FOX News Presents WTC 7

Recently, two prominent articles were published – in opposing veins: “NPR & Trust in Government,” by Robert Shetterly (04/19), which called out NPR for allowing the propaganda operative Philip Zelikow to “frame [a] discussion” on “Trust in government,” while failing to note his long record of purposeful (world stage) obfuscation, including a treacherous role in the area of WTC 7, and “Shame On Jesse Ventura!,” by Jeffrey Scott Shapiro (another operative) (04/21), who asserts “that [Larry] Silverstein planned to use controlled demolition on WTC 7” – as if it’s common knowledge/no big deal.  The focus here is on Shapiro’s brash, out of the blue, aggressiveness (under the cover of being clueless to the overall picture/consequences), while Shetterly’s should be read for many reasons: clarity, as a depiction of rare courage in our dominant landscape, and as a partial portrayal of how Timing works in our fabricated environment.


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.

Regarding WTC 7, the major “news” Shapiro is presently “sharing” (upcoming exclusive!) destroys “the conventional historical account.”  So, was he “intellectually dishonest and nonsensical” in all of his relative writings since 9/11 – until this month?  Yet now, he can be taken as honest, wise, and forthcoming?  Further, all “evidence” to the contrary of the “historical account” was banished from allowable discussion or review from Day One – as were any testimonies of opposing “witnesses.”  (What changed?)

Shapiro: I know this because I was working as a journalist for Gannett News at Ground Zero . . . , and I remember very clearly what I saw and heard.

Here’s a quote from one of those other witnesses, Barry Jennings (who didn’t have a column, and was not permitted to speak freely without a modern Scarlet Letter):

I’m just confused about one thing . . . , why WTC 7 went down in the first place.  I know what I heard.  I heard explosions.  The explanation I got was, it was the fuel-oil tank.
I’m an old boiler guy.  If it was a fuel-oil tank, it would have been one side of the building.

Exclusive! :

Shapiro: Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein . . . 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.

Got that?  Remember all the uproar over the Silverstein video (“Pull It”) – scenarios of which he denied in Public, over and over, for years?
New angle! :  “Already unstable and expected to fall.”  Remember this: 1) No plane hit WTC 7.  2) “Fires [alone] have never [In History] caused a steel-framed building to totally collapse [including core columns],” – not  “before or after September 11th, 2001.”  Moreover, review/remember NIST’s “Officially” “Scientific” conclusion:

Yet! :

Shapiro: 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 (emphasis added).

“Many [on the inside] were aware of this possible option.”  Really?  How “many” people (across the earth) would regard this as the first they ever heard of it?  Are we to believe that this article is the first members of NIST and the 9/11 Commission are hearing of it?  Barry Jennings was inside.  Did he, from the occurrence until his death, consider himself as in on the openness, without any “secret” “conspiracy” ramifications?

Why?  Why would he make such fomenting claims as Casual Facts
(at this time)?  How clearly obvious is this as a representation of Subversive (“discredited”) planting from a “[defaming]” Provocateur?  One answer, as referenced in a recent post:

In Narrated Setups: First, Star Chamber interests decide what directions and actions are needed to fulfill what has been chosen for implementation.  Next (after successful steps), many months (or even years) beforehand, they dispense Talking Points to concerted operatives, pliable/collusive publications, and fronted or “reliable” “news” sources.  Then, the people are (sold) “informed” incrementally as to what is inevitably upcoming.  Thus, under the guise of Facts simply being reported, it works (exceedingly) as a well-timed machine.

The Keys: What this would mean (supposedly unbeknownst to Shapiro): 1) NY and U.S. government officials did not inform the public (for at least 8½ years).  (Why?  What benefits ensue? : Control of Narratives, which equals controlled reactions – as well as the sphere of questions.)  2) They (covertly and overtly) ridiculed, tarnished, and literally destroyed entire livelihoods of people who challenged the official storyline through (in the least) vile accusations of lunatic “conspiracy theories” – without, for at least 8½ years, ever acknowledging even the possibility of demolition.  (Modus Operandi: fully utilizing textbook “paranoid, delusional pack of lies” angles, labels.)  3) It may explain why all WTC 7 references were left out of the 9/11 Commission report.  But, it would also clarify the worldwide subterfuge of NIST’s 2008 (guided) assertions – as well as all the other attributing (staged) “reports” and “scientific” conclusions put forward.  4) For even the possibility of demolition standby to be true, WTC 7 had to have been rigged – AHEAD.  Consequently, a controlling (Deep State) Establishment, colluding with MSM, Banned 9/11 Truthers (to whatever degrees deemed necessary).  Cass Sunstein:

2008: Propos[ed] that the US government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites, as well as other activist groups.  [Also proposed]: sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups” which spread what [they view] as . . . damaging “conspiracy theories.”

Still, another inevitable point:

Unsurprisingly, they may come up with statements like “Well, NIST did what they were directed to do.  But, now that this has come out (where, undeniably, we could not have set WTC 7 up – while it was burning), our currently released position is one where we have been secretly rigging buildings all over the U.S. – ahead of time – just in case it’s needed – for many years.”

5) And, when that pre-rigging is finally admitted (used), associated revelations will be staggering in clarifications.  6) LIE after lie after lie after lie, after report after report after report, year after year.  Yet, Believe us Now: There’s new (old/“minitrue”) information!!

Controlled demolitions.  Controlled presentations.  And yes, Shapiro “should be ashamed of himself and embarrassed” (to the point of begging God for forgiveness), but he does not work within or for the same world we perceive; he works within and for the secreted/hoaxing Elite (who mold our perceptions):

Karl Rove: “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.  And while you’re studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out.  We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

Again:  What benefits ensue? : Control of Narratives, which equals controlled reactions – as well as the sphere of questions.  That way, everything becomes “Fair and Balanced.”

Update (11/16/2010): Geraldo Rivera: “It is an Intriguing topic.  I certainly am much more open about it than I was, and it is because of the involvement of the 9/11 families and all these engineers and architects.  Clearly they know more than I do.”

Notice how he gives no credit to 9/11 Truthers, in general, regardless of how long they have fought — and withstood national trashings.  Nevertheless, it is interesting to see these new angles (of enlightenment) from a “Balanced” (cough) FOX.

Destroy a Business


The Art of DeceptionsDeceptions and Flags

37 Responses to FOX News Presents WTC 7

  1. FOX News Presents WTC 7: SeaClearly

  2. seaclearly says:

    In his article (04/19/2010), “NPR & Trust in Government,” Robert Shetterly referenced WTC 7 and the totally rational suspicions/questions relating. Hopefully, more people like him will continue to speak out, while braving the mainstream (institutionalized) ridicule.

    Robert Shetterly’s Reply: “I’ve decided to begin taking on the 9/11 story though my portrait project AmericansWhoTelltheTruth. I’ll paint a portrait of David Ray Griffin in May.”

  3. seaclearly says:

    Once again applauding (05/14/2010) as an example to the Huffington Post for their reprinting of an article by John Kirby, Let’s Rejoice in Terror’s Benefits!, which cited the WTC 7 scenario: “A big high-five from Larry Silverstein, who took possession of the twin towers just two months before the attacks and who collected $4.55 billion in insurance money for World Trade Center’s One and Two and $861 million for the third building to collapse that day, World Trade Center Seven. (For those who may have forgotten or never known, WTC 7 was not hit by a plane, had only minor damage and had just a few small fires burning inside it when it mysteriously collapsed into its own footprint around 5:20 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2001.)”

  4. seaclearly says:

    Fire, Not Explosives, Felled 3rd Tower on 9/11

    S. Shyam Sunder: “Our job was to come up with the best science.”

  5. seaclearly says:

    “[T]here was a shift in power in their direction that was never quite formalized and, indeed, was unjustified by bureaucratic logic or political considerations. The City’s official and secret emergency plans, written before the attack, called for the Department of Sanitation to clean up after a building collapse. A woman involved in writing the latest versions – a midlevel official in the OEM – mentioned to one of the contractors a week after the Trade Center collapse that she still did not quite know what the DDC was.”

  6. seaclearly says:

    Crazy Conspiracy Theories Bubbling Up Around the BP Disaster

    I agree with you on the propaganda aspect – particularly in relation to 9/11 truthers. Robinson went out of her way to blindly parrot (by way of implication) the Bush talking points – while disparaging the movement as typical loons: “Most of the ‘experts’ promoting these theories are either celebrities (if Charlie Sheen believes that 9/11 was an inside job — well, then, it must be true!), or ‘experts’ and ‘researchers’ whose credentials don’t even hold up to the most basic scrutiny.” After bypassing all the upstanding criticism with the 9/11 Committee (Sen. Max Cleland: “The White House has played cover-up”/CIA veteran Raymond L. McGovern: “I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up”), notice how she chooses Sheen for ridicule – without acknowledging that there are ‘experts’ and ‘researchers’ “whose credentials [DO] . . . hold up”: Richard Gage, David Ray Griffin, Daniel Ellsberg, etc. This represents a standard template of elite attack: deny any credibility to your target, regardless of their stature or documental weight – and, relentlessly belittle them as air-headed jokes. Beyond “Failure[s] of Critical Thinking,” it’s about their extreme support of an agenda (or narrative) – in spite of any magnitude of revelations.

  7. seaclearly says:

    A&E 911 Truth Campaign: Building What?

    “Recognizing the high correlation between those who know about the collapse of WTC 7 and those who believe that a new – or rather real – 9/11 investigation is needed, I propose that the international 9/11 Truth Movement initiate, starting this September, a world-wide, year-long ‘BuildingWhat?’ campaign. Through this campaign, we would seek to make the fact of its collapse so widely known that the mention of Building 7 would never again evoke the question: ‘Building What?’ ”

    –David Ray Griffin, Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth

  8. seaclearly says:

    “Hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings.” It imparts that their reason for multiple timelines and stories was purely in relation to a desire of masking ineptitude. If this ever reaches a certain point, “we were lying the first few times to hide our bungling of the situation” statements would likely be used as cover for the third response/timeline. In addition, ineptitude has been alluded to many times by the Press (as an excuse) – both intentional and not – which also provides another level of cover (i.e., dispelling 9/11 Truthers).

  9. seaclearly says:

    Barry Jennings: “I’m saying to myself, ‘why did that building come down?’ And, I knew why it came down: because of explosives.”

  10. seaclearly says:

    Bush: “I’m gonna describe the design of planned attacks on buildings inside the US and how operatives were directed to carry em out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to insure that the explosives went off at a high p- at a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping.”

  11. seaclearly says:

    In response to This Country Just Can’t Deal with Reality Any More:

    Robert Parry’s article was wonderfully refreshing to see and read – all the way up to, then after, the 9/11 Truth section. As written previously, there are many ways that the “Media Embarrass Themselves.” One in particular is through reporting which purports to expose the “idio[cy]” of situations and others – while at the same time failing to recognize its own ignorance. Though there are almost always “microscopic” elements of fringe movements/organizations which serve to destroy the credibility of a main focus (some consciously, such as saboteurs), this method of expounding a few “lone idiots” should not be implemented as a means of mirroring the whole. If particular groups, especially those with some legitimate standing, are to be openly debased in this type of one-sided mode, what does it say about the demagogues – when the targets are not only scarlet-lettered, but also denied their voices in defense? Note: Not all truthers “threw out . . . the evidence of al-Qaeda’s involvement,” and rested on a Sole perspective of an “inside-job.” Only a small, unwise, and/or subverting, percentage did that. For instance, here is a moderate view from the movement: “Surveillance/inside information led to Knowing It Was Coming. Based on the latter, covert actions were implemented that would Enhance the Outcome (such as with the obviousness of WTC 7). Then, Standing Down (just long enough) during the occurrence assured an expectation of success.” In other words, for some, the “bonehead” was taken into consideration – as exemplified by those seven My Pet Goat minutes on film, and statements like “He told us the operatives had been instructed to insure that the explosives went off at a high p- at a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping.” Additionally, who with a clear mind would deny there having been actual terrorists or hijackers? Further in relation, centered individuals would not be swayed by ridiculous (sabotaging) assertions that no planes hit the first two Trade Center buildings (i.e., it was digital trickery entailing mass media involvement). But again, what truther, among those with credible questions and warranted suspicions regarding a multitude of “anomalies,” coupled with indisputable facts, would be allowed to speak – without, in essence, a public assassination?

  12. seaclearly says:

    Americans Who Tell the Truth: David Ray Griffin

    “Because of his work regarding 9/11, David Ray Griffin and the 9/11 Truth Movement were nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2008 and 2009.”

  13. seaclearly says:

    Re: Will Sanity Be Restored and Fear Be Kept Alive?

    Jon Stewart’s “balanc[ing]” act, as referred to, most often promotes the middle ground of nowhere. Like Tony Blair’s comfort with continuing a wholly discredited and blatant propaganda campaign, John Yoo would also be at ease on the program. That welcoming environment continues/enhances “sanity” – as sanctioned by a supposed mainstream. There (with Stewart), “ridicule” is reserved for the impacts of wink-winking supposedly enlightened truths. Net Neutrality (which Senator Al Franken refers to as “the First Amendment issue of our times”)? Cue the video clip of protesters at Google headquarters, then mock them: “We’re f***ed.” “Bush . . . warned of the possible [9/11] attack [from multiple countries and sources] and did nothing”? Footage of WTC 7 (not hit by a plane) falling at free-fall speed, which obviously reveals demolition? Testimony from multiple victims and responders on the scene clearly describing (planted) explosions? Footage of Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta’s account (omitted from the Commission’s report) of Vice President Cheney’s responses to an incoming plane – leading to “Stand Down” accusations? Equate them (9/11 truthers), and those demonstrable realities, with baseless “birthers”– while imparting the usual level of “lunatic” disdain. “How ‘sane’ can [that] be”? Indeed. In relation to “activist messages and their messengers,” what Stewart also “opposes” and “rejects” are information or voices which confront their control of acceptable narratives (“ideas”).

  14. seaclearly says:

    U.S. and Allied Intelligence Services Had Penetrated The Very Highest Levels of Al Qaeda Prior to 9/11

  15. SeaClearly says:

    Interesting timing:”Military Officials Ignored Cheney’s 9/11 Shoot-down Order” (“Newly published audio this week reveals. . . .”

    How does that coincide? : Norman Mineta: “There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, ‘The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out.’ And when it got down to, ‘The plane is 10 miles out,’ the young man also said to the vice president, ‘Do the orders still stand?’ And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, ‘Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?’“ In context of the overall situation – and a localized outcome (the Pentagon was hit), what determination is more rational – an order was given to Shoot Down, or Stand Down?

    (Does posting questions like that/this put me in danger? Or, . . . .)

  16. SeaClearly says:

    1) Able Danger.
    2) August 6, 2001 Memo.
    3) “However, Iron Man, whose unit also developed original intelligence on al-Qaeda targets, which determined that the ‘most likely buildings to be attacked in the U.S.’ were the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, claimed JFIC was told to stop tracking Bin Laden, suspected al-Qaeda terrorists, and members of the Taliban some months prior to 9/11.”

  17. SeaClearly says:

    FBI: 9/11 Truthers Should be Treated as Potential Terrorists– Really!

    Note: Obama Confidant’s Spine-Chilling Proposal
    Note: 1) – 5)

    So now, merely just “believing” the “possibility” of some conspiracy, somewhere, as culminated by even a (hidden) few — after watching videos of WTC7 falling (for example) might mean you are viewed as a terrorist worthy of indefinite detention? Correspondingly, after writing a few blog posts like FOX News Presents WTC 7 The Huffington Post Bans 9/11 Truthers and NPR “Obscures the Truth” after “believing” (thoughts) that the core columns of WTC7 would (obviously) not have fallen in pure synchronicity, what would one now do? Live in fear of rendition, indefinite detention, and. . . .?

    Here? In the U.S.? For thoughts? For reacting to the level of writing posts along the lines of “what in the hell?” Couldn’t happen. Not here. Not to me. Not to us (those who may similarly wonder) (thoughts), overall. (End note: 9/11 Truth/WTC 7 is not an area written about or focused on anymore. But, My God! Imagine how many people would have been rounded up if the same mentality had been applied to JFK theorists? What’s next? If you “believe” in UFOs, will you be committed? Just please . . . let this be more propaganda, not tangible Truth.)

  18. SeaClearly says:

    ‘Shocking’: 9/11 Warnings More Numerous Than Previously Thought

    Warning after warning after warning. Covert intelligence (including moles living within the groups) and secret surveillance which confirmed, over and over and over. “But the president did not feel the briefings on potential attacks were sufficient . . . and instead asked for a broader analysis on Al Qaeda, its aspirations and its history. In [‘apoplectic’] response, the C.I.A. set to work on the Aug. 6 brief.” Reaction: “Alright, you’ve covered your ass now.”

  19. SeaClearly says:

    Griffin adds: ‘We are led to believe that for the first time in the known universe, a steel-framed, high-rise building was brought down by fire without the aid of explosives or incendiaries.

    ‘More clearly miraculous was the precise way in which WTC7 collapsed [straight down, with an almost perfectly horizontal roofline] into its own footprint. This is the kind of free-fall implosion that can only be caused by a world-class demolition company.’

    But there is another perplexing matter regarding this third building. It concerns the bizarre TV reports in the U.S., and the rest of the world, that it had collapsed when it was clearly still upright — announcements made 23 minutes before it had actually fallen down.

    One piece of BBC World footage shows a studio anchor talking to news correspondent Jane Standley, who is standing in front of the clearly visible WTC7 tower.

    The anchor says: ‘The 47-storey building, situated very close to the World Trade Centre, has also just collapsed. It seems that this was not the result of a new attack. It was because the building had been weakened during the morning attacks.’

    Then, oddly, the link to Standley breaks up and is lost.

    Bush And Cheney: How They Ruined America And The World

  20. WindHarps says:

    Does It Sound Like Stand Up – Or Stand Down? Simple.

  21. WindHarps says:

    Bin Laden Family Able To Leave Country Without FBI Investigating
    (CBC News) (Canada):
    Bin Laden family and Saudi royal family were able to leave the United States, with full approval from the highest levels of the Bush White House.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s