NSA Whistleblower Thomas Drake admits WTC 7 a controlled demolition

In an interview conducted by OpEdNews.com founder Rob Kall and posted Jan. 22, 2014, entitled "Whistleblower Former NSA Exec Thomas Drake On Obama's Speech, Bengazi, 911 and more- part 1 (&2), Thomas Drake makes the claim that WTC 7 was brought down because of the damage it received from the destruction of the twin towers. In an interview spanning many topics from Benghazi to 9/11 foreknowledge, Mr Drake is asked specifically about the destruction of the WTC complex. He was asked around the 50:00 mark of part 1. However, his evaded responding until just after the 24:00 mark of part 2. He states he remains unconvinced and adamantly proclaims there is "no evidence" that the twin towers were brought down by controlled demolition. But in a stunning admission he adds quote "...and building 7, by the way, came down in part..they had to bring it down because it was severely damaged from the towers falling"

This is a remarkable admission in my most humble opinion. How can one concede that building 7 was intentionally brought down but not the twin towers? Mr. Drake posits previously debunked claims about building designs and pancaking as causes for the destruction. He seems to believe that building 7 was so damaged by falling debris that it had to be brought down. He makes no assertion or attempts to explain how this was done on the spur of the moment in the span of just under 7 hours after the fall of the North Tower. Sadly neither did Mr Kall attempt to clarify this point. To be sure Mr. Drake is clear in the one and only follow up question about "explosions at WTC" by Mr. Kall. Mr. Drake qualifies his responses by saying quote "in terms of the twin towers? No." and "there was no controlled demolition of the twin towers." The confirms his earlier comment that he seems to believe that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. As I just mentioned and should emphasize that no follow up to this admission was conducted by Mr. Kall. He made no attempt to identify Mr. Drakes sources for his claims nor did he challenge him on such fundamental questions such as how the demolition was researched, planned, implemented, and executed while fires are apparently "raging" on various floors throughout the 47 story structure. It would appear that Mr. Kall may have prior bias to the controlled demolition evidence as indicated by his use of the pejorative term "truthers."

Although very little time was spent on this topic and certainly the destruction of the WTC complex is NOT the only discrepancy in the the 9/11 narrative Mr. Drake makes remarkable claims regarding Benghazi, the use of false flags as a tool of governments and corporations, and his prima facie "smoking gun evidence" presented by him regarding the foreknowledge by the NSA regarding the 9/11 attacks. He mentions prior false flag events such as the Gulf of Tonkin and was asked about the USS Liberty. Despite this, he posits that 9/11 was abused by the Bush administration not planned. He explains that claims by the Bush administration about WMD in Iraq were a form of false flag. In retrospect, it can be argued that the WMD lies were far worse than 9/11 since it led to far more American and foreign casualties and injuries. It just doesn't seem to have that deep betrayal aspect of the trusted public contract between the governed and those who govern.

Overall, I feel this is an important interview in regards to the information it provides. The overall production quality of the interview is somewhat substandard especially in the beginning. Mr. Drake's answer aslo get very long winded and often include unrelated or broader tangents. The links are below and my comments to Mr. Kall are found on the last link to the 2nd part. A free account at opednews is required to listen to them. I have downloaded the mp3 files and can attach them for those we do not care to do so.


I look forward to hearing other points of view.

peace everyone and thank you for taking the time to read this entry.