Untitled Document
Taking a Closer Look at the Stories Ignored by the Corporate Media
Donate | Fair Use Notice | Who We Are | Contact

NEWS
All News
9-11
Corporatism
Disaster in New Orleans
Economics
Environment
Globalization
Government / The Elite
Human Rights
International Affairs
Iraq War
London Bombing
Media
Police State / Military
Science / Health
Voting Integrity
War on Terrorism
Miscellaneous

COMMENTARY
All Commentaries
9-11
CIA
Corporatism
Economics
Government / The Elite
Imperialism
Iraq War
Media
Police State / Military
Science / Health
Voting Integrity
War on Terrorism

SEARCH/ARCHIVES
Advanced Search
View the Archives

E-mail this Link   Printer Friendly

9-11 -
-

IS BUILDING SEVEN THE SMOKING GUN OF 9/11?

Posted in the database on Monday, July 03rd, 2006 @ 20:42:06 MST (5004 views)
by G. Edward Griffin    Freedom Force International  

Untitled Document

Many subscribers have asked my opinion of the possibility that, on 9/11, the Twin Towers and Building 7 were brought down by controlled demolition. My view is that all the evidence points in that direction, but I have been reluctant to dwell on the issue because it can get people sidetracked from other issues about which there can be no question – such as the fact that CFR controllers of the Bush Administration had ample foreknowledge of the attacks but decided to allow them. One really doesn't need to go any further than that to understand that the entire War on Terrorism is a ploy for hidden agendas, so why must we look for areas to discuss where the evidence is merely circumstantial?

That is still my attitude, but it occurred to me several months ago that the evidence for a controlled demolition of the Twin Towers is far more than circumstantial. It may not be "proof" for those who will accept nothing short of written confessions from the perpetrators, but is a significant factor to consider nevertheless.

There is no such thing as absolute proof. There is only evidence. Proof may be defined as sufficient evidence to convince the observer that a particular hypothesis is true. The same evidence that is sufficient to convince one person may be insufficient for another. The case may be proved to the first but not to the second who still needs more evidence. It is in the spirit of this reality that I offer the following evidence.

A recent video documentary has sharply tipped the scales toward what most people would consider to be proof of an inside job. It is called 911 Revisited, and it can be viewed in its entirety at: http://www.911revisited.com/video.html. I find it difficult to believe that anyone can consider all the facts presented in this program and still cling to the view that these buildings were desgroyed as a rssult of fire.

SILVERSTEIN SAYS THE BUILDING WAS PULLED

Larry Silverstein, the owner of The Twin Towers and Building 7, said on a PBS TV documentary entitled America Rebuilds, broadcast in September 2002, that he and others made a decision to "pull" Building 7 because of fires on two of its floors. He didn't say who the others were, but it was assumed to be the New York Fire Department. The term "pull" is commonly used in the building industry to mean a controlled demolition. His exact words were: “I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it; and they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse.”

This was the genesis of a thousand articles and blogs suggesting that Silverstein had deliberately destroyed his own buildings for the purpose of collecting insurance on them which, reportedly, was about two times their actual value.

2 YEARS LATER, HE CHANGED HIS STORY

Two years later, after his statement had come under scrutiny and the full implications began to emerge, Silverstein claimed that, when he said “pull” he was only talking about pulling the firefighters out of the building!

It is tempting to just laugh at this statement thinking that no one could take it seriously. However, a review of the Internet shows that there are, indeed, many commentators who are content to accept his revised explanation. So, let us briefly analyze. The fires in Building 7 were relatively small and were limited to two locations. All occupants of the building had been evacuated and, at no time was there any reason to think that the fires would cause additional loss of life – and at no time were the fires considered to be a threat to the structural integrity of Building 7.

In view of all these facts, I believe it is far more logical to believe that Silverstein was talking about pulling the building rather than the fire fighters. Watch the video and listen carefully to the inflection of his voice as he ties together the phrase: “they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse.” There can be no doubt that the two events are tied together just as the words are: the decision to pull and the collapse of the building. Notice, also, that there is no indication of surprise when he mentions the collapse. If he had not anticipated the collapse, one would expect him to say something like: "It's a good thing we made the decision to get those fire fighters out of there, because, much to our surprise, the building collapsed just a short time afterward." But he did not say anything like that. He simply said, as in one continuous thought: "They made the decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse." Watch the video here and judge for yourself: Silverstein on PBS

THE FASTEST BUILDING DEMOLITION IN HISTORY

If you still think that Silverstein was referring to fire fighters, there is no point in reading any further. You will not consider what follows to be of any significance. However, if your judgment plus the manner in which Building 7 collapsed lead to you believe that it was brought down by controlled demolition, then what follows may be of interest.

It takes many weeks of planning and preparation by a team of highly trained experts to bring down a structure the size of Building 7. The first step is to locate a qualified organization. Their number is small, and it is not likely that the New York Fire Department is one of them. After negotiating a contract, the engineers have to obtain master blueprints and identify the main structural components. They must analyze the building materials, the thickness of load-bearing beams, the weight that rests upon them, the space between them, where the access points are to place charges, how intense the charges must be, in what timing sequence they must be ignited. A computerized firing system must be programmed to deliver the precisely timed firing impulses. Then the charges must be obtained from a storage depot in a remote location away from urban areas. Technicians must gain access to the beams and, in many cases, hack their way through walls to get to them. Safety procedures are followed to insure that all technicians are clear of the area before implosion is triggered.

This is just a sampling of what must be done before a building like Number 7 can be pulled, and it normally takes many weeks or even months to do it. Yet, the elapsed time between Mr. Silverstein's decision to “pull” the building and the final collapse was 45 minutes!

What more do we need to know? For many of us, the evidence is comprised of so many components and, in its entirety, is so convincing that we consider it to be nothing less than proof. The concept that the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job is absurd. But the story advanced by the government and Larry Silverman is even more so. To explain the manner in which the building collapsed - or that the building collapsed at all - plus the rapid execution of the demolition, all lead to the conclusion that explosives had to have been planted inside Building 7 before 9/11. And, if they were planted in Building 7, for whatever reason, it would have been the same reason to plant them in the Twin Towers.

Those who believe that government officials are telling the whole truth about 9/11 will not be convinced by this reasoning - or perhaps any other. For them, it is a matter of faith and, somehow, mixed up with "love of country." To question their leaders is, to them, unpatriotic. For those who believe that government officials are covering up the truth about 9/11, this will be only one more piece of evidence that strengthens their conviction.

__________________________________________

Read from Looking Glass News

Larry Pulls It

Why Larry Silverstein can’t get it up

The Destruction of the World Trade Center

A Half-Dozen Questions About 9/11 They Don't Want You to Ask

20 reasons to question the official story of 9/11

9/10/01 : ON THE EVE OF DESTRUCTION

5 Reasons to Question the Official 9/11 Story

Scientific Evidence that Official 9/11 Story is a Lie

How Flight 77 Hitting The Pentagon Would Really Look?

Pentagon Video Observations

Reynolds: "Come Out of the White House with Your Hands Up!"



Go to Original Article >>>

The views expressed herein are the writers' own and do not necessarily reflect those of Looking Glass News. Click the disclaimer link below for more information.
Email: editor@lookingglassnews.org.

E-mail this Link   Printer Friendly




Untitled Document
Disclaimer
Donate | Fair Use Notice | Who We Are | Contact
Copyright 2005 Looking Glass News.