I don't know truth about JFK, nor 9/11, but I won't close my eyes: Building 7

I am anything BUT a conspiracy theorist. Nor am I one to dismiss legitimate questions that warrant rational answers about any event having historically important political and economic effects, either.

Some see the world in black and white. For others, until there is full and complete accountability, shades of gray linger.

To be accused of unpatriotic behavior for asking questions in what we like to all believe, and what we've all been told, is the bastion of political and religious and intellectual freedom, the United States of America, is tragically ironic.

I do not know the truth about 9/11. I only know what has been alleged by the media, independent journalists, bloggers, government-paid experts (demolition, aviation, fire, etc.), free lance experts (demolition, aviation, fire, etc.) conspiracy theorists, and our very own government.

What's true and what's not? I have no idea.

But I rarely post on this topic, and when I do, it's only because I have read what I believe is that all too rare, objective and insightful piece of journalism that actually stimulates constructive, new examinations of what may have been dismissed previously as foregone conclusions - regardless of the side the article supports.

In that spirit, enjoy:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7d174b42-31fa-11dd-9b87-0000779fd2ac,s01=1.html



What happened to building 7?

By Peter Barber

Published: June 6 2008 19:45 | Last updated: June 6 2008 19:45

To the truthers, “building 7” – the third building in the World Trade Center complex to collapse on September 11 – is evidence that the mainstream media is in on the plot. On that day, the BBC reported the building’s fall almost half an hour before it happened. Journalist Jane Standley was broadcast at 4.54pm eastern time reporting that the tower had collapsed – but in the background, it was still standing.

It fell 26 minutes later, seven hours after the Twin Towers came down.

When the Standley clip hit YouTube, truthers bombarded the BBC’s website with questions and accusations. Richard Porter, head of BBC world news, was forced to deny that the broadcaster was reading from the Bush conspirators’ script. He said the BBC had misreported warnings from fire crews of the building’s imminent collapse and instead stated that it had already happened. He blamed the confusion of the day for the mix-up. CNN had earlier reported rumours that a third building had either collapsed or was about to.

But in the minds of the truthers, this explanation was undermined by Porter’s admission that the BBC no longer had the original tapes of its coverage.

Building 7 is the truthers’ smoking gun for other reasons, too. How, they ask, could this modern, steel-framed skyscraper collapse merely because of fire, without even being hit by an airliner?

The 47-storey WTC7 fell straight down, at almost free-fall speed, largely into its own footprint: all the hallmarks, the sceptics say, of a controlled demolition. Building 7 had some fascinating tenants.

The main occupant was Salomon Brothers, the bank, but on floors nine and 10 was the secret service. On the three floors above that was the Securities and Exchange Commission. The New York Times reported that the building also housed a secret office operated by the CIA dedicated to spying on and recruiting foreign diplomats based at the United Nations. The station’s loss had “seriously disrupted” intelligence operations, it said.

The CIA shared a floor with an office of the Defence Department and the Internal Revenue Service.

The collapse of the building also wiped out the operations centre of New York City’s Office of Emergency Management on floor 23, throwing the response that day into further mayhem.

Truthers have focused on a comment on the afternoon of September 11 by Larry Silverstein, the building’s owner, to a fire department commander: he said they should “pull” the building after a faulty sprinkler system left fires to rage all day. “Pull”, the sceptics claim, is industry jargon for demolish. Debunking911.com points out that the term actually refers to pulling one building away from another with cables. Silverstein’s spokesman later said that Silverstein told the fire chief that the most important thing was to protect the lives of the firefighters, including pulling them out of the building if necessary.

The US National Institute of Standards and Technology began investigating the collapse of building 7 along with the Twin Towers in 2002, but hived the inquiry off into a separate probe, which will not report until August. This fuelled suspicion that officials were struggling to come up with a plausible line of obfuscation. NIST says progress has been slowed by the complexity of the computer model it is using, which simulates the collapse from the moment it begins all the way to the ground. Another 80 boxes of documents related to WTC7 have also been found and need to be analysed, it says.

NIST’s working hypothesis is that fire and/or flaming debris from the collapsing north tower (which left a long gash in building 7’s south face) damaged a critical column which supported a 2,000 sq ft floor bay. The remaining floor bays were unable to redistribute the loads, and the whole structure came down on itself. The fact that the collapse was triggered by an internal failure would explain the appearance of a controlled demolition with a small field of debris left behind.

The influence of the truthers can be found in this line from a 2004 progress report: “While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more elements.”

The BBC, meanwhile, has yet to persuade some of its critics. It had wanted to film the 9/11 Truth seminar at the Immanuel Presbyterian Church in Los Angeles but was barred by the organisers, who cited building 7.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

 

Paging ratboy

 

Really?

I'm not commenting on your ratboy reference (without passing judgment on ratboy), but I assume you are insinuating that the article fails to raise even one legitimate question or issue that has yet to be adequately answered by official explanations?

Am I correct in that assumption?

 

and when jane standley was asked about her clairvoyance she clammed up and nervously ended the discussion. last i heard she refuses to discuss the topic.

seriously, anyone that doesn't get it now has made a concerted effort to stay in denial for their emotional well being. the truth i guess is difficult for many to handle. so even if they know it was a controlled demo they can't face it yet because it would entail altering their world view.

most people have a herd mentality.. we see it on ET to an extreme. it isn't easy standing up for the truth.. much more comfortable to appease the group and enjoy popularity.

 

Beautiful.

Look at it from another angle.

911 happened 7 years ago.

Most of the damning accounts pertaining to its collapse came out 5 years ago.

And only AFTER a mainstream news agency blesses skepticism towards its collapse - today, 7 years after the fact - will the masses consider the logical possibility.

The masses need permission to believe what their eyes tell them.

State and Corporate Media control opinion. They don't manage it. They control it. The opinion of sheep are herded into kill shoots from threat of ridicule. Period.

I'm so afraid. You called me a Moonbat. LOL. F*ck you, Goldstein.

 

Hello Ratboy,

You may call me NWO, The Party, whatever you wish.

We learned from the French Revolution. We excluded the middle class from a modicum of wealth and comfort in France, this has been fixed in America. We almost did it again with the blacks during the "civil rights" era. Fortunately we have put them to sleep again. The middles are where almost all of your free thinkers are. The poor are too busy trying to eat, and the rich already know what some of you have "discovered". You are a conspiracy nut ratboy. Anytime you attempt to reveal anything outside of our well developed matrix, you will be discredited by that label.

Congratulations on your diligence, but of course you must know that it is far too little, and far too late.

As we type, the Euro strengthens against the dollar. The Amero will be the logical response to this, after the American people have suffered enough pain to beg for our plan.

The Africans and Asians will be forced into our plans after they perceive an obvious disadvantage to the Euro and Amero.

Give up Ratboy, it is not a matter of if, it is a matter of when.

 

Ah, Achilles. What a fitting name.

The youth is what we really control. They know of no other way. They will eat up whatever we feed them. They can no longer read for understanding, so they depend on images. You are a Moonbat, and we will make shows and movies about Moonbats like you.

You will take what we offer, whether you like it, or not.

 

Don't you realize that all buildings in Manhatten have pre-placed explosives.

The triggers to the explosives are in the hands of Dick Cheney and the local Jewish PAC's.

Any time key evidence is about to be exposed they trigger that building.

Really, How many times can they blame a building collaspe on a natural gas explosion?

It's a program simular to the Men in Black story.

 

I was really hoping to have a serious (maybe the first one?) discussion on the issues raised in the Financial Times article I posted.

Maybe my expectations are too high, and if so, that is highly unfortunate.

 

I believe Building 7 was brought down for safety reasons. Had it not suffered critical damage, then it would still be standing. I also believe the government shot down United 93. Because if they did not, the white house would have been destroyed.

I disagree about the government making up some fake story about United 93. I also don't understand why they don't come clean about Building 7 and just tell the truth: it was an emergency demolition after it suffered critical damage from the collapse of the WTC. The demolition was a perfectly logical and reasonable step given how unsafe the skyscraper had become.

For anyone who actually believed that the U.S. Government was responsible for 9/11... Please. They are so incompetent that they would have missed the towers on the first flyby and all sorts of other fuckups along the way.

I would not be suprised though if they knew about 9/11 in advance and let it happen to an extent so they could use that as an excuse to invade the middle east and ensure future oil supplies.

This post is 99.9% satire. I'm only serious about Building 7.