Larisa Alexandrovna's first-hand account regarding WTC 7.
Some of you may know Larisa Alexandrovana aka lala_rawraw. She is a journalist for Raw Story, and her bailiwick is documenting how everything the Bush Administration has done in the last few years leads to some type of action against Iran. Anyway, when a lot of the BBC WTC 7 stuff was hitting this week, she started a thread on Democratic Underground. Her initial cautious reaction was that something had to be amiss with this video (being the questioning, thorough reporter she is), but what I found most interesting was her account from the street regarding that building. I have heard mixed statements about foreknowledge as to whether WTC 7 would collapse. Some people say it was a total shock. Others say that everyone knew it was going to fall. Here is a portion of what Ms. Alexandrovna had to say. This is not some internet crackpot. This is one of the best journalists on the planet.
3. While I would appreciate it if we stayed on topic per my opus above on how these questions (legit or otherwise) cannot possibly be addressed in this limited environment and with the limited information that we have, I feel I must address your firemen claim. As I have said, I lived right at ground zero and I had an office on 52 of South Tower and one meeting office at Liberty One Plaza. My entire ladder (ladder 10) was nearly killed. They let me back to my apartment roughly 3 weeks later. I talked to those fireman still digging in hopes of finding their buddies, to emergency workers, to my neighbors - those who lived - and to the military that had been on the seen since 911. No one. I repeat no one thought #7 was going to come down. Sure, I imagine a few people here and there have said something of the kind. But not a single person with whom I have talked. In fact, they all said that they thought Liberty One would collapse and had begun to prep for it even. Liberty One shares an underground - or shared - with WTC 1 and 2. But, this topic is not about guessing as to why the building fell based on speculation that may or may not be valid. We cannot know because NIST has yet to tell us and that is what needs to be asked: where is the report? why has it not yet been released this much time after the fact? We cannot have a theory because that requires something more than questions. This topic is about that particular video and questions about its authenticity.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x143825#143867
The full thread is available at this link.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=143825&mesg_id=143825
- Al Czervik's blog
- Login to post comments
Raw story
How come Raw Story is not carrying the BBC story?!???
What a shame!
This is really Larisa from Rawstory?
Who jumps to conclusion (the video is a hoax) before checking the facts?
As a journalist for raw I thought she would have higher journalism standanrds. Maybe it's because of her experience that day and the cognitive dissonance it feeds.
PS: Larisa: If it turn out to be real (no doubt about it!), we own you!
More thoughts, indeed...
I was worried that the "movement' would get all out of whack and proclaim the second coming of Jesus because of this, and they did.
Maybe BBC will come up with the real smoking gun: the SOURCE of this report, and maybe they won't. Odds are no.
In that case, all we have is publicity. Make sure it is good publicity. Right now the head of the News Division shot himself int he foot by lying to the world that they lost the tapes. That's a welcome victory. They are exposed as covering up, and their protestations seem outlandish and juvenile.
But don't underestimate the enemy. They're the BBC, and you're just whoever in the big scheme. They will recover, quite soon, and keep plugging away at our credibility. Our own jumping the gun rush to declare the cover-up falling apart does not rest on the facts of what was revealed.
On our side, we have:
1) Premature report. Building still standing. Farcical coverage.
2) Hysterical head of BBC screaming about not being part of the conspiracy.
3) Claims that the tapes are lost! Hasn't stopped the spread of the clip thanks to independent actors.
4) Very specific report about the Salomon building and that the structure was "compromised", a story that matches the official one, which does not appear to match the actual collapse.
5) No effort to verify the claim, high confidence by the anchor and reporter that this was true. No qualification, no statements of lacking veracity. The anchor at one point says, "INDEED, IT HAS. [collapsed]" Indeed, it hadn't. This aspect particularly points to a source that BBC considers impeccable, and not to be doubted.
6) Highly suspicious (to us) satellite feed drop off 5 minutes before the building would have crumbled right behind Jane's head if this wasn't cut.
7) The BBC 24 report that corroborates the time.
Got to get that actual collapse in there as much as possible. Buildings just don't implode. Show other collapses and how they did not end up in a neat pile in their own footprint.
On their side, they have:
1) THEEEEEE BBC
2) Numerous flubbed stories on 9/11 show misinformation as a precedent.
3) Firefighters on the scene predicting and expecting collapse. This COULD be the source of the BBC and CNN reports. Lots of firefighters standing around speculating could have been mistranslated by reporters looking for a story.
4) Demonization and ridicule by the corporate press for years.
5) Their own hit piece program.
6) The confidence that they can ignore us and other corporate media will let it die.
7) Arrogance so great that commoners wouldn't dare. Just wouldn't dare!
At the end of the fiasco, we'll get:
Another piece of evidence that is inconclusive, yet potentially indicative of prior knowledge of controlled demolition.
We may get a piece of paper from BBC telling us who told them it had collapsed. Whoever's name is on that paper can say that it was a miscommunication: it was supposed to be that we were expecting it to collapse, as firefighters on the scene made that judgment.
Personally, I'm trying to weigh this evidence as it now stands, as a possible addition to my "9/11 Facts" list. I don't see it. Evidence with 2 explanations, one pro, one con, is not that strong. People will usually side against us if given the opportunity. They don't want to believe. The case has to be incontrovertible at every link of the chain. That's how I feel about this right now.
70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11
John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/
johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.