President of Italy’s Supreme Court to Refer 9/11 Crimes To International Criminal Court

[Magda Hassan]

President of Italy's Supreme Court to Refer 9/11 Crimes To International Criminal Court

Posted on September 9, 2012 by WashingtonsBlog

Says that 9/11 was "False Flag" Terror, Just Like the Strategy of Tension in Italy

Ferdinando Imposimato is the honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy, and former Senior Investigative Judge, Italy.
Imposimato presided over several terrorism-related cases, including the kidnapping and ultimate assassination of President Aldo Moro, the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II, other political assassinations and kidnapping cases and several cases against the Mafia. He is a former Senator who served on the Anti-Mafia Commission in three administrations.
Imposimato is also a former legal consultant to the United Nations regarding institution of laws to control drug trafficking.
This week, Judge Imposimato stated publicly in writing that 9/11 was just like the "strategy of tension" carried out in Italy.
Specifically, the former Italian Prime Minister, Italian judges, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence admit that NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and other European countries in the 1950s and blamed the communists, in order to rally people's support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism.
As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: "You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security" (and see this)(Italy and other European countries subject to the terror campaign had joined NATO before the bombings occurred).
And watch this BBC special:
Judge Imposimato writes that 9/11 was the exact same type of attack: an act of false flag terror.Judge Imposimato announced that he is going to recommend that the International Criminal Court hold a criminal trial into 9/11.
Imposimato noted that the International Criminal Court was set up to protect the world from criminal acts of war, and that it is the perfect judicial body to hear such a case.

Numerous High-Level Legal Scholars Agree That Additional Action Is Necessary

Imposimato is not the only legal scholar to call for prosecutions and/or further investigations into 9/11. Many other high-level legal jurists, professors and trial lawyers have said the same thing. See this andthis.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/09/p...court.html
Note: Judge Imposimato is a member of Lawyers for 9/11 Truth and a panelist on the Toronto Hearings.

[Jan Klimkowski]

If this is correctly reported, the honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy is about to place 9/11 within the framework of Gladio.

[Magda Hassan]

http://www.journalof911studies.com/resou...letter.pdf


September 2012


Ferdinando Imposimato is the Honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy and a
former Senator who served on the Anti-Mafia Commission in three administrations. He is
the author or co-author of seven books on international terrorism, state corruption, and
related matters, and a Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Italy.




The 9/11 attacks were a global state terror operation permitted by the administration of
the USA, which had foreknowledge of the operation yet remained intentionally
unresponsive in order to make war against Afghanistan and Iraq. To put it briefly, the
9/11 events were an instance of the strategy of tension enacted by political and economic
powers in the USA to seek advantages for the oil and arms industries.
Italy too was a victim of the "strategia della tensione" of the CIA, enacted in Italy from
the time of the Portella della Ginestra massacre in Sicily in 1947 until 1993.
There is much evidence of this strategy, both circumstantial and scientific.
The reports of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), November 20,
2005, set forth the following conclusions. The airplanes that struck each of the twin
towers caused a breach as well as an explosion evidenced by a giant fireball. The
remaining jet fuel flowed onto the lower floors, sustaining the fires. The heat from the
fires deformed the building structures and both towers collapsed completely from top to
bottom. Very little that was of any size remained after these events except steel as well as
aluminum fragments and the pulverized dust from the concrete floors.
World Trade Center 7 also collapsed--in a way that was inconsistent with the common
experience of engineers. The final NIST report claimed that the plane strikes against the
twin towers were responsible for all three building collapses: WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7.
All three buildings collapsed completely, but Building 7 was not hit by a plane. WTC7's
collapse violated common experience and was unprecedented.
The NIST report does not analyze the actual nature of the collapses. According to experts
at the Toronto Hearings (Sept. 8-11, 2011), the collapses had features that indicate
controlled explosions. I agree with architect Richard Gage and engineer Jon Cole, both
highly experienced professionals, who have arrived at their conclusions through reliable
tests, scientific proof, and the visual testimony of people above suspicion, including
firefighters and victims. The authoritative theologian David Ray Griffin has described
very precisely why the hypothesis of controlled demolition should be taken into
consideration. Various witnesses heard bursts of explosions.
According to NIST the collapse of Building 7 was due to fires provoked by the collapse
of the twin towers. Chemist and independent researcher Kevin Ryan, however, has
demonstrated that NIST gave contradictory versions of the collapse of Building 7. In a
preliminary report NIST declared that WTC7 was destroyed because of fires provoked by
diesel fuel stored in the building, while in a second report this fuel was no longer
considered the cause of the building's collapse. Additional comments on the NIST
version of events have been made by David Chandler, another expert witness at the
Toronto Hearings. Despite NIST's claim of three distinct phases of collapse, Chandler
pointed out that many available videos show that for about two and a half seconds the
acceleration of the building cannot be distinguished from freefall. NIST has been obliged
to agree with this empirical fact as pointed out by Chandler, and now understandable by
everyone.
Peter Dale Scott, another witness at the Hearings, demonstrated that there was a
systematic CIA pattern of withholding important information from the FBI, even when
the FBI would normally be entitled to it. Furthermore, there is additional evidence against
George Tenet and Tom Wilshire. According to the former White House chief of antiterrorism, Richard Clarke (interview given on French and German TV as part of a
documentary by Fabrizio Calvi and Christopf Klotz, August 31, 2011 as well as the
interview with Calvi and Leo Sisti, "il fatto quotidiano", Aug. 30, 2011) the CIA was
aware of the imminent attack of 9/11.
Moreover, since 1999 the CIA had investigated Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hamzi,
both Saudis who were associated with the American Airlines plane that hit the Pentagon.
The CIA had been informed that Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hamzi had arrived in
the USA in early 2000. It is legitimate to deduce that Tenet, chief of the CIA, and
Wilshire, according to Peter Dale Scott a "key figure" in Alec Station blocked the efforts
of two FBI agentsDoug Miller and Mark Rossinito notify the FBI center that one of
the participants in the Kuala Lumpur meeting, al-Mihdhar, got a US visa through the
United States consulate in Jeddah. Professor Scott, basing himself on Kevin Fenton's
research, mentions 35 different occasions when the hijackers were protected in this
fashion, from January of 2000 to September 5, 2001. With reference to the earlier of
these incidents, the motive of this protection was evidently, according to Fenton, "to
cover a CIA operation that was already in progress."
Further circumstantial evidence against Tenet and Wilshire is the following. On July 12,
2001 Osama bin Laden was in American Hospital in Dubai. He was visited by a CIA
agent. This information was given to Le Figaro, which also reported that bin Laden had
been operated on in this hospital, having arrived from Quetta, Pakistan. This information
was confirmed by Radio France International, which disclosed the name of the agent who
met bin LadenLarry Mitchell. Tenet and Wilshire, aware of the presence of bin Laden
in the United Arab Emirates, failed to have him arrested and extradited, although FBI and
CIA documents held him responsible for massacres in Kenya and Tanzania.
Insider trading is further strong evidence against the CIA, FBI and the US government.
Articles by Professor Paul Zarembka, as well as by Kevin Ryan and others, prove such
insider trading took place in the days immediately prior to the attacks. Yet this insider
trading has been denied by the FBI and the 9/11 Commission.
Additional evidence against the CIA and the US administration is the following. Atta, at
least since May 2000, was under CIA surveillance in Germany, according to the 9/11
Commission, both because he was accused since 1986 of attempts against Israel and
because he had been surprised while purchasing great quantities of chemical products for
use in explosives in Frankfurt (The Observer, Sept. 30, 2001). He was investigated by the
Egyptian Secret Service and his cellular phone tapped. On November of 1999
Mohammed Atta left Hamburg, went to Karachi, Pakistan and then to Kandahar. Here he
met bin Laden and Sheikh Omar Saeed (Homeland Security Global Security.org,
"Movements of Mohammed Atta"). After June 2000 the USA continued to monitor Atta,
intercepting his conversations with Sheikh Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, considered the
director of 9/11, who lived in Pakistan.
Strong evidence that the CIA was aware of Atta's irregular movements from the USA to
Europe and within the USA is the declassified CIA document sent by the Agency to G.
W. Bush (President's Daily Brief). This document, dated August 6, 2001, says: "Bin
Laden Determined to Strike in US." It continues:
"Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has
wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the United States. Bin Laden implied in U.S.
television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of
World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef, and bring the fighting to America.'
After US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, bin Laden told followers he
wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a foreign intelligence service.
An Egyptian Islamic Jihad operative told an agent of a foreign intelligence service at the
same time that bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative's access to the US to
mount a terrorist strike….
A clandestine source said in 1998 that a bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting
Muslim-American youth for attacks.
This document proves that the CIA, FBI, as well as President Bush, knew by August 6,
2001, who had operative access: Atta. No one enjoyed such access to the US as Atta. But
the CIA, FBI and Bush did nothing to stop him.
I have collected in Italy evidence that the Iraq War was decided on by the U.S.
government before the 9/11 attacks with the help of the Italian Secret Service. According
to Michel Chossudovsky, the 9/11 attacks were used as a pretext for war, having had as
background the many years of CIA creation of, and support for, the terrorist network now
known as al Qaeda. Today there is a danger of a new "preventive war" against Iran by the
USA. This could be terrible for the people of the world and could even destroy a large
part of humanity.
The only possibility for achieving justice is to submit the best evidence concerning the
involvement of specific individuals in 9/11 to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal
Court and ask him to investigate according to the articles 12, 13, 15 and 17, letters a and
b, of the Statute of the ICC, recalling also the preamble of the Statute:
Recognizing that such grave crimes threaten the peace, security and the well
being of the world,
Affirming that the most serious crimes of concern to the international community
as a whole must not go unpunished and that their effective prosecution must be
ensured by taking measures at the national level and by enhancing international
cooperation,
Determined to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes and
thus to contribute to the prosecution of such crimes,
Recalling that the duty of every state to exercise its jurisdiction over those
responsible for international crimes, …



Ferdinando Imposimato

[Jan Klimkowski]

Magda - thanks.

So yes indeed, the honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy places 9/11 explicitly within the philosophical framework of Gladio:

The 9/11 attacks were a global state terror operation permitted by the administration of
the USA, which had foreknowledge of the operation yet remained intentionally
unresponsive in order to make war against Afghanistan and Iraq. To put it briefly, the
9/11 events were an instance of the strategy of tension enacted by political and economic
powers in the USA to seek advantages for the oil and arms industries.
Italy too was a victim of the "strategia della tensione" of the CIA, enacted in Italy from
the time of the Portella della Ginestra massacre in Sicily in 1947 until 1993.
There is much evidence of this strategy, both circumstantial and scientific.

In my judgement, the "strategia della tensione" is key to understanding late C20th and early C21st history.

[Keith Millea]

Chomsky says:

[Jeffrey Orling]

With all due respect that Judge was hoodwinked a bit. I know Jon Cole personally. Nice fella. He's a sanitation engineer. he's not Richard Feyman. Gage is not a structural engineer and never did a test an minute of research.

Self declared experts are a dime a dozen...

NIST covered up... but for whom and why? Aside from letting the official narritive stand... pinning the event entirely on Islamic fundamentalism. Not so fast Mista NISTa.

By the way the Judge seems to indicate a LIHOP position...even though shows confusion and little understanding about the collapse of the towers.

"The 9/11 attacks were a global state terror operation permitted by the administration of
the USA, which had foreknowledge of the operation yet remained intentionally
unresponsive in order to make war against Afghanistan and Iraq. "

[Lauren Johnson]

By the way the Judge seems to indicate a LIHOP position...even though shows confusion and little understanding about the collapse of the towers.

As I recall Jeffrey, you're the only guy who can explain the symetrical collapse of WTC7 without resorting explosives. The beams holding up the entire building collapsed at the same time. Where do you come up with this stuff?

[Jeffrey Orling]

Lauren,

Since you asked.... I hadn't examined bldg 7 very much until about 1 yr ago. I focused on the twin towers which I understand quite well structurally.

The NIST explanation of the failure of shear studs from the heating of the girder which then moved off the beam seat on column 79 was pure hooey and did not lead to the collapse. And I don't even think it "walked off" the beam seat either. That was a completely theoretical, not evidence based theory.

The truth movement used the following evidence to conclude CD:

2.25 seconds of free fall collapse
The building came stright down
explosion(s) were heard at some point
eutectic burning of some steel members was seen

These are very peculiar, but none of them is proof of the CD conclusion. CD may produce those observables..

But other causes can produce them as well.

When I examined the structure more closely AND the observables I determined that the building collapsed from a structural failure on floors 6&7. Why?

Bldg 7 was a real odd duck of a hi rise steel tower. Unlike any other ever built! It was unique! Why?

It was built to straddle a massive Con Ed power station which occupied most of the site where the tower was to be built. So the tower... was built on a structure which spanned over the sub station. This meant that many of the columns which carried the building's weight were not resting on bed rock. What were they resting on? Massive trusses or at the ends of cantilevers. The tower was missing lots of columns below the 8th floor and so the many of the 81 columns of the towers were supported by massive 2 story high trusses. It was like a bridge over the sub station. And two of the walls...east and west up to those trusses were also trusses and not columns. You can think of the structure like a huge auditorium or concert hall with a skyscaper built on the roof. If the roof collapses.. the skyscaper above plunges down through the 8 story high auditorium to the ground... and the auditoriun walls folded in as the tower collapses down. Not a perfect analogy... but it might help to understand why it collapsed straight down into its foot print.

So what might have failed the structure on floors 6&7 - the trusses and cantilever girders?

To fail a truss... one doesn't have to destroy every member. Remember the truss bridge which collapsed into the Mississippi river in MN?

http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/I-35...-Final.pdf

If one member fails... its failure can lead to the failure (rapidly) of the whole truss. In the case of bldg 7 it one of the trusses failed it no longer could carry the loads from the columns which rested on it. Those columns might drop... and the east penthouse was above Transfer Truss 3 and did drop down through the entire building BEFORE the rest of the building dropped.

The loads of TTruss 3 would then be re distributed to adjacent structures. These columns or trusses COULD support additional loads. They DID have a safety factor. It was about 1.5. So they could carry 50% extra load. But if the saw MORE than an additional 50% they too would collapse and then the columns adjacent to it would see BOTH additional loads and so on. The failure can progress VERY rapidly and usually does. The failure cascades through the system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascading_failure

How could this have happened?

Bomb some of the truss members
Weaken them with heat

Steel loses strength when subjected to heat. That's why it is fire proofed and why there are sprinklers.

The trusses were not protected by fire proofing nor sprinklers I believe and the water main broke and the power went down shortly after tower 1 was hit.

There were many huge transformers cooled with flammable oil located in the sub station and on floor 5. Jennings and Hess reported explosions below them when they were in the stair going down BEFORE 10 am. This came from the mech floors where the electrical power equipment was located including the emergency generators fueled by stored diesel.

The building's structural engineer believed the trusses failed from diesel fueled flames.. unfought for 7 hrs. The entire truss did not have to melt or even weaken.. only one member and the truss would give way.

The NYC DOB and FDNY surveyed the building... likely the mech floors where the fire was heating the trusses etc and determined that the building and area needed to be evacuated as it might collapse. They of course reported this to the media.. and Jane Staley did a BBC stand up stating that the building HAD collapsed. There was fore knowledge that the tower was in trouble. Evacuating the area when a collapse may occur is SOP.

When the structure on 6&7 gave way the top dropped 100 feet to the ground at FF. There was little below this structure to slow it down.

The north facade showed inward bowing as if there was nothing behind it. This was the region where the 8 columns just inside the facade were supported on cantilevers.

The entire building swayed east and west a few feet (IIRC) before there was any obvious movement then the east penthouse plunged to the ground over t truss 3 and the the west penthouse came down...both were over the core region which was supported by the 3 trusses. It looks like the trusses failed.

What failed the trusses?

If you don't closely examine the structure... you can't understand what happened to it.

[Albert Doyle]

So it was the diesel tanks after all?


What I don't like is the lack of detailed information on who called the pull back from Building 7 and who relayed the information to BBC and how?

[Jeffrey Orling]

First of all, wtc 7 DID collapse... it wasn't blown to bits. We can all see that it seems to come down, much like a Las Vagas CD where the lower columns are weakened or severed with explosives... then the mass above has no support and drops down crushing itself floor by floor. WTC 7 appears to match this sort of pattern.

But careful observation gives some clues to how the actual failure leading to the collapse happened. Those clues do NOT nail the cause of what weakened to destroyed the structure down at the bottom. THAT is speculation.

The official account has been demonstrated to be incorrect and not even supported by the observations of the buildings movement in the time frame just before the collapse.

On the other hand the most common explanation I have seen from AE911T's supporters is that 8 floors of 81 columns were destroyed in an instant leaving no structural support or resistance to a collapse for 100 feet. Sounds OK but what floors are they referring to? We can't see in the vids 8 floors of columns *blown out*. So were the more or less silently severed and pushed aside all at the same instant and all hidden by the glass curtain wall with no visable or audible signs of explosives or cutting devices? The failure to demonstrate how to destroy 81 x 4 (columns were 2 stories each) or 324 columns and find actual evidence of these destroyed or severed columns is what makes THAT explanation hard to swallow.

Further... the visuals DO show some sort of progression of *failure*... the building sways east to west beginning a minute before the naked eye observations of actual destruction of parts of the tower. A few seconds before the tower descends at FF for 100' the east penthouse collapses down through the building. Anyone can see it drop from the roof. But how far did it fall? It has been determined by careful analysis of the reflections on the north facade glass that there was a FF decent of *something*... and it appears to be the East penthouse... right through the entire visible stories. This process caused the glass facade to bulge out as some sort of event took place... a pressure wave perhaps... a pulling at the floor structure which was connect to the columns at the perimeter which in turn supported the glass curtain wall... perhaps. But the take away from these observations is that after the building swayed a bit the East penthouse dropped right down through the building. It appears that whatever supported it... way down was destroyed. The East penthouse was above the East side of the core atop the infamous column 79 which was supported by the massive transfer truss #3. Column 79 did not have a footing and no foundation.. it rested on the mid span of transfer truss #3. One could / should conclude that transfer truss #3 failed. This truss was located on floors 6&7 with the bottom being at about elevation (6x13)+78' above grade and the top of it at about (8x13) 104' above grade... the truss was supported by 2 columns.. a bridge between/one them. When the truss failed column 79 has no support and drop with no resistance 104' and everything above and connected to the column 79 came down with it... a sink hole inside the building!

Almost immediately the structure to the west failed... and the West penthouse which was about transfer trusses #1 and #2 likely failed. It too plunged down through the entire height of the tower. At this moment the building was without any core columns.. with the floors like trapezoid shaped donuts with a rectangular hole were supported by the 57 perimeter columns just inside the curtain wall.

The structural failure of the core region on floors 6&7 when the 3 transfer trusses appears to have broken apart might have pulled inward at the East and West perimeter supports from floors 1-7. The design had no columns on most of the east and west sides of the tower up to floor 8. Instead there were 8 story high trusses which carried the loads of the perimeter columns on the east and west sides. There were massive and very strong and the truss design created not separate columns but an integrated structure along each side to the 8th floor... connected at floors 6&7 to the aforementioned transfer trusses. What may have happened is that when the core collapsed from the transfer truss failures those trusses pulled the east and west trusses inward and this left the columns they supported with no support. At this moment there was nothing to support ANY of the columns above.. not the core nor the perimeter.... The 8 north side perimeter columns opposite the core were not resting on foundations either. Those 8 columns were perched on the ends of massive cantilever girders which ... were supported at their south end by the north columns which also supported the transfer trusses.

I believe the south side had a fewer columns to facilitate the loading dock and at least one of the columns above was supported mid span on a mass beam. The take away here is that the design had removed columns, used trusses and was vulnerable to the structure folding inwards if those trusses failed. If that happened there was essentially no columns below floor 8 and nothing to hold the tower up or resist its descent.

I am quite confident that this explains how the collapse progressed. But what caused the transfer trusses to fail? We don't know. It certainly could be placed devices. It might be loss of strength of one truss member or one truss connection. When a truss member fails or the connection of one of the struts.. the entire truss fails. This can be seen in truss bridge failures and has happened recently in MN and CT... where rust weakened bolts or pins or splices and the truss failed and the span dropped at free fall into the river.

It seems unlikely that fire could weaken a massive truss to the point of failure. But could a diesel or gas fueled flame burning on one small location for 7 hrs weaken it enough for it to lose strength and fail the truss? I can't say one way or the other. But we do know that steel normally had fire protection for 1 or 2 hrs and there are sprinklers to cool the steel as well. In bldg 7 the latter were inoperable in 9/11 as there was both a water main rupture and loss of power to pump water for the sprinkler system.

I discovered in my research that the building's structural engineer, Irwin Cantor stated that the building came down from a truss failure and he attributes the cause to diesel fueled flames. Maybe. He also stated that the emergency generator systems were retro fits which he had nothing to do with and which were fueled by 20,000 gal of diesel stored at the site. He appears to be saying his trusses failed but the cause was a Guiliani retro fit which he was not responsible for. NIST of course, tried to make the collapse the result of office fires at flr 13 column 79... which is pure nonsense. NIST also stated that there was nothing below floor 8 of interest to them in what could have caused the tower to collapse. WRONG completely and totally wrong.

If the collapse was the result of diesel fueled flames on the transfer truss... how did they get started? We don't know.

We can speculate that the explosion(s?) Jennings and Hess reported from a location below them when they were on floor 7 in the egress stairs which were inside the core region might have ruptured the diesel or gas risers and a sparks ignited the leaking fuels. The mech floors DID contain equipment which could explode.. transformers, switch gear etc. And the mech floors were above the Con Ed sub station which contained massive oil cooled (flammable) which can and have exploded in the past.... and in NYC. Power transformer explosions are common. They can occur as a result of shorts, or overloads and so forth. The circuit protection is often not fast enough in response to prevent these explosions... a sort of slow blow fuse.. simply because they can't make them fast enough.

Electrical failures in power grids can and do cascade. We all see a blackout spread from one power station failure to the entire north eastern US. It's certainly possible that this occurred on 9/11 started by a short in tower 1 associated with the plane strike. There is a Con Ed report of a series of 8 large 13.8kv feeds going offline beginning at the moment of the plane strike at 8:46am. So they admit their down town grid was under stress and failing. They DO have the ability to divert power to prevent the entire grid from going down and that's what they did on 9/11. But there was a partial grid meltdown and it likely involved the Con Ed sub station in bldg 7 which in turn supplied the 4 building sub stations for the tenants and equipment in the tower. There was no main power or elevator power at some time BEFORE 10 am as Jennings and Hess had to take the stairs down from flr 23.

These observations support the theory that there were electrical causes explosions and that in turn kicked off diesel and natural gas fires on the mech floors where the transfer trusses were located.

This theory needs further investigation. The cause of the transfer truss failure could be placed devices... or perhaps they could be from 7 hrs of diesel and natural gas flames. I would not rule out the latter.

Food for thought.

The call to *pull back*

We should have better information on this. We don't. The reason we don't may be because the authorities FDNY, NYC DOB expected a structural failure caused by the diesel and natural gas fires. If this was the cause it could make those who designed this tower negligent for the collapse.. much like a product liablity matter. In the Ford Pinto matter the death was triggered by a rear end collision... but the outcome (death) was nailed by the design which caused the gas tanks to catch fire or explode. Ford was held to be negligent. Same deal here. Silverstein was all about collecting his insurance and wante the cause to be terrorism which was covered by his policy. Apparently he checked with his insurers that day.

DOB and FDNY called for the evacuation because they feared a collapse and didn't want an persons killed or injurred if this happened which they believed it would. Two huge towers had collapsed even though it was common knowledge that they could withstand a plane strike. Numerous explosions were heard and it was believed that there was a terrorist attack. The explosions Jennings and Hess heard were of unknown origin and there was no determination if they were bombs or equipment exploding. Why take any risks with life. They were in a wait and see mode. What were they to do? They could not fight the fires with no water mains and perhaps they were out of control in the mech floors with some steel red hot. Who knows? The FDNY and DOB had every reason to believe that the tower might come down IF their surveys showed this sort of situation in the mech floors. The correctly and prudently called all personal out of the building and the area evacuated. This is routine. When they make such a call they go to the press. They use the press to reach all the people in the area of concern to evacuate and others to stay away. The BBC got this press release.. given verbally by the commisioner and went outside and did a stand up declaring that the building had collapsed... anticipating that it would. Someone needs to ask the BBC reporter and producer if this is what happened... or why they did that story when they did. Silverstein's remark about "pull it" might have referred to the personnel inthe building trying to asses the damage... not wanting them to get killed. Who knows. A despicable character for sure. Way too much speculation is being made about the BBC report and someone needs to get the actual answer from the horse's mouth. Maybe they will lie. But someone needs to ask.