George Galloways "expert" replies to my e-mail

[optimus79]

After listening to Galloway and his guest 9/11 expert Richard Seymour last night I sent off an e-mail, quite impressed he got back to me so soon and so courteously.

Anyways....

Hi, I was listening to your Talksport appearance with George Galloway earlier this evening, in which you referred to several times as a 9/11 expert. as someone who has been researching this subject for around 6 months, and yet to come to any real conclusion as to who planned and carried out the attacks, I was still rather intrigued by a couple of points.

Firstly you mentioned that there are pictures (or a picture of WTC7) burning ferociously with thick smoke bellowing from every window in the building. Now first of all, this is clearly a fabrication as when the building was felled, there is no smoke eminating from the building, not least from every window as you mention. There are pictures of fires on a few floors, but nothing serious enough to have brought down building 7.

Building 7 for me is the sticking point, and I choose not to get involved in the how's and why's of the Pentagon incident or Flight 93.

So, I would be very gratious if you could show me this picture of WTC7 with out of control fires raging all the way through its 47 floors, and I would also be gratious enough to explaiin to me your understanding of the Larry Silverstein interview where he says they chose to "pull" the building.

There is a lot of bs flying around thsi subject as i am sure you well know, so as you are considered an expert, maybe you can explain these points to me.

Thanks for your time


And the reply....



Hi Marc -

First of all, George was being far too generous, and I have never claimed to be an expert on this topic. I am only someone who has read a few of the books and paid attention to some of the salient points. I blushed more times than I can say when he described me in that way, flattering though it is.

However, I promise you I did not fabricate at any point:

1) The pictures of WTC-7 billowing smoke from every hole can be found here: http://911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html

2) Stuff about Silverstein and WTC-7 here: http://911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html and here: http://911myths.com/html/wtc7___silverstein.html

If there are problems with the Official Account - and several news stories now suggest that there are, including the suppression of Pentagon lying and any suggestion that US support for Israel might have contributed to the attacks - then we had better focus on those, rather than on fanciful claims that are actually poorly supported and often involve those making them in amateurish assertsions about physics that most people familiar with the sciences would discount right away.

Best,

Richard.

_______________________________________




Your thoughts....... [/url]

[SHERITON HOTEL]

Well he's right about being NO EXPERT!

Thick black smoke from every window? I know what orofice he's speaking from.

[Serge]

Shot himself in the foot within the first few words

[Bicnarok]

even if there was black smoke spewing from WTC 7, it brings up ore questions and answers one.

Why was there smoke, and because of the method used to burn through the steel gurders, a lot of heat is needed it would cause smoke especially if it got a few walls and desks on fire thus spreading.

The thing is why when the building wasn´t even hit by anything???

[Skeptic]

I guess you just need to ask him if he thinks the fires caused all the colums to fail simultaneously and symmetrically.

[optimus79]

Decided to fire off a reply and see if he wishes to discuss the matter a bit further, i'll keep you updated.


Hi Richard, thank you for your swift and courteous reply.


On the links you have sent me I had actually come across them before, and I do find the explanation of Silversteins "pull it" very interesting. However, at the end of the day you are only sourcing your information from one of the many websites that are making the same assurances as those who shout conspiracy. Indeed the only thing that makes these websites seem more credible is the fact they are not labelled as conspiracy sites. As for WTC7, there may have been fires within the building but there are many images of tall buildings suffering fires much worse, fires that are actually visible throughout a dozen floors as opposed to just causing lots of smoke. Indeed, how the fire within WTC7 caused the steel columns to fail simultaneously and symmetrically will remain another mystery.

As someone who has been reading in to this subject for quite some time, I have increasingly noticed that there is no real difinitive word on the subject, despite people from all corners claiming to know best. For every "expert" claiming that the buildings fell exactly how you would expect them to, given direct hits from two passenger planes, there is another who will point to the use of explosives and mathematical equasions to prove otherwise.

When does this "movement" as it is called now, become so troublesome to the Government of America that they decide to release the missing footage of the Pentagon (we must be on agreement that there is clearer footage in existance somewhere), and when will they release the data on the 4 black boxes taken from the planes. These simple actions could put an abrupt end to what is becoming a very damaging situation for Bush and his buddies.

As TIME magazine is supposed to have mentioned recently the amount of people who believe there was American involvement of 9/11 is so many that it needs to be considered a mainstream opinion. Obviously not mainstream enough for the media, but the numbers are growing, and this will not have gone unnoticed to a political party who know that they are being questioned at every turn. Their silence on this matter is deafening and that will only assist those who believe that they were involved. Even those who wish to staunchly argue against the conspiracy theorists must be asking themselves when the government is going to help them out a little bit.

Funnily enough however the one thing really gets me over this whole situation, and sways my belief towards American involvement at some level or another is this piece of information regarding the tragic events of 7/7. This to me is very typical of this wave of terror we are supposedly under attack from, and another supposedly unique coincidence we are expected to swallow . http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=200508 08&articleId=821

Here a Mr Peter Power (a former senior Scotland Yard official specializing in counterterrorism) actually told a BBC radio station on the day of 7/7 that he was involved in running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations at the exact times where it happened that morning. To suggest this is mere coincidence is ridiculous, not to mention that the U.S were supposedly having some kind of Terror drills on the morning of 9/11. Funny that the U.S drills took valuable resources and fighter jets away from the vicinity of the attacks, where our drills are set up and able to go straight in to action to help the public. Maybe that kind of sums up the difference between us and the big U.S.


As an aside, I was quite surprised that George criticised the internet in the show last night as if it were responsible for creating a wave of disinformation that leads to these "crazy" theories, when only weeks ago he was on SKY News attacking a reporter for biased journalism. Surely he recognizes that the internet is quite possibly the last place people can go who are genuinely looking to discover what is really going on in the world and that includes to discover the real plight of the Palestinians.

What are we to do?


Kind regards



Marc

[marky 54]

ive seen buildings fall due to fire and they never fall straight down all at once, they collapse in areas gradually untill they burn out due to no more material to burn and dosnt need an expert to even know this. just look for photos of burning buildings during the blitz in the uk. some parts dont even fall and have to be bought down manually for saftey. a fire dose not burn all the structure in all the right places at the same tempreture and melt all the steel beams at the same time in order to cause freefall collapse. if it was fire alone there would of been partial collapses first. can we please advise these people to go back to school please as these buildings were made of steel and my comments in this post refer to none steel buildings, so if weak buildings dont collapse in freefall motion then how the hell can a steel structure that was only the third steel building to collapse in history. (just incase you dont know the first two in history were wt2 and wt1). do these people have common sense? fires in buildings cause partial collapses first, and steel stuctures dont collapse and have never collapsed if you take 9/11 out of the picture.