Last night, Tuesday, February 13, 2007, at 7:30 p.m. central time, Dan Rather spoke at the University of Texas-Pan American Fine Arts Auditorium in Edinburg, TX. His presentation covered mostly his recent trip to Afghanistan and his view that a bloody conflict was soon to erupt there. He also gave the audience a glimpse into his evolution as a journalist over the last three decades or so. But he never mentioned anything about 9/11.

As far as I know, I was the only 9/11 Truth activist at the presentation. My father was with me, but my friends and fellow activists Leo K and Ron Avery were unable to attend, so basically I was on my own as far as 911 Truth was concerned and I was admittedly a little intimidated by this fact.

Even so, when Dan Rather’s presentation ended and he started taking questions from the audience, I immediately stood up and headed to the front of his podium where a line was already starting to form. There were a few questions before mine, mostly about what Dan Rather thought were his greatest and most unpleasant journalistic experiences and what he thought of the current day media outlets like FOX News Channel, just to name one. While informative, I felt these were softball questions at best.

Dan Rather seemed to strategically avoid directly answering the question about FOX News, which I thought was interesting but unusual, while reinforcing the idea that today’s journalism is devoid of many reporters asking, as he put it, “the tough questions.” He also said he felt that the American media has over the last five or so years been cowed away from covering most if not all of the news properly and that that this fact concerned him greatly. I must admit, I was deeply moved and inspired, particularly as an activist, by his speech. Dan Rather is most certainly a great and remarkable speaker.

Unfortunately, because of time constraints, the presentation was abruptly cut off and the last person able to ask a question was three places ahead of me. Crushed, I started back to my chair when I unexpectedly heard from behind me an elderly couple talking with Dan Rather from off the stage.

As people were walking past me towards the exit, I realized that this was quite possibly a once in a lifetime chance to speak to Dan Rather and like it or not, it was now or never to stand up for my beliefs. So I suddenly turned around and rushed to the edge of the stage just as the elderly couple was moving away from it. Upon reaching a good position from which to speak, I looked Dan Rather directly in the eyes and said – unintentionally loudly as I have a naturally very loud voice – “MR. RATHER, DO YOU BELIEVE IT’S POSSIBLE THAT WTC 7 – BUILDING 7 – COLLAPSED AS A RESULT OF CONTROLLED DEMOLITION LIKE YOU ONCE REPORTED?”

I had no doubt the whole auditorium heard me and to my dismay it looked like this fact affected Dan Rather’s decision to respond. As I remember, he glanced at me with a deer-in-the-headlights look. As to why, I’m not certain. He could have recognized and eschewed my question outright as being uncomfortably or even offensively too familiar or he might have just generally been embarrassed by the outburst. Either way, he immediately darted behind the curtain, just as I was saying more calmly, “Please, Mr. Rather. Please answer the question.” But he did not.

When I turned around to leave, I could tell by the look on many people’s faces that they definitely heard my question loud and clear. But this didn’t derail me in the least. I knew I had done the right thing. And I had followed Dan Rather’s lesson about asking the tough questions.

Even so, people had a particularly unified bewildered expression, which surprisingly did not hint at the slightest bit of offence. I fancied they were simply wondering what my inquiry was all about. As Edinburg is a small town where nothing much controversial ever happens, some of them actually looked intrigued. A few others, however, looked as if they felt sorry for me.

As I walked out the exit, I distinctly remember muttering under my breath in mild defense of my actions, “Well, he’s the one who reported it.” I guess at this point I was a little embarrassed, frustrated, hurt and angry. But I took no steps to display in any way to the crowd my feelings.

Outside the auditorium, I waited for my father who had been separated from me somewhere along the way of our departure. Many things were going through my head like that I should have been faster on my feet when I got up so that I could be first in line to ask a question. Or that I should maybe have asked a separate question along the lines of “Do you think a new 9/11 investigation is in order?” or “What do you think of the 9/11 Truth Movement and its message that 9/11 was an inside job?”

In any case, completely unexpectedly, I heard a young girl speaking enthusiastically to my right and my peripheral vision caught sight of Dan Rather standing by where his vehicle would soon be exiting, waiting to be picked up by his entourage. I noticed not a lot of people were aware of his presence which I knew was my key to make a move.

So I quickly paced towards him while tactfully maintaining my composure. I realized that this was my second chance to clearly put forth my question about his report on Building 7. I should say that I deeply regret not having had any audio or video recording device on hand. For that, I sincerely apologize to the entire 911 Truth Movement as such a mistake is nothing short of sloppy and irresponsible.

“Mr. Rather, I had the question for you about Building 7,” I said as I approached him. My heart felt like it was going to jump out of my chest.

“Yes?” he replied with a smile offering no recognition of our having crossed paths for an instant inside the auditorium not ten minutes earlier.

“While you were reporting for CBS News on the collapse of World Trade Center number 7, you described it in a way that strongly implied controlled demolition.” I actually said this probably a bit too nervously over a stuttered voice.

“I don’t recall exactly which report you mean,” said Dan Rather sounding and appearing genuinely confused. “But I do remember the general coverage.” He was clearly not comfortable with the topic at hand.

“You used descriptions in your report like ‘you have to get at the under infrastructure of the building’ or something like that in order to make it collapse.”

By this time, people were all around us taking snapshots. But nobody was hissing or booing. They were just quietly listening. So I continued talking amongst the flashes:

“To ‘get under the infrastructure’ strongly implies that you didn’t immediately think fire caused the collapse of the building. That you maybe thought something else had.”

Dan Rather was for a moment silent and contemplative. “I really don’t understand your point.”

“I’m referring to the collapse of World Trade Center 7 -- on 9/11, sir.”

His eyes saddened. “Don’t tell me about 9/11, son. I was there. I was in New York and I saw everything; the people, the destruction . . .” His voice trailed off.

“Exactly my point sir,” I said gently. “I mean no disrespect, but like you said, you were there. So I have to ask – in fact, I need to know -- during the collapse of Building 7 were you in fact thinking that it came down as a result of controlled demolition?”

“I don’t know what I was thinking,” he replied somewhat defensively. “I was just reporting what I was observing. That’s what reporters do.”

“Yes, sir, but you described the event as if it were a controlled demolition. Is that in fact what you thought it was? I realize you were reporting what you saw, but did you also think, in the least bit, in your mind, that the WTC 7 collapse was a controlled demolition?”

“I simply reported what it looked like.”

“Exactly, Mr. Rather: What it looked like. And it looked like a controlled demolition to me too.”

Well, I carried on a bit more but I strangely never got a straight answer from Dan Rather as to whether or not he actually ever believed that the collapse of WTC 7 was or was not a controlled demolition event. And the conversation was at this point losing steam in favor of redundancy. Although the crowd had not yet weighed in on us, it was obvious that other people wanted to meet Dan Rather and I was in the way. So to be fair, I threw in the towel.

“It was an honor to meet you, Mr. Rather. Thank you for addressing my question. Have a safe trip home”.

He smiled and gave me this strange look of approval, like he respected the fact that I went so far out of my way to ask what he could tell I believed was a tough question. But he nevertheless still looked utterly perplexed at my having asked it in the first place. And in turn, I was perplexed that he could not really answer it at all.

I have to admit that I was partly mistaken. I later discovered after double-checking my information that Peter Jennings had made the “under infrastructure” comment for ABC News in regards to the south tower collapse:

“We have no idea what caused this. Um . . . If you wish to bring ah . . . anybody who ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows . . . that if you're going to
do this you have to get at the . . . at the under infrastructure of a building and bring it down.”

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5061514770009171572

However, Dan Rather had in fact reported for CBS on the collapse of WTC 7:

“Amazing, incredible, pick your word. For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.”

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3410644586838318138

His statement, to me, is even more telling than the one made by Peter Jennings and, in my opinion, mention of it should have sparked some kind of recognition in him and/or recollection of his report on the collapse of WTC 7.

In any case, my conversation with Dan Rather pretty much convinces me that he likely knows not a single thing about the 9/11 Truth Movement and/or its view that 9/11 was an inside job. And I feel that his confusion over my question stems from my inquiry into his personal view of the nature of Building 7’s collapse as he might have been wondering, “Why would anyone want to know something as trivial as that?”

On the other hand, it would be presumptuous to suggest that Dan Rather never did nor does not currently think the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 were not the result of controlled demolition. He could, after all, have one amazingly good poker face. In point of fact, it is strange that in his statement on 9/11 he referred to WTC 1, 2, and 7 --“For the third time today . . .” -- as appearing to have been “deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite”. Had I known this the night of the presentation, I would have been more aggressive with my inquiry and expanded the topic to all three towers instead of just one.

My father was waiting for me by the edge of a nearby grassy knoll. As I walked away from the crowd, I could tell he felt for me. He has been aware of my fight for 9/11 Truth almost since the beginning of it and wasn’t the least bit surprised by my effort to be heard that evening.

“I tried my best,” I said as I approached him. I then had a sudden moment of great concern. “Dad, did I sound crazy out there?”

“You sounded a little excited, son,” he said reassuringly, “but no, not crazy.”

Eloy Gonzalez II
9/11 Truth Activist
Former employee at WTC 5 for a brief time in 2000
eloy_gonzalez_2@yahoo.com

Related links:

Promotion of Dan Rather presentation on UTPA website:

http://www.utpa.edu/news/index.cfm?newsid=3246&curtype=release&curbar=news

http://www.utpa.edu/2000/news/index.cfm?newsid=3252&curtype=release&curbar=news

The Monitor news report (printer friendly version) of Dan Rather presentation at UTPA:

http://www.themonitor.com/PrintIt.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=17921&Section=Local