June 13, 2008
November 29, 2007
Over the next week or two I plan to write a series of posts about WTC 7, culminating in the promised detailed explanation of why I think WTC 7’s collapse most likely wasn’t purely “natural,” i.e. why I think it most likely wasn’t caused just by debris damage plus subseequent (non-arson) fires. But first, in this and the next few posts, I’ll look at the official reports plus some other stuff that various defenders of the official story have asked me to read.
I’m now studying both of the following:
- Appendix L – Interim Report on WTC 7 (PDF) in NIST’s June 2004 Progress Report
- Chapter 5 (PDF) of the FEMA report
October 25, 2007
On Tuesday I attended a press conference held by Democratic presidential hopeful Mike Gravel, on the steps of City Hall here in New York City. He spoke mainly about the dangers of the military-industrial complex, about which we were originally warned by Dwight Eisenhower. I totally agree with him about the dangers of the military-industrial complex.
I and several other people from New York 9/11 Truth were there because he was going to sign a petition having to do with health care for the first responders. However, at the press conference, not many questions were asked about the first responders. Not sure why. Perhaps the relevant people just didn’t show up?
Anyhow, Gravel is the only presidential candidate I’m aware of who doesn’t mind holding a press conference with a few people in the background wearing T-shirts that say “Investigate 9/11.” A while back, I recall seeing an announcement urging people in the 9/11 Truth movement to attend a rally in support of Ron Paul, but specifically asking us not to wear any clothing with a mention of 9/11.
Below is more info about Mike Gravel:
September 27, 2007
As I pointed out in my blog entry Straight-down collapse of WTC 7 – what do “debunkers” say?, there are good reasons to believe that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. However, we need to be careful to present a strong case. Some of the evidence that some people have presented for controlled demolition is not very strong.
One example I mentioned was the evidence of foreknowledge of WTC 7’s collapse (as discussed, for example, on 9-11 Research). According to this interview with Deputy Fire Chief Peter Hayden, from the April 2002 Firehouse Magazine, firefighters had legitimate reasons to fear that Building 7 might collapse. So, evidence that a bunch of people expected WTC 7 to collapse is not good evidence of demolition. Even the premature BBC report that WTC 7 “has collapsed” is not good evidence of demolition, but only of a misunderstood prediction that WTC 7 would soon collapse.
But there are also many eye-witness accounts by first responders who say they heard that Building 7 was going to be “brought down,” supposedly for safety reasons.
At first glance, this sounds like stronger evidence of demolition. But even that could easily be dismissed, by supporters of the official story, as having been nothing more than a garbled rumor — a simple, honestly mistaken, widely-circulated misunderstanding of official concerns that the building might spontaneously collapse. (Furthermore, even from the point of view of one who does believe that WTC 7 was deliberately demolished, it doesn’t make much sense for the conspirators to have broadcasted their intent.)
Harder to dismiss might be a bunch of testimonies by people who had overheard a countdown just before WTC 7 came down.