Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by esdad71
He could have said OK, gotten his documentation and waited, but he chose not too.

He OFFERED to show the documentation. It was a videotape. He offered to show it and the guy declined.

He was asking the staffer for a captive audience while the staffer reviewed the video (maybe for the first time), interpreted it for Mr. Giuliani, and attempted to answer what Giuliani may or may not have meant.

And if you think that would have been the end of the questioning from Lepacek, you are mistaken. He would have continued monopolizing the staffer's time.

In the meantime, what were the other reporters supposed to do?

Totally unacceptable, in my opinion.

If you are still not convinced that this was a setup, watch the actions of the other two "reporters" during the incident. They were barraging the staffer non-stop with comments and questions while Lepacek was asking his question.

Could you paraphrase for us who can't listen at work jsobecky? Thanks, it would help alot as I haven't seen it yet. I know, I shouldn't go by what others say before I post.

Giuliani speaking to Peter Jennings (paraphrased):

"I went down to the scene, and we set up HQ and were operating out of 75 Barclay St. when we were told that the WTC was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could get out of the building, so we were trapped for 10 or 15 minutes till we could find an exit".

Originally posted by jsobecky
Giuliani speaking to Peter Jennings (paraphrased):

"I went down to the scene, and we set up HQ and were operating out of 75 Barclay St. when we were told that the WTC was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could get out of the building, so we were trapped for 10 or 15 minutes till we could find an exit".

Well, I believe the conspiracy is that after this interview Guiliani said that they weren't told that the WTC was going to collapse.

Which is it? Did they or didn't they. That was one of the questions the reporter asked and I, for one, would like an answer to that question.

Originally posted by Griff
Well, I believe the conspiracy is that after this interview Guiliani said that they weren't told that the WTC was going to collapse.

Which is it? Did they or didn't they. That was one of the questions the reporter asked and I, for one, would like an answer to that question.

You'll have to give us a link or something that backs up what you are alleging. And a statement from Matt Lepacek isn't sufficient, at least not for me.

I don't see anything inconsistent here at all. Here is the verbatim quote from Giuliani to Jennings:

"I--I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the police commissioner, the fire commissioner, the head of emergency management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit and got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us."

Emphasis added by me.

It sounds to me that he was notified at that instant in time, probably by a fire chief or some type of rescue personnel, that the towers would collapse. He had no time to react or give an order to evacuate before the towers came down.

BH, did you notice the word usage there? "implode". Now one would think that in a normal sentence a person would use the word fall.

If I were paranoid, which we all know I'm not , I would have thought of the words "fall" or "crumble" or "collapse". That is, unless I had studied up on imploding to know just what the footprint would be, and how much collateral damage to expect.

Good thing I'm not the kind to look at such things.

jsobecky, for what it's worth, I agree with you that this is not a smoking gun. I'm just putting out there what Matt (the reporter) was referring to.

However...

Originally posted by NGC2736
BH, did you notice the word usage there? "implode". Now one would think that in a normal sentence a person would use the word fall.

Yes, I did notice that.

And I don't need ANY of what's in this thread to convince me that the government was complicit in 9/11. NONE of what has come to the surface in this thread has swayed me one way or the other about 9/11.

I believe the government was involved. Whether Rudy knew this or that or said this or that is not relevant to me. It's not proof of anything, nor is it easily explained away.

What IS relevant in this thread, though, is how officials are using their 'power' to refuse questions, the answers to which we have a right to know. I've been frustrated for years that so-called reporters aren't asking the tough questions. And here's why. Because they'll get arrested and thrown in jail if they do. So they keep asking benign, meaningless questions about border security, abortion and stem cell research instead of finding out the real story behind the biggest happening of our time.

There is no doubt in my mind that this administration was complicit. I would bet that Rudy knew something and is lying about it. But no, these videos don't prove it, in my opinion.

isnt the second guy in this video the one harassing rockafeller posted right here a week or 2 ago? that video and this video both had the same tone.

asking the right question in the wrong tone will usually not net much truth.

these guys need a good frontman, or need top get with the program.

honestly, it reminds me of the 'truth campaign' for smoking, and i often wonder if 911 'truthers' are related to tobacco 'truthers'.

this is for all the people seeking the truth about 911, not just those making videos:
the truth may lead you to a passionate conclusion, but as far as passion leading you to the truth, dont hold your breath.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What IS relevant in this thread, though, is how officials are using their 'power' to refuse questions, the answers to which we have a right to know. I've been frustrated for years that so-called reporters aren't asking the tough questions. And here's why. Because they'll get arrested and thrown in jail if they do. So they keep asking benign, meaningless questions about border security, abortion and stem cell research instead of finding out the real story behind the biggest happening of our time.

Well said BH.

There is no doubt in my mind that this administration was complicit. I would bet that Rudy knew something and is lying about it. But no, these videos don't prove it, in my opinion.

I also believe these videos aren't any smoking gun. But, if a reporter can't even ask him what he ment without being escorted out, we are all in deep you-know-what IMO. Even if the reporter wasn't arrested, the PR guy had no intention of even acknowledging him as soon as he said anything related to 9/11. Thank you Rosie for making us all look like idiots in the eyes of joe american. Thanks.

In this case and many others in recent Presidential elections, the people running for President are basically given the "easy questions" at every single event they go to. The audience is pre-screened, the make up put on, and its the same reporters asking the same questions over and over again. If you watch the History Channel and see Eisenhower riding on Trains from one city to the next basically answering questions from the back of the caboose or at least giving a speech, you can see how much of a "SET UP" all these debates are. The spin room as they call it now, has many reporters from independent papers as well as big time publishing corporations. But, its the same ol' questions every time. No one asks the tough questions that NEED to be asked.

What are they so afraid of. I think the American voter has become so entranced with the mindless drivel coming from these robots mouths that it becomes a normal thing. As soon as someone, whether there from a 911 truth movement or not, actually asks a tough question, they get attacked and questioned as conspiracy theory nut cases or they dont have the right to ask this type of question because it isnt in the scope of "acceptable questions".

Not only that, why is the "Grinch who stole Christmas" the one who gets to answer the questions whether they are tough of not instead of the actual person running for President. You might as well have the PR people stand in for the debate.

That's very much true. Imagine wheter Bush would've been elected if he'd faced a 'no-limits' press in confrences. He probably wouldn't even be in politics in the first place.

Personally, I believe we need to do an Al Pacino on the whole political process and take a flame thrower to all of them.

Instead, I remember reading how scientists believe they can operate a computer by routing its microcircuitry through a pond full of algae. Let's run the government off of that instead. Much more attractive and predictable, and if we get tired of the current lake filled with scum, we can always drain it.

It's becoming a police state when protesters can't harass people.