Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Building 7: Our National Cherry Tree

I thought of an angle this morning on Building 7 and it goes back to the George Washington story of cutting down the cherry tree. George's father was furious. He saw the tree on the ground and wondered who had brought it down. Many looked at Building 7 and wondered who brought that down as well.

The official story is the building collapsed because it was badly damaged by the falling towers, and then later the fire. There is no dispute that the building was hit by debris although clear photographic evidence of the exact damage - for some reason - has not been produced. But let's say the bottom of the building on the side that got hit was gouged out. You know what? That's a lot like how you'd bring down a tree, isn't it? You go to a point a few feet off the ground and you start chopping away. Assuming the George Washington story is true, that's how he chopped down the cherry tree. The pressure builds where the missing wood is and the tree comes over.

Buildings have collapsed before. I've seen the pictures. They fall over towards where the failure point is, often remaining somewhat intact even after hitting the ground. Steel buildings have been on fire before, too, for as long as 24-hours. Before September 11th, no steel-framed building had ever collapsed because of fire. Building 7 did not look like it fell over from the damage to the base. It did not look like other collapsed buildings that really did fall over like a tree coming down. Building 7 looked very much like a controlled demolition.

One of the remarkable things about 9/11 was the speed in which certain information hit the news. Within days, we had a list of the hijackers. Then Atta's driver's license appeared on the streets of New York. Cynics have suggested there was an orchestrated manipulation of the press that week. If you are running a false flag operation, it is not enough to show the people something - you must also tell the people what they saw.

Yesterday the Internet was alive with this BBC archive news footage showing a news reporter announcing the collapse of Building 7 while it's clearly still standing in the background. Aaron Brown is also shown discussing the imminent collapse of the Building. EMTs are coming forward saying they were told it was about to go and to clear the area. The buildings owner is on tape talking about the decision to pull the building. Then the building comes down - quickly, neatly and directly into its own footprint.

This is our national cherry tree. George Washington could have said his tree had been damaged on one side and fell over, and it was. That's how George chopped it down. But if that cherry tree was in a pile of sawdust directly in its own footprint, George's Dad would have said, "There's no way a hatchet brought this down."

In the George Washington story, he says, "I cannot tell a lie" and confesses to his deed. I believe the official story of Building 7 is a lie, and the proof is right there for any reasonable person to observe. This is our national cherry tree, but instead of George Washington who could not tell a lie, we have George Bush and the Neo-Cons in his administration - and they can't stop lying.


At 3:47 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This 9/11 BBC World News footage shows the BBC reporting that the WTC-7 building had already collapsed even though WTC-7 is clearly still standing right behind the reporter outside the window. The satellite feed goes dead about five minutes before the WTC-7 building actually collapsed -- making it the first steel frame high rise to collapse due to fire in the entire history of the world!

Here is the BBC's response to this controversy:

1. We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.

So if nobody told told you this was about to happen, how did you correctly predict the collapse of WTC-7 23 minutes before it actually happened? Is Miss Cleo one of your producers?

2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.

Sorry, but all of these words are noticeably missing from the report in question.

3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.

Does she not remember the building right behind her imploding into rubble just minutes after the anchor told her it had already collapsed?

And why are you blaming poor Jane Standley for this. Wasn't she simply agreeing with what the anchor told her?

Finally, if you were a reporter who confirmed to the entire world on live TV that the WTC-7 building had already collapsed 23 minutes before it actually collapsed on the most historic day of this century, would you be able to remember the source that steered you wrong?

4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.

So the dog ate the BBC's only copy of its 9/11 video? Do you actually expect us to believe this? Ever heard of www.archive.org?

5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... "

OK, now you are quoting a commenter on youtube.com? Seriously? That's your explanation for going with a psychic prediction that the WTC-7 tower was about to collapse while the building itself is still obviously standing right behind you? And if you read the youtube.com comments, how are we supposed to believe your excuse about the dog eating your video? Didn't you just see it on youtube?


This is some truly bizarre stuff. Who was pushed this story on the BBC such that they went with it without so much as fact checking the obvious fact that the WTC-7 tower was still standing in plain sight on their own camera footage while they were making this very report? Remember that no steel frame high rise has ever collapsed due to fire on any day in human history other than 9/11. So what made the BBC's source so certain that WTC-7 was going to come down 23 minutes before it actually did such that the BBC went ahead and reported that this had already occurred with the WTC-7 building still standing in plain sight in their own footage?

At 8:45 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just found this huge image of the 9/11 site on digg.com: http://cdn-90.liveleak.com/liveleak/6/asdjdhhd/2007/Feb/28/LiveLeak-dot-com-32615-wtcphoto.jpg

Is that WTC7 one block off of the main site? If so, it's hard to believe that it would suffer fatal damage while the two buildings in front of it remain standing with very little structural damage.


Post a Comment

<< Home