Newly Unearthed Footage Exposes 9/11 Media Scripting
Bizarre foreknowledge and explanation of towers’ collapse more cryptic clairvoyance
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Monday, March 12, 2007
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.â€
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?
Related Posts
Stumble it!
Posted by ans.
Filed under 911, What’s Really Going On?
Posted on Mon, 12 March 2007 at 9:59 p
Subscribe to RSS 2.0 feed.