An article by Matt Agorist was published on The Free Thought Project website today titled Bombshell: CNBC Anchor Admits Building 7 Brought Down in ‘Controlled Implosion’. According to the brief biography for Matt on the same website, he's "an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA."
Given that the mainstream media is largely a joke, the alternative media is where many people turn for accurate information, however much of the alt media is often just as biased, shallow and inaccurate as its mainstream counterpart and the aforementioned article is a case in point.
I don't know for certain why World Trade Center building 7 collapsed and certainly there is evidence to suggest that demolition may have been the culprit, however there is also evidence to suggest that the scenario proposed by NIST (thermal expansion resulting in de-seating a critical support beam), or something along those lines, could also have been the cause of the collapse and that evidence is corroborated in later studies.
Of course most of the alternative media doesn't want to hear that maybe, just maybe, the government wasn't lying through their teeth this time regarding the proposed cause of the collapse of WTC 7. They have their minds made up and nothing is going to change that, least of all such inconvenient things like facts and evidence. And if you present such facts and evidence that dispute their narrative, you still lose because they just move the goal post. A missile hit the pentagon you say? Okay, then explain why so many people saw a plane fly toward, or actually strike the building, yet no one saw it fly away. Not being able to provide any reasonable explanation, they simply ignore the question and move the goal post to their next 'irrefutable' point, like how a 124 ft. wide plane can't fit in a 16 ft. hole, which of course it didn't, unless, that is, you're one of the dimwits behind the Loose Change series of 'cartoons', such as Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas. Bermas, by the way, currently writes for We Are Change, an activist organization headed by the equally dimwitted Luke Rudkowski who ran into a bit of legal trouble after soliciting donations for a legal defense that apparently cost him nothing, and it gets worse from there.
Time and time again a large portion of the alternative media fails to do any real research and, instead, cherry pick evidence that supports their untenable narratives while discarding anything and everything that doesn't. This conformation bias is why much of the alt media is every bit as unreliable as the mainstream media is, though often for far less nefarious reasons. This is so very frustrating and disappointing because the alternative media needs to be doing it better than the corporate/NSA/CIA/government sponsored clowns that dominate all of the mainstream media.
A prime example of a most embarrassing incident that the so-called 9/11 truther community is happy to omit is that Richard Gage of A&E for 9/11 Truth -- an architect, mind you -- never bothered to look at the architecture of the Pentagon before promoting the nonsense that AA 77 could not have penetrated 6 reinforced concrete walls which, in fact, it didn't. The ground floor of the Pentagon has only 2 exterior walls, not 6. Most recently it was Ryan Dawson of ANC Report who pointed this out in his article, 911 Truth for Grown Ups.
But i digress...
In the article posted on The Free Thought Project website, a statement made by CNBC senior analyst and former anchor Ron Insana is at the core of the article and its clickbait headline, however it seems Insana's statement may not be all it's been crapped up to be by Matt Agorist. Here's what Insana said:
Well, remember 7 World Trade had not yet come down. And so when I went down to the [New York Stock] Exchange that Wednesday morning [September 12], I was standing with some military and police officers, and we were looking over in that direction. And if it had come down in the way in which it was tilting, it would have wiped out everything from where it stood to Trinity Church to the Exchange to, effectively, you know, the mouth of the Hudson. And so there were still fears that if that building had fallen sideways, you were going to wipe out a good part of Lower Manhattan. So they did manage for one to take that down in a controlled implosion later on. And the Exchange was up and running the following Monday.
Insana refers to WTC 7 when he begins his statement, but i have to wonder if he made a mistake because it seems he may be referring to a different building later. World Trade Center building 7 was no where near the Hudson and therefore could not have "wiped out everything from where it stood" to "the mouth of the Hudson", but WTC 1 or 2 could have figuratively inflicted such damage had either fallen sideways. He then states, "So they did manage for one to take that down in a controlled implosion later on". Why did he use the word "one"? Was he referring to the north tower and not WTC 7?
These discrepancies are overlooked by Agorist. Furthermore, even if Insana was talking about WTC 7 throughout his statement, Agorist provides no reasonable evidence as to how Insana came to the conclusion that the building was brought down by controlled demolition, though one likely possibility is the fact that news reporters stated that the collapse was reminiscent of a controlled demolition. Agorist quotes an article ostensibly by A&E for 9/11 Truth as supporting evidence, but nothing conclusive can be drawn from it:
Insana’s statement is all the more remarkable because it appears that he is unaware of the debunked official story of Building 7’s collapse [...]
So a CNBC senior analyst and former anchor had never heard of the NIST report regarding WTC 7 18 years after the fact? Nonsense!
Lastly, i spent some time with a FDNY fireman who was in the intimidate vicinity of WTC 7 prior to it's collapse and when i questioned him about the building, he replied without hesitation that he was not at all surprised it had collapsed since fires were raging unabated in the building all afternoon, another fact that the 9/11 truther community omits.
For more on WTC 7, see Possible problems with the UAF WTC 7 collapse study.
Also see "Fake News" sources worth reading.