On the 18th anniversary of 9/11, CNBC senior analyst and former anchor Ron Insana went on Bernie and Sid In the Morning on New York’s 77 WABC Radio to share his haunting experience of that horrible day.
Insana’s matter-of-fact remark is particularly significant because the manner in which he delivers it and the context in which he came to believe that Building 7 was brought down in a "controlled implosion" suggest that he was told this information and that it may have been fairly common knowledge at the scene. (The only other possibility is that he deduced it was a “controlled implosion” based on his own observation of it.) Indeed, Insana is not the only person to report that a demolition of Building 7 was being considered or was imminent.
For instance, FDNY Lieutenant David Restuccio told MSNBC’s Brian Williams just minutes after the collapse: “We had heard reports that the building was unstable and that eventually it would either come down on its own or it would be taken down.”
Another is volunteer EMT Indira Singh, who, in 2005, told radio host Bonnie Faulkner: “All I can attest to is that by noon or one o’clock they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or being brought down.” Faulker replied, “Did they actually use the word ‘brought down,’ and who was it that was telling you this?” “The fire department, the fire department,” Singh answered. “And they did use the word ‘we’re going to have to bring it down.’”
Then there are the unidentified construction workers and law enforcement officers captured on video just moments before the collapse, saying: “You hear that?” “Keep your eye on that building. It’ll be coming down.” “The building is about to blow up, move it back.” “We are walking back. There’s a building about to blow up. Flame, debris coming down.”
Ron Insana, covered in pulverized concrete from the explosive demolition of the Twin Towers earlier that morning, reports from NBC’s studios on September 11, 2001.
Insana’s statement is all the more remarkable because it appears that he is unaware of the debunked official story of Building 7’s collapse — according to which office fires leveled a skyscraper for the first time in history — and of the controversy that this story has caused over the past 18 years. Insana might be surprised to learn that there is controversy at all, given what he appears to have been told during his reporting and given the manner in which Building 7 came down — namely, that of a perfectly executed controlled demolition.
Now for the confusing aspects of Insana’s timeline. Building 7 collapsed at 5:20 PM on Tuesday, September 11, 2001. He says he went down to the Financial District on the morning of Wednesday, September 12, where he looked in the direction of Building 7.
There appear to be three ways to make sense of what he said (assuming he is speaking honestly, which there seems little reason to doubt).
One, when he talks about looking in the direction of Building 7, he could mean that he was looking at the debris pile of Building 7, which had already been brought down neatly into its own footprint. In this scenario, he and others were inferring that if the building had tipped over instead of having been brought down, which had already occurred, it would have done significant damage to the surrounding area.
Two, he may have gone down to the Financial District and had the conversation he describes before 5:20 PM on September 11, rather than on September 12. This scenario seems the least likely, though, because he is very specific about not going back down to the stock exchange until September 12, having already made his way up from the scene to NBC’s midtown headquarters by midday on September 11. (Insana’s first appearance in the studio on September 11 was around 12:41 PM, when he vividly described how the first tower had “started to explode.”)
Three, he may have observed the damage to Building 7 or somehow learned about it on September 11, but he is incorrectly placing that observation or the receipt of that information within his experiences on September 12. One possibility is that the conversation he remembers having with military and police officers and/or his observation of the damage to Building 7 actually took place before he left the scene on September 11.
One can only hope that Insana clarifies his story, but the real question for Insana and CNBC is this: Who told him that Building 7 was brought down in a “controlled implosion”? And, for the countless reporters and government officials who were at Ground Zero in the hours and days after the attacks, how many of them were told that Building 7 would be demolished or had been demolished, and why have they not come forward with that information?
Sadly, it is all too likely that the same media malfeasance that has managed to suppress the truth about the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7 for 18 years will manage once again to ignore or explain away this newest revelation. But for those of us who exist in reality and care about truth, this revelation — which is merely one of countless corroborating pieces of evidence — will not be ignored or misconstrued.
The only correct way to understand this revelation is that Ron Insana — a reporter who intimately covered the events in New York City on 9/11, such that those events are seared into his mind and he received an Emmy nomination for his reporting — believes that Building 7 was brought down in a “controlled implosion,” most likely based on what he was told by authorities at the scene.
AE911Truth is grateful to our supporter who heard Ron Insana’s interview and sent it to us on September 17, 2019. The full interview can be heard on Bernie and Sid in the Morning. So far, Mr. Insana has not responded to our request for comment.
#1: misterwhite To: Deckard (#0)
"Confusing aspects" indeed. We're supposed to believe this guy when he doesn't even know what day it is?
misterwhite posted on 2019-09-26 09:15:28 Reply Private Reply
#2: Deckard To: Liberator, A K A Stone, jeremiad. (#0)
More evidence of the controlled demolition of Building 7.
When will the sheeple wake up?
Deckard posted on 2019-09-26 09:20:33 Reply Private Reply
#3: nolu chan To: Deckard (#2)
7WTC COLLAPSE AT GRAVITATIONAL ACCELERATION
NIST admitted that 7WTC descended at gravitational acceleration (free fall), for 2.25 seconds, after it was proven from cideo evidence by David Chandler.
https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Buildings in gravitational collapse cannot enter free fall. As Dr. Shyam Sunder of NIST put it, "a free fall would be an object that has no structural components below it."
Of course, that was about WTC 7 when they still denied any period of free-fall, before the Final Report. The Preliminary Report said:
That was shattered by the video analysis of David Chandler. Chander went to the end of the collapse event described above, backed the film up 5.4 seconds, and clearly showed that for the first second and a half, the building simply did not collapse. That made the collapse time for 18 stories 3.9s, and the NIST scientific method appeared to be dry labbing.
The period of free fall acceleration documented by David Chandler could not be denied existence. Dr. Sunder had correctly stated earlier, "a free fall would be an object that has no structural components below it." Any structure means no free fall. Any structure includes columns, buckled or otherwise. Crushing a column requires energy. Any energy expended for any reason other than downward vertical acceleration rules out free fall.
When an illusionist takes the stage and performs an act described as magic, I do not believe I am watching magic. I do not believe he repeals the laws of physics, no matter how good his showmanship, deception or misdirection. Just because I have no compelling explanation other than that it is magic, does not make it magic, nor does it indicate that I should accept that it is magic, or that he levitates, flies, or cuts his assistant in half and puts her back together. I do not believe in magic bullets, even when the government declares one to have performed magical deeds. I do not believe in buildings that achieve free-fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds in defiance of physical principles.
I do not believe the laws of physics were different at ground zero, any more than they were with the guy's grits in My Cousin Vinny. The assertion from the Draft Report that the finding was "consistent with physical properties," does not appear in the Final Report.
Free fall does not explain the mechanism of what happened. It proves what did NOT happen.
nolu chan posted on 2019-09-26 11:43:10 Reply Private Reply
#4: Hank Rearden To: Deckard (#0)
Probably not vile pigraping Mooslum deathcultist pieces of shit. Nope.
Hank Rearden posted on 2019-09-26 14:54:18 Reply Private Reply
#5: Liberator To: Deckard (#2)
No doubt on that pull.
Oddly (to skeptics) not even the obvious is obvious.
It's almost as though...demo specialists WERE CONVENIENTLY STANDING BY.
When will the sheeple wake up?
One cannot awaken if they don't realize they are asleep. OR WANT TO. Many people actually know they are unable to handle too much truth. (That is what this whole Red Pill/Blue Pill thang is about.)
This is exactly why most people are necessarily "accept[ing] the reality of the world with which we are presented." Not many folks want the burden of knowing the extent of institutional lies. I get it; It ruins their buzz.
Liberator posted on 2019-09-26 17:08:20 Reply Private Reply