Congressman Confronted On CSPAN "The Evidence That WTC Building-7 Was Brought Down With Explosives

I watched this and got pissed off enough to post it.



A caller calls in and asks tells the congressman that a new investigation should be launched into WTC-7. His face when the question is being asked tells it all. The more I sat there watching him drink coffee to come up with a bullsh*t answer, the more pissed off I got. No matter what this guy really thinks, his answer will always be, "radical Islamic terrorists".

As long as we have people like this in congress, we will never get the real answers to what happened on that horrible day.

reply to post by solongandgoodnight


And the fool admits he did not even read a report on it. oh that's right they did not even include building 7.
sanctimonious scumbag.

miconATSrender
reply to post by solongandgoodnight

 

And the fool admits he did not even read a report on it. oh that's right they did not even include building 7.
sanctimonious scumbag.

I know right? What an idiot.

I think in total the insurance payout on the buildings was $4.55 billion. So do you think the "con" grrrrass, senate and other key political officials and military personal got a kickback out of that? Like even just 1 billion of that spread around that's like 2 million buys off 500 key officials. Then they add to that the treat that if they ever change there tune they'll be bumped off. Or maybe there kids. But there's just another day in the office for them really. That's what they're job is on a daily basis is to take bribs and kickbacks and tow the party line.

reply to post by solongandgoodnight


You can totally see his face and demeanor change as soon as he hears anything about Building 7! His face was enough to show the thoughts going on in his head. Gosh it bugs me we will never really hear the truth. I know that we all know the truth but sometimes it'd be nice to confirm it once in awhile so we can quit bickering about it lol

uhhh ...'I don't think' purdy much sums it up - typical.

and here is an earful of an alleged phone call - but did not take place - and it was key to the box cutter theory:
Phone call detail

and

0 seconds

Unfortunately due to location I can not watch the video. However I really don't need to see the video since the owner of building 7, Silverstine, admitted on TV that the building was pulled, a term used for controlled demolition. What more do people want, this was right from the horses mouth stating controlled demolition.

The congressman in question knows full well that it was a controlled demo, thus the comments about his facial expressions. If the US public haven't figured it out yet, they never will even after being told the truth by the owner that it was a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

The sad truth is that there is no other possible way the building could have fallen like that from simple fires, supposedly created by tower debris. The truth is blatantly obvious with building 7. There was a plan to destroy the building, bottom line. For TPTB to claim it as anything else, especially going so far as go brand it as radical Islamic terrorism is a complete insult to the American people. Add to that insult by completely ignoring the true culprits.

It reminds me of a child who, after obviously making a mistake and/or doing something they're not supposed to do. When asked why they did it they somehow think if they pretend hard enough to have not done it, they won't be in trouble, lol!

One thing we can count on.... To TPTB, the revenues along with acquired control of the masses following 9/11 obviously far outweigh the outcome of bringing justice to the table, and dealing with the people who were truly behind the whole scheme. They have a name for it.... Collateral damage...

reply to post by pstrron


It's because we live in a country where most people are part of a mass hypnosis experiment! Here we have the owner of wtc 7 saying on tv that he had the building pulled, yet people can still be conned that he meant anything but that. It's frustrating to be sure, but when you wake up to what is going on you start to look at things differently, I realize that at one point in my life I was asleep like those people and I believed all the things that they did too.

People are waking up faster and faster these days, and when critical mass is achieved you will see these traitors like the idiot in the video hunted down, tarred and feathered.

pstrron
Unfortunately due to location I can not watch the video. However I really don't need to see the video since the owner of building 7, Silverstine, admitted on TV that the building was pulled, a term used for controlled demolition. What more do people want, this was right from the horses mouth stating controlled demolition.

The congressman in question knows full well that it was a controlled demo, thus the comments about his facial expressions. If the US public haven't figured it out yet, they never will even after being told the truth by the owner that it was a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

edit on 12/5/2013 by pstrron because: structure

I agree with you about the public. I think many people can't handle the reality that something like this would be allowed or could happen, so in turn they pretend like it cannot be true.

reply to post by solongandgoodnight


Of course they do. The same people that are TOLD that their voting on the lesser of two evils counts. The same people that are TOLD that they have psychological impairments that require medication, when in fact dealing with life... Believe it or not, is merely a part of life. The same people that are TOLD vaccines are the only way to stay healthy. The same people that are TOLD that there's a difference between political parties.... And believe the hype. These people and their fear of challenging what they only think is bigger than them are the reasons that the system works.

When a stranger approaches someone and claims that they will kill them unless they do as they're told, the majority of people believe them out of fear. Unfortunately, the truth is the strangers inferiority complex. He knows he is weak and utilizes that weakness as manipulation. The mind of a bully.

The unfortunate truth is knowing that people know, yet are too scared under false security to take a stand and do anything about it.

reply to post by forall2see


I cannot argue that there are those who are easily manipulated out of fear, but I still believe others can't handle reality for what it is.

reply to post by solongandgoodnight


Could that be based on fear of stepping out of the box that TPTB tells people to stay inside of? It's amazing to witness the extent to which people will go against their own moral beliefs to live in temporary state of partial acceptance. Just me opinion.

He is a Congressman, not a expert in building collapse analysis or structural engineering. you should not expect him to have answered that question any better than your local postman or anyone else who does not have a active interest in the subject. There are quite a few other videos of other politicians being asked questions like this online and they always give stupid answers that show how ignorant they are to the specific details of the events of 9/11, but we have to remember they are politicians, not historians or engineers.

But people within the conspiracy community seem to have some odd believe that all the politicians should know 9/11 in side out but that is not the reality. I must say i do find it troubling that he has not read the 9/11 commission report (I assume that is what she meant in the question) but then again, if you ask most truthers, they have also not read the report or the other NIST and FEMA reports. His poor answer to the question is not evidence of any kind of conspiracy just his own ignorance, if he knew what he was talking about he could have said "no we dont need a new report and this is why i believe that....." but he didn't.

I would also add that I personally have not seen any evidence (and i mean real evidence not conspiracy theorist rhetoric) that WTC-7 was brought down by explosives that the caller suggests exists.

And yes I have looked

Anytime your ready to show some real evidence I'm waiting.

Real evidence is not facial expressions, twisting people's words around or any other kind of duplicity.

Real evidence:

1. Who planted the explosive-when did they plant them? What kind were they-Who bought them-who sold them-who transferred them to the site?

2. How did they know that the collapse of the north tower would start fires where there are no explosives?

3. Where are the residual remains of 23,000kg of explosives-50 blast relays-over 100 iterators/blasting caps, 40 miles of wire and where was the computer console hidden that controlled the explosives.

4. Evidence is not super duper thermite found in dust 10 miles away and 2 weeks after the fall of the towers-that no one else can look at.

5. The 200-300 people needed to set up the explosives, run the scam, cover the evidence, and hypnotize all the firefighters who fought the fires and evacuated the building because it was unsafe.

6. And of course the biggest one Who ran this brilliant scheme?

Don't change the subject or try to insult me (it won' work anyway) Start with question 1 and again don't change the subject like truthers always do when confronted.

Start with question 1
Don't change the subject
On second thought you CAN try to insult me-haven't had a good laugh all day.

reply to post by spooky24


Exactly so many people on the 9/11 forum just seem to assume that there are answers to the questions that you ask, they just take it as a given that it was a controlled demolition. But if you challenge them, ask them for the real hard proof of it, they cant because it does not exist and it does not exist because the explosives never existed. I think its like a Catholic just taking it as a given that God exists and then basing a whole argument on Gods existence, even though he can't actually prove God's existence. Truthers do the same, they just take it for a given that there is some grand conspiracy and will argue about it, rant and rave about it, but they can't actually prove it.

Many of them get told by someone like Richard Gage that it was a controlled demolition (who once said "ummm they painted the explosives on the buildings during construction... or something...") and just acsept it. They dont stop and ask for the hard evidence like "where are the blasting caps?" or "so how did they do this and keep it all secret?".

reply to post by spooky24


I think people are tired of taking the time to lay out a case for why it was controlled demo, when all you are going to do is provide the spin, if I have seen it once on ats I've seen it a hundred times. It's like pissing in the wind, not a good time. Have fun with your fairy tale story!

Here's the proof, no thermite needed (unless it was used to cut some larger beams down in the basement area). Fascinatingly, Steven Jones who is a nuclear physicist and was involved with 'debunking' cold fusion for the government, refuses to discuss this evidence, and Richard Gage blanches when the topic is brought up and also refuses to consider what, on the surface alone, is certainly a viable alternative for demolishing large buildings when thermite doesn't have nearly the explosive power to do the job:

911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blogs/jeff-prager-9-11-america-nuked-free-downloadable-ebook

I agree that Congresscritters don't necessarily know a bloomin' thing about 9-11, but it would be real nifty if they actually showed some interest in the biggest crime since Pearl Harbor. I imagine they're far more interested in the bennies of the job. Subsidized food, travel, health care, and a pension for life, whoohoo!

You want some fun, ask Lucky Larry Silverstein who exactly was the 'errr, fire commander' who apparently had him on speed dial the day of the largest loss of firefighters in history, a man so concerned with what the building owner thought after two massive towers were sitting in smoking ruins on the ground, what, pray tell, did he want done with the third building? 'Should we put our ragtag team of reminding alive, incredibly traumatized firefighters in there to try to put out the fires and 'save' the building (which obviously would need demolition later considering its damage and location), or should we let the fires rage until the building comes down of its own accord, countdown included? Larry, you there...?'

No 'errrr fire commander' has ever come forward as the person who called Larry Silverstein. There's not that many to chose from, because so many died that day.

And if Larry lied about that, he lied about a lot of other details also, considering the billions that were at stake.

When asbestos suits are handed out in hell, I don't think there will be one with Larry's name on it.

jaws1975
reply to post by spooky24

 

I think people are tired of taking the time to lay out a case for why it was controlled demo, when all you are going to do is provide the spin, if I have seen it once on ats I've seen it a hundred times. It's like pissing in the wind, not a good time. Have fun with your fairy tale story!

No spin. Physical evidence. The bottom line is that there isn't any evidence and never has been, just a bunch of people saying that it had to be explosives because they think it was a demolition.

Regardless of what you believe about 9/11 for this idiot to state I agree with a document he has not read is foolish and yet they keep being elected...