I think the fact that, as too often happens, Paul Watson wrote this up first, in this case inspired an understandable conditioned reaction from Jeff against Watson and his odious partner, Alex Jones. Then isachar chimed in with the groundless and semi-libelous idea that Jeff has ever called anyone a "twoofer," or acted on the side of the "debunkers" in attacking 9/11 research or attempting to censor or misinform. (Jeff has been very hard, as have I, on the fact-free Alex Jones/Loose Change/We Are Change approach that came to dominate the former 9/11 skeptics community and "truth movement.")
But this story is not about Watson. I suggest we all start over.
Let's start with the actual reason for the story minus Watsonian presence, shall we?
FOXNEWS unlike most commercial news outlets has a habit of failing to archive what it publishes, so let's preserve it here:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/04/ ... ept-shame/FOXNEWS, quoted here as fair use for educational, strictly non-commercial purposes of archiving, discussion and debate, and with the original link provided wrote:Updated April 22, 2010
Shame On Jesse Ventura!
By Jeffrey Scott Shapiro
The former Minnesota governor has discredited himself, and dishonored and defamed his country by promoting the mistaken view that our government was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks.
Jesse Ventura should be ashamed of himself and embarrassed.
The former Minnesota governor recently lent his political credentials to the discredited 9/11 “Truther” movement by alleging that the Sept. 11 attacks were either planned or permitted by the United States government.
This recent admission was only a small part of Ventura’s new book, “American Conspiracies: Lies, Lies and More Lies the Government Tells Us,” which echoes a revisionist account of American history that holds the Bush administration responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks by implying that the Bush administration either knew about the attacks, did nothing to stop them or actually participated in them.
During a March 10 interview with Barbara Walters on “The View,” Ventura implied the Bush/Cheney administration used 9/11 as a pretense to start the Iraq War under false pretenses. Ventura apparently developed this theory after former Kennedy/Johnson adviser Robert McNamara visited him at Harvard and allegedly admitted to him that the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which escalated the Vietnam War, never actually happened.
Perhaps what Ventura is missing is that there is probably more incontrovertible evidence and more witnesses who have already established what happened on Sept. 11, 2001 than most major historical events. To dispute the conventional historical account is intellectually dishonest and nonsensical.
I know this because I was working as a journalist for Gannett News at Ground Zero that day, and I remember very clearly what I saw and heard.
Although I arrived at Ground Zero shortly after the Twin Towers fell, I was in the danger zone created by Building 7 from the moment it collapsed in the afternoon, an event that is one of the key cornerstones of the 9/11 conspiracy theory.
Governor Ventura and many 9/11 “Truthers” allege that government explosives caused the afternoon collapse of Building 7. This is false. I know this because I remember watching all 47 stories of Building 7 suddenly and silently crumble before my eyes.
Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.
A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy.
While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was.
The myth that Building 7 was blown up by the U.S. government is false – and so is the broader theory that our government was somehow involved in the 9/11 attacks. I know this because I was one of the few reporters who investigated 9/11 conspiracy theories and urban legends on location in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy.
In October 2001, I reported on a story for Gannett newspaper, The Journal News, that the FBI Joint Terrorist Task Force was investigating a Brooklyn high school student for predicting the collapse of the World Trade Center five days before it happened.
To my surprise, the NYC Board of Education confirmed the story on the record and the FBI confirmed there had been rumors circulating in the New York City Arab-American community about a possible attack on Manhattan. My story was immediately confirmed by Newsweek Senior Editor Jonathan Alter, and after I penned a follow up in The Washington Times magazine, “Insight,” I was interviewed by Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly on “The O’Reilly Factor.”
My investigation into 9/11 conspiracy theories and urban legends led me to interview both American and Israeli intelligence officials as well as representatives of the Afghan Northern Alliance, FBI, NYPD and sources within the Muslim community of New York City.
Although I found trace evidence that vague rumors circulated within the Arab-American community that “something was going to happen” in “lower downtown Manhattan” on Sept. 11, I found no evidence of any conspiracy other than the one hatched by Al Qaeda that was later confirmed by the 9/11 Commission.
Since Al Qaeda once operated out of the Alkifah Refugee Center on Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn and had many low level operatives working in the NYC area, it did not surprise me that rumors of their plan had leaked within the Arab-American community of New York. Many similar rumors and reports occur frequently, however, and so I have never faulted the Arab-American community or our government for not acting upon them.
In no instance did I ever once talk to one source who even hinted the American government had any foreknowledge or involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks. As an investigative reporter who survived the collapse of Building 7 and doggedly investigated 9/11 conspiracy theories in the wake of the attack, I am convinced the 9/11 “Truther” movement is nothing more than a paranoid, delusional pack of lies.
I was there.
I know what happened, and there is no single credible piece of evidence that implicates the United States of America in the Sept. 11 attacks. Governor Ventura has discredited himself, and dishonored and defamed his country by promoting these intellectually dishonest views. He should be ashamed of himself.
Jeffrey Scott Shapiro is a former Washington, D.C. prosecutor and investigative reporter who covered the Sept. 11 attacks on location. To read his Washington Times/Insight piece, “Stories Prior Knowledge of 9/11 More Than Urban Legend,” click here.
Now, what do we learn?*
The relevant presentation of facts about September 11th, in an attack piece mostly void of them, comes in the bolded sections above.
Shapiro cites "several" NYPD officers and Con Edison workers (relevant because WTC 7 was built over a Con Ed transformer) he says he spoke with before WTC 7 fell, to the effect that they told him they had either witnessed or heard (this is not clear) Larry Silverstein on the phone, asking his insurance company for permission to conduct a controlled demolition of WTC 7.
Shapiro does not detail what the results of this conversation were. Soon after, the building collapsed, as Shapiro says, although he doesn't mention that the exterior collapsed from the bottom into its footprint in a way that is visually indicative of a controlled demolition.
Shapiro at this point in his narrative says he did not hear the sounds of explosions, and leaves it to the reader to conclude therefore that it was not a controlled demolition, again saying nothing about what Silverstein and his insurance company decided.
Watson in his write-up on Shapiro cites others to the effect that they did hear explosions as the building collapsed, then notes that Silverstein has ever since denied there was a controlled demolition, and concludes (not logically, in my view) that this must have been because Silverstein wants to deceive the insurance company, which paid the claim. Barracuda finally points out what is faulty in Watson's logic, (i.e., how could the insurance company be so stupid as to pay the claim, if it was a controlled demolition, after having rejected Silverstein's request?) but in the process assumes Watson's premise that the insurance company rejected a CD and that Silverstein has since deceived the insurance company.
All this has obscured the first questions we should logically ask on hearing this story:1) Is it true that Shapiro heard about this phone call from the police and electric company sources he cites anonymously, and, if so, did they get their story right that prior to the fall of Building 7, Silverstein asked the insurance company for permission to conduct a controlled demolition of Building 7?
2) Assuming it is true that this phone call happened as related, what did Silverstein and the insurance company decide to do? Shapiro, again, does not make this explicit, but merely leaves it in the air as the assumption we should make from his claim that he didn't hear explosions when the building went down.
3) When Silverstein asked for this permission, was a capacity already in place to conduct a controlled demolition? If so, how and when was this capacity implemented? If not, just what was Silverstein thinking to do when he asked? How quickly could a capacity for a CD be put in place?
I submit that these questions are worthy of being asked and investigated, and that Jeff and barracuda as well as isachar should be able to agree with that.
I submit that these questions are worthy of being asked and investigated, even if the answer to one or all of them turns out to be that there was no controlled demolition, and even if it turns out that there was, in fact, no capacity to conduct one in place.
It would be yet another rather astonishing albeit not impossible coincidence in the day's events, if Silverstein asked for permission for a controlled demolition, just before the building collapsed on its own in a fashion that mimics a CD from the exterior evidence. It is worthy of clarification.
I submit the idea that the insurance company under the circumstances - a "national emergency" and the building already massively damaged - may have, in fact, given permission for a CD, is not ridiculous; and, given Shapiro's claim, worthy of investigation and, if true, disclosure.
I submit the idea that the building was, in fact, already prepared for such a CD, or possibly prepared for it by a military demolitions crew in the seven hours between the collapse of the Towers and the fall of WTC 7, is not ridiculous and worthy of investigation and, if true, disclosure.
I submit the idea that this story in turn covers up something more sinister is not ridiculous and worthy of investigation and, if true, disclosure.
Again, all this is not about Jesse Ventura, Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, Paul Joseph Watson, "truthers," Jeff Wells, or their respective claims about the September 11th events. It is solely about Shapiro's report of having heard cops and Con Ed workers say they heard about Silverstein's calls, and what that by itself suggests as logical further lines of inquiry.
---
Note
(* Other than that whatever idiot first coined "truther" as a positive appelation has done more damage to the movement he wanted to help than even the Teabagger who coined "teabag movement"?)
