Fox News hit piece against 9/11 truth and Jesse Ventura inadvertently reveals a shocking truth; WTC leaseholder was "on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building"

Information Liberation

A Fox News hit piece against Jesse Ventura and the 9/11 truth movement written by former Washington D.C. prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro inadvertently reveals a shocking truth, that World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein, who collected nearly $500 million dollars in insurance as a result of the collapse of Building 7, a 47-story structure that was not hit by a plane but collapsed within seven seconds on September 11, was on the phone to his insurance carrier attempting to convince them that the building should be brought down via controlled demolition.

Writing for Fox News, Jeffrey Scott Shapiro states, “I was working as a journalist for Gannett News at Ground Zero that day, and I remember very clearly what I saw and heard.”

“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.”

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties’ estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. This building’s collapse alone resulted in a payout of nearly $500 million, based on the contention that it was an unforeseen accidental event.

“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,” writes Shapiro.

However, obviously aware of how it would impact his insurance claim, Larry Silverstein has consistently denied that there was ever a plan to intentionally demolish Building 7.

In June 2005, Silverstein told New York Post journalist Sam Smith that his infamous “pull it” comment, which has been cited as proof that Silverstein planned to take down the building with explosives, “meant something else”.

In January 2006, Silverstein’s spokesperson Dara McQuillan told the U.S. State Department that the “pull it” comment meant to withdraw firefighters from the building (despite the fact that there were no firefighters inside WTC 7 as we shall later cover). There was no mention whatsoever of any plan to demolish the building before it fell.

Shapiro’s faux pas has unwittingly let the cat out of the bag on the fact that Silverstein was aggressively pushing for the building to be intentionally demolished, a claim that he has always vociferously denied, presumably to safeguard against putting in doubt the massive insurance payout he received on the basis that the collapse was accidental.

For over five years since the infamous PBS documentary was aired in which Silverstein states that the decision was made to “pull” the building, a construction term for controlled demolition, debunkers have attempted to perform all kinds of mental gymnastics in fudging the meaning behind the WTC leaseholder’s comments.

“I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse,” said Silverstein.

Debunkers attempted to claim that Silverstein meant to “pull” the firefighters from the building due to the danger the structure was in, and this explanation was also later claimed by Silverstein’s spokesman, however, both the FEMA report, the New York Times and even Popular Mechanics reported that there were no firefighting actions taken inside WTC 7.



Another clip from the same documentary clearly illustrates that the term “pull” is industry jargon for a controlled demolition.



“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,” writes Shapiro in his Fox News hit piece.

Shapiro’s contention that the 47-story building simply collapsed into its own footprint within seven seconds without making a sound, a feat only ever witnessed in world history on 9/11 alone, is contradicted by numerous other first-hand eyewitnesses.

Contradicting Shapiro’s claim that the collapse of the building was quiet, NYPD officer Craig Bartmer stated that he clearly heard bombs tear down Building 7 as he ran away from its collapse.

“I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn’t see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn’t hear any… I didn’t hear any creaking, or… I didn’t hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming ‘get away, get away, get away from it!’… It was at that moment… I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself… Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit’s hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you’re hearing “boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.” I think I know an explosion when I hear it… Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they’re saying… Nothing to account for what we saw… I am shocked at the story we’ve heard about it to be quite honest,” said Bartmer.

EMT Indira Singh, a Senior Consultant for JP Morgan Chase in Information Technology and Risk Management, told the Pacifica show Guns and Butter, “After midday on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. If you had been there, not being able to see very much just flames everywhere and smoke – it is entirely possible – I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable because of the collateral damage.”

The host asked Singh, “Did they actually use the word “brought down” and who was it that was telling you this?,” to which Singh responded, “The fire department. And they did use the words ‘we’re gonna have to bring it down’ and for us there observing the nature of the devastation it made total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility, given the subsequent controversy over it I don’t know.”

Another EMT named Mike who wished to remain anonymous wrote in a letter to the Loose Change film crew that emergency responders were told Building 7 was about to be “pulled” and that a 20 second radio countdown preceded its collapse.

“There were bright flashes up and down the sides of Building 7, you could see them through the windows…and it collapsed. We all knew it was intentionally pulled… they told us,” he stated.

Following news reports in the days after the attack that Building 7 had collapsed due to fire damage, Mike fully expected this mistake to be corrected after the chaos had subsided, but was astonished when it became part of the official story.

Mike’s report of a countdown preceding the collapse of WTC 7 was backed up by Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue, Kevin McPadden, who said that he heard the last few seconds of the countdown on a nearby police radio.

In addition, the language used by firefighters and others at ground zero shortly before the building fell strongly indicates that the building was deliberately demolished with explosives, and not that it fell unaided.



“It’s blowin’ boy.” … “Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon.” … “The building is about to blow up, move it back.” … “Here we are walking back. There’s a building, about to blow up…”

Photo and video evidence of the collapse of Building 7 shows classic indications of a controlled demolition. The standard ‘crimp’ in the center-left top of the building and the subsequent ’squibs’ of smoke as it collapses clearly represent explosive demolition.

Veteran news anchor Dan Rather shared the view that the building looked like a controlled demolition during news coverage of the event on CBS.



Several news agencies, including the BBC and CNN, reported that the building had already collapsed 26 minutes and as much as over an hour before it actually fell.

Footage broadcast 20 minutes before Building 7 fell shows BBC reporter Jane Standley talking about the collapse of WTC 7 while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head. A Separate BBC broadcast shows reporters discussing the collapse of Building 7 26 minutes before it happened.



Just about every sentence of Shapiro’s hit piece is contradicted by numerous other eyewitnesses, so his feigned righteous indignation in ranting, “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,” fails to ring true.

However, the most damning aspect of the article is Shapiro’s inadvertent revelation that Larry Silverstein was on the phone to his insurance company pushing for the building to be demolished, which is precisely what happened later in the day, and as innumerable eyewitnesses as well as video footage and physical evidence prove, the collapse of WTC 7 could have been nothing else than a controlled demolition, which would place Silverstein’s $500 million insurance payout in severe jeopardy if ever acknowledged.

Shapiro’s testimony, intended to debunk questions surrounding the official story behind 9/11, has only succeeded in raising more, because it completely contradicts Larry Silverstein’s insistence that he never considered deliberately demolishing WTC 7 with explosives.

More: Silverstein Was Calling Lawyer To Get Double Insurance On WTC On The Evening Of 9/11

Via email……

In response to your excellent new article, “Bombshell: Silverstein Wanted To Demolish Building 7 On 9/11,” I thought you might find the following of use:

Firstly, you can watch a recent CBS interview in which Silverstein claims that he should have been in the WTC on 9/11, but his wife insisted he go to a dermatologist’s appointment, thereby saving his life:

http://www.cbs.com/primetime/60_minutes/video/?pid=dCJDTFzLiEO_a32xTRfMdMMYQd1nH...

Secondly, it is worth noting that already on the evening of 9/11, Silverstein was calling his lawyers, to see if he could make a double claim on his WTC insurance policy. See this 9/11 Timeline entry:

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091201doubleinsurance&scale=0

The key information is from pp. 18-19 of Steven Brill’s book, After: How America Confronted the September 12 Era. Brill wrote:

“Real estate developer Larry Silverstein was on his way to a dermatologist on the morning of the 11th, instead of the Trade Center--the multibillion-dollar complex where he had leveraged a $14 million personal investment in a partnership that owned the leasing rights to the buildings into bragging rights as the complex’s putative owner. Silverstein would tell the author five months later that he was so shocked and sickened by the destruction and by the loss of four of his employees that morning that he did not think he focused on issues like insurance or finances until “perhaps two weeks later.” In fact, according to his own lawyers, by that evening he was on the phone with them worrying whether his effort to shave costs when he’d bought insurance would now come back to hurt him, or whether his insurance policies could be read in a way that would construe the attacks as two separate, insurable incidents rather than one. The difference was roughly $3.55 billion versus $7.1 billion--the kind of gap corporate litigators dream of.”

[End of quote]

If you want to verify this quote for yourself, you can search Brill’s book at Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743237099/

Tea Party ousts Republican senator at Utah convention
Bob Bennett (8 May 2010)


The conservative Tea Party movement in the US has blocked a three-term Republican senator from Utah, Bob Bennett, in his bid for re-election.

Sen Bennett came third at a Republican Party convention in Salt Lake City.

The two challengers, one backed by the Tea Party, will face each other in a primary next month for the right to contest November's Midterm elections.

It is the first major victory for the grassroots movement that objects to big government and opposes high spending.

Sen Bennett was criticised by Tea Party activists for supporting the Wall Street bail-out, co-sponsoring a bipartisan bill mandating health insurance coverage and aggressively seeking funding "earmarks" for his state.

"The political atmosphere obviously has been toxic and it's very clear that some of the votes that I have cast have added to the toxic environment," he told reporters after Saturday's convention vote.

"Looking back on them, with one or two very minor exceptions, I wouldn't have cast any of them any differently even if I had known at the time they were going to cost me my career."

Sen Bennett is barred by state law from running as an independent, but he has not ruled out standing as a write-in candidate - whose name does not appear on the ballot and so must be written on the ballot by the voters.

"I do think I still have a lot of juice left in me," he added.

The two candidates in June's primary, businessman Tim Bridgewater and Tea Party-backed lawyer Mike Lee, both claimed during the campaign that they were better suited to rein in government spending than Sen Bennett.

"There is a mood that has swept across this country and has certainly swept across Utah that is demanding a new generation of leaders. Leaders committed to constitutionally limited government," Mr Lee told the Reuters news agency.

Correspondents say the winner of the Republican nomination is all but guaranteed victory in November because Utah is so conservative.

Director James Cameron called in to stop oil spill
June 2, 2010 - 8:28AM
Obama vows 'justice' for oil spill


"Top kill" did not stop the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. How about something "titanic"?

Federal officials are hoping film director James Cameron can help them come up with ideas on how to stop the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

The Avatar and Titanic director was among a group of scientists and other experts who met on Tuesday with officials from the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal agencies for a brainstorming session on stopping the massive oil leak.

The Canadian-born Cameron is considered an expert on underwater filming and remote vehicle technologies. Avatar and Titanic are the two highest-grossing films of all time.

Pentagon Manhunt

by Philip Shenon Info
Philip Shenon

Philip Shenon, a former investigative reporter at The New York Times, is the author of The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation.

BS Top - Shenon Wikileaks Julian Assange Anxious that Wikileaks may be on the verge of publishing a batch of secret State Department cables, investigators are desperately searching for founder Julian Assange. Philip Shenon reports.

(This story has been updated to reflect new developments on Assange's whereabouts.)

Pentagon investigators are trying to determine the whereabouts of the Australian-born founder of the secretive website Wikileaks for fear that he may be about to publish a huge cache of classified State Department cables that, if made public, could do serious damage to national security, government officials tell The Daily Beast.

The officials acknowledge that even if they found the website founder, Julian Assange, it is not clear what they could do to block publication of the cables on Wikileaks, which is nominally based on a server in Sweden and bills itself as a champion of whistleblowers.

“We’d like to know where he is; we’d like his cooperation in this,” one U.S. official said of Assange.

American officials said Pentagon investigators are convinced that Assange is in possession of at least some classified State Department cables leaked by a 22-year-old Army intelligence specialist, Bradley Manning of Potomac, Maryland, who is now in custody in Kuwait.

And given the contents of the cables, the feds have good reason to be concerned.
As The Daily Beast reported June 8, Manning, while posted in Iraq, apparently had special access to cables prepared by diplomats and State Department officials throughout the Middle East, regarding the workings of Arab governments and their leaders, according to an American diplomat.

The cables, which date back over several years, went out over interagency computer networks available to the Army and contained information related to American diplomatic and intelligence efforts in the war zones in Afghanistan and Iraq, the diplomat said.

American officials would not discuss the methods being used to find Assange, nor would they say if they had information to suggest where he is now. "We'd like to know where he is; we'd like his cooperation in this," one U.S. official said of Assange.

Assange, who first gained notoriety as a computer hacker, is as secretive as his website and has no permanent home.

Investigators may get their chance Friday night, when Assange is scheduled to appear at an Investigative Reporters and Editors conference in Las Vegas. Whether he will physically appear at the conference is anyone's guess.

Last week, Assange was scheduled to join famed Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg for a talk at New York's Personal Democracy Forum. Assange appeared via Skype from Australia instead, saying lawyers recommended he not return to the United States.

Assange was in the United States as recently as several weeks ago, when he gave press interviews to promote the website’s release of an explosive 2007 video of an American helicopter attack in Baghdad that left 12 people dead, including two employees of the news agency Reuters.

Wikileaks has not replied directly to email messages from The Daily Beast.

However, in cryptic messages he sent this week via Twitter, Wikileaks referred to an earlier Daily Beast article on the investigation of Manning and said that it “looks like we’re about to be attacked by everything the U.S. has.”

In an earlier post, the site said that allegations that “we have been sent 260,000 classified U.S. embassy cables are, as far as we can tell, incorrect.”

This morning, a new Wikileaks tweet went out: "Any signs of unacceptable behavior by the Pentagon or its agents towards this press will be viewed dimly."

In one post, the site said that allegations that “we have been sent 260,000 classified U.S. embassy cables are, as far as we can tell, incorrect.”

Pentagon investigators say that particular post may have been an effort by Wikileaks to throw them—and news organizations—off the track as the site prepared the library of State Department cables for release, officials said.

“It looks like they’re playing some sort of semantic games,” one American official said of Wikileaks. “They may not have 260,000 cables, but they’ve probably got enough cables to make trouble.”

• Philip Shenon: The State Dept.’s Worst NightmareIn another cryptic Twitter message, the site said that while the State Department might be alarmed about the prospect of the release of classified cables, “we have not been contacted.”

American officials were unwilling to say what would happen if Assange is tracked down, although they suggested they would have many more legal options available to them if he were still somewhere in the United States.

Manning has reportedly admitted that he downloaded 260,000 diplomatic cables and provided them to Wikileaks. In Internet chat logs first revealed by Wired  magazine, Manning also took credit for leaking the 2007 video to the website.

“Hillary Clinton and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart attack when they wake up one morning and find an entire repository of classified foreign policy is available,” Manning wrote of the diplomatic cables, according to Wired.

Wikileaks has not confirmed that Manning is a source of any information posted on the site. “We do not know if Mr. Manning is our source, but the U.S. military is claiming he is, so we will defend him,” Wikileaks said in another Twitter message.

Manning was turned in to the Pentagon by a former computer hacker based in California, Adrian Lamo, after Manning approached Lamo for counsel. Manning is believed to have contacted Lamo after reading a recent profile of him in Wired.

In the chat log revealed by Wired, Manning bragged to Lamo about having downloaded a huge library of State Department cables, as well as the 2007 video of the helicopter attack, and having provided the material to Wikileaks.

Manning took credit for having leaked a classified diplomatic cable that has already appeared on the site—a memo prepared by the United States embassy in Reykjavik, Iceland, that described a meeting there between American and Icelandic officials over that country’s banking meltdown.

The January 2010 memo may have been of special interest to Wikileaks given the site’s close ties to Iceland, where Assange has based himself at times and where he worked with local lawmakers to draft free-speech laws that give broad freedom to journalists to protect their sources.

A profile this week in The New Yorker magazine depicted Assange feverishly at work with Icelandic colleagues in Reykjavik in March as he organized the release of the 2007 video of the helicopter attack. The edited video was given the title Collateral Murder, and its release infuriated officials at the Defense Department.

With its network of whistleblowers, Wikileaks has published documents and videos on its site that have outraged other foreign governments. To protect the site from attack by intelligence agencies, Assange has placed Wikileaks on several Internet servers, making it all but impossible for any government to shut down the site entirely.