And what about the towers?! Does the writer think this report from Chechnya only sheds light on the ridiculousness of the official story as it applies to an occurrence that most people weren't even aware of, and not as it applies to the events that most people remember about that day? Why this exclusive focus on building 7, as if it's the only loose thread, the only glaring falsehood of the official story?! The only glaring falsehood about what happend at Ground Zero, even? To rely on the point, 'and it wasn't even hit by a plane' drives me up the wall, as it only reinforces what is possibly the greatest distortion perpetrated in the public's mind that day--namely, that the plane crashes, in their impact and in the fires they started, are what brought the towers down. Remember, the FEMA and NIST reports on the towers' destruction is likewise a fire theory, as with building 7--they did NOT try to argue that damage from the plane impacts caused them to come down. Moreover, even on the day of 9/11 itself, a perception that there was something wrong about the WAY the towers came down was evident (e.g., Peter Jennings comments on air, the reporter at the press conference who asked Giuliani about secondary explosions). But, again, to keep saying of building 7 'and it wasn't even hit by a plane' implicitly promotes the false view that there was nothing really surprising in the fact that the towers' came down after being hit by planes, nothing unusual about the manner in which they did.

It took a David Ray Griffin presentation some years ago to finally convince me of controlled demolition at the WTC. Far from shying away from the subject of the towers, he covered them FIRST. I had started out still very much in need of convincing of controlled demolition, but I found his presentation on the towers to be so devastating to the official account, that by the time he got to discussing building 7 later on in the presentation, it was like icing on the cake.

I can't help but feel discouraged sometimes. The growth of the 9/11 truth movement was most dramatic back around 2005 to 2007, a time when truth activists talked about ALL the things that were wrong with the OCT. People might argue that: it's a helpful entry point, something to get people started--and I agree with that, as far as it goes. What I'm much less sure about is the seeming belief that once people hear about building 7, they'll come around to learning about all else that's wrong with the OCT. While such an approach might well have been successful in reaching some people, sometimes I fear that it may instead be having a very different effect that is not being discussed: Leading much of the wider public--who've either forgotten about other points raised by the 9/11 truth movement in years past, or were never even made aware of those points in the first place--to think that the 'collapse' of building 7 is the only problem the truth movement has with the 9/11 official story. And in the process, reinforcing their (mis)perception re the basic soundess of the official account of what brought down the towers and killed all those people, thereby launching the war-that-will-not-end-in-our-lifetime (after all, if there were anything wrong with what they were told about that part of the story, surely the 9/11 truth arguments they encounter would include it). And this need not be so, particuarly in view of the kind of information from Chechnya, to go along with many other such events.