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
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
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 Silverstein can’t get it up
Destruction of the World Trade Center
Half-Dozen Questions About 9/11 They Don't Want You to Ask
reasons to question the official story of 9/11
: ON THE EVE OF DESTRUCTION
Reasons to Question the Official 9/11 Story
Evidence that Official 9/11 Story is a Lie
Flight 77 Hitting The Pentagon Would Really Look?
"Come Out of the White House with Your Hands Up!"