posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 01:49 PM
Alright. Thanks for dealing with me.
Now, I'm going to be careful here because I still don't fully know what this all means. Maybe I'm missing some nuance to what he told me, but I did
re-question him and well....anyway.
I CANNOT at this moment say who told me nor his exact role involved with the WTC, but I will tell all of you that this morning during an interview on
a subject COMPLETELY different than 9/11, a person who is involved in some way with the WTC project financing and studies says, without batting an
eye, that WTC7 was purposely demolished because the damage was too great.
No, it didn't collapse on its own, but was "imploded."
He told me this like it was a known fact. In fact, it was common knowledge as the WTC owners were negotiating over insurance payments for WTC7.
Now, wasn't that the building that the 9/11 Commission said collapsed and was not demolished?
Unless I'm confusing a building --- and there's a chance --- then the official assertions are wrong? And if that detail is wrong (and the building
WAS purposefully demolished), then what else is wrong?
I'm a skeptic. I have been for a long time on the conspiracies surrounding 9/11. Now, my brain is still reeling.
Now, I'm nervous because I don't want to burn a source. Our interview wasn't about WTC at all. It just came up while we chatted. And I'm not sure
he was "confessing" anything. I mean, he just told me like it was common knowledge. Sooo, hence maybe I got the wrong building? Or he misspoke?
Dunno... and I'm still trying to process this.