This is the end of the video. Thank you for watching.
I actually remember when that happened We were actually together. We were in Portsmouth.
I was playing a gig with a little band that I was playing with at the time.
We'd gone to a bar before the gig and it was on all the screens.
Obviously, everyone was watching it. I remember you immediately saying, I think the term was, this is bollocks.
You'd kind of straight away seen through the nonsense while everyone else was kind of like, you know, this is dreadful, this is dreadful.
I was going to ask you what the kind of main red flags were, but then, as you said then, about the Achilles' heel, and it made me think, like, Building 7 now has got to be the biggest Achilles' heel, surely?
Yeah. Building 7, this is an extraordinary story.
If you said to most people, it probably is still most people, how many buildings fell on 9-11, they would say two.
The Twin Towers.
But actually three did.
The third one was called Building 7.
It was part of the World Trade Centre complex, World Trade Centre Building 7.
And it was owned by Larry Silverstein.
And it was owned by him before, in the July of 2001, he and another guy called Frank Lowy of Westfield Moles, Bought the lease to the Twin Towers which went into private hands for the first time.
We'll get into that as we go along in the background to that.
But he owned Building 7.
Building 7 was not hit by a plane and came down a 47 storey steel frame building.
It fell about 5.20 in the afternoon And the official explanation of why this building collapsed was office furnishings fire.
Right? Office furnishings fire.
It is the most blatant, obvious, controlled demolition you'll ever see.
And if people go on the internet who are new to this and put in Building 7 collapse, they will see exactly with Building 7 what happens again and again, you see them on the news from time to time, when demolition companies put charges in buildings, sometimes they're stadiums, sometimes they're high-rise blocks.
And they are charged in a way that makes the building not topple over and hit other buildings around it, but to fall on its own footprint.
And to do that, what they do is they make sure that as the building is falling, the building below is exploding, so there's no resistance as the top falls that can topple it over.
And Building 7 is such a blatant...
Controlled demolition.
I quote people in the trigger building experts, engineers, architects because there's a whole organisation in America called Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth who are engineering and architectural experts who literally came together just like pilots for 9-11 Truth firefighters for 9-11 Truth and so many other people, groups To challenge the official story in their area of expertise.
And I quote all these building experts saying it was a controlled demolition.
The building, Building 7, fell for the first 2.5 seconds at free fall speed.
And you only fall at free fall speed if there's nothing to stop your free fall.
In other words, the building below is not there as the top comes down.
We were told actually that it was a controlled demolition by the owner, Larry Silverstein.
He was caught with his pants down, and obviously wishes he hadn't said it, but he spoke, he was interviewed in a PBS Public Service Broadcasting documentary about 9-11 in the United States, and he was asked about Building 7.
And if I can do it with one hand, I'm going to read you the quote.
This is what he said about Building 7 and why it came down.
You know this building that the official government story says it fell because of office furnishings fires.
Making it the only steel-framed building before or since in architectural history that I've lost my place now.
In architectural history, that has fallen because of fire.
Let me find this.
Larry Silverstein, while I'm finding it, with Frank Lowey, bought the lease to the World Trade Center towers in July 2001.
And increased substantially the insurance on the buildings in the case of a terrorist attack.
Can you find the one there that says, how did the mighty fall?
There's a Silverstein quote.
I'll find it in a second. And for a Personal 14 million dollar input from himself to buy the lease, the down payment on the lease he received as a result of the 9-11 catastrophe 4.5 billion dollars and the Twin Towers were believed in the business community in New York to be a white elephant.
Why is this man buying these towers?
They're under-occupied, they've got big problems, they're aging.
But he bought them because he said he had this desire, this long-term desire to buy them.
And it turned out to be to be a very good deal as it turned out for a 14 million dollar investment to come up with 4.5 billion.
I can't remember the quote.
This is what he said on this PBS documentary.
I was called by the fire commander who said to me that The fires in Building 7 were getting hard to keep under control.
It turns out they were out by then.
And this fire commander, who's supposed to have called him, has never ever come forward to say, yes, I did it.
It was me. And Silverstein said, and I said to, well, you've got the quote.
Finally got there, yeah. Yeah, we've got the quote.
I'd like to do it word for word.
So, thanks.
So, this is the quote.
I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, and they said they weren't sure they were going to be able to contain the fire.
Like I say, by this time the fire is out.
I said, you know, we've had such a terrible loss of life, the smartest thing to do is pull it.
And they made that decision to pull.
and we watch the building collapse now two things to that one fire officers do not pull buildings and secondly to make the building collapse in on its own footprint as building 7 did Requires weeks of work putting charges in the building to make sure that it falls as it should.
The claim by Silverstein of having a conversation with a fire commander deciding to pull the building and then shortly after watching it fall is absolutely ridiculous and impossible.
And what you find with the 9-11 story, in all its different aspects, as I say, are stories like this of utter impossibility and the suspension of the laws of physics.
Why? Because the whole thing is a gigantic lie.
to create a massive problem to which solutions can be offered and those solutions we have seen in endless attempts at regime change in the Middle East in destruction of privacy, destruction of freedom and justifying ever more outrageous and extreme surveillance now the 9-11 Commission which investigated the official investigation of 9-11 was resisted by President Boy Bush and Dick Cheney we've had this horrific attack this horror and in any decent same society that would be followed by the most painstaking investigation in American history Instead, Bush and Cheney resisted having any investigation at all.
Then when public pressure forced them to, they announced that the man who was going to head it was Henry Kissinger.
A man who you wouldn't trust to tell you the time in a room full of clocks.
Someone who's been a master major manipulator on behalf of this very cabal that I've been exposing for 30 years throughout most of his adult life.
So Kissinger's appointment was so outrageous that eventually he had to stand down.
They put in charge an executive director called Philip Zelicow.
I'll get it to him later.
Let's say at the moment that he was a big time Bush administration insider.
And he set out to make sure that no information that questioned the official story of 9-11 got into that report.
Now he has a big problem with Building 7.
He has an obvious controlled demolition.
He has a ludicrous official story of this furnishings fire which he really can't justify.
So what does he do?
He doesn't mention it.
In the 9-11 report there is no mention of Building 7 simply because there's no way of explaining it except by a controlled demolition.
If it's a controlled demolition then the story is a lie and if that's a lie the whole house of cards starts to fall down and what's happened in the last few days coincidentally synchronistically is that a academic investigation into Building 7 by the University of Alaska and Fairbanks has produced the result of a four-year investigation with building experts etc Into the question, could Building 7 have fallen because of fire?
And their conclusion a few days ago was no, it could not have done.