Who told Rudy Giuliani ?
 

A) Giuliani told Jennings, "I--I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the police commissioner, the fire commissioner, the head of emergency management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse." Sept 11, 2001
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTSinAhJgVE


B) Giuliani replied by saying, "I didn't realize the towers would collapse." He later added, "No one that I know of had any idea they would implode. That was a complete surprise." May 29, 2007
http://video.wnbc.com/player/?id=112179


The reporter who got arrested ( http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...ndictments.htm )
asked about who told Giuliani that the WTC is going to collapse.
What is the truth ? Giuliani said both of the things above.
He said he was with the police commissioner, the fire commissioner, and the head of emergency management, and he himself was the mayor.
Then who was that one that knew more than these people did ?
Why is it hard to answer ?

Why is it hard to believe that concidence is stranger than fiction?

Why is it that it seems conspiracy theories are less plausible when you factor in reasonable doubt?

Why does life hold so much mystery?

Isn't two big ass planes sticking in the building warning enough? They were getting people out of there as fast as they can, it's not like telling them the building was going to collapse would speed things up. There's no way anyone actually knew how that was going to play out. Rudy remembered someone saying "The building is going to collapse!" before it did, people said alot of shit during that time, some people probably said it's not going to collapse, but those people aren't remembered because they were wrong. I don't see a conspiracy here.

You are absolutely correct. One can only imagine the chaos.

I think, however, that what pai mei is getting at, is Just what exactly does Giuliani remember from that day.

"We were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse."

Or

"No one that I know of had any idea they would implode. That was a complete surprise."

Which is it? Did they know, suspect, or have a really bad feeling that the towers would collapse? Or, did no one have the foggiest notion of what was about to happen?

A time line of these events is missing

When were they "told that the World Trade Center would collapse"? The anser is what is missing.
a - was it days before?
b - was it hours before?
c - minutes before?
d - seconds before?

I don't know the answer but if someone does please corre3ct the following assumption if it is wrong.

let's assume that it was minutes or seconds before.
If so, could not the second quote be true?

"No one that I know had any idea that they would implode"
When did they have no idea of this?
a - The whole time up until the exact moment the 1st tower fell and it surprised them?
b - The whole time up until seconds or minutes before when it becase apparent to some that it would and they were surprised.
c - They knew.

In my opinion (and I am not vouching for Giuliani) I would say that they did not know the towers were going to collapse until minutes or seconds before when it became apparent to them that they could fall.

There is no contradiction in those quote in my opinion.

Giuliani was incorrect then or now. No one can deny that, as it is made clear through the evidence of the videos linked above. From there you draw your own conclusions, but we should be clear that he was incorrect then or now. I'd say 'coincidence' is not the descriptive term I'd use for this situation. I would use language like 'misleading' or 'erroneous'. You'd think someone could get the facts straight on something this important. His entire presidential hope is places squarely on 9/11.

What i'd like to know is how either he or Bush is considered a "Hero" because of their actions on 9/11. At worst they are the actual perpertrators and at the best just bumbling morons that should have lost their jobs over it. Neither did much to help. The resuers deserve the accolades and the politicians should be scorned for their inaction.

Even in the official story, they're both complete idiots. Go figure.

Bold statement. Would you like to add some facts to back that up? Of course not...

The facts speak for themselves, even in the official story.

When Bush took office, he managed to take vacations over 60% of the time and decrease the capability of our counter terrorism by demoting one of the most important figures of the Clinton administration (and Bush 1, among other presidents), Richard Clarke. Instead of continuing to follow Bin Laden, as Clinton had done (despite what Fox News might suggest), Bush 2: Let's Get This Party Started focused on fishing and hunting, and hanging out with his dog. He was useless and then completely screwed the pooch on the response. Bush should have lost his job because he swore the following:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Bush did not defend the US to the best of his ability, and thus has lied under oath (using a broad usage of the term).

Rudy was a useless piece of crap until 9/11. He did nothing to prevent 9/11, and, as this thread makes clear, either lied about circumstances about that day back then or now.

BBtB , Hitler did more good for his country than Bush ever has. Doesn't mean either is a hero.

I know it's not fair to compare Hitler with Bush ... after all Hitler was legally elected.

Let's leave Bush out of this. This thread isn't about him. It's about Giuliani.

OK Giuliani then, the guy is running for President. He may get the chance to lead the country even further down the road to ruin.

To prove to the world that Americans are not all completely stupid a candidate should have his background examined quite carefully so another Bush or Nixon doesn't get in. Not that there are any worthy candidates.

Just to chime in, but my dad is a seasoned Fire Fighter. As soon as he saw the towers on fire he said "they are going to collapse". The building is made of steel and other metals, when metals heat they expand. The WTC was designed to have it's weight supported by the outside walls of the building. If you have an uneven expansion of those structures, there is bound to be a weak spot and is bound to collapse.

I believe that most of these conspiracy theorists are full of shit. But that may be because these attacks were a deliberate strike against, to be what I consider, my home and all of this is just very personal to me.

-- Not on topic but wanted to get it out there --
I live across the Hudson and have a great view of the NYC skyline, and work next to a commuter lot where people park their cars and take the train to work in the City. A lot of those cars never left the lot. It saddens me to even consider or think about this being a deliberate attack by the US government on it's own people.

Muck, thanks for posting. The WTC was designed to take multi floor fires and a plane strike. The WTC was designed for the weight to be supported by the stronger center supports, not the outside. I believe that most people who call out 'conspiracy theorists' haven't done any research. I can't tell you how many times people have come into a discussion of this kind and don't even know that many of the supposed hijackers are still alive, for example.

Meh, I've watched loose change. That's all I could've taken. I coulda sworn hearing the otuside thing watching The Discovery Channel. But I do know the WTC was designed to take a hit by a 707, and what were they hit with? 737, 747? And Jet fuel burns a lot hotter especially in enclosed areas then I think the designers would've taken into consideration.

Just because "somebody told" Giuliani the towers were going to collapse doesn't mean that Giuliani himself (or the chief of police or the fire chief or the emergency management chief) were themselves convinced the towers were going to collapse, going by these transcripts. For all we know, he could have been thinking the towers would never collapse...its not made clear in the 2001 transcript. Furthermore, Giuliani goes on to say that the building collapsed 10-15 minutes after "they were told" it was going to collapse, so they didn't seem to be much alarmed by the announcement.

The 707 is a bigger plane.

Jet fuel is kerosene, it is not some unstable magic elixir capable of melting steel.

I find it incredible anybody thought they were going to collapse unless they heard the bombs going off inside.

I just think it was weird that they fell straight down on themselves, demolitions style. I even said that as I watched it happen live that morning on tv, everyone in that room was like "uh... did you just see that?"

it's just easier for us all to bury our heads in the sand about it all though and continue to let goverment and corporation run things in thier corrupt little paradise.

The 707 is a bigger than which airplanes?
I am not saying the damage would have been different (i have no such expertise in that area but the 707 is a smaller plane than the 767.

The 707 weighs 336,000 lbs.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/707family/product.html
The 767-200 weighs 315,000 lbs.
http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=103

Will, the 767 is both wider and longer - 156' 1" vs 130' and 159' 2" vs. 128". It is a physically bigger plane.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767...terior_er.html

The 707 is a smaller plane.

Even if you take the largest 707
707-320B - Wing span 44.42m (145ft 9in), length 46.61m (152ft 11in), height 12.93m (42ft 5in)
http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=87

Even if you check the 911 theorist siteshttp://www.whatreallyhappened.com/boeing_707_767.html

willravel, I said bigger because fastom said bigger.

Bigger = more mass for the purposes we care about.

I don't think anyone would assume that bigger = more mass ot heavier.
I think people would assume that bigger means larger.

Bigger
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigger
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/bigger

Heavier
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/heavier
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/heavier

Mass
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mass
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass


However, even if bigger meant more mass or heavier, the 767 is heavier than the 707.
Take a look at the theorists sites, here is an example
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/boeing_707_767.html

Giuliani was a pretty good mayor at the time he was first elected. No, willravel, he wasn't a useless piece of shit. His willfulness is exactly what was needed to get some order in a city that was close to falling apart. I live in NYC and I was afraid in 1993 that if Dinkins was re-elected there would be no city left by the end of his second term. Giuliani is a bulldog, which at that particular point in NYC's history is what was needed (NYC is a very very blue place, and the only reason Republican Giuliani was elected is because Dinkins was a total disaster and the city was teetering at the edge of unlivability). But by the middle of his second term he was bored and started doing crazy shit. And I most certainly don't want him to be president - he has noticeable authoritarian and power-grabbing tendencies, and giving him the sort of power that Article II confers on presidents would not be a good thing. I have doubts that he really does believe in things like free speech and dissent. So no, I don't want him to be president - but that doesn't mean he was a useless piece of shit. He was what NYC needed in 1993. He is not what the USA needs now.

I recall during the election process that I was worried it was going to be a police state. I was worried as he shut down the sex trade with the 60/40 rules it was going to be a prude state. I was worried when he started busting the squeegee guys it was going to be a tough town. I was worried when he started hassling the street vendors that they were going to go away.

No, I didn't like lots of things that he did. But I must say that the city is better over all for all the things he did. I'm at least willing to give him the chance if he got elected. That doesn't mean I'm voting for him, just that I'd be interested to see what he does.

You know, Cynth, I think he was right about the squeegee guys and street vendors. The squeegee guys were invading people's space and misusing public streets, and the street vendors were doing much the same as well as taking up sidewalk space that in NY is crowded enough already. That stuff was illegal but the law wasn't being enforced. The sex shop stuff was over the top, though, and was symptomatic of a lot of his other authoritarian tendencies: he tried to get ads taken down that criticized him, tried to defund a museum because of an exhibit he didn't like, and other stuff like that. He knows exactly one gear - overdrive - and has no apparent internal censor. Maybe he's mellowed with age, I don't know. But I do know that I wouldn't want him in charge of things like the military or the CIA.

I like Giuliani...working-class background, tough as nails, insatiable libido, gets results. I like what he did for NYC before, during and after 9/11. And you know it takes balls for an Italian to go after the mafia. Undecided as to his Presidency at this time.