymedia.org... a little bit into the documentary it shows Larry Silverstein, the owner of the building admit building 7 was demolished as well as Dan Rather on CBS. So what about what CNN said? They are lying to you. Diesel fuel inside of the building? is that the best they could come up with? and why go to such extreme measures to cover up such a thing when the lease owner of the WTC and Dan Rather have already said otherwise??? Wouldn't CNN want the truth exposed? I mean CNN is not biased to Bush they're considered very liberal and usually refuse to call him President, just Mr. Bush. Just a blatant example of Government/Media Collaboration.

Yeah it sure looks like fire would cause a building to collapse like this






Mod edit: Title only.

[edit on 20-6-2005 by UM_Gazz]

cheap weak structures just like the towers, the towers were built back in the 70's how about this building?

Originally posted by deltaboy
cheap weak structures just like the towers, the towers were built back in the 70's how about this building?

That a total biased lie and you know it. How can you explain a building going straight down due to fire? You refuse to look at the facts being given. How do you explain that the actual Lease owner is saying one thing and CNN are bringing in "experts" to say another?

[edit on 20-6-2005 by NoJustice]

I personally think that WTC 7 was demolished as well. A fire collapse would generally be leniant towards a partial implosion, and at least a titled collapse.

Thanks for the documentary link!

Originally posted by Dmitriy
I personally think that WTC 7 was demolished as well. A fire collapse would generally be leniant towards a partial implosion, and at least a titled collapse.

Thanks for the documentary link!

Well considering that Larry Silverstein, the lease owner of the building admitted it in that documentary and even Dan Rather says right on CBS "the building was delibrately destroyed by well placed dynamites to knock it down" there's no question about it. Yet CNN doesn't want that to be talked about.

Originally posted by NoJustice
[
That a total biased lie and you know it. How can you explain a building going straight down due to fire? You refuse to look at the facts being given. How do you explain that the actual Lease owner is saying one thing and CNN are bringing in "experts" to say another?

[edit on 20-6-2005 by NoJustice]

u can accuse me of anithin but i still believe the building crashed because of its weak structured thanks to the towers fall, kinda like pyramid of cards falling next to another pyramid of cards. if it was explosives u see explosion coming out of the building just prior to its collapse, instead i just see it falling down just suddenly. and dats after the towers.

Sorry but I think I'll take Dan Rather's opinion over yours (even though actually, he's a liar too)

CBS News anchor Dan Rather: “A large building, in most other cities it would be one of the largest buildings in town probably, Trade Center building 7 has collapsed. Now here were gonna show you a videotape of the collapse it’s self. Now here we go to videotape, the collapse of this building.”

Unknown male voice at CBS: “It’s amazing.”

CBS News anchor Dan Rather: “Amazing, incredible pick your word. For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.”

[edit on 20-6-2005 by NoJustice]

Originally posted by deltaboy
if it was explosives u see explosion coming out of the building just prior to its collapse, instead i just see it falling down just suddenly. and dats after the towers.

Not neccessarily with the WTC's. The main support structure, 4 columns, were far inside the building itself. It's those columns, not the outer skeleton framework, that would be laced with explosive.

As for the attempted debunk of "everyone would have saw workers doing it" - again, not neccessarily. Those 4 beams house the inner shaft of elevator workings and maintaince access-ways. No one would have ever noticed. I really don't think that, if this were about detotation, that you would see a typical demolitions team with hard hats and uniforms, not when subversivness is the issue.

Misfit

deltaboy your arguments are a moot point because, as I keep saying and it's on the documentary, the lease owner of the building admitted to pulling building 7 (pulling is just another way of saying used controlled demolitions) Are you going to say he's lying too?

[edit on 20-6-2005 by NoJustice]

Originally posted by deltaboy

u can accuse me of anithin but i still believe the building crashed because of its weak structured thanks to the towers fall, kinda like pyramid of cards falling next to another pyramid of cards. if it was explosives u see explosion coming out of the building just prior to its collapse, instead i just see it falling down just suddenly. and dats after the towers.

ACTUALLY the planes were hit early morning, they fell approx. 1 hour after the initial explosion in which most of the fuel was burnt in, so how can that bring down two structured buildings that were designed specifically to have airplanes flown into them at high speed AND survive with minimal structural damage...............Back to WTC7 it collapsed approx. 5.30pm about 7-8 hours after the fall of WTC 1&2. How can a building collapse almost 2 blocks away yet buildings that less than a block away are NOT in mass damage.

The WTC complex was already wired prior to 9/11 and on the 10/9/01 FEMA teams went in to the complex to place the charges. How do you explain the owner saying to the fire dept. to "pull it". Detonation charges. Case closed. The OWNER of the building said, not to mention the insurance he just took out on the WTC complex............

Someone is in a clear case of denial.

BTW, you need to find out why FEMA S&R teams went into the WTC complex on the 10/9/01..........Not so easy to explain now is it. How did they know it would be attacked, where the attack would happen etc. etc. because they were INVOLVED.

WAKE UP!

peace

As for the pyrimid situation, the great pyrimid of Giza has a support system with balls and sockets which in an earthquake the pyrimid would stay structually sound. The same goes for the ENTIRE WTC complex. And many other "so-called" modern buildings. So that theory is kinda out the window, so to speak.

[edit on 20/6/05 by Hunting Veritas]

[edit on 20/6/05 by Hunting Veritas]

why this particular building wen there is no airplane into it? did somebody made a boo boo and crash the wrong building, sorry Mr. Qaeda but u suppose to crash into building 7 not one of the towers.

Originally posted by deltaboy
why this particular building wen there is no airplane into it? did somebody made a boo boo and crash the wrong building, sorry Mr. Qaeda but u suppose to crash into building 7 not one of the towers.

I don't understand what you're saying because if you talked like you type you'd talk like you're about four, so please clarify. Are you trying to say the "so called" Al Queda crashed into the wrong building? Maybe I'm misunderstanding cause I like I said all the boo boos and dats it's hard to understand what you're saying.

I don't follow the WTC conspiracy much, and I don't remember much of the "facts" thrown around by both sides, but I can comment a little bit. I'm a fence sitter on the issue as a whole; I've heard too many contradicting arguments that are logical on both sides, so I'm not trying to say it was the gov't story or it wasn't.

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas
ACTUALLY the planes were hit early morning, they fell approx. 1 hour after the initial explosion in which most of the fuel was burnt in, so how can that bring down two structured buildings that were designed specifically to have airplanes flown into them at high speed AND survive with minimal structural damage...............

(bolding added)

The buildings were designed to withstand an impact by a smaller plane, 727 I believe. Even at the same speed, or similar speeds, that's a much smaller mass, and a much smaller amount of combustibles than the reported 767. A bullet-proof vest that's designed to take a .38 cal slug won't necessarily be able to handle a .50 cal slug.

The WTC complex was already wired prior to 9/11 and on the 10/9/01 FEMA teams went in to the complex to place the charges. How do you explain the owner saying to the fire dept. to "pull it". Detonation charges. Case closed. The OWNER of the building said, not to mention the insurance he just took out on the WTC complex............

The FEMA teams went in a month after the fact to place the charges? I'm assuming this is a typo or European formatting, but then again, I know how slow our government works...

One argument I've heard against the "pull it" comment makes sense to me. He was telling them to pull the crew out. I'm not a firefighter by any stretch of the imagination, but that's a reasonable explanation in my book. Of course, it can be interpreted however one likes.

BTW, you need to find out why FEMA S&R teams went into the WTC complex on the 10/9/01..........Not so easy to explain now is it. How did they know it would be attacked, where the attack would happen etc. etc. because they were INVOLVED.

Any solid proof of their involvement? While it is highly suspicious, it's still purely circumstantial. Same with all of the reports of NORAD standing down. It looks extremely suspicious sure, but it does not directly mean involvement.

Originally posted by deltaboy
cheap weak structures just like the towers, the towers were built back in the 70's how about this building?

Well, the Empire State Building was built in 1931, and in 1945 a U.S. Air Force bomber crashed into the uppoer floors, starting a fire and damaging, I believe, 3 stories. The building never came close to collapsing, and it was of a steel design similar to the WTC. I guess you will now say "hey, they don't build 'em like they used to...". People who don't want to believe the horrible truth, will come up with anything to make them feel secure in their bubble...

history1900s.about.com...

Also google for: empire state building + 1945 bomber

You know I started this topic because I wanted to show, with proof that the media is covering up the Governments lies at every turn and if anyone wishes to disprove anything said here then I don't have any problem with that. However I think I'll just add deltaboy to the ignore list because he is adding nothing to this conversation what so ever and is doing nothing but coming up with lame excuses. I suggest anyone that wants to have a serious conversation do the same.

deltaboy if I were you I'd go check if CNN is hiring, you'd fit right in with your weak excuses.

[edit on 20-6-2005 by NoJustice]

This is old news. Yes it was pulled, so were 5 and 6 and so were the twin towers. The fire claim is totally rediculous you can read the firemens transcripts yourself. They said the fires were nearly out so it would be impossible for a fire to bring down the towers. The amount of oxygen needed to sustain the fire is impossible in a building, the black smoke shows it was just smoldering.

The second jets fule was thrown outside the building because of a bad impact angle and i think it was the first to fall, totally rediculous. You can even see the explosions right before the collapse.

The towers were even closed for two days on the 9'th and 10'th for some minor technical upgrades from the 42'nd floor and up. Engineers had full access without any security at all, perfect for planting the explosives.

How can you explain all the bigshots not showing up that day and people telling other important people not to fly to new york on 9/11. This was a fear campaign to go to war because war is the backbone of our economy.

The government has been planning something like this since the cuban missile crisis and they will carry out similar attacks in the future. We just have to hope they will slip up soon so we can have definite proof that the media can't hide from.

Yeah it's old news and there's other topics about WTC Building 7 Ninja, but not about CNN lying about it. Do a search

Originally posted by NinjaCodeMonkey
How can you explain all the bigshots not showing up that day and people telling other important people not to fly to new york on 9/11. This was a fear campaign to go to war because war is the backbone of our economy.

u mean big shots like Salman Rushdie who is an author and claims he was warned about 9/11, how big shot is he, he Bush's favorite author?


"17) Selected persons were told not to fly that day. Newsweek reported that on September 10th, "a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns." Why was that same information not made available to the 266 people who died aboard the four hijacked commercial aircraft? A significant number of selected people were warned about flying or reporting for work at the WTC. San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown received a phone call eight hours before the hijacking warning him not to travel by air. Salman Rushdie is under a 24-hour protection of UK Scotland yard; he was also prevented from flying that day. Ariel Sharon canceled his address to Israeli support groups in New York City just the day before his scheduled September 11th address. John Ashcroft stopped flying on public airplanes in July of 2001.

Other evidence exists indicating that government officials knew of the attacks beforehand. For example, Tom Kenny who was with a rescue squad from FEMA told Dan Rather of CBS News that, "We arrived on Monday night (September 10th) and went into action of Tuesday." How is it possible for high government officials to have been caught by surprise as some claimed?"

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

besides the Israelis Prime Minister i wonder why this guy Salman Rushdie who is not dat important.

Originally posted by NoJustice
Wouldn't CNN want the truth exposed? I mean CNN is not biased to Bush they're considered very liberal and usually refuse to call him President, just Mr. Bush. Just a blatant example of Government/Media Collaboration.

CNN is owned by Time Warner - AOL who donated $1.6 million to Bush's election campaign - not the most liberal of companies.



[edit on 20-6-2005 by TheShroudOfMemphis]

Originally posted by deltaboy
why this particular building wen there is no airplane into it? did somebody made a boo boo and crash the wrong building, sorry Mr. Qaeda but u suppose to crash into building 7 not one of the towers.

Here's a helping hand Deltaboy, see if you can work it out:

Floor Numbers and what was held on those floors in WTC 7:

46-47 Mechanical floors
28-45 Salomon Smith Barney (SSB)
26-27 Standard Chartered Bank
25 Inland Revenue Service (IRS)
25 Department of Defense (DOD)
25 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
24 Inland Revenue Service (IRS)
23 Office of Emergency Management (OEM)
22 Federal Home Loan Bank of New York
21 First State Management Group
19-21 ITT Hartford Insurance Group
19 National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC)
18 Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
14-17 Vacant
13 Provident Financial Management
11-13 Securities and Exchange Commission
9-10 US Secret Service
7-8 American Express Bank International
7 OEM generators and day tank
6 Switchgear, storage
5 Switchgear, generators, transformers
4 Upper level of 3rd floor, switchgear
3 Lobby, SSB Conference Center, rentable space, manage
2 Open to first floor lobby, transformer vault upper level, upper level switchgear
1 Lobby, loading docks, existing Con Ed transformer vaults, fuel storage, lower level switchgear


It's believed that WTC 7 was a perfect base for a lot of the people who would of been involved in 9/11's success if the government conspiracy stands.
What better way to destroy the evidence than to collapse the building?