Feels Like A Setup...

Apparently this summer, the BBC is releasing a documentary that is supposed to "debunk" the Controlled Demolition hypothesis. At the same time, NIST is supposed to release its final report with regard to WTC7.

I imagine that when this happens, the media is going to pounce on it, and proclaim that the "9/11 Truth Movement" is dead.

I can't help but notice that WTC7 is being promoted moreso than it ever has been before by this movement in recent months. As if that's the only thing we stand for.

I'm not going to lie and say I'm not concerned about this predicament because I am.

Two questions

Who has said the BBC program is supposed to debunk the CD hypothesis?

Hasn't WTC 7 always been pretty central in the movement?

At least the program desription seems to maintain some objectivity. It e.g. points out that "all of the many thousands of tonnes of steel from the building were taken away to be melted down in the Far East". Anyone with some brain cells should see that this is no way to investigate why a skyscraper collapsed.

To me, the case of WTC 7 would be one of the most ungrateful aspects of 9/11 to create a setup. That being said, I've always said that WTC 7 should always be treated as part of the larger whole.

Show "..." by Jon Gold

Jon, just because the bizarre, unprecedented incident of 2

airliners slamming into the towers occurred doesn't mean that the fall of WTC-7, more than 350 feet away, can be forgotten as just another inexplicable coincidence of that day.

Massive 47-story steel-framed buildings don't fall into their footprints at free-fall speed just for the hell of it! It is deliberately done by experts!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321

About the investigation

I'm not holding my breath for the neutrality of the BBC program, but Dylan Avery wrote here that he had a long discussion with the producer (I think) and that it appears to be more objective than their previous programs. One can always hope. Something still depends on the invididuals involved in the making of the program.

Jon, I'd like to ask you an additional question.

If WTC 7 had been an "unassisted" building collapse, do you think it would have been investigated the way it has been investigated?

1) We know that there was no on-site investigation.

2) By March 15, 2002, four (4) pieces of WTC 7 had been saved for investigation.

3) Some of these samples showed a "highly unusual phenomenon" - intergranular melting of steel and an unusually high incidence of sulphur. FEMA called for a "detailed study" into this. This has not been carried out. Instead, NIST has said "no steel was recoverd from WTC 7".

Do you think this is the way in which major building disasters are investigated?

More details

Nope...

It doesn't sound like a legitimate investigation. However, I don't know if what you say is true because I haven't looked into it as much as you have apparently. Do you think there's a possibility that those buildings weren't brought down by Controlled Demolition?


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Not really

I don't think it is possible that office fires moving from place to place and burning out fairly quickly in any given spot would have caused a single steel column to fail. (Imagine a column, encased in gypsum and whatever, in your office and a desk plus some stationery burning close to it for 15-20 minutes.) Yet three huge buildings came to their foundations on one day, ultimately (allegedly) due to fires. Such an incidence would have required the most painstaking investigation. What we have seen is a travesty of investigation. Also, if fires are so effective at weakening steel structures, one would expect there to have many more collapses of steel-framed buildings outside the one day. As it is, there are none.

For additional arguments, please read my WTC 7 page, linked below.

Jon & Colombo

Enough already !......Jon everyone here at 9/11 Blogger admires you dedication. Colombo i have also enjoyed you're responces.
Remember one thing! United we stand ! We all have our own opinions. The enemy is on the other side!
Focus for the truth.

So Jon...

...do you think there could be another explanation for the collapse of Building 7 besides controlled demolition?

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government." -The Declaration of Independence

I've already said...

I'm not qualified to answer that. There were reports that morning, as early as 10:28, that WTC7 may come down.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/6654

Does that mean there was legitimate damage to the building that caused its collapse? I don't know, I wasn't there. Nor, do I really want to "debate" it.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

I can gurantee

That the WTC7 report _will not_ analyze the collapse of the building. It's going to be a bunch of fire modeling that stops short of the "collapse".

The (serious) problem NIST has is that the building fell at the rate of gravity:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=POUSJm--tgw

For this to happen, the building structure below can not have provided resistance. The only explanation is that all the load bearing elements failed completely and symmetrically all the way down. Just as NIST was unable to explained the Twin Towers (stopping at the point of "collapse initiation"), they will be unable to explain WTC7.

I am not worried at all. Physics was not suspended on 9/11.

Jumbo Jets Can Not Demolish Skyscrapers.
http://nasathermalimages.com

If and when........

this report comes out. We need to be ready to assemble to confront it fast.

However...

... in its preliminary reports NIST has indicated it is trying to establish the mechanism causing the total destruction. (Which is so absurd, as the mechanism could have been established by investigating the debris!) Can they avoid touching the collapse?

Absolutely! Any real investigation starts at the scene of the

crime & painstakingly examins, records, studies, evaluates, re-examines, etc., ALL of the physical evidence.

Can you imagine a homicide detective or an arson investigator disregarding the crime-scene evidence???

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321

"I can't help but notice that WTC7 is being promoted moreso

than it ever has been before by this movement in recent months."

And that's a bad thing, Jon?

"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." --Larry Silverstein

Small, concise, 9/11, NWO, links, site:
http://www.freepressinternational.com/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321

Show "In my opinion..." by Jon Gold

Leave it to Gold to turn WTC-7 from our best, most shocking

evidence to somethng to be avoided.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321

Show "Leave it to Anonymous Colombo..." by Jon Gold

You implied it, Jon. And you've long dragged your feet on our

physical evidence, including the lack of a Boeing (no huge engines, 250 seats, luggage) at the Pentagon.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321

No...

Actually what I implied is that there have been people inserted into the movement over the years saying things like, "If you get on National Television and don't mention WTC7, you're a shill", or "If you don't believe in Controlled Demolition, then you're not a real member of the 9/11 Truth Movement." I'm implying that maybe there is a reason the mainstream media doesn't have a problem promoting the idea of Controlled Demolition (even though 1000's of experts who may know something about it will be exposed to the idea). I'm implying that maybe, just maybe, we might be wrong. Of course, I'm not qualified to tell you that one way or the other, but I do keep that in the back of my mind. I'm implying that the media is getting ready to declare the "9/11 Truth Movement Is Dead" based on the latest report from NIST. I'm also implying that the idea of Controlled Demolition does not define the 9/11 Truth Movement.

By the way, I fully expect that each and every one of my posts on this blog will be voted down. You're not allowed to have a negative opinion about Controlled Demolition in this movement. As I said, you must believe it in order to be a legitimate member.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Come on, Jon. Just use all the physical evidence along WITH

the documentary, testimonial, circumstantial, historical, etc., evidence that you are so fond of. It all makes our case stronger.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321

I'm not...

Qualified to tell you about the physical evidence. I can easily point out a lie or a contradiction.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

What about absurdities in investigations?

Please see my comment and question about the investigation above.

..

The final NIST report may well conclude the obvious :
WTC7 was brought down by Controlled Demolition but "for reasons of National Security" and
"to avoid speculations and/or panic" this was not admitted by the government .
After all, they don't want it to be common knowledge that the plans for demolition of buildings
like WTC7 are made the instant the building becomes a government asset .

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Listen carefully now : DO NOT DESTROY OIL-WELLS" Dubya

Which may be why

The "Godzilla" disinfo has been popping up lately.

Here's plan B:
7 was demolished for "security reasons" (lol)
and Al Qaeda somehow planted explosives in the Twin Towers.

We will be presented some patsies and be told to go back to sleep. It wont work. The story is quickly unraveling. And the PSYOP is wearing off.

Jumbo Jets Can Not Demolish Skyscrapers.
http://nasathermalimages.com

Doesn't seem plausible. I don't believe they will try this b.s.

Moreover, you can't rig an enormous building for implosion in 10 hours! On a day we're under attack, no less. (It would take weeks.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321

Very True

That may why the disinfo about government buildings having pre-planted explosives for "security purposes" is being floated.
http://911blogger.com/node/15563

It would be fun to see the debunkers scramble to change their story on 7. But I agree, acknowledging 7's demolition would be an extremely risky move for the perps.

Jumbo Jets Can Not Demolish Skyscrapers.
http://nasathermalimages.com

But, the building was privately owned...

...by Silverstein, right?...and not government-owned....he owned it prior to leasing (and insuring for "terrorism", of course) the Twins....we all know that 7 couldn't have been rigged for demoliton in the hours after the Twins were hit; it would've had to have been done some time, over time, in the past...so where is this across-the-nation ""wired-for-controlled-demolition" law or policy for any privately-owned building that houses government agencies? The number of buildings that qualify must run into the thousands (or more)....and this is a secret from the entire US population?

9/11 Truth ends the 9/11 Wars

Yes, and some financial institutions & others had offices in

WTC-7 as well.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321

I can't wait to hear the explanation

Not worried. How many years since 9/11 and still no explanation for WTC7? What's taking so long? Why won't they release the photos to show how "damaged" the building is?

I can't wait to hear the explanation actually.

Especially when we have reports that the lobby was BLOWN UP. How to explain that one?

But 9/11 truth is more than CD, and I agree with Gold on that. Don't limit the evidence, because there is just too much of it. As damning as the CD evidence is, the MSM is more than happy to pretend that there is no other evidence of complicity--building straw-man arguments to "debunk" the CD evidence is their speciality.

For example, isn't it interesting that the MSM WON'T touch NORAD? Or the war games? Or the insider trading? Or the promotions? And by the way, what WERE those "orders"? These are much harder to "debunk" with straw-men arguments.
_______________
Arabesque: 911 Truth

Well, when the NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative...

...is up for vote in the election booth this fall, we'll be able to get that legitimate investigation to expose the already obvious (if you have eyes, that is) CD of the WTC to the rest on the nation, right?

I would love to hear some stories (and see some videos) on this site of Truthers engaging and informing the public while also gathering signatures out on the streets, parks, and events of NYC (and out-state as well).....what a great opportunity this initiative presents....

If anyone does, NY sets the tone for the rest of the nation in this matter.

9/11 Truth ends the 9/11 Wars

Jones et al's article attacked on Wikipedia

Connected with the topic here, the validity of Bentham's entire review process in relation to Steven Jones et al's article is being questioned on Wikipedia's Talk page for WTC 7:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:7_World_Trade_Center

You see, I have added a reference to the "14 Points of Agreement..." letter to the WTC 7 article. It has remained there, but now someone intends to remove it with the argument that Bentham is a "vanity publication" and that it was a paid article (due to the publication fee).

And incidentally, I find myself practically the only one representing the "alternative viewpoint" there.

My WTC 7 page

I guess I haven't advertized it too often:

http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html

Thing is...

...Building 7 is the thing that brought a lot of people into the movement. It is such an obvious smoking gun, it makes sense that we focus on it. They may try and declare the truth movement dead when these reports come out, but, like when the NIST report came out, we will only get stronger by exposing their fallacious arguments. Who cares what the MSM says about the movement? They have never helped us and look how far we've come without them. Just because they declare us dead doesn't make it so.

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government." -The Declaration of Independence

Good Point...

"Who cares what the MSM says about the movement? They have never helped us and look how far we've come without them. Just because they declare us dead doesn't make it so."

"Dragged your feet..."

This is absolutely ridiculous.

Because Jon Gold - someone who has done 3,000 times more than half the people who post here on 911Blogger for this movement - does not make Controlled Demolition his #1 priority, that is a bad thing? Cut me an ever-loving break. He never denied contradictions or physical evidence or the "absurdities" in the claims, he just prioritizes his evidence a different way than most people in this 'movement'.

Hell, I won't lie. When I first got into all of this, it was because of "controlled demolition".
But then, I sat there and said to myself, look at how ridiculous we are pigeon-holing ourselves.
I talked about this on 9/11/07 in NYC on stage during the "Activist Workshop", and got an enormously positive response from everyone there.
Controlled demolition and pushing it in the face of others easily turns us into the 'crazies who think the goverment blew up the buildings'.

Instead, why don't you focus on the factual things that don't make sense, and let the "crazy assumptions" be made by those who give enough of a shit to investigate it themselves?

That was the point I made in NYC. It's like, when we shout and scream Controlled Demolition, it's essentially bad marketing.
From a business standpoint, you're not getting enough "ROI" by doing that. It's like, the whole "9/11 was an inside job vs. Investigate 9/11"

Saying "9/11 was an inside job" is already making us out to be the "wackos". Instead, say "Investigate 9/11". It makes people stop and think a little more rather than us telling them that the government did it - no if's, and's or but's.

It makes sense, think about it.
We do it down here in Philadelphia, we get a ton of positive feedback, and we are one of the most active groups in the WORLD.

... but ANYWAYS, sorry for the rant.

Back to the point - The problem with this movement, AND ESPECIALLY 9/11 BLOGGER and the INTERNET, is that it is so backwards. We don't want to believe the MSM and what they tell us, but at the same time we are so quick to believe those 'experts' and everyone and anyone who agrees with our stand point. Prime example - whatever Alex Jones says, we must believe if we're in the movement. If we don't, we are deemed "co-intel pro" or "agents", or anything else. I mean, come on. Isn't this the same biased crap the MSM is feeding us every day?

I just find it highly hypocritical amongst so many that everything we are supposedly "fighting for" comes back to this petty crap.
Jon puts it into perspective real well because he puts an EMOTIONAL, HUMAN SIDE to this.
His work with the FealGood Foundation, the 9/11 Truth Tuesdays, his research and relationships with the Jersey Girls, etc. etc. is FAR MORE
than most of us have ever put into this movement.

Ok, I'm done. Let the neg's and the voting down begin. Hahah...

Regards,
Mark in Philly
http://www.FealGoodFoundation.com

His Hard Work

Jon has done an enormous amount of solid, valuable work for the cause, yet don't discount elemental physics for the final word. Emotions cut both ways, causing much of the ills of the human condition along with the joys that make life valuable. Let Jon do his good work, but please don't discount the physics of destruction. The buildings were destroyed by something other than fire and gravity alone. The dust tells us what we need to know. As for Justice...much work remains to be done.

Thank you...

However, I'm not trying to make this "pro-Controlled Demolition people" vs. "anti-Controlled Demolition people." I'm just trying to point out that we should be aware of what's coming, and be prepared to deal with it. I do agree with most everything you said incidentally.

Here's part of an email I wrote the other day regarding the Air America show...

With regards to WTC7, etc... etc... etc... the information Lorie spoke of pertaining to "pull it" appeared in the form of a question to the 9/11 Commission, and later fell into the category of "unanswered questions".

Sourced here: http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14984

"One of those questions happened to be for Mayor Rudolph Giuliani:

"On 9/11, no aircraft hit WTC 7. Why did the building fall at 5:20 PM that evening? Larry Silverstein is heard on a PBS tape saying "I remember getting a call from the, E.R., 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 [WTC 7] building collapse," said Larry Silverstein, WTC Leaseholder. - PBS (9/10/02) Does "pull" mean demolished? What do you know about this?

Granted, if you want to believe a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, Mr. Dara McQuillan, then "the Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building", and that's what he meant by his "pull it" remark.

However, the original question, "Why did the building fall at 5:20 PM that evening?" has yet to be answered."

Apparently this summer, the WTC7 report is due to be released, as well as a documentary "debunking" the idea of Controlled Demolition from the BBC (I think). I can't wait for the media reverberations from that. "The 9/11 Truth Movement Is Dead", etc...

However, the question of how those buildings came down is still a legitimate one. It is also, as I pointed out, an important question to the families, therefore, I support the question.

[...]

In April 2007, I asked a question about "Lucky Larry" as people like to refer to him. "What Was The Name Of The Fire Commander Larry Silverstein Was Referring To?"

http://www.911blogger.com/node/7698

Kevin Fenton informed me that Daniel Nigro was the only person Larry could have been referring to that morning. So I called Daniel Nigro, and spoke to him on the phone.

"Well...

I just talked to Daniel Nigro. He was put in charge of the fire department that morning after Peter Ganci was killed. He was at WTC7 at the time of collapse, and does not believe it was Controlled Demolition. However, he says he did not talk to Larry Silverstein that day, and doesn't know who did. He is now retired.

If the "debunkers" are putting him forward as the fire commander Larry Silverstein was referring to, tell them they have been "debunked".

So who did Larry speak to?"

Mr. Dara McQuillan still referred to the person as "Commander", so there's no way of telling who Larry spoke to from his statement. I believe that is a legitimate question that needs to be asked so we can speak to the guy, and I also think that Larry needs to come forward to testify about his comments on PBS to clarify them. However, would Larry Silverstein admit on television that they brought WTC7 down in a controlled demolition? The same question could be asked about Rumsfeld's quip about a missile and 93. I don't know.

As you can see, I think it's a legitimate issue. However, it's one of 1,000,000,000 concerning the 9/11 attacks.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Aren't the anti-controlled demolition proponents people like

Nico Haupt & Paula Gloria? Who the hell wants to be lumped in with those disinfo artists/nut-jobs?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321

I think it's funny...

That an extremely informative post such as the one above is getting voted down. It just goes to show that (at least on the internet), you MUST endorse Controlled Demolition. Any opinion to the contrary will not be tolerated.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

So why can't Gold include both the physical evidence along with

his documentary, testimonial, circumstantial, historical, etc., evidence? The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they greatly complinent each other.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321

Gold does...

And has. FOR YEARS. I was one of the original bloggers for Steven E. Jones. Getting his information out to the public. I was one of the FURIOUS individuals that filmed Tucker Carlson's interview of him to get it online. However, the movement seems to be putting all of its eggs in one basket, and that scares the crap out of me. I can't say authoritatively what happened to those buildings, so it makes me nervous when the movement seems to say, "WTC7 or bust", and the media does its best to portray us as the people that "think the World Trade Center was brought down in a Controlled Demolition." Especially considering what is due out soon with regard to the report and the BBC documentary. I voiced my opinion because I'm crazy like that. I shouldn't be chastised for doing so.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Okay, that's a very resonable way to put it, Jon. Let me just

reiterate that we need to continue presenting ALL of our evidence if we are to push 9/11 truth into the mainstream.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321

Steven Jones' s reply

I have, with Steven's permission, posted his views about the contested review process at length on Wikipedia's Talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:7_World_Trade_Center

Here is a direct link to the relevant section on the Talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:7_World_Trade_Center#Steven_Jones.27s_...

It would seem that the (NASA?) guy at the JREF forum has been spreading falsehoods about the nature of peer review in an attempt to present the article and the journal in a bad light. Does anyone have an account on the JREF forum?