Scott Ritter at UTPA addresses current 9/11 and terrorism issues
On Thursday, April 5, 2007, at approximately 7:30 p.m., Scott Ritter spoke to a large audience of students, teachers, and members of the public, at the University of Texas-Pan American (UTPA) Student Union building.
His presentation covered mostly the unstable situation in Iraq, the impending possibility that the U.S. might soon go to war with Iran and the consequences of the continued erosion of the Constitution of the United States by the misguided and injurious policies of the current administration.
During the Q&A session of his presentation, Scott Ritter addressed a few 9/11 and terrorism issues brought up by members of the audience.
Mine was an extension of a previous inquiry by Jon Gold (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1232419751782017310) and dealt with the concern over the need for a new truly independent investigation of 9/11; that of another audience member centered on the origins of terrorism and how to deal with it on a fundamental basis.
Although I consider Scott Ritter to be quite an expert in his understanding of the many international threats Americans face today, I did not feel that he addressed my question very thoroughly and wished he had provided more details to support his answer.
For example, he never said what the firefighters and controlled demolition experts he claims he interviewed had to say. And he never said whether or not he would promote the idea of the need for a new investigation of 9/11 in any of his future presentations.
And his insistence that 9/11 was an act that the United States could not possibly have had the competence to pull off is somewhat contradictory when one considers that in actuality it only took one determined leader and nineteen loyal and devoted followers to make 9/11 a reality.
But I’ll cut Scott Ritter some slack as, of course, I know he was pressed for time. And I don’t for a second think he is anything but an honest and loyal American who just wants things to be better for both this country and the rest of the world.
Following is what I meant to read without skipping a beat; unfortunately, my having been nerve-racked served against me and on two occasions, I deviated slightly from the script – and it cost me. Also, I’m not sure if I mispronounced “Montco”. If I did, sorry.
Credit for the camera work should go to fellow 9/11 Truth activist and friend, Leo Krayola (www.myspace.com/LeoKrayola)
On July 22, 2006 at a Montco Democracy for America event where you and Ray McGovern acted as guest speakers, Jon Gold, a fellow member of the 9/11 Truth Movement asked you about your view of the possibility that the United States might have been complicit in the attacks on September 11, 2001. You said at the time that you felt there was no “hard evidence” to support this theory although you expressed frustration with the 9/11 Commission Report.
As an extension of that question, I would like to know if not the fact that molten metal was discovered in the basements of WTC 1, 2, & 7; if not the almost free-fall speed of the collapse of all three towers that allegedly resulted from fire damage; and most importantly, if not the – at least – 115 oral histories of firefighters on 9/11 who at all areas of the towers reported what they specifically interpreted as controlled demolition events; if not any of these out of numerous examples, what do you feel qualifies as “hard evidence”?
And regardless of your answer, are you in favor of a new investigation of 9/11? And if so, would you be willing to put forth that message in all of your future presentations on behalf of the 9/11 families, the majority of which are calling for a new – truly independent – investigation of 9/11?
In short, I still wonder what Scott Ritter means by "hard evidence" as it applies to the possible, the probable, controlled demolition of WTC 1, 2, & 7. I am, however, very glad to hear that he believes a new investigation of 9/11 is in order and that he has an open mind to discovering the truth of that fateful day -- no matter how ugly or horrific that truth may some day soon turn out to be.