Support 911Blogger


John McCain asked about free fall of Building 7 on TV

A 9/11 Free Fall
Original Story--4/11/13

By Andrew Steele

McCain asked about free fall of Building 7 on TV

On April 9th, 2013 Senator John McCain appeared on C-SPAN's live call-in show Washington Journal. Identifying myself under a pseudonym, I asked him the following question:

"The National Institute of Standards and Technology asserts that the collapse of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11 was caused by fire. Yet they acknowledge that the first 100 feet of that collapse took place at free-fall acceleration. Engineers will tell you that fire cannot do this, that the only method by which it can be accomplished is the use of pre-planted explosives.

How do you explain this discrepancy...of a hundred feet of free-fall, without the use of explosives?"

As the video shows, John McCain claimed ignorance, saying, "To tell you the truth, this is an area that I'm not very familiar...and if you would drop me a note and mention that we talked on C-SPAN, I'd be glad to get you a more complete answer. But...honestly, every once in a while I have to plead ignorance about an issue and this is one that I have not been involved in, but I'll be more than happy to look into it..."

John McCain, of course, is not ignorant of 9/11 Truth. He wrote the foreword for the Popular Mechanics book "Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts". In his essay "9/11 Conspiracy Myths: Truth Under Attack" which was adapted from his foreword for Popular Mechanics' book, McCain wrote:

"Any explanation for 9/11 must start and end with the facts. The evidence must be gathered and analyzed. Then—only then—can conclusions be drawn."

Indeed, 100 feet of free-fall acceleration of WTC 7 is a fact, as acknowledged by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which was the government agency tasked with investigating the destruction of the building. NIST was forced to admit to WTC 7's free-fall after physics teacher David Chandler embarrassed the agency at a technical briefing in August of 2008.

As well, NIST has refused requests to disclose the data used to create its computer models for its WTC7 investigation, claiming that doing so would somehow jeopardize public safety.

It's likely that John McCain's plea of ignorance on Washington Journal was in reference to the technical information cited in the question that I asked him and not to 9/11 Truth in general.

In regards to the controversial issue of WTC 7's destruction, he should be quite familiar with the topic.

In 2008 Blair Gadsby-- a religious history professor and constituent of McCain's-- held a hunger strike for 17 days at McCain's Phoenix office after failing to obtain a personal meeting with the Senator to discuss his concerns about the 9/11 crime. Richard Gage, AIA-- CEO and founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth-- offered his immediate availability to Senator McCain to discuss the evidence. Though a member of McCain's staff finally met with Gadsby and other 9/11 activists after nine days into Gadsby's hunger strike, and the staff member was given materials that laid out the evidence of the Twin Towers and Building 7's controlled demolition on 9/11, Senator McCain himself refused to meet with the activists personally, stating in a letter to Gadsby:

"I believe these investigations have been conducted in good faith by qualified experts who have approached this daunting task honestly and objectively. My staff and I are always open to new, scientifically substantiated information that helps explain how and why the tragedies of September 11th occurred. I welcome any additional new information you may wish to present on the subject and will make my staff available to listen to your concerns."

Because NIST's acknowledgement of WTC 7's free-fall took place after McCain wrote those words to Gadsby, it qualifies as the "new, scientifically substantiated information" McCain was seeking. McCain promised on Washington Journal that he would try to answer the question that I asked him. Based on his promise and the existence of the new evidence, John McCain's office should, therefore, be open to a new meeting with supporters of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and a personal re-examination of the evidence.

http://www.911freefall.com/2013/04/mccain-asked-about-free-fall-of.html

Nice work!

Given their use of 911 as a basis of foreign policy John McCain and others like him need to answer these serious questions about that event publicly and the symmetric freefall acceleration in the first 8 stories of the collapse of Building 7 is the place to start.

So far when asked in public venues about it, these guys, who have or had power to decide our foreign policy, have claimed ignorance and put off answering, like John McCain did here.

Donald Rumsfeld said he didn't know what Building 7 was when asked about it by Erich Muller (Mancow) on live radio. If you haven't heard it, listen to this 17 second clip of him being asked and replying this way http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKbSMD0ZGY4

Joe Lieberman was also asked about it directly in public, at a church gathering where he was talking about his role in forcing the 911 Commission with John McCain. In his answer he says he doesn't have any evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 actually occurred. See this 2 minute clip of him saying this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBMIBlpnUmQ

They can be given the benefit of the doubt and very possibly are ignorant of it and the ramifications. However, ignorance can only be claimed once, so follow ups are necessary.

Ignorance can last a lifetime

I suspect the people you mention and their ilk simply have too much faith vested in the establishment to ever come to terms with the obvious, like many who are far more qualified to understand what happened to the buildings than they are. I still figure asking them such questions is worthwhile though, as even if they never come to terms with reality, raising the issues publicly is likely to reach at least a few who will.

Your are right

in the sense that if somebody thinks their livelihood and survival depends on ignoring reality they will ignore it if at all possible.

The belief of some that those buildings came down in any way other than controlled demolition is proof that we are living in an Orwellian time.

John Kerry's Remarks

I don't believe that people like John McCain, Donald Rumsfeld and John Kerry are ignorant about Building 7. They feign ignorance, promise to "look into it," and never do. John Kerry said that he knew it was brought down "in a controlled fashion" when asked about Building 7, and then he later denied having said that. If you showed him on video he would walk away. Kerry was also given the nanothermite paper and then he acted as if he'd never seen it before when someone followed up.

Yes, it seems there is group stonewalling of this issue

going on among elected officials, and I have to wonder just how deep it goes and if there is anything said behind the scenes about it.

Kerry did seem to be honest about it to some degree when asked in that townhall meeting in 2004 when he was running for president, although he wasn't sure it needed attention since he gave it a rationale by saying there was a problem with a wall and that it needed to be taken down in a controlled fashion. I am not sure if the conversation lasted any longer than what it does in the clip you posted, but I don't believe it ever got to the point of his being asked when there would have been a chance to set the charges. That is the second question and the one with all the punch, which does need to be set up by the first question and an honest person's answer that, yes, the building was brought down via controlled demolition.

Joe Biden knows too...

Biden: definitely untrustworthy, at *best*

Biden's name raises a large red flag, as regards terrorism. In 1995, he co-authored an Act - the "Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995", of which much of the text was lifted for the 2001 Patriot Act, which was passed only a few weeks after 9/11 (having been read by virtually nobody). Biden has since claimed that the 1995 Act was in response to the Oklahoma City bombing - but since it was introduced in February 1995, and therefore compiled and drafted before that date, Biden was clearly lying. the Oklahoma City Bombing occurred on April 19, 1995. Even the wikipedia entry points to this discrepancy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Counterterrorism_Act_of_1995

mc cain question

Nice work Andy! Kind regards and thanks for having me on your excellent show. Tony Rooke