William Rodriguez interviews Sally Regenhard
Reprehensor Fri, 05/11/2007 - 8:30pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26HzfFiHGAQ
"Sally Regenhard is the Founder & Chairperson, The Skyscraper Safety Campaign. This interview was done last year (2006) after a NIST presentation in NYC. Her frustration on the issue of the radios, represent that of most of the families as well. Sally does not endorses any particular conspiracy but wants answers to many unanswered questions. Please check her website and support her organization as well."
Posting at the request of William Rodriguez. -r.
- Login to post comments
Thank you...
Willie and Mrs. Regenhard (psst... Reprehensor... notice the spelling).
Just so everyone knows, according to Willie Rodriguez, this interview took place, "at the last NIST meeting in NY. Last year." I don't have the exact date on that.
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
Thanks.
No spell good can I.
Um...
Can you also put the little blurb about where this was from up there? We had a "special request."
Edit: Thanks.
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
Thanks William, but next
Thanks William, but next time do connect your external mike to the camcorder !
Question
William:
Does Sally have an opinion on the controlled demolition hypothesis or the work of Prof. Steve Jones?
Fireproofing vs controlled demolition
Thats all well and nice but why isnt there any mention of EXPLOSIVES?
That whole talk about testing and fire resistance and plane impacts and malfunctioning radios is made largely irrelevant if one consider the obvious controlled demolition. Clearly the best fire proofing in the universe is no match against expert CD.
Why isnt this subject brought up?
Ms. Regenhard speaks as if she believes the "Official Story"
and she's merely trying to hold people accountable for various instances of negligence!
(BTW, amazing how firefighters' radios didn't work in the WTC that day, yet people made cell phone calls from airliners @ 40,000 feet & 500 mph.)
the bulk of the 9/11
the bulk of the 9/11 families with a few notable exceptions stay far away from pointing fingers as to who they think is really responsible for 9/11. its not just that they dont talk about CD, they refuse to talk about anything that would lead people to believe it was anyone but 19 muslims and Bin Laden that was responsible for the attack itself. i suspect they do this out of a fear of being labeled "conspiracy theorists" and thus being discredited. i personally disagree with this tactic but can hardly blame them for it. i just wish that some of them could see that talking about "intelligence failures" and a "failure to connect the dots" isnt going to bring about any real truth or justice. i have all the respect in the world for these people though and dont expect anything from them. its up to US not them. we do this for us AND them.
"...they refuse to talk about anything that would lead people
to believe it was anyone but 19 muslims and Bin Laden that was responsible for the attack itself."...
You got it, Chris! In doing this, the families reinforce the lie that it was bin Laden & his flunkies that did 9/11!!!
That's ...
Probably the first thing you've said that I completely agree with. With one exception. As I wrote in this thread:
"Those of you who have openly supported the truth for a long time know that we have faced ridicule, slander, attacks, threats, and so on. In order to experience what a 9/11 Family Member goes through, multiply every misdeed done unto you by one thousand.
They receive emails no one should. They receive threats against them and their families. Just horrible horrible things that they most assuredly DO NOT deserve."
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
True, I think
In the engineering industry press, her group is quoted as arguing that skyscrapers need to be made safer, based on the NIST report. The building industry does not want to implement many of these changes, saying that expensive changes should not be made based on one terrorist event. Many in the industry dispute the "progressive collapse," not in the sense of overtly saying NIST is wrong, but in saying that NIST's finding should not be the basis for expensive changes in building codes. I hope I got this right -- this is my recollection from reading a number of articles in the Engineering-News Record.
How many people...
Honestly believe that Sally Regenhard believes the "Official Story?"
"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public," says Regenhard. "Maybe people thought they were fringe groups or crazy but these are the only people left."
— Sally Regenhard - 9/11 Family Member
During the 9/11 Commission Hearings...
One does not need to believe in Controlled Demolition of the towers or of WTC7 to question the "Official Story." That being said, I have no idea what she believes in that regard.
Incidentally, the "Official Story" about 9/11 is not that planes impacted the buildings, knocked off fireproofing, and the resulting fires brought down the towers.
The "Official Story" is that 19 hijackers, with the help of Osama Bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, successfully murdered 2,973+ people because of a "failure of imagination" on the part of our Government. The collapse of the buildings is only one part of it.
There are several parts to it, such as:
Page 17 of the 9/11 Report says, "The threat of terrorists hijacking commercial airliners within the United States—and using them as guided missiles—was not recognized by NORAD before 9/11", but the fact of the matter is 2 years prior to 9/11, NORAD "conducted exercises simulating [...] hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties", and two of the targets specified were the World Trade Center, and the Pentagon. However, the Pentagon drills were not run because "it was unrealistic." Ree Hee Healy? You mean because it sits in the most defended airspace in the world, and the chances of a commercial airliner smashing into the Pentagon are nill? What then made it realistic, resulting in the MASCAL exercises?
Page 24 of the 9/11 Report says that F-15s, "arrived at 9:25 and established a combat air patrol (CAP) over the city (Manhatttan)", but the fact of the matter is they arrived between 10:09 and 10:10 that morning.
So you see, there are more lies than just what's being told about the buildings.
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
Yeah, but Gold, does Sally believe 9/11 was an inside job or
that Osama & his 19 lackeys did it???
It seems to me that she & the Jersey Girls are still promoting the disinfo that Osama & his lackeys did it!
Then you...
Don't read enough, and I have no idea what Sally Regenhard thinks.
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
When/where did Sally ever say she thinks it's an inside job???
All I see from her & the Jersey Girls is them suggesting gross negligence & incompetence on the part of our Gov't made 9/11 much worse than it had to be.
Sallly doesn't know?
This was slightly confusing. The best I could make of it was that Sally wants the Port Authority to take responsibility for the collapse, the building was not up to code. They then would be liable for billions of dollars in lawsuits from nearly everyone at Ground Zero. Maybe if that were to happen, the Port Authority would take a stand and start to rat out some the the Government entities trying to drop the blame on the Port Authority. Just an idea, still somewhat confused with her stance. Still confused with Mr. Rodriguez' not sorting this out in the interview. My worst fear is that they've been bribed. I hope it is not the case, but it something we should certainly expect at some point. I would hope all those in the Truth Movement who have some weight behind their opinion don't forget what blood money is?
Anyone else...
Want to bash Sally? C'mon, if you're going to bash Sally, let's at least bash the remaining 2,973+ families that lost loved ones that day. Surely they deserve it. Moreso than people like, gee, I dunno... Dick Cheney perhaps?
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
many people have lost loved ones in this world.
what does that have to do with this pathetic attempt to bury the 9-11 crime of the century under a load of crap.
You're right...
Fuck the pathetic family members that don't promote everything that Dave Mann feels is important. All 2,973+ worth of them. They most assuredly deserve it. Those bastard family members... who do they think they are having loved ones murdered by elements of our Government. Pathetic family members...
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
I guess I missed the part where she accuses the
U.S. government of murdering her son. Look, why don't you relax. If you are exercised about "Skyscraper Safety", I'm sure its a worthy cause. I'm about the Truth about the 9-11 crime.
She didn't.
I did.
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
It's not necessarily a worthy cause
It could be hugely expensive to implement all of the changes they want, and people in the industry know that.
The effects of 9/11 on urban planning and building design have been very negative, both in cost and in discouraging more open, more energy efficient urban environments. I saw a great law review article on it the other day and want to post a summary when I get a chance.
Fixing the radios I definitely agree with, and I'm not trying to say all their proposals are wrong. But Regenhard fully supports the NIST findings of "collapse," and blames it on the Port Authority getting an exemption from building codes.
Sorry Jon, but it is important that these people know what they are talking about. This group of all groups should be questioning NIST, since they are advocating expensive public policy changes based on NIST's findings. I admire your focus on the families, but sympathy for them does not preclude questioning their actions. She says her group has structural engineers and architects as technical advisers. They should know better.
Hey Jon
Hey Jon your are using the exact same argument as O'really, Hannity & Colmes etc:...
"Dont question the official story: that hurts the victims families who have already suffered so much"
That kind of sentimental blackmail is particularly hypocrite and cowardly.
If Sally and the Jersey girls indirectly promote the OBL/hijackers fairy tale in spite of the evidence to the contrary they shouldn't be shielded from criticism by their martyr status. At least the rest of the 2973+ victims deserve the truth..
We all deserve the truth
Angie has written a good article about how the families must not be canonized.
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze25x9n/id28.html
If they are promoting changes in policy and law -- e.g. immigration and financial "reforms" that can harm privacy and freedom -- based on the official lies, they must be questioned.
Actually...
The argument I'm using is that people like Sally Regenhard who lost her son on 9/11 deserve the right to deal with it how she sees fit. If questioning how the faulty radios that Giuliani was involved with helped to murder her firefighter son, then I say more power to her.
What I'm wondering is how many of the individuals questioning Sally Regenhard's efforts actually get off their own asses to effect change in this country? What I'm wondering is why people are chastised for not saying the phrase, "9/11 was an inside job?" That is the lamest argument I've ever heard, especially considering I don't even use it, and I AM a believer that elements of our Government were complicit in the attacks.
It's about RESPECT, and I have PLENTY of it for people like Sally Regenhard.
Incidentally, just so everyone knows, www.skyscrapersafety.org probably has more information about the WTC than most 9/11 Truth sites.
I don't have a problem with people criticizing what someone says, no matter who they are, but the family members OF ALL people don't deserve adjectives like "lame", and "pathetic."
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
...
"The argument I'm using is that people like Sally Regenhard who lost her son on 9/11 deserve the right to deal with it how she sees fit."
What about the family members who might want to deal with it by advocating that we burn Iraq to the ground? If their premises are faulty, then their attempts to deal with their losses cannot be given blanket approval, especially where they enter the public sphere.
But...
I would certainly understand their anger if they believed that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. I wouldn't agree with it, but I would understand it. Lord knows why they might think something like that.
As it was explained to me, the family members have not only fought for answers, but they have also fought for life saving changes. New radios for instance. So that if something happens again, they may just save lives instead of taking them. I respect Sally Regenhard for that, and for the life of me, I don't understand why I'm the only one that does (on this site). That kind of work certainly DOES NOT compare to "advocating that we burn Iraq to the ground."
However, feel free to treat what she's doing as such. You are entitled to your opinion.
Incidentally, you seemed to have missed the part where I said, "I don't have a problem with people criticizing what someone says, no matter who they are, but the family members OF ALL people don't deserve adjectives like "lame", and "pathetic."
And to all my "low voting friends" out there, I call "shenanigans."
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up