Monday, March 14, 2005

March 2005

WTC Building 7 – The 911 Smoking Gun?
by Ronald Bleier

Was 9/11 an inside job? Take 10 minutes to review video of the third building to collapse on 9/11, WTC Building 7; and a related slide show and then follow the logic: If Building 7 was destroyed through a controlled demolition so were the Twin Towers. If the Twin Towers were destroyed by demolition than Osama Bin Laden and his alleged conspirators didn’t do it.

One of the difficulties in determining whether or not to believe the official story about 9/11, is the enormous amount of information available on the Internet, in books, and perhaps a dozen videos dedicated to 9/11 inquiry. The very plethora of information (and disinformation) is daunting to many who can’t afford the time and energy to sift through the torrent of data and analysis in a timely manner.

One quick solution to help interested people decide whether 9/11 was an inside job is to recommend David Ray Griffin’s The New Pearl Harbor (2004). Griffin’s book is a masterpiece of concise and coherent compilation of the available plausible evidence indicating that the official story -- that the attacks of 9/11 were planned and executed by al-Qaeda terrorists – cannot be accurate.

For those who are not yet ready to make the commitment to obtain and read a book on 9/11, but who wish to learn more, a ten-minute solution is available. It only takes a few minutes to view video on the Internet of the collapse of Building 7, the 47 story skyscraper located immediately north of the WTC complex about 300 feet from the North Tower. Viewers will note the almost vertical collapse of the building. Only controlled demolitions have achieved vertical collapses of upright steel structures.
After viewing the video, many will agree with Dan Rather who said on CBS News that very evening that the collapse of Building 7 was “reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before when a building was destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.”

In addition, viewers may like to put the remaining time to good use by screening the 17 slides that make up Jim Hoffman’s slide show presentation regarding Building 7’s collapse.

For those ready to perform the experiment, this may be a good time to view video of the collapse at: and/or

Jim Hoffman’s 2003 slide show presentation can be found at

How did it happen that the nearly instant collapse of Building 7 involving the simultaneous destruction of its 58 perimeter steel columns and 25 core steel columns, all fireproofed, could have been disappeared so efficiently down the memory hole. As Jim Hoffman noted, the collapse of Building 7 did not even require a NOVA/Discovery Channel - style public relations campaign as explanation. Building 7 became a footnote, largely ignored by the public as well as the 9/11 Commission.
The Connection between the collapse of Building 7 and the Twin Towers
Once viewers are satisfied that Building 7 came down as a result of a controlled demolition, they may well ask whether its destruction entails that the Twin Towers also came down through similar means, and not because of the impact of the planes and the resulting fires. The question is critical because as Jim Hoffman argues, if the destruction of the Twin Towers (plus Building 7) were caused by demolition, the official story collapses since Osama Bin Laden did not have the means to demolish the buildings from within. “Demolition is an all or nothing proposition: There is no plausible deniability.”

Researcher Eric Hufschmid argues for a logical connection between the collapse of Building 7 and the Twin Towers and deduces that the only theory that makes sense is that the same group, which was responsible for bringing down Building 7, also brought down the Twin Towers. According to Hufschmid, anyone who suspects Building 7 was brought down by explosives “would have to come to the conclusion that explosives were used in the towers.”

Such a connection is controversial, since it effectively indicts the U.S. government for responsibility for 9/11. That is one reason that Jim Hoffman theorizes that WTC owner Larry Silverstein went on TV to admit that he and the NYC Chief of Police together agreed to “pull the building” with “pull” being slang for bringing the building down by means of controlled demolition. He believes that Silverstein, in an attempt to confuse the issue and to quell suspicion, was implicitly arguing that the issue of Building 7 was separate and distinct and had nothing to do with the collapse of the Twin Towers.

However that may be, David Ray Griffin believes that evidence points to the possibility that the 9/11 conspiracy involved U.S. government officials as well as outside parties, possibly WTC owner Larry Silverstein.

Why was Building 7 destroyed?
Since no serious investigation was permitted, researchers have been forced to speculate about the motives for including WTC 7 in the 9/11 destruction. Sufficient shock and awe had already been generated by the day’s events so it wasn’t necessary to add the destruction of Building 7 to the mayhem. On the contrary, its destruction through an all too evident controlled demolition would only prove to be an inexplicable embarrassment since a plane didn’t hit the building. Two motivations that seem the most promising to explore are a. destruction of evidence and b. insurance payouts to owner Larry Silverstein.

WTC 7 housed an emergency command center on the 23rd floor built in 1998 during Mayor Giuliani’s tenure at a cost of $15 million. I join many in the 9/11 inquiry movement who find it plausible that this fire and wind resistant unit housed the command center for the destruction of the Twin Towers as well as a homing device bringing the planes to their targets. Many think that the building was brought down to destroy the equipment and the computers involved in the conspiracy. Others have noted that Building 7 also contained offices of the Securities and Exchange Commission including files for approximately three to four thousand cases, including one that may have demonstrated the relationship between Citigroup and the WorldCom bankruptcy.

While destruction of the evidence has a strong appeal, I suspect that it was not the primary motive. For one thing, if the conspirators required that evidence needed to be destroyed in this way, I suspect they would have planned to bring the building down well before 5:20 PM.

Much more interesting as a line of investigation, it seems to me, is the insurance payout to Larry Silverstein. According to author Don Paul, Silverstein Properties won an $861 million award from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties’ estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million, netting a profit of about $500 million.

David Ray Griffin also suggests that Silverstein’s insurance considerations should be investigated as a motive in the destruction of the WTC buildings. Griffin points out that on April 26, 2001 Silverstein had taken out a lease on the WTC and wound up with a multibillion-dollar settlement when a federal jury ruled in December 2004 that the attacks constituted two occurrences.

More important perhaps, is that according to court filings, Silverstein had a plan to seek a huge profit from a small and brief investment in the World Trade Center apart from his claim for a double payment for the destruction of the Twin Towers. Griffin quotes court documents to the effect that Silverstein had only $14 million invested in the insurance deal for the Twin Towers (compared to 50 times as much by his lenders) through limited liability investment vehicles. The deal was structured to enable Silverstein to “walk away” from the lease if the buildings were destroyed, ending up with a balance of $1 billion. Griffin surmises that if the allegations are confirmed, “then it provides circumstantial support for those who believe that Silverstein took out the insurance with the knowledge that the buildings would be destroyed.” (Emphasis in original) Griffin believes that consideration of the “destruction of the WTC as an inside job cannot be ruled out a priori on the grounds that there would have been no conceivable motive.”

The logical connection
What is the logical connection between the collapses of the Twin Towers on the morning of 9/11 and the 5:20 PM collapse of Building 7? Eric Hufschmid begins by pointing to two possibilities: either the conspirators decided to bring down Building 7 after they saw the Twin Towers collapse or they prepared a demolition scenario beforehand.

Hufschmid first dispenses with the possibility that the conspirators took measures to bring down Building 7 after they saw the Twin Towers collapse. Such a scenario would require that several people quickly come together and arrange to bring explosives into the area, plan and place the charges, a process that usually takes several days or more. They would have to manage countless details, including the removal of all Building 7 personnel and the control of access to the crime scene. All this would have had to be undertaken spontaneously in the hectic time between 10 AM and 5:20 PM.

Hufschmid concludes that it is most likely that plans for the demolition of WTC –7 were prepared before 9/11. He theorizes that explosives were set in place in good time and similarly the mechanics of setting off the demolition were arranged beforehand. In this case, Hufschmid argues, logic and/or common sense suggest that the same group of conspirators organized the destruction of all three towers.
Could Building 7 stand-alone as a case of solo collapse?

What would happen, Hufschmid asks, if, on 9/11, airplanes hit the towers but they didn’t collapse? Wouldn’t it be suspicious if Building 7 had collapsed from fires smaller than those in the Towers? Might not the firemen “respond that fires do not cause steel buildings to collapse? … Scientists and engineers would want to analyze the steel beams to see how fire did what no fire had done before.” Hufschmid argues that it would not be safe to destroy Building 7 unless the towers collapse first. “After the towers collapse, the collapse of Building 7 would appear to be just another weird event of that day’s bizarre disasters.” (Italics in original)

Hufschmid goes on to argue that there is likely to have been coordination between the people who set the explosives and the alleged hijackers; or that the conspirators had some kind of control over the hijackers since it wouldn’t make sense to prepare the explosives and then depend on the hijackers to follow through on their own. “What if the hijackers decide to switch from hitting the World Trade Center to hitting the U.S. Capitol… or they miss the towers and hit some other building?”

“An even more likely problem is that the hijackers get control of the aircraft…and then the FAA realizes that something is seriously wrong. The FAA contacts the military, and the military sends up a plane to investigate…” As David Ray Griffin and others have pointed out, military jet interceptions of wayward passenger jets is a routine occurrence. In the year before 9/11, from September 2000 through June 2001, there were 67 such interceptions, but there were none on 9/11/01. (If the major media had chosen to make public this information about these routine military interceptions, and their absence on 9/11, suspicion of U.S. government involvement would undoubtedly be more widespread.)

Hufschmid concludes that the plot to destroy Building 7 required the cooperation of the FAA and/or the military. In addition, the conspirators would need to have control of the investigations and to do so they would have to destroy the evidence that remained in the ruins of the buildings and the rubble, a crime. Thus, the conspirators would have to have “influence over our government.” In the event, U.S. government control over Ground Zero led to the hasty destruction of the rubble and the removal of most of the remaining steel to be destroyed in Indian and Chinese blast furnaces. In addition, FEMA investigators were prevented from free access to Ground Zero and to the evidence.

Once we conclude that Building 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition, it follows that the same group of conspirators also caused the collapse of the Twin Towers. It is also clear that such a conspiracy could not have been undertaken had it not been intimately connected to the highest levels of the U.S. military, in other words, the U.S. government.

The End


1. The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11
by David Ray Griffin Published by Interlink, March 1, 2004. If this link is used to purchase the book from, the DESIP website is afforded a small commission.

2. Quoted in Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor, p. 177.


4. Eric Hufschmid, Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September 11th Attack (California, End Point Software, 2002), p. 82. See

5. Larry Silverstein’s comment about “pulling” Building 7 was made in a September 2002 PBS documentary, “America Rebuilds.” See for more information and discussion of this and related WTC 7 issues.

6. See Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor, p. 185.

7. Eric Hufschmid is particularly good on this aspect of the 9/11 attacks. His description of how the homing device may have operated to crash two aircraft into the Twin Towers provides an explanation of why the plane that hit the South Tower, took a circular route and hit the building from the south instead of flying directly into the Tower from its northerly origin. See Painful Questions, pp. 90-92.

8. According to Don Paul Larry Silverstein already controlled more than 8 million square feet of New York City Real Estate. He also owned Runway 69, a nightclub in Queens that was alleged to be laundering money made through sales of Laotian heroin.

9. Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor, pp. 183-84.

10. Hufschmid’s discussion of this theory will be found on Painful Questions, pp. 82-84.

11. Those in the 9/11 Truth movement point out that the use of the word hijacker concedes a part of the U.S. government’s official story, one for which no evidence has been presented.
12. William Thomas, Stand Down: Why America’s Air Defenses Failed on Sept 11

Kurt Nimmo (2/05) "9/11: A Guy in a Cave didn't do it"

Intro by Ronald Bleier

Once again the inimitable Kurt Nimmo presents testimony that 9/11 was an inside job. He uses the recent courtroom testimony of a Moroccan held in a Canadian jail on suspicion of terrorist activities to emphasize the common sense notion that “some guy living in a cave doesn’t have the means to plan an attack against the most powerful nation in the world.” Among other evidence, he points to the still uninvestigated issue of the spikes in insider trading in the days just before 9/11 which resulted in perhaps billions in gains. Some have pointed out that the CIA (and doubtless other government agencies) monitors such trades in real time and that the names of those behind the trades could have been produced years ago.

Nimmo is careful to say that we “don’t’ know beyond a shadow of a doubt” whether or not 9/11 was an inside job. What’s not clear is whether he’s read the publications of David Ray Griffin (, Jim Hoffman (, Eric Hufschmid and others who have presented persuasive evidence that the official story cannot possibly be true and thus evidence of official complicity.

Instead Nimmo typically presents testimony from credible foreign observers and documentation of past CIA and Mossad involvement in similar black flag activities. We await Nimmo’s presentation of some of the extensive evidence by serious researchers. --Ronald Bleier

From Kurt Nimmo's Blog

February 10, 2005

Forget Ward Churchill, Adil Charkaoui Makes More Sense

“I’m not an expert but from what I read, some guy living in a cave doesn’t have the means to plan an attack against the most powerful nation in the world,” said Charkaoui, a Moroccan-born Canadian detained for nearly two years in Montreal on suspicion of being a terrorist. Charkaoui made the statement during a courtroom appearance.

“It could’ve been (Osama) bin Laden,” Charkaoui added. “But maybe it was done by ultra-conservatives in the United States for economic gain.”

Let’s take a look at the ballistics on this statement.

As we know, in the days and hours before the attacks, there were conspicuous spikes in trading activity in regard to the two airlines involved in the hijackings of Sept. 11. “There was a 9,000 percent jump in United Air Lines (UAL) put options between Sept. 6 and Sept. 10, with a huge spike 285 times higher than average on the Thursday before the attack,” writes Christopher Bollyn. “American Airlines saw a 6,000 percent jump in put options [also known as short-selling] above normal the day before the attacks. However, there was no similar trading activity on any other airlines, according to market reports.”


“The afternoon before the attack, alarm bells were sounding over unusual trading in the U.S. stock options market,” CBS reported on September 19.

“This could very well be insider trading at the worst, most horrific, most evil use you’ve ever seen in your entire life,” Dylan Ratigan wrote for Bloomberg Business News on September 20, “this would be one of the most extraordinary coincidences in the history of mankind if it was a coincidence.”

It was no coincidence and for some reason you no longer hear about this strange trading behavior, except when the 9/11 Truth Movement mentions it. But then, of course, they are nothing but a bunch of tinfoil hatters.

But let’s move on.

Adil Charkaoui said he doesn’t believe “some guy living in a cave” in Afghanistan was able to pull off the attacks of September 11, 2001. He is not alone in this assertion.

Eckehardt Werthebach, former president of Germany’s domestic intelligence service, Verfassungsschutz, told AFP that “the deathly precision” and “the magnitude of planning” behind the attacks of September 11 would have needed “years of planning,” and not on the part of cave-dwelling Muslims. “Such a sophisticated operation, Werthebach said, would require the ‘fixed frame’ of a state intelligence organization, something not found in a ‘loose group’ of terrorists like the one allegedly led by Mohammed Atta while he studied in Hamburg,” Bollyn writes. “Many people would have been involved in the planning of such an operation and Werthebach pointed to the absence of leaks as further indication that the attacks were ’state organized actions.’”

“Terrorists could not have carried out such an operation with 4 hijacked planes without the support of a secret service,” said Horst Ehmke, who coordinated the German secret services directly under German prime minister Willi Brandt in the 70s.

“What I saw on September 11 was a perfectly executed act that could have happened only with the support of intelligence services, and whoever controlled it must have known [they] could only bring harm to the Muslim world,” Andreas von Bulow, who served on the parliamentary commission which oversees the three branches of the German secret service while a member of the Bundestag (German parliament) from 1969 to 1994, told Kate Connolly of the UK Telegraph. “I’m convinced that the US apparatus must have played a role and my theory is backed up by the [Bush] government’s refusal to present any proof whatsoever of what happened.”

Von Bulow believes the attacks were carried out by U.S. and Israeli intelligence. Israel, of course, has a long and sordid history of carrying out terrorist attacks and blaming it on Arabs, the most notable being the botched Operation Suzannah.

The Israeli intelligence service, Mossad, was characterized by the U.S. Army School of Advanced Military Studies as follows: “Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act,” according to the Washington Times on September 10, 2001, a day before the fateful attacks.

“For years stories have circulated that Israeli agents—especially those of Israel’s foreign intelligence agency, the Mossad—have infiltrated Arab terrorist networks and have sometimes actually involved themselves in deceptive terroristic activities designed to appear as the work of Arabs,” notes Stephen J. Sniegoski. “For example, it has been claimed—by Victor Ostrovsky, for one—that the Mossad had foreknowledge of the attack on the U.S. Marine Barracks in Lebanon in 1983. Other observers allege that the Mossad thoroughly infiltrated the nefarious terrorist group Abu Nidal and even turned some of its terrorist activities to Israel’s benefit.”

The U.S., in particular the CIA, has an even longer and more sordid history of covert dirty tricks. From 1948 onward, when the CIA’s covert wing was created by Wall Street lawyer Frank Wisner, the spook agency engaged in hundreds of destabilizing covert operations. In fact, the CIA’s secret charter, according to Steve Kangas, stated that its responsibilities included “propaganda, economic warfare, preventive direct action, including sabotage, antisabotage, demolition and evacuation procedures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance to underground resistance groups, and support of indigenous anti-communist elements in threatened countries of the free world.”

As we now know, Osama bin Laden was part of a CIA created “underground resistance group” in Afghanistan. “By 1984, [Bin Laden] was running a front organization known as Maktab al-Khidamar [MAK] which funneled money, arms and fighters from the outside world into the Afghan war,” writes Michael Moran for none other than MSNBC. “What the CIA bio conveniently fails to specify (in its unclassified form, at least) is that the MAK was nurtured by Pakistan’s state security services, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, the CIA’s primary conduit for conducting the covert war against Moscow’s occupation.”

“The US-led ‘proxy war’ model was based on the premise that Islamists made good anti-Communist allies,” writes Rahul Bedi for Jane’s. “The plan was diabolically simple: to hire, train and control motivated Islamic mercenaries. The trainers were mainly from Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) agency, who learnt their craft from American Green Beret commandos and Navy SEALS in various US training establishments. Mass training of Afghan mujahideen was subsequently conducted by the Pakistan Army under the supervision of the elite Special Services Group (SSG), specialists in covert action behind enemy lines and the ISI.”

Note the sentence: “to hire, train and control motivated Islamic mercenaries.” Is it possible these same or similar “motivated Islamic mercenaries,” under the control of the CIA or Mossad, or both, were responsible—or at least patsies—for the attacks of September 11, 2001, attacks that “could not have [been] carried out … without the support of a secret service,” such as the CIA, DIA, Mossad, or possibly a combination these organizations?

Problem is, we don’t know beyond a shadow of a doubt—and probably never will. However, we do know these intelligence services have engaged in such behavior in the past, whereas a band of medieval Muslim terrorists, operating from remote caves in one of the remotest and most backward countries in the world, have no such history, that is not without the above mentioned assistance of Pakistan’s ISI and the CIA.

Ward Churchill likes to tell us Osama and crew were dedicated freedom fighters striking a blow at America—a fantasy at best, considering the above. In fact, Churchill believes it is racist to claim that cave-dwelling Arabs are incapable of such things. He conveniently ignores the uncomfortable fact—as stated by Werthebach, Ehmke, Von Bulow, and scores of others—that operations of such magnitude and planning require assets only available to states and intelligence services. Churchill may want Arabs to attack the United States—understandable, considering decades of U.S. and European (and Israeli) abuses in the Middle East—but fantasizing about it doesn’t make it so.

Adil Charkaoui is correct when he claims “some guy living in a cave doesn’t have the means to plan an attack against the most powerful nation in the world.”

For some odd reason, Charkaoui’s comments did not warrant attention in the United States, where the media is essentially controlled by the Bush Ministry of Disinformation (and Omission).