The charges by left leaning Bush haters that he knew in advance of the attacks and the focus on one August 6, 2001, Presidential daily briefing will never be forgotten by history.

Also the commission never explained how building 7 collapsed into a pile of dust. Watching the videos it sure looks like it was a controlled demolition. (After it caught on fire.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEuJimaumW4

You're entirely correct Gary. Who imploded Building 7 and why did the 9/11 Commission ignore this event?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3NRc48fUWA

Perhaps Slade Gorton and the historical 9/11 Commission can reconvene and explain how TV news outlets knew that Building 7 was going to collapse and the firefighters told them it was going to collapse.

Here's a view of the implosion from a NY TV helicopter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfR-YX1N9i4&feature;=related

@GaryP and @Richard Borkowski--Feliks Banel here, author of this piece.

In my interview with Slade Gorton for this piece (conducted earlier this week), I brought up the conspiracy theory angle and the lingering doubts many still have regarding the findings of the 9/11 Commission and, of course, the Warren Commission (or even the Pearl Harbor Commission or Rogers Commission, for that matter). Gorton referenced a recent National Geographic documentary (http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/9-11-science-and-conspiracy-4067) that he said debunked many of the 9/11 conspiracy theories. He also said this:

"It’s amazing that people will think that a government that can’t keep any of its minor secrets could have 10,000 people in a conspiracy theory, on both parties of this, to do what the conspiracy theorists said, and it's kept their secrets perfectly ever since then. I’m very impressed, because, obviously, I’m part of the conspiracy under those circumstances, together with all of these Democrats."

Feliks -

First of all, any crime involving 2 or more people is a conspiracy so you might as well drop the use of the word as some kind of intellectual slur. Any good lawyer is a conspiracy theorist. 9/11 was a conspiracy no matter what you might believe about that day. So YES, I'm a conspiracy theorist just like any lawyer should be, because most crimes are conspiracies.

When the government charges people with crimes, they are often charged with conspiracy. So conspiracy theories are embedded deeply into our legal system. I wish government officials would quit using it as a slur.

Even Preston, Gates and Ellis law firm in Seattle got caught up in a conspiracy, the Jack Abramoff conspiracy since he was one of their employees. This is where Gorton now works, though the firm changed their name in a merger deal and it's now known as K&L; Gates.

"Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty this week to charges of fraud and conspiracy to bribe public officials. Abramoff worked in the Washington office of the Seattle-based firm Preston Gates from 1994 to 2000."

Here's the full article on the Abramoff conspiracy.

Can Seattle firm Preston Gates avoid lobbying-scandal fallout?
By Alicia Mundy
1/7/2006
Seattle Times Washington bureau

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20060107&slug;=prestongates07m

Feliks -

Anyone from the Republican party should be very careful about using the word 'conspiracy' as an intellectual slur since all of their leading candidates for the 2012 Presidential race are climate change skeptics.... ie conspiracy theorists.

Stated another way, Rick Perry, the likely Republican Presidential nominee believes that thousands of the leading scientists across the globe are conspiracy theorists that have conspired for decades to assemble a fraudulent climate change theory.

Regarding the charge that the government can't keep anything secret, they certainly did a masterful job at keeping the Manhattan Project secret back in the 40s. This involved thousands of workers, scientists and politicians who constructed nuclear facilities like Hanford in Washington state and Rocky Flats in Colorado. I don't recall that anyone leaked the secret of the U.S. dropping 2 nuclear bombs on Japan prior to them actually being dropped. So yes, the government can do a very, very good job of keeping secrets when it wants to.

It's sad that politicians today are so inclined to make fun of the taxpayers that pay their salaries rather than answering their questions.

Did Gorton answer the question that GaryP posed in the first place about Building 7 during your interview? Did he have anything of substance to say about Building 7 and why the Commission chose to ignore its collapse?

@Richard Borkowski--here are responses to some of your points:

1. My use of "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory" is not intended to be a slur, it's a common, idiomatic phrase that, I acknowledge, carries some not entirely flattering baggage (depending on your perspective). I used it as shorthand, and I'd venture a guess that 99% of the readers knew exactly what I was talking about.

2. I like your example of the Manhattan Project, but I don't think it's entirely analogous to 9/11. That was a remarkable effort back in the 1940s and it was certainly carried out in secret. However, once the bombs had been detonated over Japan, the existence of the project and the thousands of workers involved were revealed almost immediately. Also, those WWII years were also different in terms of communications technology (no blogs, of course, and no YouTube--easier to keep things hidden) and there was even voluntary media censorship at the behest of the military (thus, there were no weather forecasts in print or on the radio that might aid an enemy planning an air raid, for example, and little or no images in print or newsreels of American casualties).

3. I did not ask about Building 7--that level of detail was beyond the scope and point of this piece. See Number 4 below . . .

4. The point of this piece was to hear from a local former elected official about his participation in a matter of national significance (that happens to be particularly relevant around the 10th anniversary of 9/11). I tried (as I think many journalists do) to keep my opinions out of it, and to use as many direct quotes as possible to paint a picture of Slade Gorton and his experiences on the 9/11 Commission in his own words.

5. Last thing, I really enjoy the dialog and appreciate the free and open exchange of ideas. Thanks for commenting!

Personally, I think it's obvious why Building 7 was blown up. Seven is a prime number, as is 11. The odd number immediately between them is 9. Get it? 7 - 9 / 11. It was just too much for Dick Cheney, the Trilateral Commission and the space aliens to resist. And why is it we've never seen King Abdullah of Jordan and Jerry Mathers together in the same room? There is a striking resemblance there, you know. One in the same?

Well it’s definitely a matter of national significance since it perpetuates a terro-industrial complex upon which we’ve spent a trillion (with a T) dollars in the last decade.

Feliks -

One of the things I found most disturbing about your article as well as the Op-Ed piece by Gorton published in the Seattle Times is the utter disregard for any sort of dissent when it comes to 9/11 or the 9/11 Commission. Probably the worst person to pick to rate the effectiveness of the 9/11 Commission is someone who sat ON the Commission. I'm personally dumbfounded why you feel the need to serve as a megaphone for Gorton. I also wonder why you feel the need to aid Gorton in propping up the official, very controversial 9/11 commission report without talking to even one person who is not affiliated with the government regarding their opinion of the 9/11 Commission report.

I mean seriously, do you think a government official who was a member of a government commission responsible for evaluating the worst failure of the government and military in history is going to provide you with anything other than official government statements, propaganda and spin?

As jmrolls said above, this is a matter of national significance since the terro-industrial complex is costing taxpayers almost $1T for the wars that seem to have no end to them.

I am curious about what Mr Borkowski would refer people to besides some Youtube videos to refute the history portion of the 911 commission.

I looked at Wikipedia and the article on Building 7 states the following:

World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories say the buildings that collapsed on September 11, including building seven, were felled by controlled demolition.[53][54][55][56] The NIST report rejects this hypothesis, as the window breakages and blast sound that would have occurred if explosives were used were not observed.[8] The suggestion that an incendiary such as thermite was used instead of explosives is discarded by NIST because of observations of the fire and the building's structural response to the fire, and because it is unlikely the necessary quantity material could have been planted without discovery.[35]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

Reading the rest of the article, it sounds like building 7 had some design flaws, or design features that in this specific circumstance turned out to be problems.

In general: I find it incredibly hard to believe all the things needed to create and then keep quiet any type of conspiracy secret could actually have happened. If it did, it would by far the most amazing venture ever created.

It wouldn't have taken a large number of people to blow up building 7. However it would have been difficult to do it the day that jets hit buildings 1 & 2. Ego, the explosives were in the building aprior for a "just in case" event. Although no one has publicly claimed that.

As for it being a "design flaw", it's a miraculous one that just happened to cause the center beams to fail first, and for it to completely implode leaving only a pile of dust. And for the steel dust in the area to have thermite particles mixed in. All I'm saying is that the commission didn't find anything because they didn't look. And when I look at the video it leaves a number of open questions. #1 the TV announcement prior to it falling, #2 all the fire fighters were pulled back, #3 the term used on the radio which is used to mean, blow it up. #4 the rate of fall matches exactly the rate of fall of other controlled imploded buildings.

@Richard Borkowski--I don't think there are any "official government statements" or "propaganda" in Mr. Gorton's quotes about his experience on a commission that was officially disbanded seven years ago. They're his words about his experience--like a short-form version of oral history. I've worked in various capacities in local history for years, and much of my work for Crosscut in the past few years has leaned toward the historical.

Thus, as far as presenting "dissent," I refer you to my Point 4 above: "The point of this piece was to hear from a local former elected official about his participation in a matter of national significance (that happens to be particularly relevant around the 10th anniversary of 9/11). I tried (as I think many journalists do) to keep my opinions out of it, and to use as many direct quotes as possible to paint a picture of Slade Gorton and his experiences on the 9/11 Commission in his own words."

Dissent or alternate opinions about what happened to 7 WTC are better suited for elsewhere--like this comment thread or a piece more directly about the differing opinions. Again, I appreciate and enjoy the exchange of ideas.

Feliks. It's interesting you don't think there was any propaganda in the quotes. Not a very decisive statement. I've always been puzzled why the press and journalists like yourself seem to willingly serve as lapdogs for governmental officials rather than watchdogs, particularly when it comes to 9/11. That's the constitutional duty of 'free press'.

I also find it curious that you feel government dissent doesn't deserve to be covered other than via comments. I thought the whole purpose of the media was to provide the channel for government dissent.

3 high rise buildings collapsed that day, something that had never occurred in history. The 9/11 commission completely ignored the collapse of WTC 7 as if it didn't happen. Curiously, yesterday during the 10 year anniversay, no mention was made of its collapse or the people who died in that building.

If it was a design flaw, as someone mentioned above, then NIST and the commission should have thoroughly investigated the reasons why it collapsed. After all, the collapse of a 47 story high rise in New York City is a pretty BIG deal. The 9/11 commission failed miserably in its charter to thoroughly examine the evidence.

For those interested in hearing from professional AIA certified architects regarding their examination of the building collapses, they can be viewed at http://ae911truth.org

For a slightly more sober view of the 9/11 Commission Report, its recommendations and the progress, see the NY Times Editorial of Sept 4, 2011.

WHAT Remains to be Done
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/opinion/sunday/what-remains-to-be-done.html?_r=1&scp;=4&sq;=remains&st;=cse

Believe it or not, after 10 years, an entire decade, the first responders still cannot communicate between agencies. So if there was an attack tomorrow, the police and fire departments have the exact same inability to talk between themselves as they did 10 years ago.

A complete failure of Congress by anyone's measure.

Dear Mr. Banel,
As a journalist you owe it to your readers to at least research the hard questions that deal with the Commissions report. Then since this article was about a member of that commission, ask them "what happened here?" If it was purposely ignored, why? In the age of google, it's easy to find the unanswered questions. That's why those of us who read this stuff are hard on you. If we can figure out what questions to be asked, why can't you?

Gary, I agree. Between the dysfunctional government and a media industry that seems to often serve as little more than a scribe for the government officials, clearly the public is ill served and ill-informed.

What is particularly audacious by Gorton is to claim, as he does in his Seattle Times Op-Ed, that we are 'clearly safer' because we've only had 1 terrorist attack, the Fort Hood massacre, since 9/11. News flash, 9/11 was the worst terrorist incident in the history of the world and it's disgusting that the Republican party would ignore 9/11 as if it's just some fender bender in the highway of history.

A further indictment of the government by the New York Times:
Congress’s continuing “dysfunction” in its scattered, 100-plus-committee approach to security and intelligence oversight. In the last two years, assorted panels have received almost 4,000 briefings from homeland security officials. These competing fiefs have added to confusion, for example, by setting different security standards for cargo imported by air and by sea.