Latest / The conspiracy / WORLD TRADE CENTER _7_ a disturbing deep dive

Transcript

WORLD TRADE CENTER _7_ a disturbing deep dive · The conspiracy

0:00
Speaker 1: In two thousand and one in New York City, tragedy struck.
0:03
Speaker 1: Everybody knows the story that I'm talking about, that I'm
0:06
Speaker 1: going to have to tiptoe around to avoid this video
0:09
Speaker 1: and not being shown to as many people as possible,
0:11
Speaker 1: because this is a video that people need to see now.
0:14
Speaker 1: As you know, on that day in New York City,
0:17
Speaker 1: two buildings fell and thousands of people died. Over three
0:21
Speaker 1: thousand people died. But what a lot of people don't
0:24
Speaker 1: know is that there was another building that day that
0:27
Speaker 1: most people never even saw collapse, that did forty seven
0:31
Speaker 1: stories tall. The building was never struck by a plane,
0:34
Speaker 1: and yet at five twenty pm on that day, this
0:38
Speaker 1: building dropped in under seven seconds, perfectly symmetrically into its
0:43
Speaker 1: own footprint. And we're going to refer to this building
0:46
Speaker 1: today as Building number seven. The official explanation was that
0:50
Speaker 1: office flames started from the fiery debris that fell from
0:54
Speaker 1: the other two. You could say twin buildings caused a
0:57
Speaker 1: total structural failure in buildings. But from the moment the
1:01
Speaker 1: dust settled, engineers, first responders and skeptics have asked, is
1:06
Speaker 1: that even possible? And why was the collapse barely mentioned?
1:09
Speaker 1: In any of the early reports. In this video, we're
1:12
Speaker 1: going to explore what may be the most overlooked piece
1:15
Speaker 1: of information and evidence from that tragic day in American history.
1:20
Speaker 1: And this story is dangerous. The story will open your mind,
1:24
Speaker 1: and this story and this information is incredibly important. So
1:28
Speaker 1: I do have to speak somewhat cryptically. Please try to
1:31
Speaker 1: follow along as best as you can, because underneath the
1:34
Speaker 1: rubble of Building seven, to this very day, lies a
1:38
Speaker 1: secret story, a piece of secret history, cloaked in silence
1:41
Speaker 1: and death. As always, everybody, I don't plan on going
1:44
Speaker 1: anywhere or doing anything to myself. All parties are presumed
1:48
Speaker 1: innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. All
1:51
Speaker 1: the opinions presented on today's show are solely mind Colin Brown,
1:54
Speaker 1: the host and producer of this program. And as always,
1:57
Speaker 1: if you yourself would like to check on the resource
2:00
Speaker 1: is used to construct this episode. I'm talking about sometimes books, magazines,
2:05
Speaker 1: pdf files, web archives, websites, other videos, please check the
2:12
Speaker 1: resources document that's posted in the description of the show
2:16
Speaker 1: because you might find it enlightening. There are always details
2:19
Speaker 1: that I myself missed, but let's get into this. So
2:29
Speaker 1: was the destruction of Building Number seven the result of
2:32
Speaker 1: chaos or control?
2:33
Speaker 2: Was it the.
2:34
Speaker 1: Result of an accident or some sort of hidden controlled demolition.
2:38
Speaker 1: I want to start off by first saying that this
2:40
Speaker 1: episode is in no way downplaying the tragedy that happened
2:44
Speaker 1: on that horrible day in New York and the thousands
2:47
Speaker 1: of lives that were lost. It's an absolutely devastating piece
2:51
Speaker 1: of American history, and I know that an uncountable number
2:55
Speaker 1: of lives were affected by the horrific events carried out
2:58
Speaker 1: that morning by some of the most horrific people imaginable.
3:02
Speaker 1: This is not meant to demean the memory of any
3:05
Speaker 1: of those individuals with a video like this. I am
3:08
Speaker 1: actively advocating for the whole truth to come out because
3:12
Speaker 1: there is an astronomical amount of information surrounding that terrible
3:17
Speaker 1: day in New York that does not make sense, that
3:19
Speaker 1: has never added up. We are still getting information to
3:22
Speaker 1: this day, specifically with countries like Saudi Arabia having more
3:26
Speaker 1: involvement than they've ever copped to. I've read a number
3:30
Speaker 1: of very very thorough books about the subject, including one
3:35
Speaker 1: great book that I'm hoping to adapt into something one
3:37
Speaker 1: day called Welcome to Terror Land. It's a great read.
3:40
Speaker 1: And this is one of those stories where once you
3:43
Speaker 1: go down the rabbit hole, you can't really get out
3:45
Speaker 1: because the answers are there, but they're just so hidden,
3:50
Speaker 1: and there are so many layers of bullshit surrounding this thing.
3:53
Speaker 1: Official stories that fall apart, pieces of evidence that don't
3:56
Speaker 1: make sense, weird environmental factors that day, other weird things
4:01
Speaker 1: that were happening that day, incredibly weird things that were
4:04
Speaker 1: happening before, like stock trading and shorting. But that's We're
4:09
Speaker 1: gonna save that for another longer video. With all that said, though,
4:12
Speaker 1: I'm trying to handle this with the most respect possible.
4:15
Speaker 1: This is just a topic that I'm very passionate about.
4:18
Speaker 1: And yeah, I think it's time that we start talking
4:21
Speaker 1: about the most overlooked building from that fateful day. Building
4:29
Speaker 1: number seven was a forty seven story steel framed skyscraper
4:33
Speaker 1: located approximately three hundred and fifty feet north of the
4:37
Speaker 1: two buildings that were attacked that day in Lower Manhattan,
4:41
Speaker 1: New York City. Building number seven was not attached to
4:44
Speaker 1: the other two main buildings, but was a part of
4:47
Speaker 1: the larger complex of buildings and was separated from the
4:50
Speaker 1: other two buildings by a small Plaza and Versy Street,
4:54
Speaker 1: a four lane road. Building Number seven was designed by
4:57
Speaker 1: Emery Roth and Sons with a unique trapezoidal shape made
5:01
Speaker 1: with a steel frame construction with the reinforced core. Building
5:05
Speaker 1: Number seven was completed in nineteen eighty seven, making it
5:09
Speaker 1: a relatively modern high rise at the time of that
5:12
Speaker 1: fateful day in New York City in two thousand one.
5:15
Speaker 1: Building Number seven housed at the time numerous government agencies
5:19
Speaker 1: and financial institutions, including the United States Secret Service, the
5:24
Speaker 1: Central Intelligence Agency or CIA, the Department of Defense or DoD,
5:28
Speaker 1: the Internal Revenue Service or IRS, the Securities in Exchange
5:32
Speaker 1: Commission or SEC, Solomon Smith Barney, a global investment bank
5:36
Speaker 1: and securities firm, and also the building's largest tenant, and
5:40
Speaker 1: American Express Bank International. At eight forty six a m.
5:44
Speaker 1: On that fateful day in New York, an American Airlines
5:47
Speaker 1: airplane carrying hundreds of passengers crashes into the northern building
5:53
Speaker 1: of the two larger buildings, between floors ninety three and
5:56
Speaker 1: ninety nine. Seventeen minutes later, at nine oh three am,
6:00
Speaker 1: a United Airlines commercial airplane, also carrying hundreds of passengers,
6:04
Speaker 1: crashed into the southern building of the two larger buildings,
6:09
Speaker 1: and immediately thousands of people began evacuating from both of
6:13
Speaker 1: the two buildings and surrounding areas, while sadly and tragically,
6:17
Speaker 1: others remained trapped above the impact zones within the two
6:21
Speaker 1: main buildings. I think you guys know what I'm referring
6:24
Speaker 1: to here. Fifty six minutes after the northern building was hit,
6:29
Speaker 1: it collapsed to the ground. Twenty nine minutes later, the
6:32
Speaker 1: more southern building followed, crumbling to the ground, and after
6:35
Speaker 1: the southern building collapsed, Building seven caught on fire, reportedly
6:40
Speaker 1: having been ignited by debris from the northern building and
6:43
Speaker 1: its collapse. The fires in Building seven continued to burn
6:47
Speaker 1: on ten different floors, but the fire was mostly concentrated
6:51
Speaker 1: on floors seven to nine and eleven to thirteen. Approximately
6:54
Speaker 1: seven hours later, at five twenty pm that same day,
6:58
Speaker 1: Building seven collapse to the ground, adding to the complete
7:02
Speaker 1: chaos around it. Thankfully, and interestingly, not a single person
7:06
Speaker 1: died as a result of that collapse, as the estimated
7:09
Speaker 1: four thousand office workers had previously evacuated the premises. The
7:14
Speaker 1: National Construction Safety Team Act, enacted in two thousand and two,
7:18
Speaker 1: granted the National Institute of Standards and Technology, also known
7:23
Speaker 1: as NIST, the authority after the collapse and the attacks
7:27
Speaker 1: to conduct fact finding technical investigations into building failures that
7:32
Speaker 1: resulted in significant loss of life or posed a serious
7:36
Speaker 1: risk of doing so. The collapse of the two main
7:39
Speaker 1: buildings was the first investigation carried out under this new mandate.
7:43
Speaker 1: As a part of that effort, NIST investigated also the
7:47
Speaker 1: collapse of Building Number seven. Its three primary objectives, according
7:51
Speaker 1: to them, were to determine the cause and mechanics of
7:54
Speaker 1: the building's collapse, to evaluate the design, construction, operation, and
7:59
Speaker 1: maintenance practic This is used throughout the building's life, and
8:02
Speaker 1: also to identify specific areas in the building and fire codes,
8:06
Speaker 1: standards or practices that may need revision to improve safety
8:10
Speaker 1: in future structures. First of all, let's talk about the
8:13
Speaker 1: published one hundred and thirty page final report published by
8:17
Speaker 1: the NIST, which was available to the public in November
8:20
Speaker 1: of two thousand and eight, about seven years later. Here
8:23
Speaker 1: are the key determinations from that report. They said that
8:26
Speaker 1: there was no plane impact or fuel from a jet
8:29
Speaker 1: involved in the collapse. They also said the collapse was
8:32
Speaker 1: caused by fire induced failure, not by any explosives or
8:36
Speaker 1: organized demolition. They also claimed that the key trigger was
8:39
Speaker 1: the expansion of heated steel beams, which caused a critical
8:43
Speaker 1: beam on floor thirteen to walk off its seat, leading
8:46
Speaker 1: to the failure of Column seventy nine, a vital interior column.
8:50
Speaker 1: This beam failure cascaded vertically, triggering the collapse of adjacent
8:54
Speaker 1: columns and ultimately the global collapse. The collapse began internally,
8:59
Speaker 1: progressing east to west, then causing the visible symmetrical descent
9:03
Speaker 1: of the building. Alternative hypotheses that were ruled out were
9:07
Speaker 1: the explosives or blast theory because no sound consistent with
9:11
Speaker 1: large explosions were recorded or noticed and there was no
9:14
Speaker 1: visual evidence of blast effects, and the diesel fuel theory
9:18
Speaker 1: because fires from ruptured fuel tanks were not intense or
9:21
Speaker 1: sustained enough to cause a collapse. According to the NIST
9:25
Speaker 1: in their report, fire alone in the absence of functioning
9:29
Speaker 1: sprinklers and due to thermal expansion and local connection failures,
9:33
Speaker 1: brought the building down. Building number seven was the first
9:37
Speaker 1: known case of a tall steel framed building collapsing solely
9:42
Speaker 1: due to uncontrolled fire. It was the first of its kind.
9:46
Speaker 1: It was absolutely unheard of that such a thing like
9:49
Speaker 1: this actually could have happened and did happen. Design vulnerabilities,
9:53
Speaker 1: according to the report, that contributed to the collapse were
9:56
Speaker 1: long span floor systems that amplified thermal expansion effects, structural
10:01
Speaker 1: connections that were not designed for thermal induced movement. They
10:05
Speaker 1: said there was no redundancy in critical column supports, and
10:09
Speaker 1: they said that the fires were typical office content fires,
10:12
Speaker 1: which are not usually intense. The NIST made one new
10:16
Speaker 1: recommendation and reiterated twelve recommendations from the prior two main
10:21
Speaker 1: building collapse investigations. Key areas and recommendations from their report
10:26
Speaker 1: included improving designs against progressive or disproportionate collapse, explicitly accounting
10:32
Speaker 1: for thermal expansion and worst case fire scenarios. Strengthening fire
10:36
Speaker 1: resistance ratings and test methods, Improving redundancy and performance of
10:40
Speaker 1: active fire protection systems like sprinklers and alarms, Improving command
10:44
Speaker 1: control systems in high rise fires, Enhancing coordination and evacuation procedures,
10:50
Speaker 1: updating codes to consider multi floor uncontrolled fires, mandating retention
10:55
Speaker 1: of design documents for buildings, and requiring multidisciplinary teams. Complex
11:00
Speaker 1: high rise design overall and after seven years of investigation,
11:05
Speaker 1: the NIST concluded that Building number seven's collapse was not
11:09
Speaker 1: due to demolition or some sort of fuel fed explosion,
11:13
Speaker 1: but rather a fire induced progressive collapse initiated by failure
11:17
Speaker 1: at a single column, which was column seventy nine, and
11:21
Speaker 1: the structural design, although code compliant at the time, lacked
11:25
Speaker 1: provisions for extreme fire scenarios without sprinklers. The report stressed
11:30
Speaker 1: the need for code reform, performance based design, and better
11:33
Speaker 1: fire engineering practices. Overall, and after years of investigation, the
11:38
Speaker 1: NIST concluded that Building number seven's collapse was not due
11:42
Speaker 1: to demolition or fuel led explosion, but rather a fire
11:45
Speaker 1: induced progressive collapse initiated by failure at a single column,
11:49
Speaker 1: which was column seventy nine, and the structural design, although
11:53
Speaker 1: code compliant at the time, lacked provisions for extreme fire
11:57
Speaker 1: scenarios without sprinklers. The report stress the need for code reform,
12:01
Speaker 1: performance based design, and better fire engineering practices. The weird
12:09
Speaker 1: thing is, though, that office fires alone have never caused
12:14
Speaker 1: a full high rise steel framed building to collapse before
12:18
Speaker 1: that one fateful day in New York City or a
12:21
Speaker 1: single time afterwards. According to the National Fire Protection Association,
12:26
Speaker 1: Fire Analysis and Research Division. There are an average of
12:30
Speaker 1: fifteen thousand, four hundred reported structure fires in high rise
12:34
Speaker 1: buildings per year. Other high rise buildings have been involved
12:37
Speaker 1: in similar or even more intense conditions than were found
12:41
Speaker 1: in Building number seven on that day. Yet this is
12:44
Speaker 1: the only instance of a collapse like this in any
12:47
Speaker 1: recorded history, at least in America.
12:49
Speaker 2: Now.
12:49
Speaker 3: It should be noted that there have been two other
12:52
Speaker 3: buildings that have fallen in a similar manner to Building
12:56
Speaker 3: Number seven, including the Plascow Building, which fell in a
13:00
Speaker 3: somewhat similar manner and I ran in twenty seventeen after
13:03
Speaker 3: an electrical short circuit caused the building to catch on fire.
13:07
Speaker 3: It then burned for three and a half hours and
13:09
Speaker 3: underwent to progressive collapse starting from the upper floors. And
13:13
Speaker 3: there's also the case of the Edificio Wilton Pais del Almaida,
13:17
Speaker 3: which was a building that fell in Sal Paulo, Brazil
13:20
Speaker 3: in twenty eighteen after something like a gas cylinder explosion
13:24
Speaker 3: caused a fire to start on the lower floors of
13:26
Speaker 3: the building before it burned for about ninety minutes then
13:29
Speaker 3: collapsed progressively. However, those are the only two examples of
13:33
Speaker 3: any buildings falling under similar conditions, and they still don't
13:37
Speaker 3: meet the exact conditions under which Building number seven fell.
13:42
Speaker 1: And when you speak in absolutes and you come to
13:45
Speaker 1: events that have only happened once and they're already shrouded
13:49
Speaker 1: in mystery, that's where the great I feel unraveling really begins.
13:53
Speaker 1: Over time, people grew suspicious of the demise of Building
13:57
Speaker 1: number seven. After all, NIST refue used to release key
14:01
Speaker 1: modeling data through different Freedom of Information Act requests, stating
14:05
Speaker 1: that releasing the full input data for the collapse simulations would,
14:09
Speaker 1: for some reason, endanger public safety. They argued that providing
14:13
Speaker 1: the full element analysis models and input files could expose
14:17
Speaker 1: vulnerabilities in high rise buildings, particularly how they might fail
14:21
Speaker 1: under certain stressors like fire or impact, and that if
14:24
Speaker 1: such information were publicly accessible, it could be misused by
14:28
Speaker 1: people like terrorists or bad actors to plan additional attacks
14:32
Speaker 1: or engineer building collapses of their own. Critics of this
14:36
Speaker 1: analysis and finding, though, including people like engineers, architects, and researchers,
14:42
Speaker 1: argued that NIST's refusal undermined transparency and peer review, which
14:47
Speaker 1: are key pillars of scientific and engineering integrity. The collapse
14:51
Speaker 1: of a high rise building due to fire was and
14:54
Speaker 1: still is completely unprecedented, so replicable open models were essential,
15:00
Speaker 1: according to these people, to verify the group's findings and
15:03
Speaker 1: understand exactly how this could have happened. Skeptical of their
15:07
Speaker 1: closed off investigations, the University of Alaska Fairbanks or UAF
15:12
Speaker 1: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, conducted their own independent
15:17
Speaker 1: investigation into the collapse of Building number seven in twenty fifteen,
15:22
Speaker 1: after prompted by a non one one trut H which
15:27
Speaker 1: stands for Architects and Engineers for blah blah blah, I
15:31
Speaker 1: can't say that here. The AE none one one group
15:34
Speaker 1: is a nonprofit group of thousands of professionals in architecture
15:38
Speaker 1: and engineering who dispute the NIST conclusions and have advocated
15:42
Speaker 1: for years for a new, transparent, fully science based investigation
15:47
Speaker 1: into the events of that tragic day in New York,
15:50
Speaker 1: particularly with focus on the collapse of Building number seven.
15:54
Speaker 1: Their goal in studying Building number seven at the University
15:57
Speaker 1: of Alaska Fairbanks was to determine and independently whether fire
16:02
Speaker 1: alone could have truly caused the collapse as claimed by
16:05
Speaker 1: the NIST. They wanted to use open source modeling and
16:08
Speaker 1: transparent methods so that the public and engineering community could
16:12
Speaker 1: replicate or scrutinize the results, to make these results public,
16:16
Speaker 1: to evaluate alternative collapse scenarios that might better match the
16:20
Speaker 1: observed collapse sequence, and to test the credibility of the
16:23
Speaker 1: progressive collapse mechanism proposed by the NIST using state of
16:28
Speaker 1: the art engineering software and techniques. Keep in mind, this
16:31
Speaker 1: is almost ten years after the report was released, give
16:34
Speaker 1: or take a few years, but technology had advanced so
16:38
Speaker 1: greatly just in that period of time. They wanted to
16:41
Speaker 1: use these newer modeling programs and this new information and
16:46
Speaker 1: data that had been gathered over the years in programs
16:49
Speaker 1: that had been developed and worked on to see if
16:51
Speaker 1: they would reach the same result. This group, the AE
16:54
Speaker 1: group that I just talked about, funded UAF's study and
16:58
Speaker 1: sought to provide an independent academic analysis of the structural
17:02
Speaker 1: mechanics of the collapse of Building number seven, and this
17:05
Speaker 1: would indeed prove to be highly controversial. In March of
17:09
Speaker 1: twenty twenty, after years of research, the University of Alaska
17:13
Speaker 1: Fairbanks released their final report titled A Structural Reevaluation of
17:18
Speaker 1: the Collapse of Building Number Seven. Their findings were incredibly interesting,
17:24
Speaker 1: to say the least. They concluded, after years of testing
17:27
Speaker 1: and analysis, that fire did not cause the high rise
17:30
Speaker 1: to collapse, as claimed by the NIST, and they even
17:33
Speaker 1: went as far as to state that it would have
17:35
Speaker 1: been impossible for this to have occurred through fire induced
17:38
Speaker 1: mechanisms alone, because the fires that occurred were not intense
17:42
Speaker 1: or burning long enough to compromise structural integrity. Additionally, the
17:47
Speaker 1: building contained only typical office combustible loads estimated between twenty
17:52
Speaker 1: to thirty two kilograms, which would only typically sustain fire
17:55
Speaker 1: in any given area for just twenty to thirty minutes,
17:59
Speaker 1: most definitely not at an extremely intense blaze for about
18:02
Speaker 1: seven hours. They also determined that Building number seven collapsed
18:07
Speaker 1: due to a near simultaneous failure of all of the
18:10
Speaker 1: columns over a short time span. In other words, the
18:13
Speaker 1: entire buildings seem to have given out all at once
18:16
Speaker 1: and collapsed to the ground, just as one would see
18:19
Speaker 1: if a building is strategically demolished in a controlled way.
18:23
Speaker 1: According to the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, the scenario proposed
18:27
Speaker 1: by the US government was just simply wrong. But let's
18:30
Speaker 1: get into some of the theories as to why the
18:32
Speaker 1: government could have possibly given a completely false narrative of
18:35
Speaker 1: what happened to Building number seven on that fateful day
18:38
Speaker 1: in New York. Regarding Building number seven, several people in
18:47
Speaker 1: the past have openly made statements that completely contradict the
18:50
Speaker 1: government's narrative as to what happened. First, we have Richard Gage,
18:56
Speaker 1: the founder of the AE Group, who said, quote, building
19:00
Speaker 1: number seven fell symmetrically into its own footprint at free
19:03
Speaker 1: fall acceleration, something only a controlled demolition can achieve. Fires
19:08
Speaker 1: have never before caused the collapse of a steel framed
19:11
Speaker 1: high rise building. End quote. Then there's Barry Jennings, the
19:14
Speaker 1: New York City Emergency Management Deputy Director, who was interviewed
19:18
Speaker 1: before his death in two thousand and eight. He said, quote,
19:22
Speaker 1: I heard explosions while still in Building number seven before
19:26
Speaker 1: either tower fell. Something happened in that building. It was
19:30
Speaker 1: like a bomb went off end quote. Doctor Lee Roy Hulsey,
19:33
Speaker 1: who was involved in the University of Alaska Fairbanks study,
19:37
Speaker 1: said quote our study concludes that fire did not cause
19:40
Speaker 1: the collapse of Building number seven. The building's failure was
19:44
Speaker 1: due to a global collapse mechanism not consistent with the
19:47
Speaker 1: fire based explanation given by NIST. End quote. Kevin Ryan,
19:52
Speaker 1: the former executive at Underwriters Laboratories, stated quote the steel
19:57
Speaker 1: used in the main two buildings was certified to withstand
20:00
Speaker 1: far more than the conditions reported by NIST. Their refusal
20:05
Speaker 1: to test for explosives is scientifically irresponsible. End quote. Now
20:10
Speaker 1: do with those statements what you will, but I have
20:13
Speaker 1: to say they're very interesting, to say the least. Now,
20:21
Speaker 1: the reasoning behind the collapse and potential controlled demolition of
20:27
Speaker 1: this building that we're talking about today is kind of
20:31
Speaker 1: minor when you compare it against the actual main event
20:35
Speaker 1: of that day, and the hundreds of thousands, if not millions,
20:39
Speaker 1: of different theories and pieces of evidence and things that
20:42
Speaker 1: don't make sense, and whistleblowers that have spoken out over
20:45
Speaker 1: the years, not even to mention the massive groups of
20:47
Speaker 1: victims' family members who still to this day are out
20:50
Speaker 1: there advocating for completely brand new investigations with completely unbiased looks,
20:57
Speaker 1: full transparency, new looks at evidence and analyzing of all
21:02
Speaker 1: the materials and data. But at the same time, it's
21:05
Speaker 1: deeply interesting and also very very telling. The collapse of
21:09
Speaker 1: building number seven, like I've said before, occurred at five
21:12
Speaker 1: twenty pm that day, hours after the main two buildings
21:16
Speaker 1: fell to the ground, yet it received very little attention,
21:19
Speaker 1: fueling suspicion amongst the public almost immediately. Obviously, the main
21:24
Speaker 1: focus that day was the attacks on the main two
21:27
Speaker 1: buildings and the attack on the other building in the Washington,
21:31
Speaker 1: DC area, which to some people, allowed the story of
21:35
Speaker 1: Building Number seven's collapse to occur in relative media silence.
21:39
Speaker 1: A few news outlets reported the building's collapse before it
21:43
Speaker 1: even happened, allegedly reading from premature wire reports, and that's
21:47
Speaker 1: an interesting facet of the case, which has led to
21:49
Speaker 1: accusations of for knowledge or warning or pre planning. Did
21:53
Speaker 1: someone report to the media that this building had indeed
21:56
Speaker 1: collapsed because they knew that it was coming, but didn't
21:59
Speaker 1: realize that it hadn't happened yet. Maybe the day was
22:01
Speaker 1: so chaotic that a wire report was sent out saying
22:05
Speaker 1: that something had happened when it wasn't supposed to happen
22:07
Speaker 1: for another five to ten minutes. Maybe something went wrong,
22:10
Speaker 1: but we need to get into specifics because being vague
22:13
Speaker 1: doesn't really cut it in these circumstances. You see the
22:16
Speaker 1: BBC News and this is documented reported the collapse of
22:20
Speaker 1: Building Number seven at around five o'clock PM that day,
22:24
Speaker 1: roughly twenty or so minutes before it actually collapsed in
22:28
Speaker 1: real life. In live footage from that day, BBC correspondent
22:32
Speaker 1: Jane Stanley is seen on camera reporting about Building number
22:36
Speaker 1: seven's collapse. Well, the building is still visibly standing right
22:40
Speaker 1: behind her. It's actually in the shot. No one really
22:44
Speaker 1: knew that it was going to collapse, according to the
22:46
Speaker 1: official story. And at some point after the BBC correspondent
22:50
Speaker 1: Jane Stanley says this out loud and maybe someone notices
22:55
Speaker 1: that the building is actually still visible directly behind her.
22:58
Speaker 1: Shortly afterwards, the satellite feed cuts out and they cut
23:01
Speaker 1: to another anchor.
23:02
Speaker 2: Now, more on the latest building collapse in New York.
23:06
Speaker 2: You might have heard a few moments ago was talking
23:08
Speaker 2: about the Salomon Brothers building collapsing, and indeed it has.
23:12
Speaker 2: It seems that this was not a result of a
23:14
Speaker 2: new attack. It was because the building had been weakened
23:18
Speaker 2: during this morning's attacks. We'll probably find out more now
23:20
Speaker 2: about that from our correspondent Jane Stanley. Jane, what more
23:24
Speaker 2: can you tell us about the Salomon Brothers building and
23:27
Speaker 2: it's collapse, Well, only really what.
23:30
Speaker 4: You already know. Details are very very sketchy. As you
23:34
Speaker 4: can see behind me, the appears to be still burning.
23:38
Speaker 4: We see these huge clouds of smoke and ash, and
23:41
Speaker 4: we know that behind that there's an empty piece of
23:45
Speaker 4: what was a very familiar New York skyline, a symbol
23:49
Speaker 4: of the financial prosperity of this city, but completely disappeared
23:54
Speaker 4: now and New York is still unable to take on
23:58
Speaker 4: board what has happened to them.
23:59
Speaker 2: To Presumably there were very few people in the Solomon
24:03
Speaker 2: Building when it collapsed. I mean there were I suppose
24:06
Speaker 2: fears of possible further collapses around the area.
24:10
Speaker 4: That's what you would hope, because they don't really know
24:12
Speaker 4: where to turn. That's the very sad thing. I think
24:15
Speaker 4: there's going to be a lot of very very traumatized people.
24:18
Speaker 4: That has hit them very very hard. Jane.
24:20
Speaker 2: I think many of us, when we heard the news,
24:22
Speaker 2: perhaps on the radio earlier today, were completely flabbergasted by
24:28
Speaker 2: it and just couldn't comprehend it. I mean, it almost
24:32
Speaker 2: sounded too far fetched. I was wondering what it's felt
24:36
Speaker 2: like for you being in Manhattan. Well, unfortunately, I think
24:39
Speaker 2: we've lost the line with Jane Stanley in.
24:42
Speaker 1: Manhattan, CNN and other outlets also speculated or prematurely announced
24:48
Speaker 1: the building's collapse earlier that day. For example, in her reporting,
24:52
Speaker 1: Jane Stanley, that reporter with the BBC, reported that evening quote,
24:56
Speaker 1: the Solomon Brothers Building or Building Number seven has also collapsed.
25:01
Speaker 1: This was a forty seven story building and like I
25:03
Speaker 1: just mentioned, you could still see the building in the
25:06
Speaker 1: background of the live shot. These premature statements from various
25:10
Speaker 1: media outlets are extremely odd. After backlash of potential forek knowledge,
25:15
Speaker 1: the BBC actually was forced to issue a statement that
25:18
Speaker 1: honestly only served to make the entire thing even more odd.
25:21
Speaker 1: Their statement read as follows, quote, we no longer have
25:25
Speaker 1: the original tapes of ourn't coverage, but it's clear from
25:29
Speaker 1: the footage that there was confusion and misinformation being passed around.
25:33
Speaker 1: We were simply reporting what we were told, So they
25:36
Speaker 1: no longer have the original tapes of their coverage from
25:40
Speaker 1: that tragic day in New York. This was the largest
25:43
Speaker 1: terrorist attack to have ever happened in world history, and
25:48
Speaker 1: you didn't keep any of the coverage. This coverage from
25:51
Speaker 1: all these news stations, from what I can tell, from
25:54
Speaker 1: ABC to local affiliates has been enshrined because it is
25:59
Speaker 1: so important sortant in world history. This is footage that
26:03
Speaker 1: replays every single year. It's used in new documentaries every
26:07
Speaker 1: single year. It's like literally some of the most important
26:11
Speaker 1: news footage ever recorded. And somehow they don't explain how
26:15
Speaker 1: or why it happened. But the BBC, the BBC no
26:18
Speaker 1: longer has their tapes from that day. Oh, that alone
26:21
Speaker 1: is very strange. But also they claim in their actual
26:24
Speaker 1: statement to have simply been reporting what they were being
26:27
Speaker 1: told to report. Why were they being told by their
26:30
Speaker 1: sources that the building had collapsed when it hadn't. Could
26:34
Speaker 1: these messengers have been predicting the future, or did they
26:37
Speaker 1: already know from firsthand knowledge what was about to happen
26:40
Speaker 1: and somebody made a crucial mistake and relayed this information
26:44
Speaker 1: just a few minutes early. Some people claim that the
26:47
Speaker 1: building itself was severely damaged and expected to collapse, and
26:51
Speaker 1: official sources were already suggesting it might come down. But
26:54
Speaker 1: I'll leave this up to you and your own opinions.
27:00
Speaker 1: Larry Silverstein is a curious figure in the mythos of
27:03
Speaker 1: that tragic day in New York City, And we're going
27:06
Speaker 1: to talk about him at length in another upcoming video
27:09
Speaker 1: here on this channel. There is a lot of weirdness
27:12
Speaker 1: surrounding Larry. Larry himself is an American real estate billionaire
27:16
Speaker 1: who was also the leaseholder of both of the main
27:19
Speaker 1: two towers in that complex at the time of that
27:22
Speaker 1: tragic day in New York City. Essentially, he was like
27:26
Speaker 1: pretty much the owner of the buildings. Just six weeks
27:30
Speaker 1: before that tragic day in New York City, in July
27:33
Speaker 1: two thousand and one, Larry Silverstein leased the entire complex,
27:38
Speaker 1: a ten million foot property in Manhattan, for only a
27:42
Speaker 1: thirteen million dollar down payment. Imagine that you have both
27:47
Speaker 1: of the main buildings, all of the other buildings in
27:49
Speaker 1: the most prime part of New York City, some of
27:52
Speaker 1: the tallest buildings on earth, some of the most valuable
27:56
Speaker 1: buildings on earth for a thirteen million dollar down payment.
28:00
Speaker 1: That's practically chump change to people who have thick, endless pockets.
28:04
Speaker 1: But here's the weird thing. The property itself was built
28:07
Speaker 1: in the nineteen seventies and had a huge asbestos problem.
28:11
Speaker 1: In fact, the is bestest problem within the two main
28:14
Speaker 1: buildings and the other surrounding buildings was due to cost.
28:17
Speaker 1: The owners and operators of the complex over one billion dollars.
28:22
Speaker 1: And you see, asbestos is extremely dangerous to people's health.
28:26
Speaker 1: There have been tons of buildings that have been abated
28:28
Speaker 1: for Asbestis all across the planet. It was a very
28:32
Speaker 1: very common substance to be included in the construction of
28:36
Speaker 1: buildings decades ago. It was cheap and people thought it
28:39
Speaker 1: was effective. Then it turned out that it was causing people,
28:42
Speaker 1: you know, to have all these health conditions and cancers
28:44
Speaker 1: and horrible things happened to their bodies. And so back
28:49
Speaker 1: in the eighties, nineties, two thousands, there were all of
28:52
Speaker 1: these governmental rulings that came down regulations, I don't know
28:57
Speaker 1: what you'd exactly phrase it as, but stating you need
29:01
Speaker 1: to remove all of this is Beestis from this property
29:05
Speaker 1: by this date, or we're going to charge you this
29:07
Speaker 1: insanely high amount of money. And when it comes to
29:10
Speaker 1: those main two buildings that everybody knows that crumbled that day,
29:15
Speaker 1: along with Building number seven, the government in America had
29:19
Speaker 1: already ruled that all of that Asbestis within those buildings
29:23
Speaker 1: had to be removed by the end of the year
29:25
Speaker 1: two thousand and one, which had turned the property the
29:28
Speaker 1: property is really all the buildings there into a really
29:31
Speaker 1: big financial burden for Larry Silverstein. I mean he was
29:34
Speaker 1: going to have to spend over a billion dollars, over
29:38
Speaker 1: a billion dollars to remove all of the asbestos not
29:40
Speaker 1: only from those main two buildings, but from the other
29:43
Speaker 1: buildings in the complex as well, which, when you really
29:45
Speaker 1: think about it, even if you are an extremely wealthy person,
29:49
Speaker 1: that's a lot of money to just have to pay
29:51
Speaker 1: out of pocket. You're not getting anything back for that money.
29:55
Speaker 1: You're just paying that money so that your buildings don't
29:57
Speaker 1: get shut down. And curiously, right before that fateful day
30:01
Speaker 1: in New York City, Larry Silverstein himself took out insurance
30:04
Speaker 1: policies on the main two buildings and the rest of
30:08
Speaker 1: the complex worth about three point five to five over
30:11
Speaker 1: three and a half billion dollars, and specifically it was
30:15
Speaker 1: added into the verbiage of that insurance policy that he
30:19
Speaker 1: would get this money paid out to him if the
30:21
Speaker 1: buildings were somehow destroyed by a terrorist attack. That's in
30:25
Speaker 1: the actual wording of the insurance policy. Now, after Building
30:30
Speaker 1: number seven collapse that day, Larry Silverstein and his legal
30:33
Speaker 1: team argued that each of the planes that day was
30:37
Speaker 1: considered as being a separate event, and they said that
30:40
Speaker 1: that meant that he should get double the claims, double
30:42
Speaker 1: the payout, over seven billion dollars. After a troublesome, bloody
30:47
Speaker 1: long legal battle, Larry Silverstein eventually walked away from all
30:51
Speaker 1: this with four and a half billion dollars, which, if
30:54
Speaker 1: you actually crunch the numbers, is literally over a thirty
30:58
Speaker 1: four thousand percent rete turn on his investment in less
31:01
Speaker 1: than two years. His payout alone for the destruction of
31:05
Speaker 1: building number seven was eight hundred and sixty one million dollars,
31:09
Speaker 1: despite that one building being a very small portion of
31:13
Speaker 1: the entire complex. Think about that compared to all the
31:16
Speaker 1: other buildings there. It's relatively small, and yet it made
31:20
Speaker 1: up almost almost a fourth of the entire payout. Additionally,
31:24
Speaker 1: Larry Silverstein himself had extensive ties to something called the
31:28
Speaker 1: Carlisle Group, a private equity firm based in Washington, DC
31:33
Speaker 1: with investments in defense, aerospace, and oil, two areas that
31:37
Speaker 1: generally skyrocket and financial gain when a war begins. And
31:42
Speaker 1: to put this out in very basic layman's terms, it's
31:45
Speaker 1: a known fact that the Carlisle Group significantly benefited directly
31:50
Speaker 1: not only from the events of that tragic day in
31:52
Speaker 1: New York City when thousands of people died, but also
31:56
Speaker 1: from the war that followed. But here's the real weird incidents.
32:00
Speaker 2: Though.
32:01
Speaker 1: Not only did the Carlisle Group, who had extensive ties
32:03
Speaker 1: to Larry Silverstein, who was basically at the time the
32:06
Speaker 1: bona fide owner Lisi of the two building entire building complex.
32:11
Speaker 1: Not only did the Carlisle Group have extensive business connections
32:15
Speaker 1: directly with the bin Laden family, which we'll talk about
32:18
Speaker 1: in a second, But can you take a guess at
32:20
Speaker 1: who was a senior advisor to the Carlisle Group. I'll
32:23
Speaker 1: give you a couple of seconds. Think in your mind, well,
32:27
Speaker 1: one of the senior advisors for that group with the
32:30
Speaker 1: direct connections to the man behind the two buildings in
32:33
Speaker 1: the entire complex, President George HW. Bush, the father of
32:38
Speaker 1: the then sitting President of the United States of America,
32:42
Speaker 1: who is obviously a former President of America himself, and
32:46
Speaker 1: a guy that is deeply and was deeply ameshed with
32:49
Speaker 1: the CIA with intelligence agencies. I even have a poster,
32:53
Speaker 1: an original poster from San Francisco that shows that George H. W.
32:58
Speaker 1: Bush was going to come to the Bohemian Grove to
33:02
Speaker 1: give a speech about the direction he was taking the
33:06
Speaker 1: CIA in when he was a CIA director. You cannot
33:09
Speaker 1: make it up. It's one of the craziest artifacts that
33:11
Speaker 1: I own from my collection. But also associated with Carlisle
33:14
Speaker 1: Group was former CIA director Frank Carlucci, who was a
33:18
Speaker 1: board member, and another board member of the Carlisle Group
33:22
Speaker 1: was former Secretary of State James Baker. The group's ties
33:25
Speaker 1: to the bin Laden family were through investment relationships, especially
33:30
Speaker 1: in the late nineteen nineties and early two thousands. The
33:33
Speaker 1: bin Laden family, which were large and wealthy due to
33:36
Speaker 1: their construction empire in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi bin Laden
33:40
Speaker 1: Group had members who invested in Carlisle Group funds, notably
33:45
Speaker 1: Salem bin Laden. Osama bin Lawden's half brother, was an
33:48
Speaker 1: early investor in Carlisle for his death in nineteen eighty eight,
33:53
Speaker 1: other bin Laden family members continued to hold stakes in
33:56
Speaker 1: Carlisle investment funds into the nineteen nineties and early two
33:59
Speaker 1: thousand thousands. The Carlisle Group was also known for its
34:02
Speaker 1: deep ties to the Middle East and for courting wealthy
34:05
Speaker 1: investors from the Gulf region and the bin Laden's family
34:08
Speaker 1: business empire made them an appealing partner. So now you've
34:12
Speaker 1: got the owner, the bonafide owner leaser of the two
34:16
Speaker 1: building complex that would be destroyed by the end of
34:19
Speaker 1: the day, having deep business connections to a group that
34:22
Speaker 1: included the former president who is the father of the
34:26
Speaker 1: sitting president, a CIA director, and also the bin Laden family,
34:31
Speaker 1: the family of the guy who supposedly orchestrated the entire
34:34
Speaker 1: thing from his cave wherever he was in the Middle East.
34:39
Speaker 1: So why do some people think the bin Laden family
34:41
Speaker 1: also could have benefited from nine to eleven? So why
34:48
Speaker 1: do some people think that the bin Laden family, and
34:51
Speaker 1: not even the one that helped plan that tragic day
34:53
Speaker 1: in New York, could have benefited from the events of
34:56
Speaker 1: that tragic day. Well, the Carlisle Group owned an invested
35:00
Speaker 1: in defense contractors, invested in groups like United Defense who
35:05
Speaker 1: made military equipment. After that tragic day in New York,
35:09
Speaker 1: defense spending absolutely searched, and companies like United Defense saw
35:14
Speaker 1: massive growth. If the bin Laden family themselves had held
35:18
Speaker 1: investments in Carlisle funds that held defense assets, they may
35:22
Speaker 1: have indirectly profited from the post tragic Day in New
35:25
Speaker 1: York military build up before the eventual War on Terror, Because,
35:30
Speaker 1: as you probably know, that tragic day in New York
35:32
Speaker 1: also led to the War on Terror, which redirected trillions
35:36
Speaker 1: of dollars towards defense spending, intelligence spending, surveillance spending, and
35:41
Speaker 1: private contracting spending. The Carlisle Group, being a politically connected
35:46
Speaker 1: private equity firm deeply embedded in defense and infrastructure, stood
35:50
Speaker 1: to gain massively. Some people have connected the dots. The
35:54
Speaker 1: bin Laden family is linked to the Carlisle Group, which
35:57
Speaker 1: is linked to the military industrial compon or the close
36:01
Speaker 1: relationship between the military and the defense industry that supplies it. Also,
36:06
Speaker 1: as we said earlier, the Carlisle Group's advisory board included
36:09
Speaker 1: a former US president who was the father of the
36:12
Speaker 1: sitting US president, a former Defense secretary, and also various
36:17
Speaker 1: CIA linked individuals. This created a perception of an elite,
36:21
Speaker 1: powerful group of insiders who directly stood to profit from
36:25
Speaker 1: conflict and yes, tragedy and death, something that has long
36:29
Speaker 1: been a core narrative of military industrial complex critiques. The
36:34
Speaker 1: fact that George HW Bush had ties to the Carlisle
36:37
Speaker 1: Group and reportedly met with the bin Laden family members
36:40
Speaker 1: before that tragic day in New York City has also
36:43
Speaker 1: added fuel to this fire. Yeah, I didn't blow right
36:47
Speaker 1: past that. We're going to talk about that, George hw. Bush.
36:50
Speaker 1: I don't know if you know this, but it's been documented.
36:54
Speaker 1: This is a fact that he met with Osama bin
36:57
Speaker 1: Lawden's half brother on September tenth, and the day after
37:03
Speaker 1: September tenth. You know what that day is at the
37:06
Speaker 1: Rich Carlton Hotel in Washington, d C. At a Carlisle
37:10
Speaker 1: Group investor conference. Maybe it meant nothing, but obviously the
37:15
Speaker 1: timing on this is extremely unusual. Now you have the
37:21
Speaker 1: half brother of the criminal mastermind behind the tragic Day
37:24
Speaker 1: in New York meeting with the former president of the
37:28
Speaker 1: United States, the father of the current president of the
37:31
Speaker 1: United States the day before and the day of the
37:35
Speaker 1: tragic Day of New York at an event put on
37:38
Speaker 1: by a group tied directly to the man who is
37:41
Speaker 1: the manager, owner, whatever of the main target of the
37:46
Speaker 1: attacks from the Tragic Day in New York. Maybe it
37:50
Speaker 1: means nothing, but obviously this is all incredibly unusual timing.
37:56
Speaker 1: Another theory surrounding the bin Laden family is the Black Sheep.
38:00
Speaker 1: They suggesting that Osama bin Laden, though disowned by his
38:04
Speaker 1: wealthy and powerful Saudi family was not simply a rogue actor,
38:08
Speaker 1: but instead played some sort of a symbolic or instrumental
38:12
Speaker 1: role that benefited powerful interests such as the military industrial complex,
38:17
Speaker 1: Western and Middle Eastern intelligence agencies, political factions pushing for
38:21
Speaker 1: war in the Middle East, and financial elites connected to
38:25
Speaker 1: companies like the Carlisle Group. You can't help but think
38:28
Speaker 1: that there may be some truth to this. Despite being
38:30
Speaker 1: known to US intelligence for years. This is documented, including
38:35
Speaker 1: during the Soviet Afghan War. Osama bin Laden allegedly orchestrated
38:39
Speaker 1: that tragic day in New York with surprising amounts of freedom.
38:44
Speaker 1: Some people claim that US intelligence agencies could have captured
38:47
Speaker 1: or killed him earlier, especially all the way back during
38:50
Speaker 1: the Clinton or early Bush years, but that they didn't.
38:54
Speaker 1: The question, though, is why.
38:56
Speaker 4: Well.
38:57
Speaker 1: Aside from all these connections that Larry Silverstein has, he
39:00
Speaker 1: also made a pretty damning statement during his two thousand
39:03
Speaker 1: and two PBS documentary appearance. While being interviewed about Building
39:11
Speaker 1: Number seven, he said, I remember getting a call from
39:14
Speaker 1: the fire department commander. I said, you know, we've had
39:17
Speaker 1: such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to
39:20
Speaker 1: do is pull it end quote. That's a direct quote
39:25
Speaker 1: from Silverstein.
39:26
Speaker 4: I remember getting a call from the fight upon a
39:28
Speaker 4: commander telling me that they were not sure they're going
39:31
Speaker 4: to be able to contain the fire.
39:34
Speaker 2: I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life,
39:37
Speaker 2: maybe the smartest thing to do us is pullet And
39:40
Speaker 2: they made that decision to pull instead. We watched the
39:43
Speaker 2: building collapse, and.
39:47
Speaker 1: I left a lot of people questioning pull what. A
39:50
Speaker 1: lot of people obviously interpreted this as meaning pull it,
39:54
Speaker 1: which is demolition industry jargon for blowing up a building.
39:57
Speaker 1: But Larry Silverstein later clarified that he meant to withdraw
40:01
Speaker 1: firefighting efforts pull them from the building. Either way, both
40:04
Speaker 1: clarifications would be harmful to the outcome of the building.
40:08
Speaker 1: It seems like at that point he just wanted it
40:10
Speaker 1: gone more insurance money, right, I mean, there was no
40:13
Speaker 1: one in the building, there would be no further loss
40:15
Speaker 1: of life if they pulled it, and it would mean
40:18
Speaker 1: an additional eight hundred and sixty one can't remember the
40:20
Speaker 1: exact number, one hundred and sixty one million dollars in
40:24
Speaker 1: insurance money. But this story, as you go down this
40:26
Speaker 1: rabbit hole, gets even stranger As we said earlier, building
40:34
Speaker 1: number seven held some very secretive and prestigious offices, including
40:39
Speaker 1: offices of the CIA Secret Service, IRS, Department of Defense, SEC,
40:45
Speaker 1: Office of Emergency Management, and US Customs and Border Protection.
40:49
Speaker 1: And these offices held within that building. They weren't just
40:52
Speaker 1: minor field offices. They weren't unimportant little offices that, oh,
40:56
Speaker 1: we represent this small portion of New York City and
40:59
Speaker 1: we have some minor things that we do here that
41:01
Speaker 1: isn't important on the national scale. Some of these offices
41:04
Speaker 1: were actually investigative divisions that at the time of Building
41:08
Speaker 1: seven's collapse held extremely sensitive and important secret files and
41:13
Speaker 1: information on ongoing cases, particularly the sec OR Securities and
41:19
Speaker 1: Exchange Commission offices, which reportedly lost three to four thousand
41:24
Speaker 1: documents tied to high profile Wall Street investigations of fraud
41:28
Speaker 1: that involved billions of dollars. Here's some of the major
41:32
Speaker 1: cases believed to have been impacted with the loss of
41:35
Speaker 1: Building number seven, the Enron scandal, which was one of
41:38
Speaker 1: the largest corporate fraud cases in history. The SEC had
41:42
Speaker 1: been pursuing Enron's accounting practices, off the books, entities and
41:46
Speaker 1: executives for years, while Enron as a company collapsed in
41:50
Speaker 1: late two thousand and one. The destruction of most, if
41:53
Speaker 1: not all, of the records relating to the SEC's investigation
41:57
Speaker 1: into the company may have served to further limit access
41:59
Speaker 1: that the government head to financial transaction trails, meaning that
42:03
Speaker 1: with the loss of the documents, they were essentially let
42:06
Speaker 1: off the hook and millions, if not billions, disappeared. There
42:10
Speaker 1: was also the World Coom fraud case, another massive telecommunications
42:14
Speaker 1: accounting fraud investigation that involved over eleven billion dollars in
42:19
Speaker 1: misreported earnings. Many of the files, most of the important
42:22
Speaker 1: files from that case itself, were housed in the SEC's
42:26
Speaker 1: office in Building number seven, and they disappeared. The SEC's
42:30
Speaker 1: New York office, which is in question here, had in
42:33
Speaker 1: its possession at the time of the collapse loads of
42:35
Speaker 1: documentation related to World Comm's internal audits and their executive communications,
42:41
Speaker 1: highly sensitive documents that could have been used to claw
42:44
Speaker 1: back billions of dollars from this company, and it all disappeared.
42:48
Speaker 1: Then there was the IPO Laddering and Analyst Conflicts, which
42:51
Speaker 1: were both investigations into large investment banks like Goldman Sachs,
42:56
Speaker 1: Morgan Stanley, and CS First Boston for fraudulent press practices
43:00
Speaker 1: in the tech bubble, including IPO price manipulation and biased
43:05
Speaker 1: stock analysis for corporate gain. Many, if not most, of
43:08
Speaker 1: those documents also disappeared with the building along with the
43:11
Speaker 1: investigation efforts. Then there was City Group in Solomon Smith
43:15
Speaker 1: Barney's investigations into Jack Grubman, a high profile analyst allegedly
43:21
Speaker 1: manipulating stock ratings in exchange for investment banking favors. Those
43:25
Speaker 1: documents disappeared as well. The documents relating to the Arthur
43:29
Speaker 1: Anderson and Corporate Accounting investigation, which was also Enron's accounting firm,
43:34
Speaker 1: also disappeared. They were under scrutiny at the time of
43:38
Speaker 1: the building's collapse for their role in shredding audit documents
43:42
Speaker 1: and falsifying statements. They got let off the hook too, though.
43:45
Speaker 1: While some of this data was backed up, much, if
43:48
Speaker 1: not most, of it was completely lost. This is, you know,
43:51
Speaker 1: back in the early days of technology in the Internet
43:54
Speaker 1: and computers, and also a lot of these files and
43:57
Speaker 1: documents were original, which definitely helps feed the idea that
44:01
Speaker 1: someone or a group of people would have had their
44:04
Speaker 1: own personal motives to want to see that building destroyed
44:07
Speaker 1: along with everything within it was the destruction and collapse
44:10
Speaker 1: of Building number seven an intentional cover up of financial
44:13
Speaker 1: crimes and intelligence failures. Well, if Building number seven was demolished,
44:19
Speaker 1: explosives would have had to have been planted in well advanced,
44:22
Speaker 1: suggesting some sort of long term planning and possible inside access.
44:27
Speaker 1: How would this be possible? This would imply some sort
44:29
Speaker 1: of dark plan within our own government or within the
44:32
Speaker 1: private contracting world, especially given the secure nature of the building.
44:37
Speaker 1: Some argue that this supports the idea that that day
44:40
Speaker 1: in New York was a operation, which is a secretive
44:43
Speaker 1: action intended to mislead by making it seem as though
44:47
Speaker 1: this action was conducted by another party, usually an adversary
44:51
Speaker 1: or rival group. The term itself comes from naval warfare,
44:54
Speaker 1: where ships would sail under the flag of a different
44:56
Speaker 1: country to deceive their enemies, only revealing their true idea
45:00
Speaker 1: identity directly before launching an attack. Today, the term is
45:04
Speaker 1: most often used in relation to espionage, terrorism, or political maneuvering,
45:08
Speaker 1: but that narrative isn't really so far fetched. Here's why.
45:13
Speaker 1: In two thousand, the neo conservative research Organization Project for
45:17
Speaker 1: the New American Century or PNAC stated in a policy
45:21
Speaker 1: paper quote. The process of transformation dot dot dot is
45:25
Speaker 1: likely to be a long one absent some catastrophic and
45:28
Speaker 1: catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor end quote. The
45:32
Speaker 1: idea is that that tragic Day in New York provided
45:35
Speaker 1: the justification for pre planned foreign wars like the war
45:38
Speaker 1: in Iraq, for instance, and obviously domestic policy changes like
45:42
Speaker 1: the Patriot Act. It's also suspicious because that tragic Day
45:46
Speaker 1: in New York and the attacks that occurred within that
45:49
Speaker 1: day seemed to fulfill that exact pretext just one year later. Also,
45:53
Speaker 1: the USA Patriot Act, a sweeping piece of surveillance legislation,
45:58
Speaker 1: was signed into law just forty five days after the
46:01
Speaker 1: tragic Day in New York. Critics have argued that it
46:03
Speaker 1: was way too comprehensive and long to have been written
46:06
Speaker 1: after the attacks, suggesting that this Act itself and the
46:10
Speaker 1: documents that went with it were pre prepared. I mean,
46:13
Speaker 1: you just have to look at the USA Patriot Act.
46:15
Speaker 1: It is extremely lengthy, it is very technical, it is
46:19
Speaker 1: very complex, and the implication is that that tragic Day
46:23
Speaker 1: in New York was used or created by individuals or
46:26
Speaker 1: powerful groups to justify reducing civil liberties, expand government control
46:31
Speaker 1: and obviously boost spending in the defense and war fighting sectors.
46:36
Speaker 1: Another weird fact here, so everybody knows that after that
46:39
Speaker 1: tragic day in New York we went to Iraq. Well,
46:43
Speaker 1: Iraq didn't even have a single connection to the tragic
46:47
Speaker 1: day in New York attacks or al Qaeda. Despite this,
46:50
Speaker 1: the Bush administration frequently publicly linked Iraq with terrorism and
46:55
Speaker 1: al Qaida, creating the impression to the American public that
46:59
Speaker 1: Iraq was somehow deeply and intimately connected to that tragic
47:03
Speaker 1: day in New York. And this provided support and a
47:05
Speaker 1: public reasoning as to why we were heading there for war.
47:09
Speaker 1: The implication is that the day in New York was
47:12
Speaker 1: an emotional trigger to gain public support for wars that
47:15
Speaker 1: were already pre planned and on the agenda. Why was
47:18
Speaker 1: war against Iraq on the agenda? You ask?
47:21
Speaker 4: Well.
47:21
Speaker 1: After the US led coalition expelled Iraqi forces from Kuwait
47:25
Speaker 1: in the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein remained in power. Many
47:28
Speaker 1: in the US government, especially neo conservatives, saw leaving Saddam
47:33
Speaker 1: in power as a massive mistake. There was a belief
47:36
Speaker 1: that a second massive war could finally remove Saddam permanently
47:40
Speaker 1: and complete all the actions and tasks that the First
47:42
Speaker 1: War didn't. Iraq also held the second largest proven oil
47:47
Speaker 1: reserves in the entire world at the time, and obviously,
47:50
Speaker 1: controlling or influencing Iraq's oil output was seen as being
47:54
Speaker 1: incredibly unprecedentally strategically important, especially to prevent people like Saddam
48:00
Speaker 1: from using oil as a weapon or forming alliances with
48:04
Speaker 1: what they would say, are countries that hate America that
48:07
Speaker 1: could disrupt the global markets. Iraq is obviously in the
48:10
Speaker 1: heart of the Middle East, bordering Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.
48:14
Speaker 1: A US friendly regime in Baghdad could serve as a
48:17
Speaker 1: launching point for projecting American influence across the region. I'm
48:21
Speaker 1: sure that's what they told themselves at the time. And
48:23
Speaker 1: a group of influential policy makers many later part of
48:27
Speaker 1: the Bush administration were associated with the Project for the
48:30
Speaker 1: New American Century or PNAC, that group who said a
48:34
Speaker 1: year before the tragic day in New York that to
48:37
Speaker 1: usher in this new war and to usher in this change,
48:40
Speaker 1: we needed another Pearl Harbor level event. In the late
48:43
Speaker 1: nineteen nineties PNAC, that same group publicly advocated for regime
48:48
Speaker 1: change in Iraq, stating that the US should seek to
48:51
Speaker 1: remove Saddam from power, even if UN efforts failed. They
48:55
Speaker 1: believed that spreading democracy by force in the Middle East
48:58
Speaker 1: would protect US security and remake the region in America's image.
49:03
Speaker 1: The US accused Iraq of retaining WMDs after the Gulf War.
49:07
Speaker 1: Although inspections had destroyed many of Iraq's WMD capabilities, intelligence
49:12
Speaker 1: agencies and politicians continued very publicly to assert, without any
49:17
Speaker 1: conclusive evidence, that Saddam had active programs and was developing
49:22
Speaker 1: and had possessions of WMDs or weapons of mass destruction.
49:26
Speaker 1: This argument was used heavily after that tragic day in
49:29
Speaker 1: September to get boots on the ground, but suspicions that
49:33
Speaker 1: people were lying about the existence of these weapons existed
49:36
Speaker 1: long before. After the Cold War, some strategists believe that
49:40
Speaker 1: the US should assert itself as the sole superpower in
49:43
Speaker 1: the world. I'm afraid to use military force to maintain
49:46
Speaker 1: global order, and Iraq was seen as a place where
49:49
Speaker 1: the US could send a message to enemies like Iran,
49:52
Speaker 1: North Korea, and even Russia or China. Under President Bill Clinton,
49:56
Speaker 1: Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which made regime change
50:00
Speaker 1: in Iraq official US policy. It even allocated funding to
50:04
Speaker 1: Iraqi opposition groups and formally stated, quote it should be
50:08
Speaker 1: the policy of the United States to support efforts to
50:11
Speaker 1: remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein end quote. Some
50:15
Speaker 1: also believe George W. Bush had a personal motivation, whether
50:19
Speaker 1: to complete his father's war or to assert a stronger,
50:22
Speaker 1: more aggressive foreign policy legacy. Key advisors like Dick Cheney,
50:26
Speaker 1: Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz had long standing interests in
50:30
Speaker 1: Iraq and definitely saw that tragic day in New York
50:34
Speaker 1: as a perfect opportunity to get America on board with
50:37
Speaker 1: their cause and to finally spring the US military into action.
50:42
Speaker 1: But there were also so many other things lost in
50:44
Speaker 1: the destruction of Building Number seven. Obviously, when it comes
50:48
Speaker 1: to the CIA, we don't know exactly what all disappeared.
50:52
Speaker 1: There were reports that emerged after that tragic day in
50:54
Speaker 1: New York that described CIA agents actually sifting through the
50:58
Speaker 1: rubble of the building searching for any classified documents that
51:01
Speaker 1: still may exist within the piles of rock and ash.
51:04
Speaker 1: But with the CIA, obviously they don't like to talk
51:07
Speaker 1: about the files that they keep, so we don't have
51:10
Speaker 1: any idea exactly. I mean to my knowledge of what
51:13
Speaker 1: all was lost there. And it also should be noted
51:15
Speaker 1: that there were documents relating to civil and criminal cases
51:19
Speaker 1: that were lost in the destruction of the building as well.
51:22
Speaker 1: What cases those were exactly, I, to my knowledge, do
51:25
Speaker 1: not believe have ever been spoken about. But it's just
51:29
Speaker 1: again one of those things where who knows. We can
51:32
Speaker 1: only sit here and hypothesize. However, the evidence that I've
51:36
Speaker 1: presented to you today through this episode, in this video
51:39
Speaker 1: is all verifiable. You can find this data and this
51:42
Speaker 1: evidence in the resources document. These are all just things
51:45
Speaker 1: that I'm pointing out saying doesn't really make a lot
51:48
Speaker 1: of sense, and I'm allowing you guys to make whatever
51:51
Speaker 1: you'd like to out of this evidence that I'm simply
51:53
Speaker 1: laying in front of you. In conclusion, the official explanation
51:57
Speaker 1: from the NIST, to go back almost two decks into
52:00
Speaker 1: the past, tells us that fire and structural failure alone
52:04
Speaker 1: brought down Building number seven. Yet many many independent researchers, architects,
52:09
Speaker 1: and engineers continue to raise serious doubts about that conclusion,
52:13
Speaker 1: pointing to the building's near free fall collapse, the uniformity
52:17
Speaker 1: of its fall, and the lack of precedent for any
52:20
Speaker 1: other steel framed high rise building falling this way due
52:23
Speaker 1: to these conditions. Add to this the lack of media
52:26
Speaker 1: coverage the Federal agency residents who lost thousands of investigative
52:30
Speaker 1: documents related to massive financial fraud CIA documents that are
52:34
Speaker 1: still hidden in secrecy, that are now destroyed forever. And
52:38
Speaker 1: also the deep political and financial connections that the building
52:41
Speaker 1: and the management and owner of the building held, especially
52:44
Speaker 1: when it comes to the Carlisle Group. And what you're
52:47
Speaker 1: left with is a case that's really less about and
52:50
Speaker 1: more about the need for clarity, transparency and truth. Was
52:54
Speaker 1: the collapse of Building number seven just some sort of
52:57
Speaker 1: bizarre tragic anomaly. Was it a control demolition? Or was
53:01
Speaker 1: it something even deeper, like a operation or a cover up?
53:05
Speaker 1: The evidence, obviously is still debated, but one thing is
53:09
Speaker 1: very clear. Until all questions are addressed with full transparency,
53:13
Speaker 1: the mystery, the shroud of darkness that hovers over the
53:16
Speaker 1: story of Building Number seven, will continue to cast a
53:20
Speaker 1: long shadow over the story, the full story of that
53:24
Speaker 1: tragic day in New York City. Obviously, I have an
53:27
Speaker 1: entire script. It's about seventy eighty pages long, delving into
53:32
Speaker 1: all of the events of that day that I'm still
53:34
Speaker 1: waiting to release a little bit because there's more information
53:37
Speaker 1: that I'm adding, and more than I'm learning, and more
53:39
Speaker 1: books that I'm reading. It's obviously probably the most complex
53:45
Speaker 1: theory of all time, besides maybe JFK and the theory
53:49
Speaker 1: that a large portion of Americans believe in. It's one
53:52
Speaker 1: of the most popular of all time. But I'm gonna
53:55
Speaker 1: leave you on this solemn note, God bless every single
53:58
Speaker 1: one of you out there today. If you happen to
54:01
Speaker 1: watch this video and you had a family member affected
54:04
Speaker 1: on that day, you lost somebody, you lost a friend,
54:07
Speaker 1: you know, somebody who was affected, my heart and my
54:10
Speaker 1: soul goes out to you, and it's just it's really
54:14
Speaker 1: horrific stuff. Every time that the Tragic Day in New
54:17
Speaker 1: York rolls around on the calendar every single year, I
54:20
Speaker 1: spend hours rewatching footage, watching documentaries, reading, just still in
54:26
Speaker 1: absolute shock and horror at what happened. And I just
54:31
Speaker 1: like so many millions of other people, want to know
54:33
Speaker 1: the full truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
54:37
Speaker 1: So only by making videos and podcasts and writing stories
54:41
Speaker 1: and raising the alarm on things that don't make sense
54:44
Speaker 1: that have never been truly explained. Do I feel like
54:46
Speaker 1: there will ever be enough pressure to get someone to
54:49
Speaker 1: finally crack? I mean, there have been a lot of
54:51
Speaker 1: developments actually this year, especially with the Saudi connection, which
54:55
Speaker 1: can be explored in a whole nother video if you
54:57
Speaker 1: guys would like to see that. But yeah, yeah, God
55:00
Speaker 1: bless all of you. Thank you for watching today. Please
55:03
Speaker 1: be sure to comment on the video let me know
55:05
Speaker 1: your thoughts. Like the video, subscribe to the channel for
55:08
Speaker 1: more content just like this. I love and appreciate every
55:11
Speaker 1: single one of you out there. Have a very blessed
55:13
Speaker 1: rest of your day. Thank you for tuning in, and
55:16
Speaker 1: I'll see you all next week.