Philip Mudd (Former CIA/FBI) passes on question about WTC 7 free-fall

Came across this short video clip and was surprised to see that it was just uploaded few days a go. To be honest I thought people already forgot about 9/11.

Some guy called in to C-SPAN's Washington Journal program and asked Philip Mudd about the WTC 7 eight-stories free falling phenomenon... You'd think that they had enough time to come up with some kind of explanation for this happening without explosives, but no they still use the same old "i think we should skip this question" rebuttal.

Published on May 14, 2013 Philip Mudd on C-SPAN's Washington Journal program refuses to address my question about the free-fall acceleration of WTC 7 acknowledged by NIST

It didn't happen, what you see is your eyes telling you lies.

A few demolitions that weren't as successful as WTC 7

Ah.the pertinent question of 9/11
And this toady simply ducked out on it.....what does that imply do you think?

reply to post by whatsecret


Not to defend the guy, I mean his name IS Mudd... but he's not an engineer or building demolition expert whose opinion is more relevant... Sure he currently is a Senior Research Fellow for the Counterterrorism Strategy Initiative of The New America Foundation; Sure he began a policy assignment at the White House in early 2001, detailed from CIA to serve as the Director for Gulf Affairs on the White House National Security Council; Sure he left the White House after the September 11 attacks to rejoin the CIA full-time... How could that possibly give him insight into the intricate details of those attacks, much less a building not hit by aircraft that happened to be the home of the NY region headquarters of: the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Internal Revenue Service Regional Council, the United States Secret Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Department of Defense and something called the Central Intelligence Agency... Sure a BBC reporter broadcast a live-shot in which she announced the collapse of building 7 with said building standing tall in the background... But anyway, why would anyone fathom that Mudd or anyone else would hear a question from a C-SPAN caller and respond "You got me, I've been hoping someone would ask me that for over 12 years; let me explain to you exactly what happened..."

Originally posted by NickDC202
reply to post by whatsecret

 

Not to defend the guy, I mean his name IS Mudd... but he's not an engineer or building demolition expert whose opinion is more relevant... Sure he currently is a Senior Research Fellow for the Counterterrorism Strategy Initiative of The New America Foundation; Sure he began a policy assignment at the White House in early 2001, detailed from CIA to serve as the Director for Gulf Affairs on the White House National Security Council; Sure he left the White House after the September 11 attacks to rejoin the CIA full-time... How could that possibly give him insight into the intricate details of those attacks, much less a building not hit by aircraft that happened to be the home of the NY region headquarters of: the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Internal Revenue Service Regional Council, the United States Secret Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Department of Defense and something called the Central Intelligence Agency... Sure a BBC reporter broadcast a live-shot in which she announced the collapse of building 7 with said building standing tall in the background... But anyway, why would anyone fathom that Mudd or anyone else would hear a question from a C-SPAN caller and respond "You got me, I've been hoping someone would ask me that for over 12 years; let me explain to you exactly what happened..."

It must be very annoying to have all these crazy conspiracy theorists disrespect the victims by asking stupid questions every time government "officials" bless us with an opportunity to ask important questions. Like people should ask him how can we ever express our gratitude for the great job they are doing keeping us safe, not these stupid questions about WTC 7. USA! USA! USA!

reply to post by whatsecret


You realize that aside from the facts I included, my writing was complete sarcasm...

Originally posted by NickDC202
reply to post by whatsecret

 

You realize that aside from the facts I included, my writing was complete sarcasm...

Hello fellow Chicagoan From what I got from reading that I think he was being sarcastic with you. That or he was trolling you.

At first glance I can see why this would make some raise an eyebrow but I think people need to think about it properly.

Philip Mudd is really quite a well-known guy especially in counter-terrorism circles he has extensive experience in Middle Eastern terrorism, has written on the subject in is in almost every documentary about Middle Eastern terrorism. His area of expertise then if you like is not so much the actual event of 9/11 but rather Middle Eastern terrorism the history leading to 9/11, the events after, policy and so on, he is an intelligence analyst at heart not an architect. By not answering the question and by ignoring it the way he did I think he made a bad move and could have handled it much better, but at the end of the day there is a pretty good chance he just didn’t know the answer and was fed up with the conspiracies.

That is probably why he didn’t answer it, although rather saying what he said I think it would have been better for him to have said “I am not an architect or explosives expert so I am probably not the best person to give that answer but this is what I can tell you about the people who were responsible for the 9/11 attack”.

I honestly don’t think this proves anything either way in the scope of 9/11 truth other than a former CIA agent wasn’t equipped to answer a question and made himself look bad by passing the question. Had it been someone who had been involved in the NIST report into WTC7 then the guy asking the question may have gotten a much better answer.

Originally posted by NickDC202
reply to post by whatsecret

 

You realize that aside from the facts I included, my writing was complete sarcasm...

Yes

reply to post by whatsecret


So were you being sarcastic too? I'd have to say seeing that your are also an Alex Grey fan from your picture you must not believe that USA! rhetoric. You're mind has to be open a lot more than that.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
I honestly don’t think this proves anything either way in the scope of 9/11 truth other than a former CIA agent wasn’t equipped to answer a question and made himself look bad by passing the question. Had it been someone who had been involved in the NIST report into WTC7 then the guy asking the question may have gotten a much better answer.

edit on 19-5-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)

A couple of weeks ago people were promoting a guy getting kicked out of court in a licensing case as a stunning victory for the truth movement in a lawsuit against the BBC.

Reality is often a much more boring place than a lot of truthers wish to acknowledge, you'll find threads like this a lot.

Originally posted by BriGuyTM90
reply to post by whatsecret

 

So were you being sarcastic too? I'd have to say seeing that your are also an Alex Grey fan from your picture you must not believe that USA! rhetoric. You're mind has to be open a lot more than that.

edit on 19-5-2013 by BriGuyTM90 because: (no reason given)

Yes I was also being sarcastic. And my mind is definitely open. I love my country, just hate seeing what's happening to it. I believe if more people experienced what Alex Grey's paintings are about things would be different.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
I honestly don’t think this proves anything either way in the scope of 9/11 truth other than a former CIA agent wasn’t equipped to answer a question and made himself look bad by passing the question. Had it been someone who had been involved in the NIST report into WTC7 then the guy asking the question may have gotten a much better answer.

edit on 19-5-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)

A couple of weeks ago people were promoting a guy getting kicked out of court in a licensing case as a stunning victory for the truth movement in a lawsuit against the BBC.

Reality is often a much more boring place than a lot of truthers wish to acknowledge, you'll find threads like this a lot.

The truth movement might be going away but it does not change the truth. WTC 7 can not and will not be explained without explosives. That's why this guy or any other official prefer to pass on answering these questions.

Originally posted by whatsecret
The truth movement might be going away but it does not change the truth. WTC 7 can not and will not be explained without explosives. That's why this guy or any other official prefer to pass on answering these questions.

It already was explained without explosives. That's why there's no international outrage. That's why NISTs report was produced.

Conspiracy theorists still believe man can't get to the moon, so I don't hold out much hope of them learning facts about 911 anytime soon.

Hell the two 'debates' I am currently having are against two people who insist that their random uneducated speculation is undeniable fact, but peer reviewed science is some sort of trick that they refuse to even read or learn about.

Not a strong position. The truth movement is dead and the biggest group has been repeating claims that are incompatible with each other for their entire existence. They just don't care, it's not about truth, it's about money and influence. See Alex Jones for a perfect example, most of what he says is invented, lies or nonsense, but he lives in a multi million dollar home thanks to saps on the Internet.

Sad, but true.

reply to post by exponent

Not a strong position. The truth movement is dead and the biggest group has been repeating claims that are incompatible with each other for their entire existence. They just don't care, it's not about truth, it's about money and influence. See Alex Jones for a perfect example, most of what he says is invented, lies or nonsense, but he lives in a multi million dollar home thanks to saps on the Internet.

Please point me to the explanation for the free fall acceleration. I read NIST and must have missed that part.

I'm not an Alex Jones fan but very curious what specific lies does he sell?

Originally posted by whatsecret
Please point me to the explanation for the free fall acceleration. I read NIST and must have missed that part.

You can find it in the final WTC7 report, when discussing the different simulations due to the effects of damage. NIST explain how the failure of the east penthouse causes a progressive horizontal failure which destroys the main load bearing structures at the core of the building.

Of course I don't expect the technical report to satisfy you inherently, it's a big topic, but considering the millions of engineers worldwide and the significance of the investigation, it's not really possible to say there's been any sort of large outcry.

I'm not an Alex Jones fan but very curious what specific lies does he sell?

Man that list is too big to even sort reasonably, lets just go with something he actually sells:
www.infowarsshop.com...

His show has everything from NWO occult theories to lasers that can apparently cure cancer. It's all about selling the bull# and making himself rich.

To quote Mr Mudd "THE most investigated event in history", really???? Only by people outside of officialdom.

2nd

Originally posted by goldentorch
To quote Mr Mudd "THE most investigated event in history", really???? Only by people outside of officialdom.

The NIST report took many years, recreated significant portions of the towers, hired experts from tens if not hundreds of engineering companies and employed something like 100,000 people start to finish. They examined debris and construction records, interviewed hundreds if not thousands of occupants and firefighters, and created a gigantic photo and video database of the entire area.

It was published 7-8 years ago and so far has received zero major criticism that would change its conclusions. Its recommendations are included in modern building codes.

That's a pretty good investigation I think.