What if the 9/11 Truth Movement is Wrong?

A review by Chris Rose

The Republic of East Vancouver has published an article by Michael Nenonen in its March 1 to 14, 2007 issue entitled What if the 9-11 Truth Movement is Wrong?. Of course there is no elaboration of the much larger and far more important question of, what if we are right? But of course that article would have never made it past the managing editors IN BOX.

Let me start by saying, this is a pretty weak article. I only blogged it because I think ALL viewpoints concerning 9/11 truth should be given a forum for discussion, even those that do not necessarily agree with mine. In fact, ESPECIALLY those that do not necessarily agree with mine. I believe that the truth withstands inquiry. If I am wrong about 9/11 being an Inside Job, I welcome the opportunity to be set straight once and for all. With this offering, Mr. Neonen has failed to set me straight.

The author touches briefly on WTC 7, but does not delve deeply enough for his argument to have any real merit. In fact, it's not even his argument, rather he points to a November 2006 Counterpunch article by Manuel Garcia entitled The Fall of WTC 7. Nenonen reports that Garcia concluded that “The blast of hot debris from WTC 1 kindled fires in WTC 7 and caused an emergency power system to feed the burning to the point of building collapse. One of the building’s major bridging supports was heated to the point of exhaustion by the burning of an abundant store of hydrocarbon fuel.” Garcia compared the overall effect to that of an oil well fire beneath a burning bridge.

While offering this "conclusion" as strong proof, Nenonen fails to acknowledge that Mr. Garcia himself admits that his hypothesis is nothing more than an educated guess. Specifically, Mr. Garcia said, "This article is a visualization of what PROBABLY HAPPENED. Only gods and the dead have certainty; we, the living, have rationality and courage to guide us through the puzzles and the perils of life."

But that is not at all accurate. At least one news organization reported with great "certainty" that WTC 7 had indeed "collapsed". Curiously, this report occurred 23 minutes before WTC 7 had actually "collapsed". Even more curious, is the fact that the report was broadcast live on the BBC, as the building in question, "WTC 7" actually remained standing in the background, while the reporter was explaining how it had already "collapsed".

Michael Nenonen fails to mention the HUGE revelation of BBC foreknowledge of the "collapse" of WTC 7 and what that means to the "9/11 Truth Movement"; much less what it means to his article. Clearly, the very fact that the BBC could make such a revelation virtually eviscerates the hypothesis put forth by Garcia and the entire premise put forth by Mr. Nenonen.

The BBC has gone on record explaining their clairvoyant report as nothing more than an "error". In other words, it was a wild coincidence that their report practically coincided with the sudden and complete demolition of WTC 7. While BBC's report does little to explain exactly how WTC 7 actually did "collapse", it does provide very powerful circumstantial evidence that the 9/11 Truth Movement is NOT wrong. In fact, the BBC's report provides convincing corroborating evidence that the 9/11 Truth Movement has it exactly right! Allow me to explain why...

In addition to providing powerful circumstantial evidence, the BBC foreknowledge report, when considered together with the direct visual evidence of WTC7 actually being demolished, infers that a conspiracy was concocted to destroy building 7 while simultaneously using the media to make it seem as if the building collapsed of its own accord.

The fact that this would occur directly following the demolition of the two 110 storey World Trade Center Towers is further corroborating evidence that 9/11 was an Inside Job.

The story devised to cover the WTC 7 demolition was absurd on its face, thus another conspiracy was concocted after the fact, to bury the live televised news reports because they clearly contradicted not only the visual evidence of WTC 7 being blown up, but the fact that the reports went "live" too soon, also succeeded in completely destroying the time line of events necessary for their story to "hold up" under careful scrutiny.

Of course this careful scrutiny never occurred. The story has since been absolutely censored by the mainstream media and the government at large. So great was the conspiracy to cover-up the demolition of WTC 7, that it was not even mentioned in the official 9/11 Commission Report.

What's so ironic about all of this is, many people point to the Bush Administration's incompetence as "proof" that they were unable to pull off 9/11 as an "Inside Job". It would seem that they were essentially right. Their ineptitude resulted in the smoking gun which is WTC7; thus, they have effectively failed in their attempt to pull this off!

When all the facts are considered together with available direct and circumstantial evidence, it becomes clear that 9/11 was an Inside Job. It can no longer be denied. The only question remaining is, what are we the people going to do about it?