Silverstein, Giuliani, WTC 7 and 20-20 Hindsight
Fake Terror
by Jeremy Baker
If I was a gambling man, I’d bet the farm. WTC 7 was originally
meant to collapse a few seconds after the North Tower hit the ground. Not
seven hours later. I can’t think of a single reason that these guys
would want to keep this World Trade Center complex building intact all day
long.
9/11 skeptics, well versed in this esoteric field,
know what I’m talking about. Something went very wrong that day. Some
signal got crossed, maybe there was sabotage from within, we’ll
probably never really know for sure. But if we accept, as most of these fine
researchers, writers and activists do, that the Twin Towers and WTC 7 were
finished off with preplanted explosives (the coup de grace in what was
essentially an inside job), then it’s the only scenario that
fits.
Think about it. How would it possibly benefit the perpetrators to
wait hours, until late in the day, to finally push the button on Building 7?
The whole world would be watching. That handy cloud of powdered debris that
enveloped lower Manhattan would be long gone, your cover all but blown. Why
draw out the spectacle any longer than necessary?
And it explains some things that have always needed explaining. For
instance, we have several photographs of marginal, struggling fires burning
on the 7th and 12th floors of Building 7, ones that, according to
“official” reports, were supposed to have melted the building and
brought it crashing down. But does that scenario really make any sense at
all? Did it ever? Could it be, instead, that these inconsequential fires in
Building 7 provide us with clues about what was really going on inside?
Doesn’t the following scenario make more sense: when WTC 7 failed to
collapse on schedule, the conspirators scrambled to bring the demolition
system back on line. With their original plan in ruins, they finally made the
decision to set fires in WTC 7 for the same reason they’d been set by
the planes in the towers: to provide a plausible pretext for the
building’s forthcoming demolition.
But the fires, set by desperate men in a tight spot, never quite
caught on the way they should have. But why? If the original plan had been
(for some inexplicable reason) to keep WTC 7 intact all day long and start
fires in the afternoon that could be blamed for the collapse of the building,
wouldn’t they have lit up WTC 7 like a roman candle to enhance the
effect? We know that these guys can build a serious fire when they apply
themselves. We have the photos of WTC 5 and 6 burning like blast furnaces to
prove it. But the well planned and executed arson in these buildings required
time and resources that the guys in Building 7, working on the sly, just
weren’t able to produce on such short notice, especially when the
building was surrounded by chaos, emergency workers and a moonscape of
destruction. So they threw together what fires they could using whatever they
had on hand and then beat feet for Fleet Street. The resulting blazes, barely
discernable from without, took hours to grow to the size necessary to sustain
the illusion (barely) that, like the Twin Towers, WTC 7 just couldn’t
stand the heat. And then, late in the day and with lower Manhattan in
lockdown, the Keystone Konspirators finally pulled the plug on 7 at 5:25
PM.
This revealing fact, that fires in Building 7 weren’t even
called in until late in the day (approx. 3 PM), is a glaring 9/11 anomaly
because of how harshly it conflicts with “official” reports that
raging fires were ignited by debris from Tower One’s collapse that
morning. But what kind of “raging” fire takes hours to build to
even a modest size before finally getting “called in” late in the
day?
Officials have offered speculations on WTC 7's (and the towers)
unprecedented vulnerability to fire but nothing that’s ever held water.
And this story about the 40,000 gallons of diesel fuel catching on fire and
burning down the house, what nonsense. If that gas tank became involved there
wouldn’t have been a fire, there would have been an explosion (a big
one), and then a fire, a huge fire. And it’s for this reason that the
perps would never have torched the diesel tank to set their little dummy
blaze. That kind of inferno would damage explosive systems and cause all
kinds of problems. Remember, their goal was the total destruction of the
entire structure as planned, not an unwieldy blaze within. But these guys
knew better and made sure to set their fires well above the huge diesel tank
on ground level.
WTC 7 still on its feet hours after the attacks was problematic in
other ways. The “official” story has always been that the North
Tower’s plummeting debris impacted WTC 7 (which was one full city block
from the North Tower with WTC 6 standing in between) and ignited a dynamic
inferno that caused the 47 story, steel framed structure to suddenly drop
like a stone hours later, a phenomenon unprecedented in the history of
firefighting and one that occurred not once but three times on September
11th. But Building 7's longevity undoubtedly increased the likelihood of
people noticing and possibly photographing the obvious lack of damage to
Building 7 from the collapse of Tower One. Isn’t it extremely
suspicious that absolutely no photographs of WTC 7's “damaged”
face have ever been released to the public? The building was standing there
all day long. Isn’t it more likely that when WTC 7 didn’t go down
on schedule, Plan B became containment, much like it had been at the Pentagon
(and Oklahoma city for that matter). What few photogs, film crews or
onlookers that penetrated ground zero would have their materials confiscated
for “security purposes.”
But there were also conflicting reports about a man said to have been
the only person to die in the collapse of WTC 7. The US House of
Representatives website posted a tribute to Secret Service Special Officer
Craig Miller whose body was found in the rubble of Building 7. According to
this posting, Officer Miller apparently died during the “rescue
effort” that day. After the Towers were hit, Building 7 (the Manhattan
HQ of the Secret Service) was quickly evacuated and everyone survived, all
except this lone SS guy. Not a firefighter. Not a rescue worker or a cop.
Other accounts record no fatalities whatsoever in 7. Why the confusion? There
was either a body in the rubble or there wasn’t. Was an autopsy done on
this man?
And who on earth was this SS guy rescuing? WTC 7 had been evacuated.
Are Secret Service officers mandated to rescue people from (empty) burning
buildings? The fires in WTC 7 were burning on the floors just above and below
Secret Service offices on the 9th and 10th floors. Could this man have played
a role in the days events that got him into trouble? Could he have been an
amateur arsonist who got too close to his fire? The story of Larry
Silverstein claiming to have ‘pulled’ WTC 7 is well known among
9/11 researchers. The only explanation that’s ever been offered in
Silverstein’s defense was that he meant ‘pull’ the
firefighters out of the “dangerously burning” building. But if
that were true, why didn’t this Secret Service guy get the message? But
then no nostalgic look back on WTC 7 (and the Trade Center in general) is
complete without reacquainting ourselves with the inscrutable Manhattan real
estate mogul Larry Silverstein. Sooner or later, history is going to have to
decide how it remembers this guy. With all we’ve learned about
September 11th there are still only a handful of actual, individual suspects.
I’d like to nominate Mr. Silverstein to this elite fraternity.
World Trade Center 7, or the Solomon Brothers Building, was owned by
Silverstein Properties and had been the headquarters of his development
company, Westfield America, for years. But it also housed Rudy
Giuliani’s Office of Emergency Management (OEM), a reinforced, Arab
proof control center oddly located at the number one terrorist target in the
country (a baffling choice of locations considering that the WTC had already
been attacked once in 1993). This incomprehensible (and very
“unheroic”) decision proved its absurdity on 9/11 when, in the
midst of an actual emergency, Giuliani was unable to access his control
center for obvious reasons.
WTC 7 also hosted offices of the DoD, the IRS and the SEC, as well as
a handful of private financial institutions. In addition, 7 was the storage
center for millions of files on active cases involving organized crime,
international drug dealing, money laundering and terrorism, all of which have
demonstrable links to US intelligence. So a New York Times report that
Building 7 was also the secret location of the largest domestic CIA station
outside of the District of Columbia probably shouldn’t come as a
surprise. The addition of “the agency” to this already
scintillating list of tenants would appear to make WTC 7 a kind of nexus for
what many researchers consider to be key entities in this sprawling
conspiracy. But the fact that Larry Silverstein was the CIA’s secret
NYC landlord for years is a point I made sure to jot down too.
Some researchers have made the shocking claim that the OEM was just a
cover for its real purpose, the conspirators attack operations center (now
that would explain the poor choice of locations). This recently armored
facility, high on the 23rd floor, had a bird’s eye view of the
unfolding spectacle, the perfect vantage point from which to guide the planes
to their targets and fine tune the demolition strategy for the Twin Towers
(when to detonate, which floors to blast first, etc.). But once you’ve
cooly orchestrated the collapse of the safely distant South Tower (murdering
hundreds of fleeing office workers and firefighters) and programmed the
explosives in the North Tower, doesn’t it then make sense to set the
timers, vacate the building, say a Hail Mary and then watch the North Tower
and WTC 7 collapse at the same time, neatly wrapping up the mornings work?
Whatever Giuliani’s control center had been used for, the evidence
would be obliterated, along with years of CIA secrets, government files and
the ghosts of WTC 7.
If this dizzying, Danté-esque spectacle is, in fact, a reality
and does, amazingly, feature “America’s Mayor” in a leading
role, what do we know about Giuliani’s movements at the time?
Officially, he was at a makeshift command post at 75 Barclay Street until
just before the collapses when he claims that he and his staff were evacuated
from the building. He later told Peter Jennings, “We were told that the
WTC was gonna collapse,” a prophetic remark considering the fact that
no steel framed highrise had ever collapsed due to fire before. But WTC 7 is
on Barclay Street, just at the evacuation perimeter, proving that Giuliani
was indeed in the area at the time. But he was evacuating the area, not
setting up shop in WTC 7 for a hard day of directing traffic from
above.
This idea, that the mayor’s command bunker was meant to be used
throughout the day before being demolished, I just don’t see it. The
mayor of New York City (or whomever), orchestrating the aftermath of 9/11 in
the upper floors of a burning building? And what would he (they) be doing up
there? Seems to me that the day’s to-do list had already been checked
off. And for the life of me, I just can’t imagine that the original
plan would ever have included the re-entry of any of the structures after the
devastation that occurred earlier.
There is, in addition, a compelling connection to be made between the
mayor’s OEM and the fires in WTC 7. The lower of the two fires in WTC 7
was on floor 7, the location of the OEM’s emergency generators. If the
arsonists were indeed OEM men, they would not only have had access to this
floor, they would also have had a ready supply of accellerant (i.e. gasoline)
at their disposal (the upper fire was on one of 3 floors used by the
SEC).
So the mayor (and others) may have had access to his command bunker
after all, but just long enough for it to serve its purposes that morning.
And, as for being told that “the WTC was gonna collapse,” well,
if you already knew this for a fact because you were gonna make it collapse,
it’s as good an excuse as any to cover a timely exit.
As 9/11 researchers are well aware, Larry Silverstein took over
control of the World Trade Center just a few weeks before the attacks of
9/11. After ramping up the insurance on the complex (an act of uncanny
foresight considering what was to come) he then set to work replacing
security personnel in a building complex that hadn’t changed hands in
thirty years and had never before been privately controlled. His 2001
sweetheart deal with the Port Authority and the City of New York was for a 99
year lease worth much more than the $3.2 billion he and his firm had
contracted for. And later, when he tried to sue the insurance companies
claiming that two planes means two terrorist attacks, therefore twice the
settlement (bringing the total, in Silverstein’s mind, to $7.2
billion), the courts cried foul and sent Larry packing (after the attacks,
one WTC insurer sued Silverstein for apparently paying lobbyists to try to
limit his liability to the victims families). Funny, I don’t remember
the headline; “Manhattan Tycoon Exploits National Tragedy for Personal
Gain” appearing anywhere after 9/11.
But the real specter haunting Larry Silverstein involves a growing
body of evidence that Zionist extremists may’ve had a hand in the
attacks of 9/11. There are some who believe that Mossad (Israeli
intelligence) fingerprints are all over the attacks, and I’m not so
sure I disagree. Israel has a well documented history of framing Arabs for
attacks on Americans, a fact that never seemed to make its way into the
mainstream mind in the months after September 11th. And the Zionist fanatics
who’ve pulled off this kind of “op” in the past have a
history of tapping the diaspora for talent. And Larry Silverstein is just
their kind of guy.
Ex-president of the United Jewish Appeal (the largest Israeli
fundraiser in the US) and a highly connected supporter of Israel, Silverstein
has strong ties to the Israeli political and business establishments. His
colleague, another UJA leader, Lewis Eisenberg — former chairman of the
Port Authority, finance chairman for the RNC and former VP of AIPAC
(American/Israeli PAC) — negotiated the deal that put the WTC in
Silverstein’s control. Add to this the many examples of Israeli
foreknowledge of and proximity to the attacks and the plot begins to thicken
considerably.
There are a host of disturbing ties between Israeli hardliners and
September 11th (too many to list in detail here) but none more compelling
than the basic issue of motive. It simply cannot be argued that no single
player stood to gain more from the attacks (or, more accurately, from the
response to the attacks) than the Zionist hardliners who’ve been
envisioning a Mideast under their control for decades. For many years before
9/11, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, William Kristol and other powerful,
highly placed American Zionists had advocated for increasingly aggressive US
military actions towards a host of Muslim states. All that was needed to get
the ball rolling was the Pearl Harbor-like event mentioned so often in their
pre-9/11 literature. And it’s working. Our bludgeoning of Afghanistan
and Iraq represent bold steps towards the fulfillment of the sulphurous
neo-con agenda.
Given the fact that Silverstein’s name pops up in many dark
corners of the 9/11 shadow play, is it really unfair to view him as a
“person of interest” in the horrendous crime and coverup of
September 11th? And if he was a player in a subterfuge of this magnitude, is
it really such a stretch to imagine that he might have been “in the
room” when the pseudo-hijackings were being planned? And if he was,
might he have suggested tweaking the plan just a little to include a detour
by Flight 175 south? Knowing that the Air Force would be AWOL that morning,
the plane’s scenic side trip would surely be, at worse, a minor
adjustment — but with major implications. This one, small alteration to
the aircraft’s flight plan would not only result in the planes hitting
from opposite directions, it would also increase the length of time between
the first and second hits. And these two points combined might go a long way
to supporting Silverstein’s claim of two separate terrorist
events.
It’s a matter of record. Flight 175 (the second plane to strike
the WTC) came barreling out of the north, flew south far past Manhattan
before circling back towards the city, a peculiar deviation that took the
plane a good fifteen minutes or so out of its way. This odd, time wasting and
risky maneuver has never been explained. Certainly the
“hijackers” wouldn’t have thought it was a good idea.
Wouldn’t they want to secure the objective ASAP before the fighter jets
showed up? It just doesn’t compute. But there’s one man who
might’ve done very well by this short trip south if only his fortunes
had unfolded according to plan in the courtroom. And all Silverstein had to
do was give Dov Zakheim a call.
With close ties to the Israeli government and reported duel
Israeli/American citizenship, Bush’s Texas buddy and undersecretary of
state, Dov Zakheim, boasts a long list of impressive credentials. Ex-DoD CFO
(chief financial officer), Zakheim joined the Pentagon staff in May, 2001,
shortly before the attacks and at a time when the Pentagon couldn’t
account for $3 trillion in spending. A longtime DoD consultant and neo-con
insider, he’s also a senior figure at the Heritage Foundation, the
Center for International and Strategic Studies and the Center for Security
Policy — not to mention the Council on Foreign Relations and the PNAC.
But before his Pentagon gig, he was also VP of Systems Planning Corporation
and CEO of one of its subsidiaries. SPC is a high-tech outfit that
specializes in, among other things, the remote control commandeering of
aircraft and the technical support required for live flight military
exercises.
This bizarre but entirely viable theory, that some or all of the
“hijacked” passenger jets on 9/11 had been remotely commandeered
and guided to their targets, has been (despite its Buck Rogers kind of
aspect) a key speculation among the very best 9/11 researchers. This
technology has been with us for decades and Zakheim’s SPC specializes
in it. SPC’s Flight Termination System is a fully programmable tool to
retrieve aircraft remotely. But this technology is also a key element in the
kind of live flight war games the military was conveniently conducting on
9/11. These cold war drills in Northern Canada and Alaska drew interceptors
away fron the Northeast US and, using false radar blips, effectively
paralyzed defenders who might otherwise have reached their targets. But it
also eliminated the need for a peculiar and very risky general “stand
down” order from Pentagon brass during the attacks, a command that
would create disbelief and suspicion among hundreds of patriotic military
people.
A couple of years ago, PBS aired a program entitled “America
Rebuilds,” a documentary detailing the cleanup effort at ground zero.
The comments Larry Silverstein made in an interview in this program have
become a “point of interest” among 9/11 researchers and
I’ve enjoyed watching this story steadily gain a following.
Specifically, he described being on the phone with the FDNY commander and
coming to the conclusion that there had “been such terrible loss of
life maybe the smartest thing to do is, is ‘pull’ it,”
(referring to WTC 7). Then, according to Silverstein, “they made that
decision to ‘pull’ and we watched the building collapse”
(the same documentary quotes a demo worker: “well, we’re getting
ready to ‘pull’ building 6" moments before demolishing its burnt
out carcass, a comment that would appear to support the meaning of the
industry term ‘pull’).
Many have asked how he could possibly have been so careless as to
make such an admission publicly. But what if circumstances compelled him to
do so? What if his comments were a discrete response to growing suspicions
surrounding the botched attempt to ‘pull’ WTC 7 earlier in the
day? The powers-that-be have brazenly used PBS programming to spin other
aspects of 9/11. The NOVA program that espoused the theory of the
“pancaking” of the Twin Tower’s floors is infamous in the
9/11 skeptics community. PBS programs relating to 9/11 typically feature
“experts” who unanimously support the party line. I remember one
such “authority” solemnly offering his professional opinion that
the paper we saw falling like confetti as the WTC burned undoubtedly
contributed to the raging fires within and played a significant role in the
collapse of the towers!
With WTC 7's obvious demolition caught on film from at least three
excellent perspectives, it’s an understatement to say that Silverstein
and his cohorts had a big problem on their hands. Could it be that his
comments about ‘pulling’ WTC 7 were a carefully choreographed
“hang out” of the issue? Using Karl Rove-like sleight of hand, he
offers a vague accounting of the anomaly delivered to us on an almost
subconscious level. I’ve watched that video clip hundreds of times and
to this day I hear only one thing: that he and his people made the decision
to demolish WTC 7 citing the “terrible loss of life” suffered
earlier that day. His body language, his wording, his tone, all seem to point
to this one terrible conclusion. Paradoxically, his comments may have been
intended to steer us in the exact opposite direction: that, despite how it
may have appeared, heroes in high places stepped up and made the tough
choices.
The expression ‘pull’ relates to the word
‘demolition’ the same way that the expression ‘wind
up’ relates to the word ‘pitch.’ In both cases they
represent one event occurring in two stages. In this sense,
Silverstein’s use of the word ‘pull’ to mean
‘demolition’ seems clear and may also have served to cover the
sudden and suspicious evacuation of rescue personnel from the disaster zone
shortly before WTC 7's bizarre suicide — a necessity when you’re
about to demolish a building. A photographer on the scene described the
evacuation of firefighters as they “prepared for the collapse of
Building 7...I was 150 yards away when I saw the firefighters raising the
flag.” Excuse me? Steel framed highrises don’t collapse! Firemen,
knowing this to be true, typically approach steelframed buildings (just like
they did the towers that morning), especially if the structures are only
marginally involved. Isn’t it highly suspicious that the firefighters
seemingly just gave up on this exceedingly important and valuable government
building that had only modest fires burning within? Doesn’t this fact
support the theory that WTC 7 was essentially a crime scene that needed to be
destroyed?
This man’s statement (which, by the way, proves that
photographers weren’t barred from the scene and could very well have
produced images of WTC 7's “debris damage”) describes the
behavior of workers who were evacuating a building that was about to be
demolished, not trained emergency workers worried about something that never
happens. Silverstein’s remarks replace this problematic scenario with
the tall tale of wise (and clairvoyant) public servants acting in the nick of
time to save lives (not scatter potential witnesses). Either way Mr.
Silverstein has some explaining to do.
The plan to obscure WTC 7's implosion with the billowing dust cloud
created by the collapse of Tower One is too good an idea for these guys not
to have considered. And it would have worked like a charm. The flattened 32
story Marriott Vista hotel (or WTC 3), nestled snugly between the towers, is
long forgotten in a world that barely remembers the life and times of
Building 7. If WTC 7 being ‘pulled’ when it was mostly hidden
from view (and as chaos reigned on the streets below) wasn’t the
original plan, it should’ve been. And considering all the hubbub
created by its remaining intact, it makes sense that this was indeed the
original idea.
The unintended survival of WTC 7, shortlived though it was, has
proven itself to be a gift from providence to the good people of the world on
a day when it seemed as though providence had abandoned us. Those of us who
know that 9/11 was conceived, written and directed by, well, the usual
suspects, find, in Building 7 and it’s dark pedigree, the Achilles heel
in the “official” fairy tale sold us in the wake of the most vile
deception history has ever recorded. Let’s hope we make the most of
this gift.
If you can judge the substance of a new paradigm by how thoroughly it
displaces an old one, than maybe we’re onto something here. Since this
possibility occurred to me, I simply cannot remember the WTC disaster the way
I used to; that for some inexplicable reason Building 7 just lingered for
hours after the attacks before they finally ‘pulled’ it. And
after years of sifting through this material and scrutinizing 9/11, I will
never again see WTC 7 as anything other than what it surely was. A dud. An
epic, 47 story, steel-belted dud that, later that day, blew up in Larry
Silverstein’s hand.
Case For WTC Tower Demolition Sealed By David Ray Griffin
Theologian Says Controlled Demolition is Now a Fact, Not a Theory
From Kevin Barrett
Coordinator MUJCA-NET
Muslim-Christian-Jewish Alliance For 911
10-21-5
In two speeches to overflow crowds in New York last weekend, notable theologian David Ray Griffin argued that recently revealed evidence seals the case that the Twin Towers and WTC-7 were destroyed by controlled demolition with explosives. Despite the many enduring mysteries of the 9/11 attacks, Dr. Griffin concluded, "It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
On Oct. 15th and 16th, New Yorkers filled two venues to hear the prominent theologian and author of two books on 9/11 give a presentation entitled "The Destruction of the Trade Towers: A Christian Theologian Speaks Out." Dr. Griffin has continued to blaze a trail of courage, leading where most media and elected officials have feared to tread. His presentation went straight to the core of one of the most powerful indictments of the official story, the collapse of the towers and WTC 7.
Dr. Griffin included excerpts from the firemenís tapes which were recently released as a result of a prolonged court battle led by victimís families represented by attorney Norman Siegel and reported in the NY Times. He also included statements by many witnesses. These sources gave ample testimony giving evidence of explosions going off in the buildings. A 12 minute film was shown for the audiences, who saw for themselves the undeniable evidence for controlled demolition.
Dr. Griffin listed ten characteristics of the collapses which all indicate that the buildings did not fall due to being struck by planes or the ensuing fires. He explained the buildings fell suddenly without any indication of collapse. They fell straight into their own footprint at free-fall speed, meeting virtually no resistance as they fell--a physical impossibility unless all vertical support was being progressively removed by explosives severing the core columns.
The towers were built to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 and 160 mile per hour winds, and nothing about the plane crashes or ensuing fires gave any indication of causing the kind of damage that would be necessary to trigger even a partial or progressive collapse, much less the shredding of the buildings into dust and fragments that could drop at free-fall speed.
The massive core columns--the most significant structural feature of the buildings, whose very existence is denied in the official 9/11 Commission Report--were severed into uniform 30 foot sections, just right for the 30-foot trucks used to remove them quickly before a real investigation could transpire.
There was a volcanic-like dust cloud from the concrete being pulverized, and no physical mechanism other than explosives can begin to explain how so much of the buildings' concrete was rendered into extremely fine dust. The debris was ejected horizontally several hundred feet in huge fan shaped plumes stretching in all directions, with telltale "squibs" following the path of the explosives downward.
These are all facts that have been avoided by mainstream and even most of the alternative media. Again, these are characteristics of the kind of controlled demolitions that news people and firefighters were describing on the morning of 9/11. Those multiple first-person descriptions of controlled demolition were hidden away for almost four years by the City of New York until a lawsuit finally forced the city to release them. Dr. Griffin's study of these accounts has led him beyond his earlier questioning of the official story of the collapses, to his above-quoted conclusion: The destruction of the three WTC buildings with explosives by US government terrorists is no longer a hypothesis, but a fact that has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
It ís important to note that Dr. Griffin is one of many prominent intellectuals--including the likes of Gore Vidal, Howard Zinn, Peter Dale Scott, Richard Falk, Paul Craig Roberts, Morgan Reynolds and Peter Phillips--who have seen through the major discrepancies of the official explanation of 9/11 and have risen to challenge it. These brave individuals represent the tip of an ever-growing iceberg of discreet 9/11 skeptics. Indeed, 9/11 skepticism appears to be almost universal among intellectuals who have examined the evidence, since there has not yet been a single serious attempt to refute the case developed by Dr. Griffin and such like-minded thinkers as Nafeez Ahmed and Mike Ruppert. As for the general public, polls have shown that a strong majority of Canadians (63%, Toronto Star, May '04) and half of New Yorkers (Zogby, August 2004) agree that top US leaders conspired to murder nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11/01.
How, then, can the mainstream US media continue to ignore the story of the century? Perhaps the best answer was given by Dr. Griffin himself in the conclusion of his talk, and is worth quoting at length:
"The evidence for this conclusion (that 9/11 was an inside job) has thus far been largely ignored by the mainstream press, perhaps under the guise of obeying President Bushís advice not to tolerate "outrageous conspiracy theories." We have seen, however, that it is the Bush administrationís conspiracy theory that is the outrageous one, because it is violently contradicted by numerous facts, including some basic laws of physics.
"There is, of course, another reason why the mainstream press has not pointed out these contradictions. As a recent letter to the Los Angeles Times said:
"'The number of contradictions in the official version of . . . 9/11 is so overwhelming that . . . it simply cannot be believed. Yet . . . the official version cannot be abandoned because the implication of rejecting it is far too disturbing: that we are subject to a government conspiracy of "X-Files" proportions and insidiousness.'
"The implications are indeed disturbing. Many people who know or at least suspect the truth about 9/11 probably believe that revealing it would be so disturbing to the American psyche, the American form of government, and global stability that it is better to pretend to believe the official version. I would suggest, however, that any merit this argument may have had earlier has been overcome by more recent events and realizations. Far more devastating to the American psyche, the American form of government, and the world as a whole will be the continued rule of those who brought us 9/11, because the values reflected in that horrendous event have been reflected in the Bush administrationís lies to justify the attack on Iraq, its disregard for environmental science and the Bill of Rights, its criminal negligence both before and after Katrina, and now its apparent plan not only to weaponize space but also to authorize the use of nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike.
"In light of this situation and the facts discussed in this lecture---as well as dozens of more problems in the official account of 9/11 discussed elsewhere---I call on the New York Times to take the lead in finally exposing to the American people and the world the truth about 9/11. Taking the lead on such a story will, of course, involve enormous risks. But if there is any news organization with the power, the prestige, and the credibility to break this story, it is the Times. It performed yeoman service in getting the 9/11 oral histories released. But now the welfare of our republic and perhaps even the survival of our civilization depend on getting the truth about 9/11 exposed. I am calling on the Times to rise to the occasion.
Dr. Griffinís speech given at the University of Wisconsin earlier this year, entitled "9/11 and the American Empire," was broadcast twice on C-SPAN. In late September Dr. Griffin was asked to give expert testimony at hearings sponsored by Cynthia McKinney and the Congressional Black Caucus investigating the 9/11 Commission Report. He is currently Professor Emeritus at Claremont College in California.
This weekend's events were sponsored by NY911truth.org, WBAI and the Muslim-Christian-Jewish Alliance for 9/11 Truth: http://mujca.com.
Kevin Barrett
Coordinator, MUJCA-NET
http://mujca.com
911 Links
WTC UFOAnimation Showing Military Precision Of 911 Flight Paths
No Jetliner Hit The Pentagon
Strange 'Suicide' Of Flight 11 Passenger's Wife
BYU Discredits Prof Jones For 911 WTC Paper!
Two 911 Planes Were Never Deregistered
Still Doubt There Was A Highest Level 911 Conspiracy?
More Miraculous 9/11 Evidence Found!
Family Members Of Doomed 911 Flights'Strangely Silent'
Louis Freeh Charges 911 Commission Cover-Up
Prof. Jones 'Bows Out Of The Limelight'
Still More 'Miraculous 911 Evidence' Found!
911 Demo: BYU's Prof Jones Has Wide Academic Support
The 911 Hijackers - What Are They Up To Now?
911 Dutch Treat?
More Miraculous (Planted?) 911 Evidence Appears!
BYU Physics Prof's Blockbuster WTC Collapse Paper
Prominent Physics Prof Refutes Official 911 Story
Another Untold 911 Story - Missiles Fired From Woolworth's?
Prof. Jones Tallks To Arctic Beacon On WTC Demo
BYU Physics Professor - Bombs Brought Down WTC
Flt 93 & Flt 175 Landed At Or Near Cleveland On
911-- Says Former Cleveland Mayor
Another 911 'Passport Miracle'! 911 Timeline Missing Pieces
FBI Hides 85 Pentagon Videos & 9/11 Truth
The 911 North Tower Air Show
Professor Jones Teaches Tucker About 911
BYU Physics Professor - Bombs Brought Down WTC
Positive ID - The 911 South Tower Airliner 'PODS'
More Proof 911 Inside Job - Witnesses To WTC Explosives
Hard Science & The Collapse Of The WTC
German Intel Agent Von Bulow Solves 911
Positive ID - The 911 South Tower Airliner 'PODS'
Clearing The Baffles For 911
911 Flight 93 Passengers 'Lost'
The 911 Pentagon Engine Story
The 911 North Tower Demolition Explained
The Rest Of The 911 Flight 93 Story
So, What Happens When WTC-Type Steel Is Heated?
South Tower Exit Wounds Tell 911 Tale
Dirty Little 9/11 Secrets Exposed
Second Janitor Tells Of WTC BASEMENT Bombs
Bush Responds To 911 Fireworks
Dirty Little 9/11 Secrets Exposed.
Hollywood-like Fake Smoke Made 9/11
WTC 7 Smoke & Mirrors On 9/11
CBC 911 Video Secrets Revealed
Absolute Smoking Gun? - 911 Predicted In 1991
911 CNN Reports Boeing 737s Struck WTC
Sneak Preview - 911 Pentagon Tapes
911 - Aircraft Parts As A Clue To Their Identity
The Rest Of The 911 Street Engine Story
A 911 Checkmate - All The Proof You Need
NYC Photos, Flight 93Witnesses Identify 9/11 White Jet
On 911 An Ill Wind Blew To Booker School
WTC Jet Engine Confirmed NOT From Boeing 767
Second 911 ST Airliner Remote Control Antenna Verified
'Brutal' Purge Of Popular Mechanics Senior Staff
Avionics Expert - A 911 Remote Control Lesson For PM
Real 911 Science For PM - The ST Airliner Photo
PM Claims Landing Gear Made Pentagon 12 Foot Hole
PM Missed NASA 911-Type Airliner Crash 20 Years Ago
Is Popular Mechanics Hiding 911 NY Street Engine Pic?
Disclaimer
posted by Chazzsongs at
5/09/2006 06:32:00 AM
