9-11 - LOOKING GLASS NEWS | |
Eagle's Nest at Ground Zero |
|
by Jeremy Baker Serendipity Entered into the database on Sunday, August 27th, 2006 @ 15:06:29 MST |
|
"I am a very big believer in what I call relentless
preparation," Since the attacks of September 11th, a growing chorus of 9/11 researchers have
cited Mayor Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management (OEM) bunker on the 23rd
floor of WTC 7 as a possible operations center for the 9/11 conspirators —
a convenient location from which to guide the "hijacked" planes to
their targets and fine-tune the demolition strategies for the Twin Towers. But
this intriguing (and, some might think, bizarre) hypothesis has always relied
a little too heavily on vague and circumstantial evidence. Here is what we do
know. In 1996, by executive order, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani created the Office of Emergency
Management (OEM), an agency designed to develop strategies and resources to
deal with any catastrophic event that might threaten the welfare of the city
and its people. Possible threats included natural disasters and terrorist attacks. In June 1999 Giuliani completed his $13 million emergency command bunker on
the 23rd floor of World Trade Center Building 7. This reinforced emergency control
center — complete with its own air, water and power supply — was
intended to provide a secure command post for leadership should such a disaster
occur. From the outset, the location for the facility provoked controversy. The Police
Commissioner's Chief of Staff, Richard Sheirer, clashed bitterly with OEM director
Jerry Hauer over the planned site. Hauer's decision to locate the emergency
command retreat in the midst of the number one terrorist target in the western
hemisphere — a place likely to be destroyed (as it was) in the event of
an actual attack — was, Sheirer felt, surely an act of lunacy. During the 9/11 Commission hearings, Senator Tim Roemer revisited this point:
"Mr. Sheirer ... there was a decision made to locate the [bunker] right
in the nest of where the terrorists had struck in 1993. Why put it in one of
the most likely places where people are going to come back and hit us again
... ?" In response, Sheirer was diplomatic: "I did not agree with
it for the very reasons that you said. I did not agree with it simply because
it was on the 23rd floor of a building. And do I look like a guy that wants
to walk up 23 flights?" Amazingly, when Roemer questioned Hauer himself
the next day, he never mentioned a word about the location of the OEM. Sheirer's prophetic concern, that an above-ground facility could sustain damage
rendering it inaccessible (and its elevators inoperable), was echoed in a NY
Daily News article that described the command post in WTC 7 as being "the
first-ever aerie-style bunker," the vast majority (or, apparently, all)
of similar facilities naturally having been built underground (and well removed
from potential hot spots). We also know that one of the two small fires later blamed for the collapse
of the huge steel-framed WTC 7 was on its seventh floor, the location of the
OEM's emergency generators. It's commonly thought by 9/11 researchers that these
fires were ignited to serve as "cover" for the building's forthcoming
but utterly inexplicable collapse. The fact that 1) this fire occurred on a
floor that was presumably secured and accessible only by OEM personnel, and
2) floor 7 housed not only OEM generators but a "day" tank, presumably
of diesel fuel, is, some feel, additional evidence linking the OEM to the attacks. But the point most often promulgated in support of the theory at hand is the
obvious controlled demolition of WTC 7 itself. It's been argued that if the
OEM was really just a front for the conspirator's operations center, the facility
would then need to be destroyed should evidence of its existence be discovered.
To adherents of this theory, the intentional destruction of Building 7 was meant
to dispense with this problem and, most likely, a host of others. There are two tangential points worth mentioning as well. First, there have
always been questions as to why Flight 175 (or rather, the plane alleged to
be UA Flight 175 in the official story) hit the South Tower at such a sharp
angle, so unlike the impact of (alleged) Flight 11. Once the "terrorists"
had determined the optimum trajectory for the impacts of the planes, you'd think
they would use the same plan for each building. But if Flight 175 hit the South
Tower high up and straight on, as Flight 11 did, the possibility that tons of
flaming debris might pass right through the building and impact WTC 7 is not
unreasonable. Look at the videos of the crash and examine the
site diagram. The dramatic images of rocketing debris passing through the
South Tower (and harmlessly off to the northeast) seem to confirm this possibility.
The second point might help to resolve a question that's lingered in the years
since the attacks: Why did the South Tower collapse first when it was the second
one to be hit? Well, if you were in the OEM bunker putting the finishing touches
on the explosive systems in the Twin Towers, which one would you bring down
first; the dangerously close North Tower or the safely distant South Tower?
This point resonates best when linked to a new and compelling theory: that
personnel stationed in the OEM bunker, first, demolished the South Tower and
then exited WTC 7 to prepare for the near simultaneous demolition of the North
Tower and WTC 7 from a secondary location — an attempt by the conspirators
to complete the demo job on the entire WTC in one fell swoop. Their efforts
in regard to the North Tower came off without a hitch. But when they attempted
to "pull" Building 7 several minutes later — when its obvious
demolition would be completely hidden beneath the North Tower's enormous debris
cloud — the demolition system failed and the building remained intact.
This controversial theory (see link below) would certainly explain WTC 7's incongruous
survival when every other WTC building lay in ruins. Whatever the case may be, the priorities of psychopaths naturally tend toward
self-preservation, and the two peripheral (though intriguing) points mentioned
above may be an expression of this noble concern. The fortuitous timing of the OEM's construction — shortly before the
most spectacular and audacious terrorist attack in human history — seems,
in retrospect, suspiciously convenient. It's reminiscent of another similar
"coincidence" often cited by 9/11 skeptics; the acquisition of the
entire WTC by Manhattan developer Larry Silverstein just six weeks before 9/11
— the first time the WTC had changed hands in thirty years and the first
time it had ever come under private control. 9/11 skeptics naturally connect the suspiciously anomalous features of Giuliani's
OEM with their many other sober and well-researched doubts about the attacks.
Whether or not these points prove conclusively that the mayor's bunker was,
in reality, a nest of 9/11 conspirators, they would certainly appear to explain
the poor choice of locations for a command retreat that oddly rewrote the rules
set in place for similar facilities in the past. Read "Was WTC 7 a Dud?" at: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc7_dud.htm For a transcript of the exchange between Senator Roemer and Richard
Sheirer see: Comments? Web_wender@hotmail.com _________________________________ Read from Looking Glass News Rudy
Giuliani opens his own bank Rudy
Giuliani slavering witness for Moussaoui prosecution GOP
candidate says 9/11 attacks were a hoax Why
Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? The
Destruction of the World Trade Center New
WTC Complex Photos Highlight Bizarre Building 7 Collapse Debunking
Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Lies Twin
Towers wreckage turning up all over the place 20
reasons to question the official story of 9/11 5
Reasons to Question the Official 9/11 Story 9/10/01
: ON THE EVE OF DESTRUCTION A
Half-Dozen Questions About 9/11 They Don't Want You to Ask Showtime
- Look Inside The 911 Smoke Plume 9/11:
The Myth and the Reality The
Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training Flying
a Plane Into the World Trade Center? Scientific
Evidence that Official 9/11 Story is a Lie The
1975 World Trade Center Fire Landmark
Implosion Looks Like WTC Collapse Twin
gas tanks' demolition foreshadows Twin Towers' demolition 9-11:
Animation showing military precision of flight paths |