Apparently the result of strong winds, the port authority asking the ship to move to a more sheltered area of the harbor, and tug boats not being available to assist.

https://www.ladepeche.fr/article-amp/2018/11/01/2898736-accident-rare-port-barcelone-ferry-percute-grue-chargement.html

"Inexcusable" is how the port authority described this.
She's a disappointment.
She apparently resigned before they could remove her....the only smart move she made here.
Bye Felicia.

I would love to see the report she filed, it's clear she didn't consider it might be on camera.

Your video, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver:New York's Port Authority, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Some things to consider:

The towers had asbestos issues.

The insurance companies were held not liable in a prior to 911 court case for the asbestos removal, people don't realize sections of those towers were to become uninhabitable very shortly for being uninsurable.

Can you imagine the symbol of power to the world in NYC being a uninhabitable empty building?

The office that got hit in the Pentagon was the same office where they were conducting the investigation into the 2.3 trillion missing from the defense department that Rumsfeld announced on Sept 10... no more investigation.

Cheney had bought Dresser Industries in 1998 and that made Halliburton responsible for their asbestos abatement.

Halliburton Pays Dearly but Finally Escapes Cheney's Asbestos Mess

The World Trade Center was also a huge asbestos liability and realistically held very little value due to the overwhelming costs associated with the removal of said asbestos. It's funny how it all ties together, isn't it? http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/003500.php

It was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. For years, the Port Authority treated the building like an aging dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the building for liability reasons, but being turned down due the known asbestos problem. Further, it was well-known the only reason the building was still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to disassemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishing the buildings.

The projected cost to disassemble the towers: $15 Billion. Just the scaffolding for the operation was estimated at $2.4 Billion!

In other words, the Twin Towers were condemned structures. How convenient that an unexpected “terrorist” attack demolished the buildings completely.

WTC Building 7 was a part of the WTC complex, and covered under the same insurance policy. This 47-storey steel-framed structure, which was NOT struck by an aircraft, mysteriously collapsed 8 hours later that same day into its own footprint at freefall speed — exactly in the manner of the Twin Towers.

Halliburton was legally responsible for the WTC's asbestos problems. It would have been fought out in court but Halliburton might lose. They couldn't do a controlled demolition because of the asbestos. Of all the buildings in NYC, this one was the one whose demolition would be most advantageous for the vice president of the United States. And the first responders paid the price, on 911 and later.

To add to the convenience, Silverstein had the towers insured against terrorist attacks so that not only would he get to stop paying for the lease, he would even get most of his down payment back.

He also claimed entitlement to be paid the 3.6 billion insurance sum twice, arguing that the towers were destroyed in two separate attacks. This resulted in a long court battle and resulted in him eventually collecting his billions.

In short, privatizing the lease of the property and making sure all physical evidence was quickly destroyed by recycling the steel allowed Silverstein to collect on the insurance policy instead of having to go through lengthy forensic analysis over who or what really knocked down the towers.

It doesn't prove a conspiracy but is again one of those important coincidences to take place for the whole thing to play out plausibly.

As for building 7, lets keep in mind that all paperwork for SEC investigation of ENRON and WorldCom were destroyed in its collapse, and the cases had to be abandoned. How much that was worth personally or in cold hard cash is up to anyone's guess.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_payment.html http://www.freewebs.com/inside-man/

"Groundbreaking for the World Trade Center took place on August 5, 1966. The North Tower (1) was completed in December 1970 and the South Tower (2) was finished in July 1971" -Wiki
----> 6 years to build em

"Initial plans, made public in 1961, identified a site along the East River for the World Trade Center.[6] As a bi-state agency, the Port Authority required approval from both the governors of New York and New Jersey in order to undertake new projects. New Jersey Governor Robert B. Meyner objected to New York getting a $335 million project.[7] Toward the end of 1961, negotiations with outgoing New Jersey Governor Meyner reached a stalemate." -Wiki
----> 6 years to plan for em

6+6=12...

Under optimum conditions and not counting any cleanup time/politics regarding the memorial site it should take at LEAST 12 years based on the initial build. How disingenuous can you be?? Do 30 seconds worth of research Glenn Beck. Until then, stop feeding America your lies.

you're right theo, hiroshima was no 9/11. it was so much worse:
-(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima)
On August 6, 1945, the nuclear weapon Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima by the crew of the American Enola Gay, directly killing an estimated 70,000 people. Approximately 69% of the city's buildings were completely destroyed, and 6.6 percent severely damaged. In the following months, an estimated 60,000 more people died from injuries or radiation poisoning. In all, 60 percent of deaths are estimated to be caused by burns, 20 percent due to trauma from the blast, and 20 percent due to radiation illness.
-(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11)
There were 2,974 fatalities, not including the 19 hijackers: 246 on the four planes (no one on board any of the hijacked aircraft survived), 2,603 in New York City in the towers and on the ground, and 125 at the Pentagon. Among the fatalities were 343 New York City Fire Department firefighters, 23 New York City Police Department officers, and 37 Port Authority Police Department officers.

just because 9/11 happened within the last 10 years, and, I assume, in your own country, does not mean it can compare to the destruction of hiroshima and nagasaki. that comment can mean a few things: either you're ignorant on the subject and don't know the facts behind either 9/11 or hiroshima, or you have an inflated sense of the value of american life over that of japanesse life. i hope it's ignorance.

In reply to your comment:
“I can't imagine they're still holding a grudge.
After all, Hiroshima was no 9/11.”

you're right theo, hiroshima was no 9/11. it was so much worse:
-(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima)
On August 6, 1945, the nuclear weapon Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima by the crew of the American Enola Gay, directly killing an estimated 70,000 people. Approximately 69% of the city's buildings were completely destroyed, and 6.6 percent severely damaged. In the following months, an estimated 60,000 more people died from injuries or radiation poisoning. In all, 60 percent of deaths are estimated to be caused by burns, 20 percent due to trauma from the blast, and 20 percent due to radiation illness.
-(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11)
There were 2,974 fatalities, not including the 19 hijackers: 246 on the four planes (no one on board any of the hijacked aircraft survived), 2,603 in New York City in the towers and on the ground, and 125 at the Pentagon. Among the fatalities were 343 New York City Fire Department firefighters, 23 New York City Police Department officers, and 37 Port Authority Police Department officers.

just because 9/11 happened within the last 10 years, and, I assume, in your own country, does not mean it can compare to the destruction of hiroshima and nagasaki. that comment can mean a few things: either you're ignorant on the subject and don't know the facts behind either 9/11 or hiroshima, or you have an inflated sense of the value of american life over that of japanesse life. i hope it's ignorance.

No, I'm saying that no photographic evidence of the interior columns being cut seem to exist (to the public).. specifically the one that is most known that we're referring to, it leaves one to wonder about it.

Par:
"Also, I would have thought that the "other halves" of the columns are not still in the pictures because they have been transported away. That was the reason for them having been cut, after all."
Then where is the crane that would have lifted the other piece... it's now shown and there was no sign of any scaffolding material or other equipment near the center column that the welders would have used because there was still too much debris all around that column when the photo was taken.

Par:
"Further, you seem to be implying that the photograph in question was supposed to have been officially repressed but has somehow slipped though the net In fact, it's been taken from a publically-available collection of photographs which document the clean-up operation."

Well that's your interpretation, not what I said. The photo in question does not clearly indicate that it was cut by welders after the fact or by thermate since they would look similar.. what I said is that they DID have to approve such photos from hitting the public. It's no secret that that specific photo and the other close up photos were taken by a limited number of photographers and the photo's WERE screened before their release.

While the steel was being removed from the site of the three largest and most mysterious structural failures in history, even the team FEMA had assembled to investigate the failures -- the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) -- was denied access to the evidence. The Science Committee of the House of Representatives later identified several aspects of the FEMA-controlled operation that prevented the conduct of an adquate investigation:

The BPAT did not control the steel. "The lack of authority of investigators to impound pieces of steel for investigation before they were recycled led to the loss of important pieces of evidence."
FEMA required BPAT members to sign confidentiality agreements that "frustrated the efforts of independent researchers to understand the collapse."
The BPAT was not granted access to "pertinent building documents."
"The BPAT team does not plan, nor does it have sufficient funding, to fully analyze the structural data it collected to determine the reasons for the collapse of the WTC buildings."
Gene Corley complained to the Committee that the Port Authority refused to give his investigators copies of the Towers' blueprints until he signed a wavier that the plans would not be used in a lawsuit against the agency.

There SHOULD have been more photographs and immediate investigation of 9/11 - one of the most profound events in our history is my main point here. I don't know for certain one way or the other if the official story is true yet. The government has a known history in maintaining secrets from the public, blocking investigations, censoring information, subversion, intimidation and gag-ordering whistleblowers. With all of this going on it's no wonder that the evidence that does exist yet neither proves anything one way or the other becomes controversial.

Its not entirely surprising that he was unsure which building he was under when the collapses began, as he may well have entered the underground from a number of different places. They were likely moving in multiple directions underneath the buildings while manning walkies talkies and phones, and managing many people. The underground area was huge, too.

"Buildings 1-6 were connected by an underground mall (the concourse), which was the largest enclosed shopping center in New York City. Below-ground levels contained public parking, mechanical equipment rooms, and the WTC Port Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH) railroad terminal." http://www.buildthememorial.org/site/PageServer?pagename=mm_history_faq

Saying he dug his way out might be in reference to he and his staff/companions simply clearing debris away that lodged against exterior doors. I've said, "I dug my car out of the snow today," when I simply cleared a bit around the tires, maybe to imply a more grandiose experience.

As they were underground they avoided much of the dusting that those who could not get out of the streets received after the collapse. Residual dust on their clothes from the air could both be dusted or washed off with a wet cloth and would be hard to see in this video.

The argument could also be posed that if they were in on some huge conspiracy and were granting an interview about events to a random press person, they would have a more air-tight story. But I wouldn't be one to pose this argument.

The American goverment would like us to believe that 9/11 was a result of massive inter-agency intelligence failure regarding the threat of a terrorist attack on US soil. The American goverment would also like for you to believe that despite the given massive intelligence failure, the entire cause and nature of the attack was worked out in a mere 72 hours of investigation. Primarily because of one key piece of evidence that implicated everyone else in the plot.

"# FBI Director Robert Mueller insisted officials had no idea this kind of attack could happen when in fact the FBI had been investigating the possibility of EXACTLY this kind of attack for almost TEN YEARS. Numerous previous attempts at using planes as weapons, intimate knowledge of terror plans called Project Bojinka, and knowledge of suspicious characters attending flight schools who were being monitored by the FBI make his utterance a clear lie on its face.

In the weeks before 9/11, the U.S. received warnings from all over the world that an event just like this was about to happen, but FBI investigations into suspected terrorists were suppressed and those warnings were deliberately disregarded.

# The names of the alleged hijackers, all ostensibly Muslims, were released to the public only hours after the attacks, despite Mueller saying we had no knowledge this would happen. This is an impossible twist of logic. If he didn't know of a plan to strike buildings with planes, how would he know the names of the hijackers? Various artifacts were discovered in strategic places to try to confirm the government's story, but these have all been dismissed as suspicious planting of evidence. Since that time several names on that list have turned up alive and well, living in Arab countries. Yet no attempt has ever been made to update the list. And why were none of these names on the airlines' passenger lists?"

# The Patriot Act was presented in the days after the tragedy supposedly as a response to it, yet it was clear that this heinous act, drafted to nullify provisions for freedom in the U.S. Constitution, was put together long before 9/11. In addition, testimony by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) revealed that most members of Congress were compelled to vote for the bill without even reading it. This was a vote to eliminate the Constitutional Bill of Rights, which has defined American freedom for 200 years, and it was accomplished when legislators voted for the bill without even reading it.

# The invasion of Afghanistan was presented as an attempt to pursue the alleged perpetrators of 9/11, yet it had been discussed for years prior to the tragedy and actually planned in the months before the attacks on New York and Washington. Statements by Zbigniew Brzezinski and the Republican-written Project for a New American Century have stressed that America needed a formidable enemy to accomplish its aggressive geopolitical aims. The supposed enemy we attacked in Afghanistan was a diverse group of men from all over the world who were initially recruited, encouraged and supported by the American CIA.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/911_a_hoax.htm

"In 1992 Rick Rescorla warned the Port Authority (owner of the World Trade Center) about the possibility of a truck bomb attack on the pillars in the basement parking garage, but was ignored. When Islamist terrorists used this method in the 1993 attack, Rescorla was instrumental in evacuating the building, and was literally the last man out. He and Dan Hill then prepared a report that warned of another attack, this time from a commercial aircraft crashing into the complex, but he was again ignored.

Rescorla recommended to his superiors at Morgan Stanley that the company leave Manhattan. Office space and labor costs were lower in New Jersey, and the firm's employees and equipment would be safer in a proposed four-story building. However, this recommendation was not followed as the company's lease at the World Trade Center did not terminate until 2006. At Rescorla’s insistence, all employees, including senior executives, then practiced emergency evacuations every three months."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Rescorla

* Who benefited from the suspiciously high numbers of put options purchased prior to September 11 for shares in companies whose stock prices subsequently plummeted, on the supposition that whoever was behind the hijacking was also behind most of the purchases of these put options? And what was the role of the new executive director of the CIA, Buzzy Krongard, who handled these transactions?

* Why was the debris from the collapsed Twin Towers removed from the site with no forensic examination? Why was almost all of it sold to scrap merchants and shipped abroad where it would not be available for scientific examination?

* Why does the government refuse to release any transcripts of communications or any records at all relating to signals of any form transmitted by those jets?

* Why do all the major U.S. media continue to act as if none of these questions is legitimate or relevant?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saleh_Ibn_Abdul_Rahman_Hussayen

Wow I was unaware that President Bush was the person in charge of rebuilding the WTC site. Silly me thought it was a consortium of State and Local governments, the port authority, and the developers, with input from victims families. I am glad we can just pin it on one person now. Keith always makes things so simple.