Okay, if you've been here before, you know about the Bush "quote" I posted. Yeah, I picked it up from another site (along with a slew of other people), and yeah, none of the news sites ever talked about it.
That's why I won't post anything like that again without finding secondary sources.
Now that we've got that out of the way, there's something I want you to watch. I picked this up from Bulldog Politics. Sure, the story is six months old, but it's NOT a story, per se.
When you click on the above link, in paragraph #4 (they're numbered) click the words "check this out" and listen to the audioclip. That's Larry Fernstein (spelling?), the owner of the whole WTC site on 9/11 (I believe he still owns it). In the quote, which is from a documentary that aired on PBS, he says that Building 7, the other building that came down that horrible day, was actually pulled.
Okay, I know, "How do I know it's him? There's no picture!" Well, the next part which I want you to watch, has the PBS footage of the owner saying it.
Between paragraphs 4 & 5, select the proper one for you, depending on connection speed & program of choice. This is a segment of a documentary by someone just short of a conspiracy theorist. The video is mostly about Building 7, a 47-story WTC building that fell on 9/11.
PLEASE NOTE: Even thought later on in the clip he is screaming into a microphone at Groud Zero, don't pay attention to the actions of the man on the screen. Instead, just listen to what he says, and pay CLOSE attention to the footage, especially the one where Building 7 falls.
He's got one good thing going for him...Sources. He uses audio & video footage from WNBC helicopter in NYC & an NBC News report, which aired on Nightly News.
In addition to Building 7 stuff, there are a few thing about the twin towers. Of course, you can take it or leave it, but I can't argue with the footage and audio that he supplies.
At first, you'll be going blah, blah, blah...but keep watching!
Here are a few points I want you to pay attention to:
At minute-mark:
15:00 - Hints that Towers 1 & 2 were ALSO pulled,
16:45 - Firefighters say Towers 1 & 2 look like they were pulled,
17:30 - Chief of Safety for FDNY says it appears that a secondary device went off in WTC Tower(s) an hour later, the news chopper also says this,
19:30 - Firefighters went on record saying fires were almost out about an hour after attack,
20:40 - (most compelling) FDNY firefighters release tape of deceased firefighter at sight reporting only two isolated pockets of fire, which they should be able to be put out.
So why did the Towers fall?
While it's entirely possible that this man thinks the government KNEW about 9/11, which I HIGHLY doubt, I think it's entirely possible that there were som Terrorists IN the building, and they detonated a "secondary device". No person alive today can HONESTLY tell me that what I just said is wrong. I don't totally but it myself, but there's SO much evidence.
Reguardless of wehat you think about Towers 1 & 2, the Building 7 information definatly stands out! I simply can't dismiss those facts. Just bacause it's possible that the Gov't brought down a building, doesn't mean it's a conspiracy, though. So, it's entirely possible that the Building 7 stuff is true, but the other stuff could be pure speculation!
Here's the site again: http://bulldogpolitics.blogspot.com/2005/07/911-and-five-major-coincidences.html
Take with a grain of salt, but see if you can swallow it...
I'd really like your Comments on this one!
-Adam
3 comments:
Adam you may find it very interesting to discover that a BYU professor by the name of Steven E. Jones has done some very interesting analysis on the way that both towers fell and on building #7. The physics does not hold up! He has published a paper on his findings for peer review. His conclusions could be a real bombshell!
It may also be of interest to know the same problems exist with respect to the explanation of the Murrah building in OK. How does a fertilizer bomb take out 3 of the 5 main support columns when within 100 yards of the explosion unreinforced concrete block buildings are hardly touched?
With respect to the Kobar towers in Saudi Arabia how a truck load of plastique (a much more powerful explosive) merely destroys the front face of those towers and not a single support pillar is even damaged?
As I keep after you this stuff crosses political parties AND administrations!
Just touching this subject can make you sound like a conspiracy nut. Which I don't believe I am.
What I am is a science buff. The physics of the twin towers falling from the result of the plane crashes doesn't add up. The blast pattern mentioned in OK doesn't add up either.
Here in Canada we have a public broadcaster (CBC TV) that tends to cover stories from a slightly different perspective than the major US News channels - and as a result I would guess most Canadians are far more sceptical of what happened on 9/11 than Americans are. Was it a conspiracy? Who knows. There are just too many questions that I hope will get addressed when Bush leaves office.
While Americans know the main premise of the attacks, which are, for the most part undisputed, we as a nation failed to ask questions.
Now, I'm not referring to attacking Afghanistan. We hit that one on the head. It's the attacks themselves where we, as a nation, slacked off. Unfortunatly now, the only people who ask these questions seem to be screaming lunatics. What we need is for CNN or someone like that to dig deep into the reports and the 911 tapes, and find out what REALLY happened.
Me, I'm willing to trust that when a Safety Officer for the FDNY says that the building was imploded, it's the truth!
Good for that station for being more critical, but it's kinda sad that it's Canada that's looking at this, and NOT the U.S.
Thanks!
Post a Comment