There is a 9/11 bombshell. Larry Silverstein wanted to demolish Building Number 7 on 9/11. There was the pull it controversy. The skeptics claimed that there was no plan to have a controlled demolition of the building. Now, it's proven that officials were considering blowing up the building. Silverstein try to deny it, but new evidence refutes his denial. This new WTC 7 should be investigated now. Jeffrey Scott Shapiro is a fomer Washington D.C. prosecutor who issued a FOX News hit piece against the 9/11 truth movement including Jesse Ventura.
He wrote that World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein, who collected nearly $500 million dollars in insurance as a result of the collapse of Building 7, a 47-story structure that was not hit by a plane but collapsed within seven seconds on September 11, was on the phone to his insurance carrier attempting to convince them that the building should be brought down via controlled demolition. Shapiro wrote for FOX News mentioning that: "...I was working as a journalist for Gannett News at Ground Zero that day, and I remember very clearly what I saw and heard...Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall..." Silverstein Properties back in February of 2002 won $861 million from Industrial Park Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. The building's collapse alone resulted in a payout of nearly 500 million dollars. This was based on the contention that it was an unforseeen accidential event. Sharpiro believes that there was no conspirary and a controlled demolition would save lives by minimizing the building's imminent collapse. Yet, no one was aware how it would impact his insurance claim as Larry Silverstein has denied that there was a plan to intentionally demolish Building 7. In June 2005, Silvertein told New York Post journalist Sam Smith that hsi pull it comment meant something else. He said in January 2006 (via her spokesperson Dara McQuillan to the U.S. State Department) that pull it was to meant to get rid of firefighters from the buildings despite the fact that there was no firefighers inside of WTC 7. There was no mention of any plan to demolish the building before it fell according to Larry Silverstein. Shapiro’s faux pas has unwittingly let the cat out of the bag on the fact that Silverstein was aggressively pushing for the building to be intentionally demolished, a claim that he has always vociferously denied, presumably to safeguard against putting in doubt the massive insurance payout he received on the basis that the collapse was accidental. Silverstein said pull it in a PBS documentary. Pull it is construction term meaning controlled demolition. “I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse,” said Silverstein. Pull it can't be about pulling firefighters since both the FEMA report, the New York Times and even Popular Mechanics reported that there were no firefighting actions taken inside WTC 7. Shapiro lied and mentioned that the 47 story buillding fell in its own footprint in 7 seven without making a sount without any explosive sounds. The truth is that NYPD officer Craig Bartmer stated that he clearly heard bombs tearing down Building 7 as he ran away from the collaspe. Bartmer said that he heard an explosion and the radios exploded. EMT Indira Singh, a Senior Consultant for JP Morgan Chase in Information Technology and Risk Management, told the Pacifica show Guns and Butter, “After midday on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. If you had been there, not being able to see very much just flames everywhere and smoke – it is entirely possible – I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable because of the collateral damage.” The host asked Singh, “Did they actually use the word “brought down” and who was it that was telling you this?,” to which Singh responded, “The fire department. And they did use the words ‘we’re gonna have to bring it down’ and for us there observing the nature of the devastation it made total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility, given the subsequent controversy over it I don’t know.” Even an EMT named Mike (who wanted to reamin anonymous) wrote a letter to the Loose Change film something. It ws that emergency responders were told Building Number 7 was about to be pulled and that a 20 second radio countdown preceded its collapse. Mike said that lights being bright flashes came in the Building 7 being intentionally pulled. He said that it was intentionally pulled after the countdown. Former Air Force Special Operations for Special and Rescue Kevin McPadden said that he heard the few seconds of the countdown on a nearby police radio. In addition, the language used by firefighters and others at ground zero shortly before the building fell strongly indicates that the building was deliberately demolished with explosives, and not that it fell unaided. The photographic evidence of the controlled demolition of Building Number Seven deals with a crimp in the center left top of the building and the squidbs of smoke as it collapses showing explosive demolition. BBC and even CNN reported on how the building collapsed 26 minutes or over an hour before it actually fell. Footage broadcast 20 minutes before Building 7 fell shows BBC reporter Jane Standley talking about the collapse of WTC 7 while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head. A Separate BBC broadcast shows reporters discussing the collapse of Building 7 26 minutes before it happened. Shapiro's hit peice doesn't work. His deception is contradicted by other eyewitnesses. He denied that the USA was involved in the attacks. However, the most damning aspect of the article is Shapiro’s inadvertent revelation that Larry Silverstein was on the phone to his insurance company pushing for the building to be demolished, which is precisely what happened later in the day. Larry Silverstein having a $500 millin insurance payout is suspicious. This contradicts Silverstein's insistence that he never considered deliberately demolish WTC 7 with explosives. This is just one out of many smoking guns refuting the official story of 9/11.
3 states want to pass open carry gun laws. Some states have considered bills to get more guns in the hands of gun owners. Ohters want to ban open carry, which is silly since open carry laws have reduced crime in numerous states that passed open carry laws. In California, the Democratic controlled Assembly Public Safety Committee passed a measure trying to ban open carry. This move is expected to have opposition and will likely result in many lawsuits. That is why both sides are watching the Supreme Court case that challenges a Chicago ban on handguns kept in private homes for personal protection. Justices are expected to make their decision on the issue later this year. The court earlier ruled that D.C. could not impose similarr limits without violating the Second Amendment right to bear arms. The overriding question for California is whether the court will focus on the narrow issues pertaining to the Chicago case or answer broader questions like particularly whether state governments can enact gun controls. Arizona and Oklahoma lawmakers are considering proposals of the pro-gun orientation. A bill allowing people with concealed-carry permits to openly carry weapons passed the Senate. House Bill 3354 passed Wednesday with no debate and now heads to the House. The vote was 33-15.
Sen. Tom Adelson, D-Tulsa, voted for it, saying he generally votes in favor of Second Amendment bills. He said the state already has a concealed-carry law and that he didn’t think the measure was a “huge jump.” Sen. Brian Crain, R-Tulsa, voted against the measure.
“I would not like to see 200 people carrying guns around Woodland Hills Mall,” which is in his district, Crain said. In Arizona, Governor Jan Brewer has signed legislation allowed residents to carry concealed weaposn without a permit. The law will take effect 91 days after the Legislature finally adjourns something now scheduled for the end of the month. Brewer said in a prepared statement said that this legislation not only protects the 2nd Amendment rights of Arizona citizens, but restores those rights as well. Gun laws have become increasingly present in state legislatures. This was an issue that has always ignited the passions. Some fear that the Obama administratin is anti-gun. Barack Obama of course denies these charges. So far, guns are allowed in national parks as signed by Obama, it isn't likely that Obama would seek another Assault Weapons ban, and Barack Obama did support gun control laws in his earlier Illinois state senate career.
There is a new Bilderberg Group meeting in 2010. James P. Tucker Jr. found the location to be held in Stiges, Spain from June 3-6, 2010. Sitges is a small resort town that is 20 miles from Barcelona. It has a wall of armed guards who will seal off the resort in a futile attempt to make the event secret. Even the Trilateral Commission will have their gathering in Dublin, Ireland from May 6-10. Leaders of the Bilderberg Group also attend Trilateral Commission meetings since each have the common agenda. About 300 attend Trilateral Commission meetings. They are usually held secretly behind closed floors of their hotel. About 100 will attend the Bilderberg Group, which seals off the entire resort behind platoons of police and private security.
Jim Tucker wrote that the Bilderberg hopes to keep the global recession going for a leat one year according to an international financial consultant (who deals personally with many of them). This is why Tucker writes that the Bilderberg hopes to create a global "Treasury department" under the United Nations. The Bilderberg first undertook this mission at its meeting last spring in Greece. The effort was blocked by the nationalists in Europe and the United States. The Nationalists objected to surrending sovereignity to the U.N. Nationalists is a dirty word in Bilderberg. According to Jim Tucker: "...Bilderberg’s ultimate goal remains unchanged: Turn the UN into a world government with “nation-states” becoming merely geographic references. The European Union is to become a single political entity, followed by the “American Union” and, finally, the “Asian-Pacific Union.” The “American Union” is to include the entire Western Hemisphere, including Cuba and other offshore islands..." According to Jim Tucker, like the EU, the AU will have a legislature, executive commission, and head of state which can impose laws on member nations. There has been international currencies promotted all of the time in the world.
Back decades ago, newspapers didn't report much on the Bilderberg Group. Now, in Europe and even in America, major metropolitan newspapers and broadcast outlets give huge reporting to the Bilderberg Group. Yet, most major newspapers in America like the Washington Post don't report on this issue. The reason is that many leaders of the Washington Post have attended the Bilderberg group meetings since 1954. The Post’s chairman, Donald Graham, and associate editor, Jimmy Lee Hoagland, have attended each meeting for years. Patriotic movements have tried to stop the powers of the EU and there is resistance to NAFTA (that have eliminated much of the borders among the United States, Mexico, and Canada). Jim Tucker believes that the Bilderbergers and Trilateralists want to expand NAFTA to evolve into the American Union among the Northern Hemisphere. Tucker believed that the Bilderbergers believed in the 1990's, the American Union existed by 2000, but they are still fighting a losing battle. It is true that legitimate patriotic movements have stopped much of the elite's agenda over the years.
Secret Societies are real in their existence. The plan of Sir Francis Bacon inspired many Founding Fathers to create the Masonic location of Washinton D.C. Even many U.S. cities, buildings, monuments, etc. are based on occult/Masonic symbolism. Sir Francis Bacon was concieving of the "New World" or North America as being the New Atlantis. Bacon was apart of the British House of Commons. Ben Jonson was one of Bacon's friends. Jonson was a poet. Francis Bacon used the mythological icons of Pallas Athena as motivating factors in writing his literature. Bacon wrote sonnets and was linked to the Rosicrucian Press. The Invisible College was a group that was inspired by Sir Francis Bacon to promote science and discovery. Even the Royal Society took influenced from Bacon and was made up originally of many scientists plus Rosicrucians like Robert Boyle, Robert Fludd, Ashmore, Wren, etc. The New Atlantis book of Bacon was titled "The Land of the Rosicrucians." The Mysteries talked about the new Atlantis for years before Bacon was born. Sir Francis Bacon took a leading role in organizing colonies in Virginia, Newfoundland, and North Carolina. Numerous British Freemasons and others in the British Empire agreed with the New Atlantis Utopian plan. In 1635, Bacon's descendants lived in Virginia. One descendant was named Henry Blount who took then name of Nathaniel Bacon. Even Bacon's Rebellion in America prefigured the American Revolution. Masons worked in both sides of the American Revolution in the late 1700's.
By Timothy
No comments:
Post a Comment