Published originally in OpEdNews, July 24, 2010,
www.opednews.com/articles/Why-Progressives-Should-Pr-by-Dwain-Deets-100723-333.html

Progressives should press for exposure of the problems related to the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. (An abbreviated set of seven of these problems are available at the 7problemswithbuilding7.info website, and over 1,200 architects and engineers are calling for a new investigation.) Thus far, these problems have been mostly hidden from the public. Exposure could provide a rallying point for efforts to bring accountability and justice in America. It can bring clarity to the press for transparency in government, and it can expose corporate Machiavellian manipulations that have clearly gone on relative to Building 7's collapse.

Transparency in government is badly needed, both within the Administration and in Congress. The happenings related to Building 7 make this abundantly clear.

Within the Administration, a number of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests have been submitted seeking records on the Building 7 collapse-analysis data. The final report on World Trade Center 7 was issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in November 2008; however, going on two years later, most requests have been denied. Most troubling is the reason given for denial. The Director of NIST has determined that release of the information "might jeopardize public safety." This reasoning is outrageous. If anything, not releasing the information might jeopardize public safety.

Congress is guilty of inhibiting transparency in government, for not insisting on accountability, by not holding any hearings on this subject. Apparently, to members of Congress, the collapse of Building 7 is a taboo subject. Yes, some members of Congress will listen to some of the troubling evidence involving the collapse, but the reasons given for not pursuing the matter are usually vague, such as there isn't a consensus this matter should be pursued.

Exposure of corporate Machiavellian manipulations relative to Building 7 is the other major reason this matter should be pursued. Major corporations in mainstream media, in major investment areas generally associated with Wall Street, and in the military/industrial complex should be parties of interest in this matter.

Mainstream media's collusion, for example, can be seen in the way the TV networks quickly let the collapse of Building 7 drop out of the news in the hours and days following the event. The visual image of the building descending at, what now has officially been acknowledged as a free-fall drop, should be a commonly-recognized image, but the obvious manipulations by the media has hidden that image from public view.

The failed financial giants Enron and Worldcom, mired in investigations of corporate fraud by the SEC prior to the Building 7 collapse, should have been brought to Justice by now. However, their records were "conveniently" housed in the SEC offices in Building 7. All these records were, apparently, lost. Why were these critical records not backed up at some other physical location? Isn't that standard procedure in both government and the industry?

And finally, is there not anyone interested in bringing accountability and justice to players within the Military/Industrial Complex? Profits abound from the War on Terror, all justified by the events of September 11, 2001. Many who have studied the available evidence feel the collapse of Building 7 is the Achilles heel in that day's events. Doesn't that at least warrant a new investigation of the Building 7 collapse? The ramifications would be so massive if it was found that the prior investigation was a fraud. It could bring into question the whole basis of the War on Terror, itself.

Aren't these reasons enough for progressives to set aside inhibitions they may have about looking into these matters? Isn't it important to have institutions we can have confidence in -- transparency in government that works as intended -- and corporate entities that don't trample the Main Street public?