Respected Middle East expert and former BBC presenter Alan Hart has broken his silence on 9/11, by revealing that the world’s most prominent civil engineering company told him directly that the collapse of the twin towers was a controlled demolition.
Speaking on the Kevin Barrett show yesterday, Hart said he thought the 9/11 attack probably started as a Muslim operation headed up by Osama Bin Laden but that the plot was subsequently hijacked and carried out by Mossad agents in collusion with elements of the CIA, adding that since its formation, Israel has penetrated every Arab government and terrorist organization.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/top-construction-firm-wtc-destroyed-by-controlled-demolition.html
After reading this post I was surprised to find a disagreement over the story running in a 911Blogger comments thread. Fellow "truthers" appeared to be at each other over nothing.
The ARGUMENT:
1.) John Bursill posts the story (above) from Kevin Barrett's blog where: the BBC journalist Alan Hart points to his knowledge of a big construction company's conclusions that the WTC buildings were subjected to Controlled Demolition. He further stated that it was his opinion that 911 was largely the work of a CIA-Mossad operation.
2.) Highly respected Victronix in the comments thread attacks Bursill's post because the story he put up, according to her, delves too far into unsubstantiated evidence territory (it's not dealing with verified reports or physical evidence). She claims it's borderline anti-semitic.
Analysis:
Kevin Barrett:
Barrett has a very poor reputation: he has associated with Jim Fetzer for a long time, has supported unfounded claims that Michael Wolsey is an "enemy" agent, makes many other mistakes when dealing with 911 issues leaving himself open to general ridicule and debunking attacks.
Could he be a mole to make 911 truth look bad? Victronix has warned us about such subversive tactics in her analysis of people like Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds.
CONCLUSION on Barrett: Generally, not to be trusted due to his history -- although he could be hawking good material on occasion.
OVERALL conclusion regarding Barrett's interview: The BBC journalist was offering an honest opinion. He provided a new lead, albeit unsubstantiated, on a big construction company that, with all the expertise at its disposal, concluded 911 was an inside job. His comments, reflecting a CIA-Mossad connection in relation to the overall crime, were valid ones. There seemed to be no obvious anti-semitic agenda in terms of the BBC journalist's story.
In my humble opinion, the interview was newsworthy, despite Barrett's reputation. This is because the information put forward was not Barrett's but that of the BBC journalist. The view offered was not anti-semitic either. It dealt with valid suspects and a credible CIA-Mossad scenario.
Readers should also note that a police investigation into 911, the next step in the story, would need to consider suspects as was raised in the interview. Other suspects from other countries would also be on the list.
There is more to the 911 crime than just an examination of the physical evidence. Questions about who dun it will arise. In this case the speculation did not seem too far fetched considering the record. However, having said that, a note of caution should always be pinned to all information presented by Barrett. Each claim of his must be considered on a case by case basis because of his past record.
SUMMARY:
There was nothing controversial with Bursill's decision to post the story on 911Blogger despite questions surrounding the interviewer Barrett. Obviously, more work would be welcome in order to establish the identity of the big construction company that remained unidentified in the interview.
Refuting the Hollow Arguments of the So-called 9/11 Debunkers & Truthers
