I don’t know Craig Murray, but I do have considerable respect for the Briton who resigned from the UK Diplomatic Service during  the Blair Government’s reign of terror, in protest at its worse-than-dubious behaviour.

Craig runs a popular blog and covers hot political topics with insight. He also had the guts to run for the British Parliament last year as an Independent. This is not a silly man.

I visit Craig Murray’s blog occasionally and post comments less frequently. Some have been approved for publication; others not. That’s fine. I know from my own experience of running a blog how hard it can be  to make calls on controversial posts.

Today I noticed a recent article withe the engaging title ‘The Ethics of Banning Trolls‘. In it, Mr Murray explains why he’s banned a particular commentator who goes by the name of ‘Larry from St Louis’. After mentioning Larry’s latest annoyance, Murray writes (emphasis added):

It is rather indicative of a very deliberate technique he has used scores of times, that of claiming I hold an opinion which he believes will devalue my other arguments in the mind of other readers, when I do not in fact hold that opinion.

He most often – indeed daily – does this with reference to 9/11. He tries to divert almost every thread on to the topic of 9/11 and to insinuate that I am among those who believe that 9/11 was “an inside job”. In fact, I am not of that opinion and never have been.

My particular interest is in Craig’s last sentence.

Here’s my own open letter to Craig Murray:

______________________________________________________

Dear Craig Murray,

For the last nine years, I have struggled and struggled to believe the official narrative of 9-11. Life must be so much easier for one who believes.

WTC-7 on fire, September 11th 200Perhaps you can help me? You're an honest and intelligent man.

Please explain to me: how did World Trade Centre 7 collapse?

Basic data: WTC7 was a 47-stories high steel-framed skyscraper. No plane hit the building. It dropped in its own footprint, at close to free fall velocity within a few seconds, allegedly as a result of fire in the building. The collapse was reported half an hour before it happened on the BBC.

Prior to (and since) 9-11, the only steel-framed concrete buildings that collapsed in that manner were rigged for controlled demolition.

Yet according to the official US Government narrative of 9-11, controlled demolition wasn’t involved in the collapse of any of the three skyscrapers in NYC(WTC 1, 2 or 7). This is despite the fact that there is now peer-reviewed scientific evidence of traces of a high-tech explosive material (nanothermite) in dust collected from the collapsed buildings.

In a huge buildings as the World Trace Center towers, controlled demolition would have required a significant amount of prior inside access to install the complicated array of explosive devices needed to bring down in one clean fall.

Even if the US Government happens to wrong about controlled demolition – presumably the buildings’ leaseholder, Larry Silverstein, wouldn’t have allowed Arab terrorists to work inside his buildings for weeks, would he Craig?

After all, Larry is a Jewish Zionist.

So how did ‘Al Qaida’ pull off 9-11? How did WTC-7 collapse?

Please explain.

You don’t owe me an explanation, of course.

But don’t we all have a responsibility to establish the truth?

Syd Walker
Australia

_______________________________________________

POSTCRIPT

(1) The 9-11 Post

When posting this article earlier today I wasn’t aware that Craig Murray already has a thread on his blog specifically dedicated to 9-11. He calls it, appropriately enough, The 9-11 Post. It was written back in January 2010.

I’m most grateful to the first commentator for pointing this out. As I indicated, I’m not a daily visitor to Craig Murray’s website and on occasions I’ve missed large numbers of successive posts.

Interestingly, Craig discusses WTC-7 specifically in his post. He has his own theory, apparently. Here it is:

I admit to a private speculation about WTC7. Unfortunately in construction it is extremely common for contractors not to fix or install properly all the expensive girders, ties and rebar that are supposed to be enclosed in the concrete. Supervising contractors and municipal inspectors can be corrupt. I recall vividly that in London some years ago a tragedy occurred when a simple gas oven explosion brought down the whole side of a tower block.

The inquiry found that the building contractor had simply omitted the ties that bound the girders at the corners, all encased in concrete. If a gas oven had not blown up, nobody would have found out. Buildings I strongly suspect are very often not as strong as they are supposed to be, with contractors skimping on apparently redundant protection. The sort of sordid thing you might not want too deeply investigated in the event of a national tragedy.

This explains neither the manner in which the building collapsed, nor the traces of nanothermite. It doesn’t explain the BBC’s myseterious ‘precognition’. It doesn’t explain how the US Government agency NIST missed this rather crucial ‘detail’ – after years of investigation.

(2) Self-Censorship and ‘Political Truths’

A more reasonable explanation for Craig Murray’s apparent blind spot over 9-11 is that he is a good man, already fighting unpopular causes on a range of fronts, and is allowed some level of self-censorship if that’s the price from bringing his good messages to a wider audience.

If that’s true, it’s understandable.

Even so, the truth about 9-11 is not marginal. It’s a central issue of our times.

For instance, if the mainstream view is correct, the war in Afghanistan has at least a smidgeon of moral justification – even if invasion in 2001 was illegal at the time under international law.

If, on the other hand, my view is correct – and the view of David Ray Griffin, Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth and many others – then the war in Afghanistan was a bogus criminal enterprise from the outset. It was a precalculated response to a staged atrocity.

As long as the public broadly speaking accepts the mainstream view of 9-11, it will probably continue supporting the global ‘War on Terror’ (or whatever it’s called these days). At least, the public may not oppose it so strongly that it’s discontinued, given the very powerful forces promoting it.

If, on the other hand, the public broadly speaking comes to accept the alternative view of 9-11, then the same kind of transformation that came to much of eastern Europe in the late 1980s is likely to come to the west.

People in the USA, Britain, Australia and other ‘western nations’ will demand the overthrow of corrupt politicians, media enterprises and ‘intelligence agencies’. They will require honesty in government and an end to war-promoting lies. The agressive militarism of the USA and its allies will be rolled back.

This is not a trivial matter. It may be central to the survival of human civilization.