John Kerry: WTC Building 7 Was a Controlled Demolition

John Kerry: WTC Building 7 Was a Controlled Demolition

2004 Presidential Candidate Says Weakened Building Was Brought Down Based on Danger Posed to Surroundings

Aaron Dykes / JonesReport | April 22, 2007

Senator John Kerry was questioned concerning 9/11 during an appearance at Book People in Austin, Texas. Members of Austin 9/11 Truth Now asked Kerry about the officially unexplained collapse of WTC Building 7."

Kerry responded:

"I do know that that wall, I remember, was in danger and I think they made the decision based on the danger that it had in destroying other things-- that they did it in a controlled fashion."


Thanks to the dozen or so people who submitted this as a blog entry :)

"Mr. Kerry?!?"

"Just a follow-up or two...

WHAT THE FUCK!?! Are you saying that building was wired that day? Or well in advance? 'Splain, please.

Does your fellow Bonesman George Walker Bush appreciate you letting the cat out of the bag on this? Is that your cell phone I hear ringing?

Why is your wife squirming like that? Stop it, Theresa! Stop it!"

Limited hangout

This is most likely a limited hangout. That is, someone will admit to having destroyed WTC7 by explosive charges previously placed in that building. It will be explained that due to the improtant tenants in the building (CIA, Secret Service, SEC among others) the building was deliberately kept wired at all times in case it was necessary to get rid of it in that way. This will generate a great deal of discussion, distracting people from the greater issue of overall culpability for actions of that day.

Similarly, at some point there may be a limited hangout related to the lack of interceptions on that day (it was the lack of interceptions that woke me up to the truth). Someone will be blamed for scheduling so many wargames at the same time, leaving the country defenseless at its time of greatest need. Heated discussions of this issue, with probably some official in the Pentagon becoming the fall guy, will distract minds from the larger issues involved.

Don't forget that John Kerry is on the same short leash as Bush, which leash is being held by the same people. Any criticism of the administration by him is merely for the purpose of distraction.


Very recently, has begun to back off of deleting 9/11 Truth posts to their "user generated" news-site

Let's see if we can Buzz this to the front page of

"Cogito ergo sum"


Apparently they re-instituted their policy of delete that which we cannot explain.
"Cogito ergo sum"


This is a clever response. See Comment #1.
"Cogito ergo sum"

NeVa MiNd

DeLeTeD aGaIn... Screw BUZZFLASH!!!
"Cogito ergo sum"

Shouldn't matter...

If we stay on message and keep forcing the actual evidence to be examined, those flimsy justifications won't stand up to scrutiny.

John Kerry thanks Kevin Barrett


This came from

Subject: The Difference You Are Making

Dear Kevin,

Over the last 19 months, when you could have walked away, you dusted yourself off, got back on your feet, dug deeper, and you have fought even harder.

[it goes on like this and finishes:]

Thanks so much for all of your help, energy and commitment. I'm proud of what you do, and I hope I live up to your values and convictions in the way I fight by your side.


John Kerry

Kevin Barrett Replies to John Kerry,

Subject: The Difference You Are NOT Making

Dear John,

You, my “war-hero” friend, are a feckless yellow-bellied WIMP. 19 months ago, when you could have walked did! You let the Bush crime family and their 9/11 perp friends the neocons steal the election you won in a landslide 53%-47%. If you had the slightest shred of guts or integrity, you could have had us all out in the streets taking back the country. Instead, you tucked your tail between your legs and fled like the coward you are. Unless, of course, the two candidates from Skull and Bones had the whole thing fixed in advance. Either way, it appears that masturbating in a coffin in front of your sick Yalie frat buddies doesn't do much for your intestinal fortitude. As far as I'm concerned, you're history. But hey, prove me wrong. Get onboard with 9/11 truth NOW or condemn yourself to historical irrelevance.


Kevin Barrett

Kevin Barrett has the

Kevin Barrett has the biggest set of cajones. I can't stop laughing. That is absolutely beaaaaaaaauuuuutiful.

Kevin, thank you from the bottom of my heart for telling that globalist sleezbag like it is!!

"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)

The WHOLE clip

Hello everyone. Sorry for taking a few days to get to this posting myself. We have not stopped since this happened.

I guess we just didn't realize how important it was until afterwards. Everything happened so fast.

This footage shows the whole question Joseph asked. We think it's important to see the whole interaction between Senator Kerry and Joseph.

If you don't want to think about the words, turn the sound down and just watch their emotions.

Profound to me even now.

Thank you all for being so supportive.
Peace }j{ Michelle

great work Michelle.

great work Michelle.

Third Rate Liar!

By coincidence, I caught a bit of a shock driving on the expressway tonight. There was a caravan of trucks + police with flashing lights escorting a truck with a company name that included "demolitions". I assume that this was a delivery of explosives to the local mine. The point being, even in normal times in a rural area, hauling explosives is a big deal and not undertaken lightly.

Now we are either expected to believe that high explosives are always stored in lower Manhattan, or that they could be easily trucked in during an emergency with the Brooklyn Bridge closed! Not to mention that you would have had to had a team of demolitions experts on site. Now you have only 8 hours to get the building plans, decide where to place the charges, get permission from all the agencies housed in WTC 7, and wire the building while it is on fire. Yeah, right.

So Mr. Skull & Bones Kerry, how stupid do you think we are? I know, half of us were stupid enough to think that you were actually an alternative to Mr. Skull & Bones Bush. But millions have wised up, so your BS now falls on deaf ears.

However, thanks for clearing up any ambiguity, we will add you to the list of those COMPLICIT with this crime against humanity.

the smoking gun...

is wiring a burning building with explosives.

The smoking guns are all

The smoking guns are all around us. We need to start acting en mass to get justice. Every day we wait is another day the criminals in our government have a chance to nuke us or Iran (why wouldn't they? a populace informed about their treason isn't good for business)

Every day they stay in power innocent humans are killed over their lies. Iraqi's aren't Americans but damn it, they ARE HUMANS. They are also civilians in most cases which is PROOF positive that our government is capable of killing massive numbers of civilians(if Vietnam, Korea, etc. don't ring a bell we're in trouble as a nation). They killed 3000 of US in one day. What's stopping them from bumping those numbers up?? This is absolutely maddening. They've already said to our faces, "You're either with us or you're against us."

"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)

In three days' time

I predict that Mr. Kerry will retract this statement in three days' time. He will explain that his statement was just a cock-up.

he voted for controlled demolition before voting for fire?

he'll find a way to be on both sides no doubt!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Yes Mr Democratic opposition candidate

plays the ignorance card for the entire issue of the "War on Terror," which he could have done a "better job" at had he won. Makes perfect sense.

They are just buying time, trying to downplay people asking legitimate questions. It won't work. None of the answers makes any sense.

What is apparent is that he IS familiar with the issue, but sidestepping the enormous implications of it.

All we can hope is that the transition of power in Western countries from those in this pro-war, anti-democracy cabal back to the people will be done peacefully.

Reality got you down? Read the La Rochelle Times:

It will take a major revolution

It will take a major revolution, from the ground up. It must necessarily be completely non-violent. Communities will have to take back control. We will.need to decentralize, radically.

No more 'dominator' politics. It is time for cooperative action, cooperative rule, from the grass-roots up.

Dead on.

This will take a full-blown cultural revolution. A renaissance. The problems facing us are more than just political. One particularly urgent area is that of emerging technologies and their ethical implications. If people don't start realizing that things like RFID implants, data-mining, artificial intelligence, biometrics, satalite weapons, nanotech, bio-engineering, etc. are no longer the stuff of science fiction, we are in big trouble. The power of modern technology makes the possibility of an "Orwellian nightmare" as serious as a heart-attack. What we are capable of now would probably even scare Hitler.

Nope - disagree

Only one (or both) of two things will stop this Criminal Disaster of a Gov't :
a) Not non-violence
b) Stop FEEDING that damned beast ( yes april 15th has past).

As long as the sheople keep feeding this monster - it will grow - until it has CONSUMED us. And I fear the Greatest Death toll to hit planet earth could very well come from the sheep feeding thier they're very own predator.

Talk all you want - and they simply laugh at us.


(a) violence will be a means to their end.
(b) the fed can print all the money they want.

the system is rotting from within, heres how.

(a) attrition
(b) monkey wrenching
(c) lackadazicle compliance

their arent nearly as worried about 911 truthers as they are about those in the system ready to do whatever it is they may do

Read " handbook for a new paradigm"

Brother 'eh

I am not.

Lightworker? I'm well aware.

There are more arms in this country than all the armies of the earth. Why you might ask? How did it come to be?

The question you need to ask is 'when'.

Global Enlightenment doesn't come about by "snuffing" the idiots". As a quote from a movie goes : "Apply enough voltage and I can get a horse to deal cards."

Our voltage is TRUTH ... and it works.

Bonvoyage f#$kers - PRINT that nasty shit you falsely call a "dollar" - its a DOUBLE EDGED SWORD - You know it and so I - the more you print ....the deader YOU become !

BraveHeart - "FREEEEEDOM!!!!!!"

About b)

True, they can print all the money they want -- but they need lenders for it. Right now, both the state and the citizenry happily get indebted ever more, but we could effect change on the latter -- minimize consumption and consider participating in or establishing alternative, local currency systems.

interns < internets

The ignorance defense is

The ignorance defense is wearing thin. And you're right, it is absurd for someone who ran for President and claimed he could do a better job to now feign ignorance about this topic.

sounds like...

he doesn't know that Silverstein's spokesperson cleared up that misunderstanding--while it SOUNDED like Silverstein was saying it was decided to destroy the building before it could, uh, destroy itself, he REALLY just meant "pull the contingent of firefighters out".

Of course what Kerry knows and we will soon be told is that Silverstein absolutely meant that they pulled the building itself to prevent its collapse sideways from the asymmetrical "gouge" that was "scooped out" by the mysterious building scoop that morning. The spokesperson was, of course, confused and had not consulted with Mr. Silverstein before making the incorrect clarification (incompetence defense).

Because of the sensitive nature of the contents of the building, it was naturally built with explosives prepositioned in the case of an emergency so that the contents could not be seized by an enemy. No one knew about this because it was a special government thing and people would have been frightened.

The ground has been so clearly laid for this copout BS explanation that Kerry's actual running with it is no surprise whatsoever.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


I too, think this alibi scenario is....

.....very plausible....for awhile now, I've been concerned about it (albeit in less specific detail than RT has layed out).

Another reason to not let discussions of the smoking guns of 9/11 be reduced exclusively to CD.

That said, another thing....I've been perplexed as to why Dr. Jones's startling new evidence/proof of arson at the WTC, revealed at the recent Austin PNACitizen conference, has been largely ignored (some video, but not discussed) on Blogger. He has found definitive thermate signitures in the dust of Ground Zero!. Very, very damning evidence.

whose blog is it on?

Did it say what the video was about or was it just "video fo Steven Jones in Austin" or some such? If anything it might be because it's just one more straw on a broken camel's back....


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force



I am hoping for superior video/audio to surface (it was filmed by many). Especially the audio, as it is "echo-ey".

Dr. Jones's revelation is, of course, the evidence of Arson and CD (the thermate signatures found in the GZ dust) that the woman who confronts Kerry refers to.

This is extremely significant

If I have time I'll make an entry about this. I'm working on a few things right now.

Thermate was in dust that traveled about a football field away from Ground Zero during the collapse.

This proves:

Thermate was used.
Thermate was present before collapse finished
There was molten Steel
There was significant amounts of molten steel
Cleanup did not cause it

This is another smoking gun. It's big.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."


This is huge! He's on the record as saying he'll look into it. It would be great to have congress open an official investigation. Please, please, please. I'll write to Sen Kerry right now to remind him that he said:
"I'll check on it... I'll take a look at it based upon what you've said... You're the first people to anywhere in the country that have brought this to my attention... Let me find out about it.

Hooray for Book People in Austin! Hooray for all the 911 truth seekers in Austin!

Our government is rotten to the core.

Nothing but a full cleaning of house is going to get America any Justice. Don't look for it from a Skull and Bones member or any of the other sniveling cowards we call politicians.

"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)

Don't bother writing to

Don't bother writing to Kerry or any other politician. Go out to events like this with a couple friends and a camera, and corner Presidential candidates in the same way Kerry was cornered here. NO POLITICIANS WILL SAVE US!! THE WHOLE SYSTEM IS CORRUPT. Do more research and you will find that this can only be solved by the PEOPLE taking back this country.

To anyone reading this, if we can bombard the Presidential candidates with EXACTLY this type of action, they are likely to slip up with lies and contradictions. Think of the effect of one or more of these videos for each candidate...

WOW 2 !

"great to have congress open an official investigation..."

LMAO! Yeah - that way they can collect all the official evidence, and put in the Gov't VAULT, sealed up for 200 years!

Kerry's reply is a start down the long road to truth

Herblay FRANCE

Bonjour ,

For many years that I have been in John Kerry's news list I have been asking him regularly on the 911 mass murder crime and have not just to now had any reply except email asking for my donations.

His reply here is a start and we must continue to film his progress towards the truth. Give him time and continue to ask the type of questions above so that we can follow his thoughts, acts and help towards the truth.

Keep up the good work and thanks 911 for permitting us to be informed here in France.



Giving them time is what

Giving them time is what they want. We need Citizens arrests or something to REALLY get the ball rolling. If we stick within their bureaucratic framework we'll get another Warren Commission. We keep getting more and more evidence. WTF is it going to take for our police force or other good guys within the FBI to finally act on our behalf?? If they aren't going to do the jobs we're paying them for then we need to make citizens arrests and start some trials. Our system is corrupt including the courts. Look at what the courts have done to our HEROES in the EPA trial!! WE are on our own and we must act now before it's too late!!

"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)


it appears that they are buying time. but why? it seems the truth is mushrooming and buying time is doing nothing more than that, unless they are prepairing to scorch the earth and the life that dwells upon it. we are reaching the thin edge of a wedge. the longer they wait to bring justice, the more likely a" warren comission finding" will become a "the first rodney king justice verdict" civil order and justice are paramount in the interest of all unless the elite few have malevolent intent.

best defense is a good offense. They caught Kerry offguard.

Wow, super questions by the 911 truthers.
There are some very brave 911 truthers out there.
This gives me a lot of encouragement to know that there are many unknown truthers out there who have the courage and talent to bring the whole house of cards down with a few well placed questions at the right time. A butterfly flapping his wings in Brazil causing a tornado in Alabama.

many high fives to the man and woman who asked the questions. True patriots. Its an honor to have heard your questions.

I think they caught Kerry off guard, like Silverstein (saying pulled) and Giuliani (stating that the Fema drill started on 9/10, telling on TV that the WTCs were going to collapse before they collapsed), and he let the cat out of the bag not realizing that he was strenghthening the 911 truthers point!

Get a person talking, like on the witness stand or a public gathering and all kinds of things will come out. That is why Bush and Cheney were questioned by the 911 Commission at the same time to prevent loose lips sinking the ship?

Controlled fashion could only mean controlled demolition. What else could it mean ? Controlled fashion cannot mean some third way. The building burned down, the building was a controlled demolition or the building was brought down in a controlled fashion ? Huh?

Put these people on the witness stand or ask them a question at a public meeting and they will let all the cats out of the bag.

I would like to know if Kerry gets back with these two 911 truthers and what he says.

Off Guard? More like DENIAL...

I don't buy that any politician (out selling their wares - books) hasn't considered the possibility that a 9/11 truther is out there in the crowd waiting for that moment to change the topic to 9/11...not anymore.

I was insulted that Kerry feigned ignorance about who Steven Jones is...that look of confusion...poor guy, how was he kept out of that "loop"?

Kerry is not a dullard, he was in a state of complacent denial of the possibility that 9/11 quesions would be asked of him. Therefore he did not rehearse for a standard "canned" reply. He isn't a presidential candidate for '08...why worry?

No, the body language of both Kerry (crossed arms) and his wife (figiting hands, the look on her face) displayed discomfort and dismay. They didn't like being put on the spot when all they were simply "there" to do was sell books. I bet they don't like having to personally "peddle their wares" either.

Maybe these are the people we need to wear down? They have little to lose and might not have prepared themselves for the long haul of 9/11 questions. Anyone wanting to be elected is going to have a tougher exoskeleton and will simply sidestep this issue.

This is absolutely incredible.

Way to go questioners, that was very well done. This is newsworthy enough to call local media about.

Newsworthy enough to Contact INSURERS

Newsworthy enough to Contact INSURERS


Joe, that is right.

Gomer Pile

He has the gall to acknowledge details about Silverstein but claims ignorance regarding alternative theories all the while admitting building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition.

Show "This is stupid" by ref

I hate to agree but yeah he

I hate to agree but yeah he did say wall not building... That isn't admitting WTC7 was a CD.

Regardless, its great to see him squirm like that.. He obviously knows about the theories by now and he is far from innocent

His speaking of "a wall"

His speaking of "a wall" was him being quick on his toes to respond in a manner that would get those people off of his back and at the same time almost sound as if he was properly answering the question. He wouldn't have been squirming if he didn't know some sort of details about building 7 and Silverstein. If Kerry hadn't been following much about those events he wouldn't have been so quick on his toes to give that misleading answer. Fuck Kerry. Bush's cousin can be trusted as much as Bush himself.

"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)

The wall

Surely the wall that he refers to is the south side wall of WTC7? Wasn't that the one we see the doctored photo of, where it is mostly missing?

So he apparently means, the building was going to collapse that direction, so it was taken down symmetrically for better safety.

And he was forgetting that you can't wire a building like that in 4 hours while it is burning inside. That was, again, just a cock-up.

See we can't tell with the

See we can't tell with the way he responded. This is exactly what doublespeak is. Kerry would not be a leading politician in America if he didn't have the tactics of misdirection down. Listen to the audio very carefully about what the questioner asked and then Kerry's response. His response seems like it answers that guys question when you first hear it but if you parse the words carefully he is giving an ambiguous statement. Just like Dennis Kucinich with regards to his "hearing on specific issues". In kucinich's case the word 'specific' means detailed, etc. and is intentionally meant to convey that he is doing something specific; however, his actual response is ANY BUT SPECIFIC. His actual response is 100% ambiguous. Do you know what 'specific' things he is looking into? Of course not, because he never cited anything which was his intention. This is the art of double speak in action folks.

It boils down to this, any one caught using double speak is an outright liar. It is VERY difficult to catch them in action unless you're on you're TOES parsing the words in their response. If you have a video or transcript it becomes a lot easier to nail them on these tactics.

"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)


Of course he could be referring to the wall of WTC7 that was damaged by falling debris from the towers.

Question Was About Bldg. 7...said "Controlled Fashion"

I'm glad to pick apart this statement, however, I really think the LARGER CONTEXT IS WHAT WOULD STICK IN THE MIND OF ANYONE HEARING THIS QUESTION OR WATCHING IT

What I mean is: Kerry was clearly asked about WTC 7, as well as Silverstein, his "pull it" comment and investigation related--

If he is clearly asked about WTC 7, and he answers "controlled fashion"-- even if he has done some very sneaky word substitution, I really don't understand how that would benefit him. ON THE SURFACE, the appearance is that he attributes WTC 7 collapse to CD-- or some other explanation withint "controlled fashion"-- and that to me is the intent of the response.

If it is clouding the water with slurry walls from WTC 6-- he certainly didn't mention WTC 6 or mention anything about "after the attacks"-- he was insinuating that WTC 7 was damaged and posed a danger to surroundings-- that's how it came off.

Whether he's misinformed, or playing wordsmith, don't we walk away having heard John Kerry say WTC 7 was brought down in CD. HOW DOES THAT HELP THE AGENDA OF A CONTINUED COVER-UP?

(and in no way am I suggesting that Kerry is out for truth or intending to pursue investigation or a lesser of two evils or any other such....but I still think by way of "cock-up" "ignorance" or attempting to re-pave the dead end lies of the official story, he still comes off as explaining WTC 7 by way of CD....)

I really don't understand the argument on the "Wall" being WTC 6...I suppose I've made that clear, but I just don't "GET" the counter argument

= would anyone other than a well-versed truther pick-up on a reference to WTC 6 (if indeed that was the case)? Wouldn't the LAYPERSON (if they even knew of WTC 7 at all) ASSOCIATE a question with Kerry referencing Controlled Demo?


bottom line, how could you deny WTC 7 was a controlled dem., especially with such a charming skeleton like Kerry saying WTC 7....fell in a "controlled fashion"?

Aaron Dykes


What Kerry's response allows is for him to claim at a later time, when he and others have had time to strategize over the issue, that he had in fact been speaking, by mistake (of course!), of a different building. His response allowed him to give some form of an answer that would appear to answer immediate questions thus removing the fire from his feet.

Of course those comments are causing controversy like Lucky Larry's "pull it"; however, unlike Lucky Larry's slip Kerry can claim it was a mistake. The 'wall' might not have been WTC 6. Maybe it was something else. But his use of "the wall" rather than "wtc 7" is wordsmithing and will allow him to modify his "intent" at a later time.

My guess is that Kerry won't respond to any inqueries right away. In fact he may just wait us out like Silverstein. Kerry's response may have even been a preconcocted "out" for politicians met with these kinds of questions when at open forums such as this one.

Don't think for a minute that a Skull and Bones member doesn't have a game plan strategy to attempt to deal with issues like this when they go in front of a crowd.

"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)

It may or may not be stupid

It sounds to me like maybe he did hear some confidential insider explanation, which may have been true or false. He may be relaying a little more than he is supposed to be here.

We should check the dates and times of his book tour. I assume it's still in progress. His reply needs some follow-up.

"What makes you think they destroyed WTC 7 in a controlled fashion?"

I have to agree with ref.

I have to agree with ref. This doesn't sound like a smoking gun to me. Wasn't there one part of a wall of one of the Twin Towers, maybe a couple of stories high, still standing after the collapse? Could he have been talking about that wall and bringing it down in a controlled fashion?

Holy Sheep Sh*t

Watch it full screen and watch Teresa nod in a yes motion and go "mmm" ...acknowledging she knows about the thermite before the lady's question was even finished.

And then John says " I do know that uhhh..."

I got the tar and feathers.....can we please round them all up now???!!!!!!!!!!

What does it take?

i can almost smell the fear

i can almost smell the fear and discomfort through my computer screen. great job Austin 9/11 Truth.

Texans have redeemed

Texans have redeemed themselves in my eyes for acts like these.

"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)

hahaha, come on man, thats

hahaha, come on man, thats not fair. good and bad people are located everywhere. remember that people like Molly Ivins were born and raised in Texas while George W. Bush only claims to be native. little rich boy from Connecticut. they did elect him as Governor though so i take your point, haha.

Body language in this video

When the 1st lady asks Kerry about WTC 7 watch the fingers on his left hand nervously twitching. At the 1:15 mark, a questioner asks about Larry Silverstein and Kerry changes his pose to folded arms across his chest which is a classical 'defensive' body language stance. Kerry IS a globalist and a Skull and Bones member. He can not be trusted. At least these questioners put him on the spot and he let out the "controlled fashion" line.

"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)

i caught that too. in fact,

i caught that too. in fact, as soon as SIlversteins name came up he folded his arms. to me that says a lot.

As the second guy is

As the second guy is finishing his line of questioning, Theresa looks like she is doing some 'rithmetic figgerin' on her hands or something. HA HA!! Hilarious! Someone should make a collection of all these "squirmy" performances. Bush's "absurd insinuation" line, Davin Coburn's STELLAR Popular Mechanics radio interview, Obama's annoyed denial of the issue to Student Scholars, now this... Just the consistency of their guilty body language and responses could possibly be enough to convince many people.

Show "So, we get back to the" by ref

FDNY had nothing to do with

FDNY had nothing to do with bringing that building down. Demolitions isn't their job. That's what demolition companies are for. When Silverstein says, "...and They made that decision to pull..." I'm inclined to think he uses the word 'they' for one of the government agencies in that building and he simply uses 'they' to be ambiguous in order not to name the perpetrators. Liars will speak ambiguously to avoid giving out information.

FDNY SAVES people from burning buildings it doesn't bring them down. Period. End of story.

"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)

Show "Don't try to twist out of" by ref

Don't YOU twist out of

Don't YOU twist out of this!!! When the fuck did firefighters start getting trained in structural engineering and building demolitions??? I hate to be the one to inform you but the FDNY is GOING to take a backseat to Federal agencies such as the FBI and the CIA, who HAD offices in that building. Are you telling me that you think those two agencies would sit back and let the FDNY demolish the buildings??? I'm not even going to debate the meaning of "pull it" with you.

If you're too stupid to know a controlled demolition when you see it then you need to get off of your computer and give it to an impoverished family because you are wasting a valuable resource.

"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)

Show "So do you now say that FBI" by ref

Why don't you donate your

Why don't you donate your computer to someone in need who would make better use of it?

"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)

Show "You just lost" by ref

No, what it shows is that we have very limited

tolerance and patience for pre-pwned tube monkeys such as yourself. You're lucky you've gotten as much substantive response as you have. Now run along.

Show "Try to use facts then." by ref

Pull it

I think we can agree that 'Pull It' can be used to mean both pulling down a building with chains, and also pulling the support from under a building as in CD. After all it is a shortened form of the english saying 'Pull the rug out from under it', which is the best way of describing CD in common language that is already available, it's the most accurate and succinct meaning.



The last time Kerry told the Truth...

"Speaking of John Kerry, I have some news for you. On Friday, this last Friday night, I arranged to meet Senator Kerry at a fundraiser to give him a copy of my book. He told me he now thinks the election was stolen. He said he doesn't believe that he is the person who can go out front on the issue, because of the sour grapes, you know, question. But he said he believes it was stolen. He says he argues about this with his Democratic colleagues on the Hill." - Mark Crispin Miller.


Within days, Kerry denied that he said these things to Miller;

BOB CESCA: Last month, John Kerry denied your report that he felt the 2004 election was stolen. First, what's your reaction to his denial? It seems to me as if Kerry has an opportunity to reform the voting system as a public servant fresh from the trenches and very battle-scarred, but he won't stand up for fear of being accused of something as trivial and historically irrelevant as "sour grapes". How many more questionable elections will it take before candidates and leaders like Kerry set aside their concerns over being accused of "sour grapes" and actually put democracy and the good of the nation first?

MARK CRISPIN MILLER: The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind.

I'm not kidding. The answer isn't clear, since what we're dealing with is an irrational refusal to confront, or even to perceive, a clear and present danger to American democracy. We're dealing, finally, with denial. Kerry's move -- "I did not discuss the last election with that man" -- may seem to have been merely prudent, cautious, self-protective, but it was actually insane. Kerry clearly thinks that he will run for president again. Now, let's pretend, just for the sake of argument, that any Democrats outside of his own family would support him after his abrupt concession on Nov. 3, 2004. Let's pretend that he could once again be nominated, and then run, again, in 2008. Let's assume as well that he would win (again). Why does he assume that the Republicans would not subvert that victory too? Does he think the system will perform correctly if it hasn't been reformed? Or does he plan to call for its reform? If so, when? If he wouldn't talk about it back when he was first ripped off, and if he still won't talk about it now, how could he then begin to talk about it as a candidate? The man is obviously out to lunch.

This is a SHOW OF STUPIDITY, not a "stunning admission".

It's obvious Kerry is so clueless that he has building 6 mixed up with building 7.

Building 6 was "pulled" 6 weeks later by a combination of a crane pulling the building away from the slurry wall, simultaneous with charges.

They did it in that manner because it was up against the slurry wall and they did not want it to damage it.

This is shown in the "America Rebuilds" PBS documentary.

Let's not make more out of this than it really is. If it will draw attention to building 7 then that's a good thing, but I think it's clear this was clear case of confusion.

That's damning enough. Kerry is a premier Senator, and has voted to send people into wars based on these events that he knows nothing about.

What danger did WTC6 pose to

What danger did WTC6 pose to surrounding buildings 6 weeks later?

Your characterization is very unlikely. Kerry knows damned well the significance of WTC7. If he made a mistake, it was in going off-script and stating the obvious. If it is to be overwritten, it will be by via a bogus cover-his-ass statement like the one you just posted. We have seen this before with Pullerstein's comment.

It just shows to go ya that it is impossible to keep the lie going, and that there is an effort afoot to allow some concessions on 9/11 truth to be released. But no matter how carefully the concessions are scripted, they don't make practical sense.

Well said...

I don't think we should look at this as Kerry saying WTC 7 came down due to controlled demolition.

I think we should look at this as John Kerry claiming to be ignorant of what happened that day.

We have to decide if he is actually ignorant, or if he is feigning ignorance.

One question I've always struggled with is: Are the John Kerry's and John Edward's of the world on the inside?

My head says "yes", but my heart says "no. please no.".

Bush's cousin is feigning

Bush's cousin is feigning ignorance. His response discussing a "wall" was set up so that it sounded as if he was responding about building 7 when in reality he was probably talking about one of the other smaller buildings (double speak in action). His response was worded to fool the questioners and get them off of his back. His body language tells you EVERYTHING you need to know. I'd love to know what Professor Paul Ekman of the University of San Francisco thinks about this. Paul Ekman is THE definitive expert on reading facial expressions.

Let's take advantage of him as a resource. Please contact Dr. Paul Ekman and ask him for his opinion of Kerry regarding his honesty in his responses in this video. Be polite and include the link to the video.

Paul Ekman, PhD
Title Professor Emeritus
Department Psychiatry

Campus Address

Box 0984 ,
University of California, San Francisco
San Francisco, CA. 94143 - 0984

Time to start steam rolling these politicians!

Nice Catch

Good observation. Still- Does not look good to Kerry.. doesn't even know the buildings that fell then.

Not Stupidity


Kerry knows the TRUTH.

But he plays along with the "official" story.

He is well aware of Silverstein's admission.

Just not aware that "Lucky Larry" clarified what he meant.

Not aware that no final report has on 7 has been issued.

Not aware of the truth debunkers feeble effort to show it was felled by fire and damage.


My email to Senator Kerry

To email Senator Kerry go to:

Dear Senator Kerry,

I am writing to inquire about your recent comments at an appearance at Book People in Austin, Texas. In a videotaped Q & A session you were asked about the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building (WTC building #7) at 5:20 pm on 9/11/01.

You mentioned ""I do know that that wall, I remember, was in danger and I think they made the decision based on the danger that it had in destroying other things-- that they did it in a controlled fashion."

In a PBS video entitled "America Rebuilds", Larry Silverstein (the leaseholder of the World Trade Center complex) recalled the events of the day of 9/11 as "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

I sincerely believe that this building collapse deserves a much more thorough investigation and you had mentioned that "I'll check on it... I'll take a look at it based upon what you've said... You're the first people to anywhere in the country that have brought this to my attention... Let me find out about it."

Please follow through with your intentions to investigate this building collapse and keep me informed as to your progress.

John Kerry YouTube video:

Also check out


"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves" – Edward R. Murrow

Show "What is your interpretation of pull it?" by ref

Watch this brief 1:38 video...

Not only does this video include the videotaped words of Larry Silverstein, at the 1 minute 30 second point it captures demolition workers at Ground Zero stating "We're getting ready to pull building 6".


"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves" – Edward R. Murrow

Show "Yes" by ref

OK, so we'll assume that

OK, so we'll assume that "pull it" has nothing to do with buildings and bringing them down at all.

You're saying that a fire chief would call a building owner to decide whether to pull firefighters out of a building?
If it was so obviously going to fall down that everyone (BBC, CNN, firefighters on the scene, Guiliani) can see it, why would firefighters ever be in the building, especially when 2 other huge towers have just collapsed hours ago and a massive rescue effort was in place?

Why would the FEMA report state that there was no firefighting in building 7?

Why would Popular Mechanics state that there was no firefighting in building 7?

Why would pull it mean pull firefighters WHEN HE REFERENCED THE BUILDING RIGHT BEFORE HE SAYS "IT". Why would "IT" suddenly mean the firefighters when he doesn't reference them ahead of time? Suddenly "IT" just means something he hasn't mentioned a word about yet?

Why did Larry get close to $500 million just for that building (3 billion plus total) falling for a policy he took out (specifically covering terrorist attacks) just months before the attacks?

Why was this building the only steel framed building ever to fall from just fire damage in the history of the world when it was further away (and blocked by another building and across the street) than the other buildings in the complex from the towers? So 4, 5 and 6, which are closer to the towers and smaller buildings don't even come close to falling and Building 7 falls down in less than 10 seconds.

It just so happens that "pull it" has something to do with bringing buildings down.

Yeah, all just coincidences! Go back to sleep!


There was no firefighting in building 7. There were search and rescue efforts.

Your numbers are dead wrong. Silverstein received $861 million for WTC7. He will receive a total of $4,6 billion. The estimated cost of the rebuilding is around $9 billion. I hardly see any profit there.

4, 5 & 6 were around 10 floors tall and the debris hit them from top down. WTC7 was 47 floors and the debris hit the whole facade and low. The mass of WTC7 above debris impact zones was multiple times the mass of 4,5 or 6. See the difference?

How many steel framed buildings have been hit by a plane? Even in Madrid Windsor the steel parts collapsed. Only reinforced concrete skeleton stood up.

Check your facts.

Pull it.

Haha just noticed that :)

"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace

ref, prepare to be PWNED!!!111

Forward 2min into this interview:

"This is work of man. This is a hired job. [Larry Silverstein] said it himself. You hear him saying 'Pull it'"

-Controlled Demolition Expert Danny Jowenko

The entire interview can be seen here:

Extended interview w/ Controlled Demo Expert Danny Jowenko on Dutch Television (2006) confirming that Building 7 was deliberately brought down using explosives
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

And here's a telephone interview from the website (from 2/22/07), where Jowenko maintains his belief that Building 7 was a controlled demolition:

Here's an excerpt:

PUMPITOUT.COM: Are you still sticking by your comments where you say [Building 7] must have been a controlled demolition?

DANNY JOWENKO: Absolutely!

Jowenko has nearlt 30 years experience in the controlled demolition industry, and he's on videotape saying that Silverstein's "pull it" comment means controlled demolition.


VIDEO: "Pull it" REVISITED (includes calls to demolition companies proving that 'pull' is a controlled demolition term)


Here's one of the "Researchers" from Popular Mechanics admitting that "Pull" is indeed a controlled demolition term:

"of course in some circles of the controlled demolition industry 'Pull' is used to mean that you actually demolish a building."
-Benjamin Chertoff, Researcher for Popular Mechanics, on Coast to Coast AM - March 5, 2005:


The term 'pull' is referenced on Controlled Demolition Inc.'s website in regards to using explosives to bring a building down:

"Utilizing a total of 137 pounds of linear shaped charges and 50 lbs of dynamite "kicker charges", CDI worked in only the partial basement to the west, the Lobby Level and 4th floor of the structure. Placed in over 400 locations, the shaped charges were sequentially initiated over a period of 5.4 seconds, working from southwest to northeast through the structure. Following the seemingly endless 2.6 second natural pause in the non-electric initiation system, the structural charges detonated on cue, allowing the southwest wing of the structure to fail first, creating the desired lateral "pull" on the north and east curtain walls."


The term 'pull' is also used in this description of controlled demolition on website:

"Implosion occurs when the difference between internal to external pressure is such that a structure collapses on itself. When external pressure on a structure is greater than its internal pressure, the structures implodes. The building implosion technique does not rely on the difference between internal and external pressure to pull the building down, but simply on the effect of gravitational pull. Numerous small explosions are used to catalyze the collapse, having been strategically planned within the structure and timed to occur in concert, often detonating within milliseconds of one another. Days or even weeks of preparation frequently precede such an event."


Anymore doubt about whether or not the term 'pull' is used in the demolition industry? No? Good, case closed then, now please STFU!

(FYI, I encourage others to freely copy this info and post it anytime you see some schmuck like "ref" trying to tell you that "pull' isn't a controlled demolition term)

"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace

Show "Who owns who my friend?" by ref

Yes, please.

I would like to see statements in which native English speakers say pull it to refer to firefighters.

Show "Here goes." by ref

Don't waste much time

with straw-man artists. He doesn't even deserve a reply if he can't figure this out:

"Pull it" is different than "pull them". One represents persons, another a thing.

It is not Silverstein's quote that proves WTC7 was a controlled demolition. It is the 11 features of controlled demolition that proves that WTC7 was a controlled demolition (including free fall speed, molten metal--even evaporated metal, perfectly symmetrical collapse and other features).

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Show "What are you talking about." by ref

made the decision to pull

not to pull back, pull out, pull through, pull around... there is in every one of your examples a preposition.

LS said pull IT (a noun) and the decision to pull (PERIOD)

big difference, if in fact you want to argue semantics!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


The word "pull" is used in

The word "pull" is used in the context of a cause and effect: "...they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

If he was referring to pulling the firemen out of the building, was he suggesting that their presence was keeping it up? Were their shoulders straining under the weight of the girders? Did they conduct a countdown, let go quickly, and then all ran out simultaneously?

I know firemen are strong and heroic, but that's just a tad hyperbolic, isn't it?


"I will not withdraw from this war even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me." -George W. Bush

Show "You need this explained?" by ref

Thank you, casseia

That should be the end of "it".

Twist and turn and twist and turn

Are you really sure you want to claim that Silverstein talked to Daniel Nigro on 9/11? If so then your azz just got PWNED!!11 again!:

What Was The Name Of The Fire Commander Larry Silverstein Was Referring To?

Scroll down to where Jon Gold states:

"I just talked to Daniel Nigro. He was put in charge of the fire department that morning after Peter Ganci was killed. He was at WTC7 at the time of collapse, and does not believe it was Controlled Demolition. However, he says he did not talk to Larry Silverstein that day, and doesn't know who did. He is now retired."

Re: Jowenko

At the time of his initial interview for Dutch TV, he said that he did not believe that it was possible or rather that it would have taken a long time to rig. However, this question was asked before he was presented information about Building 7. Also worth mentioning, Mr. Jowenko and most everyone else who work in the demolition industry are not familiar with "Top Down" controlled demolition method (the method used to bring down the towers - most likely to give the illusion that planes had brought them down). Mr. Jowenko also hadn't researched information supporting WTC controlled demolition theories prior to his interview and clearly had a bias. His current opinions and research regarding the Twin Towers is unknown at this time.

"Pull it is not a demolition term."

Are you dense? A controlled demolition pro is on tape saying that "Pull it" is a controlled demolition term. Are you calling him a liar? Are you calling Chertoff a liar?

As for the FDNY, I believe there are definitely some who know what happened. But aren't coming forward due to fear of losing their jobs, pensions, life, etc.. Some may even have fear of being exposed as crooks themselves. There are reports of FDNY stealing money from ATM machines near GZ. A GZ worker has come forward to say that he found bags of money in one of the fire trucks that was destroyed by falling debris. There's also a recent report that exposed many in the FDNY who faked their diplomas to get ahead:

There's corruption in many professions. Just because it's the FDNY doesn't mean that some of their members didn't have knowledge of what happened on 9/11. Perhaps some were in on it. Perhaps others were just following orders that day. Such as the ones who told first responders to move away from WTC-7, because the building was going to be "brought down on purpose".

But it's not our job as researchers to get these questions answered. That's what a new and impartial investigation will need to determine.

Do you agree that there should be a new investigation into what happened on 9/11, ref?

If not then you're just blowing smoke. Instead you should be supporting a new investigation into what happened so we can ALL find out the truth about what did or did not happen.

"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace

Show "My bad on Nigro, not on other points." by ref

Obviously, from your comments, you're too stupid...

to be a Shill. Just another useful idiot.

Words of wisdom: It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Show "Explain yourself" by ref

We're talking about the crime of the century here.

ref, are you suggesting that when crimes have been committed in the past, persons involved in crimes haven't been silenced by others who were involved? Are you suggesting that witnesses have never been threatened or intimidated to keep their mouths shut ?

Prove that it's never happened before and you win the debate. But I have news for you - you can't. It's a historical fact that witnesses and/or accomplices to crimes have been threatened, intimidated, paid off, and/or killed in an effort to shut them up - to protect others who were involved. It's a fact. It's been documented throughout history.

Many crimes remain unsolved to this day, because of people who suddenly changed their stories or dropped dead or disappeared under very suspicious circumstances. Just look at what happened after JFK was murdered:

Oh but I bet you think Oswald acted alone? Pffft!

Let's pretend that you saw something you weren't suppose to see on 9/11, and you told your boss about it or a person in authority, and the next day you got a visit from the FBI and they told you to keep your mouth shut about it for whatever reason, and if you didn't you would be in big trouble. Would you do as you were told or would you run to the newspapers?

Are you aware that there are people who've been gagged and can't talk about what they know happened on 9/11?

Are you aware of how many times the government's version of 9/11 has changed?

Are you aware that every time the government has changed its story that the FBI, FAA, NORAD/NEADS, FDNY, NYPD, etc.. didn't speak up about these changing stories. When one was introduced they remained silent and went along with it. When another was introduced they remained silent and went along with it - and so on. All these stories couldn't be true. But no one said a thing. Or they didn't say it loud enough for you or I to hear it. Are you getting the picture?

Do you know how many days went by after the Peal Harbor attack occurred before an investigating commission was formed?

Do you know how many days went by before a 9/11 cOmmission was formed after the attack?

Do you know who it was that had to push for that cOmmission to be formed to begin with?

Do you believe the Kean cOmmission, once it was formed, was impartial during its investigation?

Are you aware that members of the cOmmission have publicly stated that they were set-up to fail?

"What would your new investigation consist of? Who would do it and how?"

To be honest, I don't think a new and impartial investigation into 9/11 in the United States is possible - not with the current system of Government that's in place. The people in it are far too compromised and/or corrupted. I believe It will take a violent revolution in this country before a new and impartial investigation into what happened on 9/11 could ever take place.

I hope I'm wrong about that, though.

"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace

Show "Ok." by ref

This would falsify our beliefs

If the buildings did not fall at near-free-fall speed. Each of the three.

If hundred ton debris were not ejectd laterally for almost 400 feet, so as to crash into WTC 7.

If there were not pools of molten steel underneath each of the three WTC bldgs that went down.

And a few other details.

Prove your points

Prove, that gravitational collapse should have been significantly slower.

Prove, that gravitational force could not eject debris 400ft from buildings 1300ft tall.

Prove molten STEEL.

Where have you been?

Conservation of Energy
Conservation of Momentum
Looky! It's molten metal at temperatures way above 1000°C

Guess you just came out of the nutrient tank...

interns < internets

Where have you?

I said steel, not metal. Where is your proof of molten steel.

As for the other links:

Do you know, how much the mass of the upper parts was? Have you read this one by Bazant:

"The upper part of tower fell, with little resistance, through at least one floor height, impacting the lower part of tower. This triggered progressive collapse because the kinetic energy of the falling upper part exceeded (by an order of magnitude) the energy
that could be absorbed by limited plastic deformations and fracturing in the lower part
of tower."

His resume in structural engineering is more impressive, than all the scholars combined.

LOL @ you.

That's like asking "What would it take for you to admit 2 + 2 = 5?"

I pity you. You are a by-product of this criminal network.

so there could never be a

so there could never be a staged event ever in history since too many people would take part?
If someone would be so cold hearted to take part in an act like this...why the HELL would they suddenly feel like they have to confess to being part of murder? You think cold hearted killers turn themselves in and say "I'm sorry."
Also, do you think that NO government has ever staged attacks in history? What about the Reichstag? What about the Gulf of Tonkin? USS Liberty? The Maine? Operation AJAX? Operation Gladio?
None of that happened though, right? Because hundreds, if not thousands, of people participated, right?
Do you think the government, after successfully orchestrating these plans and benefiting from them and NOT being punished at all would refrain from doing them again? Or do you think the events would increase since they were so effective and no one got busted.

Hey! A solution to the riddle

Comments by our friend ref made me realize that the perps did in fact fear that WTC 7 was in danger of going down. Why? They knew it was wired with explosives, and that, eventually, the fire would set off the explosives.

It is a simple solution. It solves Silverstein's "pull it" comment. it solves why so many people were predicting WTC 7 was going to collapse, even though fire had never caused any steel-framed building to collapse, inclusing WTCs 1 and 2.



He doesn't know what he's talking about...

I'm sorry to get anyone's hopes dashed, and I'm sorry that other people who expressed this opinion had their comments voted down, but...

John Kerry has no idea what he's talking about there. I do not think he is saying WTC came down in a controlled way. I think he's just thinking, "Yeah, I remember they had to bring some wall down in the aftermath. I remember that." I've watched this 3 times now, and I do not think he thinks he's talking about an entire building.

My .02.

That being said....getting him on record, and on video discussing this is a huge step.

Also, Teresa's body language is very interesting, but I'm no body language expert.


Either way, a good cover while he's doing damage control for his comment would be exactly what you write - "I was referring to building six, I was caught off guard and was thinking of the demolitions in the weeks that followed."

I agree - He is trying to feign knowledge

Although, it is very unfortunate that a senator has so little knowledge about 9-11 truth, perhaps he will actually check things out a bit.

He definitely was trying to cover for his ignorance by making general, broad statements that he hoped would be correct.

Boy! He really stepped in it, didn't he?

+ response

Wow, that's a significant admission, this late in the game, for a senator to be saying this. It's also good to hear such a positive response from Kerry on investigating Nine-Eleven "based on fact and evidence." (Don't hold your breath though.)

"He was talking about a wall, not the building"

If you try out the Kerry clip on any 9/11 debunker, you will get this: Kerry was referring to a wall still standing weeks after the demolition, when many controlled demolitions were being used to clear debris.

The body language says more

The body language says more than his empty words could ever say. Amazing footage for the body language response alone.

we need to be careful

Lets just say Silverstein's "slip" was intentional. The conspiracy theorists rallied around it and it has become a focal point. John Kerry's comment is then "slipped" in and we all get into a feverish frenzy....loose change 2 hits the cinemas and the world starts to demand a response...

Right about now the elites trot out that WTC7 was indeed demolished because it was a secure building and they couldn't secure it any longer because of the damage etc. Yes it was pre-wired etc etc. Sorry we couldn't tell you but that info had to be classified etc etc.

Now, we have us hardcore truthers but then a large majority of people have joined in the last 12 months on the back of loose change and WTC7. This new majority don't want to believe that the government and the system is totally corrupt but they can't deny what they see in building 7. BUT, if they hear a good explanation for building 7 they will sit back and feel comfortable [again] that invading IRAQ was indeed the right thing to do.

I think the elite are waiting to tell about WTC7 when it is the right time - after loose change hits the cinema. They have a similar plan for the Pentagon.

For this reason I always say to people that I'm trying to convince, that 911 has a number of unanswered questions and less so that it was an inside job (not yet!!) and that the 911 commission is incomplete and wrong. This way WTC7 can be admitted and PROVE that the official story IS wrong and that they then need to continue to explain all the other inaccuracies, lies, omissions and distortions.

I just think we need to be sooo careful not to put all our eggs into one basket.

Also, did you see how John Kerry folded his arms and rocked on his heels when he was asked the WTC7 question? He obviously felt uncomfortable with the question. Why?

Our political system will not radically change for the better save some catalysing event, such as exposing 911 as an inside job

That is extremely important

I've also been saying that WTC 7 should not be concentrated on at the expsense of the Twin Towers and the other central anomalies of 9/11.

It is absolutely imperative to avoid giving the impression that WTC 7 is the only problem. That's what worries me about Rosie's stance. WTC 7 always has to be discussed in connection with the Twins.

As a side note: grammatically, of course, the fact that "it" doesn't refer to people while "they" does is not the only difference between expressions like "pull it" and, say, "pull them BACK".

Yes 100x

People died in the Twin Towers. I have never understood the focus on WTC7. Yes, it's important, but not as a central focus which it often seems to become.

What's up with this?

I'm agreeing with these guys and I get downrated? Whatever.

I say it again - between Rosie and Kerry talking about WTC7, I smell a rat. I'm not talking about Rosie - I admire her for what she is doing. And I'm definitely not talking about the Austin folks for asking Kerry a great question.

Rosie is quoted on another blog here as saying that WTC7 is the only steel-framed building to ever be brought down by fire. Could that play into NIST's claim that plane impacts and fire brought down WTC 1 and 2?

Don't confuse yourself. The

Don't confuse yourself. The manner in which ALL THREE buildings collapsed defies the laws of physics in any case other than CD, or some as yet undiscovered "miracle" phenomenon, that happened three times in one day. Nobody with half a brain is putting all the "eggs" in the BLDG. 7 "basket". There are many pieces of evidence that suggest, or come close to proving government complicity. Some, such as these building collapses, are governed by the laws of physics, and therefore aren't up for debate indefinitely. Causes can and will be (HAVE BEEN) discovered.

I agree

However, I'm not confused at all. I'm not talking about people that are informed about 9/11. I'm talking about the potential for WTC7 to be explained away in some less incriminating way, and that this will divert attention from WTC 1 and 2. And I repeat, what Rosie is saying about fires only carries the risk of reinforcing the NIST lie that plane impacts plus fire could take down WTC 1 and 2.


This has generated a great deal of responses. I don't know if anyone pointed out the very defensive posture by Kerry to the WTC7 question. The folded arms are a classic body language sign of closing down.

But beyond that, what a wuss of an answer! Does this man not have access to Google? This is the first he's heard about some of these concerns?!?! Two words for you Mr. Kerry... BULL SHIT!!!
"Cogito ergo sum"

Show "Reality check" by ref

Pay no attention to the

Pay no attention to the hired opposition. Seriously, don't respond to people who are here specifically to rile you up and keep your energy focused on the wrong targets.

They don't want your energy being used towards normal fence sitting people, so they send these punching bags out to absorb all your debating power. DON'T FALL FOR IT!

911blogger mods need to ban these accounts and IPs. I know you don't want to seem like a blog Nazi or anything, but there is a difference between an agitator and a friendly debater. These scumbags wouldn't hesitate for a second to ban you.

Excuse me?

This is truther policy. Ban everybody who disagrees with you.

I would never ban any of you, unless you continually broke rules. Have I broken any rules?

Add him to the Patriots site?

This revelation qualifies Mr. Kerry for admission into another august group, besides Skull and Bones: Patriots Question 911.

Come to think of it, Larry could also join.

We MUST do this, again and again

(1) Ask a public figure a probing question about 9/11.

(2) Video his reaction, and post it all over the internet.

(3) Repeat.

This will help open the issue wide for all to see.

And, of course, it was a GREAT job done by those who set the trap for Kerry. Who shall we get next?

English teachers could play a HUGE role

If we could get some english teachers as the ones asking questions they could probably nail these assholes right off the bat for giving ambiguous/double speak answers. Putting them on the spot like that would force them to clarify immediately.

Give a helping hand english teachers and those who have high verbal scores on standardized tests!!

"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)

Very Interesting

The 'Skull And Bones" Kerry alleging a controlled demo at the WTC on 9/11?

That is pretty specific.

If nothing else, this proves how we can get in the face of major figures and demand answers.

And what do you think that guy is saying to Theresa Heinze Kerry just before the film expires?!

"We are unprepared. We must cut and run."

He's talking about the WALL

not Building 7

He spun the question :

///////////////////// - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

Why would you vote this

Why would you vote this down? He clearly isn't talking about WTC 7...

Sometimes I wonder about this place....

///////////////////// - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

You've got my vote...

I wonder too.

Take a chill pill

Most people want to jump at Kerry's response to that question. It's hard to catch double speak in action. Besides, WTC 7 had walls, just like every other building that came down or was torn down. The question was clearly about WTC7. Maybe he was speaking of WTC7 after all. You don't know and I don't because of his use of ambiguous language.

"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)


the people voting down these posts are the once who should take a chill pill? Usually the people acting rationally are not the ones told to take chill pills.

Not a "Wall" !?!

Mr. Kerry was very smooth in skipping around to avoid admitting any knowledge. Using the term "Wall", instead of a "42 STORY, STEEL FRAMED BUILDING THAT WAS NOT HIT BY PLANES AND HAD ONLY SMALL POCKETS OF FIRE". If that was the first he had heard of the "conspiracy facts", then he has been on a different planet.
Well Mr. Kerry, there is a ton of evidence we can show you. Wake up and smell the roses.

Unrelated note: Our Vice President was interviewed last week and stated his fear of Nulcear Terrorist Attacks. He may be laying the ground work for a new 911, false flag attack on the American people.

Cheney makes these statements as threats

not concerns. Coming from him they are threats, directed at his adversaries.

Cheney's a monster.
On the 11th day, of every month.

Please be careful


So are you saying that the official story about WTC 1and 2, that planes and larger fires brought them down, is true? That is just as absurd.

WTC 1 and 2 is where people died, they are the buildings that are in the lungs of the responders, and they are the justification for the terror wars. I hate to see WTC7 overemphasized. Sure it's important, but I see an explanation coming that leaves the lies about WTC 1 and 2 intact. Please consider this. Thank you.

Ningen, although some dummies

could misinterpret it as that, let's try not to SPLIT TOO MANY HAIRS. We can easily explain away your concern in a few short sentences. It's not such an enormous hurdle to be overcome.


Just a concern of mine. Since everyone here seems to believe that planes hit, and NIST and MIT say that the planes' impacts cut or weakened core columns, there is a big difference in the official stories. I hope that people can look at the kinetic energy studies on the plane impacts and not take this part of the story for granted, which is not a "no planes" argument.

On the other hand, it would be damn suspicious for them to change their story now, and they would have to say WTC7 was prewired, which would raise the question of whether the other buildings were also prewired.

It was taken out of context

He was just stammering. There needs to be a follow up question and series of questions.

And this upcoming election cycle is going to present a phenomenal opportunity for the movement.
On the 11th day, of every month.

PWN the Presidential candidates in the same way.

Only do like RR here says: FOLLOW UP!! Have more than one question, and structure them in such a way so that your second question qualifies and clarifies your first question. I mean, your second question should force the puppet to clarify and qualify his/her response. We need to take back the very nature of debate in this country. The MSM and the puppets want everything to be reduced to "sound-bites" and one paragraph responses. Force them to engage in adult debate and express clear points. Plan your attack. Go over possible "double-speak" responses to your questions before hand, and come up with ways to force the puppet to clarify. When someone like Kerry tries to feign ignorance, CALL HIM ON IT!! "Mr. Kerry, I have a hard time believing someone in your position is less informed about the events of Sept. 11 than the average college student, and if you are, I have serious reservations about your ability to represent the American people."

John Kerry was weaseling out

John Kerry was weaseling out of the question to appease the truthers in the audience.... I think he will later retract what he said about the controlled way they brought it down. The great thing is they can't claim ignorance of our movement once we do this to all of them...

"I will not withdraw from this war even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me." -George W. Bush



"Mr. Kerry was very smooth in skipping around to avoid admitting any knowledge. Using the term "Wall", instead of a "42 STORY, STEEL FRAMED BUILDING THAT WAS NOT HIT BY PLANES AND HAD ONLY SMALL POCKETS OF FIRE". If that was the first he had heard of the "conspiracy facts", then he has been on a different planet."




This guy surely must be a member

of Skull and Bones..?



On the 11th day, of every month.

Chertoff admits 9/11 truth has gone mainstream

Posted from the Loose Change Forum
Report Post
by Fulcanelli
Apr 23 2007, 01:12 PM

Chertoff in Washington Post admits 9/11 truth has gone mainstream

9/11 Blogger
Monday April 23, 2007

Washington Post, Sun 4/22/07 Link to Post article

Michael Chertoff: "Since Sept. 11, a conspiracy-minded fringe has claimed that American officials plotted the destruction. But when scholars such as Zbigniew Brzezinski accuse our leaders of falsely depicting or hyping a "war on terror" to promote a "culture of fear," it's clear that historical revisionism has gone mainstream."

The rest of the article can be summarized thus:
"al-Qaeda... terror network... Osama Bin Laden ... kill Americans... islamist ideologues... al-Qaeda... al-qaeda and the Taliban... Sept. 11... Sept. 11... Islamic extremists' plot... horrific consequences... Sept. 11... al-Qaeda... al-Qaeda trained killers... "

I think this has to be seen as a measure of how far the 911truth movement has come. For the head of the department of Orwellian irony department to write this article in an attempt to shore-up the crumbling 9/11 myth shows just and how much the perpetrators fear the truth.

The tide has turned. The truth will out. It cannot be stopped.
Keep up the pressure.
On the 11th day, of every month.

I've always thought, even

I've always thought, even before I realized 9/11 was an inside job, that Chertoff looked like some sort of sick, depraved sadist. That picture says it all. That accentuated darkness under his eyes looks like an effect from too much auto erotic aspyxiation.

"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)

He looks like

one of those shape-shifting reptilians that Icke talks about. How would you like to look in a mirror every morning and see that looking back? Ops, there goes my breakfast.

whats the big deal? they

whats the big deal? they could come out and admit they murdered 3,000 people on 9/11 and what are you gonna do about it? we all know they did it and nobody is doing very much about it. our government murdered 3000 Americans on 9/11, 3,000 US soldiers since then and 600,000 Iraqis are dead. they also destroyed the Constitution and stole billions of dollars. What are we doing about it? If Bush came out tomorrow and admitted he did it what would you do? would that change anything? we all know now and nothing is happening

You don't know much about how history works

I do believe that everything has ALREADY been altered, and that ultimately, mass awareness about this abominable atrocity will precipitate a historical transformation, and when it happens, even then you probably won't know it.

Case in point. Cheney et al were talking about a generational war, a 100 year war, and now what do we see? I think we already see it's end, with the pendalum swinging back from collectivism, projected against an external foe, to idealism aimed towards an ideal of perfection or a more perfect union.

The "arrow of progress" is already pointing in a totally different direction IMO.

You will not have to see perps swinging from ropes, in order for our movement to have effected a major historical change for the better ya know..

It's what I call historical justice, which involves history serving a purpose, as a transformative point of historical learning.

The PTB have already cooled their jets in terms of this whole "war on terror" psy-op, and that's a result due in no small part, to the collective efforts of the 9/11 and Patriot movements.
On the 11th day, of every month.

My biggest fear...

is that before our movement reaches critical mass (read: SOON) there will be another false flag attack inside the US.

At which point, Cheney will be able to say, "See, I told you all we were in a hundred year war. Raaaah"

And that will be the point of no return.

Except that it would be interpreted

by the American people as blowback from Bush admin policies, as well as a failure in intelligence, and here's what I suspect. I think that the good guys in power, have all gotten together and have served Cheney and them notice, that if they do this kind of thing again, they will not get away with it - that truth guns are cocked at their heads in other words.

Also, if you were a terrorist leader of at least SOME political aquity, I think you would order NOTHING, recognizing that the American people and the world at large are coming to the same conclusion that you hold, namely that the US government, and it's "shadow side" are the greatest root of all evil. So you would stay your hand, and just let them continue to implode, where more and more people might come to empathize with your grievances.

Lastly, every little tid bit of info would be captured and analyzed within the framework of a possible false flag attack, and one little screwup could place the likes of Dick Cheney in the docket, and the electric chair.

I'm sure they've been TOLD, in no uncertain terms "you can do whatever you want EXCEPT kill your own citizens, or conspire to letting or making that happen. Failure to heed this warning will result in your outing and criminal prosecution.

I'm basing this notion on the presupposition that 2/3rds are good guys, and 1/3 bad, and that the bad are now encircled in the revelation of their badness, and so they just can't get away with it any more. As Alex Jones says, it's their "one trick pony".

And if you've got fully HALF the American people suspecting that they themselves either allowed or MADE 9/11 to happen, then you run the risk of jacking that percentage UP to a tipping point. It's too unpredictable what the reaction would be. It could go either way, and like I said, there may be cocked truth guns at their heads, or coiled springs of truth ready to spring forth in just such a circumstance. There MUST be divisions among the Intel apparatus and "shadow government"...
On the 11th day, of every month.

I hope so...

"I think that the good guys in power, have all gotten together and have served Cheney and them notice, that if they do this kind of thing again, they will not get away with it - that truth guns are cocked at their heads in other words."

I don't remember if this was official or just rumor...

But about 2 months ago we started hearing reports that the generals and joint chiefs had handed down the word: "You are NOT attacking Iran."

Yes, I do think that an all out war and a bad one at that

has been avoided.

Abysmal FAILURE for the Neocon "agenda".

It's down the historical drain, but not without a collective "grokking" of its true importance and significance, as a point of historical transformation, from generation to generation.

9/11, The Crime of the Century.
On the 11th day, of every month.

""you can do whatever you

""you can do whatever you want EXCEPT kill your own citizens, or conspire to letting or making that happen. Failure to heed this warning will result in your outing and criminal prosecution."

One could reasonably have presumed the same thing prior to 9/11. Yet...9/11 happened. Perhaps this time may be different, but I'm not going to put even 1 egg into that basket.

Too Funny

I just love to watch a-holes like Kerry squirm when hit with some 9/11 truth. Their body language gives them away every time. I think they can feel the noose tightening around their necks. I still think Tarpley is right. There is a split among the NWO boys. Someone is going to have to take the fall and I think it will be Bush and the neocons. That way the shadow government is left untouched, or so they think. 9/11 truth will be their downfall also. Trust me, I can smell blood. ........................."Every Dog Has His Day."


I pray that you are right!
"Cogito ergo sum"

Time is on our side and history is not a liar.

On the 11th day, of every month.

He's NOT talking about wtc7, he's talking about a "wall"!

“I haven’t heard that, I don’t know that, I do know that err, that wall I remember was in danger, and they made a decision based on the danger… did it in a controlled fashion.”

He's not talking about wtc7, everyone else is, but he's talking about some "wall" that he remembers. Why are prison planet, as much as I respect them for the most part, saying this is his "conclusion" about wtc7? This makes us look pretty stupid and like classical "conspiracy theorists" clutching at statements and twisting them to mean falsely sensational things.

"Massachusetts Senator's conclusion directly contradicts 9/11 official story"

^ Not smart!

I agree

And the people who are about to vote this post down should read the rules of voting for this site.

Next time Truth Squad needs

Next time Truth Squad needs to have follow up questions ready that will force the puppet to elaborate on his/her answers.

Agreed, DBLS

I'm sorry, but this is typical of Alex Jones. He exaggerates facts quite often. Kerry clearly has no idea what he's being asked, and he's clearly referencing WTC6. He's not admitting anything to do with CD.

I appreciate Jones' activism against the globalists, but he often undermines his credibility with hyperbolic claims like this. Reign it in a bit, Alex.

If someone is to analyse

If someone is to analyse Kerry's facial expressions in this clip, I STRONGLY suggest removing the audio, as the subject matter will surely taint ANYONE'S opinion. After the analysis is done, then let the audio be heard.

See my earlier post on this

See my earlier post on this thread about Paul Ekman. He has 40+ years of research and probably won't be topped in his ability to read faces. If we get enough people to politely contact him, maybe he'll make a statement on record regarding Kerry's truthfulness. Any one disputing that man would need some serious proof backing them up. The body language is blatant enough. If someone could score a copy of higher quality video and post it I'd be more than happy to look for micro expressions on that geezer's face.

"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)

Show "Ridiculous suggestion" by BMAC

Our faces have more muscles

Our faces have more muscles than you could shake a stick at. These muscles have nerves connected to them which supply voluntary and involuntary signals from the brain. Microexpressions occur in less than a second and are a result of involuntary signals from the brain. These involuntary signals are what one looks for to determine the true emotions of the individual displaying the emotions. This applies to anyone who does not fall under the category of sociopath (and even they may exhibit some depending on where they fall within that spectrum). Individuals must train themselves to catch these expressions because we as a society have stopped relying on these convenient sources of information.

You should look into the exspansive literature on the topic of facial microexpressions before you put your foot in your mouth. Google "microexpression". It's free and it will save you much embarassment. : )

"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)

I'm waiting for the movie

Twitches and ass scratching prove Kerry planted the bombs himself. Check his ass for thermate residue on the strength of the psychologists analysis of Kerrys peculiar ass scratching method. He's got to be guilty!

WTC7 is NOT a honey pot

>Right about now the elites trot out that WTC7 was indeed >demolished because it was a secure building and they >couldn't secure it any longer because of the damage etc. >Yes it was pre-wired etc etc. Sorry we couldn't tell you but >that info had to be classified etc etc.

The above scario of official admission of WTC7 demolition, far from being the disaster envisioned above, would be the launchpad for the final unraveling of the Crime.

Because you see, we've had NIST and FEMA making "scientific" pronouncements about why WTC7 was emphatically NOT controlled demolition. So any such admission as above, would totally undercut their "scientific" authority, forever. The cat would be out of the bad, and EVERYTHING they have so pompously and scientifically stated, based on computers, and engineering expertise and all the rest, would come up for grabs instantly.

If NIST had said "we cannot investigate due to national security" that would have been ok for the above new line. But they did not. They made a technical pronouncement on it being a natural collapse.

(and thus, the entire official story will begin its slide into the sea)

Thus they cannot do it. At this point, they have got to brass it out, live or die by the current official "south wall damage line" nothing else.

I agree with this

I've criticized in other comments the overemphasis on WTC7, because the no planes hit, fires alone argument could leave the plane impacts plus fires lie intact for WTC 1 and 2. I'm not saying don't talk about WTC7 - you make a great point.


Damn good point. See, the more we force them to talk, the more they paint themselves into a corner. BTW, save stuff like the NIST PDF documents on your computers. They are evidence and might need to be re-circulated in the future. Same with videos like this.


Forgive me for my confusion but your subject & your comment do not mesh.

In your comment you, succinctly, describe exactly why WTC 7 IS A HONEYPOT.

contact Kerry

Contact Kerry, I did

Senator Kerry, it appears you know important details about how the Saloman Brothers Building 7 came down on 911. As a citizen you are obligated to tell what you know to FEMA, NIST, BPAT, since they state they do not know what caused the building to came down. You are also obligated to provide your information to Kean-Hamilton who left Building 7 out of the 911 Commission Report, apparently because they could not explain.

BPAT's conclusion on Building 7 was:"the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue".

It is imperative you turn over evidence for your conclusion.

FEMA's WTC Building Performance Study

The only government entity that purported to examine the collapse of Building 7 within the year following the attack was the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) composed of volunteer engineers selected and supervised by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency).
Members of the BPAT examine some of the few pieces of steel that the people running the "cleanup operation" sent their way at Fresh Kills landfill.
Members of the FEMA probe
Members of the BPAT examine some of the few pieces of steel that the people running the "cleanup operation" sent their way at Fresh Kills landfill.

In May of 2002, BPAT published their World Trade Center Building Performance Study. 1 Chapter 5 of the Report is devoted to Building 7. It makes unsubstantiated claims and uses a variety of deceptive techniques to make the total collapse of Building 7 due to fires seem less implausible than it is. A copy of Chapter 5 marked up by an anonymous author exposes many of these deceptions.

The Report is inconclusive about the cause of Building 7's collapse, stating:
The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.

The Official John Kerry Afterthought Session -

Why did I say that ? Dammit !
..What was I thinking?
Shit - George and Dick are gunna be all over me -
Shit! - What a dumbAss!"


Yeah! It was a "botched joke."

Boy did he srcew up that punchline.

Faux News shoould be all over this one. They can split screen his face with Kevin Barrett and Hannity.

Wow. Those are some really

Wow. Those are some really cogent arguments over at that site. Those new trends in debate and rhetoric are just SO much hipper than the old style. Who needs logic when you can just hurl witty, snarky insults instead?

looks like ...

it's Kerry's turn to lay in the coffin at the next Skull & Bones meetin'

If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.


Have you SEEN Kerry?

That would be like Herman Munster, in a coffin jerking off while shouting "death meets death the devil is death!"

Not a pretty sight, no not at all..

Even Theresa would turn away in utter disgust!
On the 11th day, of every month.


WTC 7 alone is the ‘smoking-gun.’
It doesn’t matter if Kerry slips up…we have enough evidence without hanging on Kerry’s words.

WTC7 focus

I agree that all of the focus should not be on WTC7, but it is a good way to get people into the truth movement. First off, most people in the world don't even know that it fell on 9/11. Really. Once they realize it fell and they see how it fell, they might start looking at the rest of the buildings/incidents and another truther will be born. That's how it happened for me and now I'm working on my husband.

It's like The Matrix. Most of y'all have been unplugged for some time, but there are millions of people who are happily whiling away their days in the system. Jerking them out of the dream is tricky (some people can't handle the truth), but it's easier to begin with WTC7 because it's less traumatic to look at the facts and apply logic when there aren't bodies falling and sappy music being played.

My favorite part

is when the hag looks like she's counting on her fingers and concludes something's fishy. This is why, as a general rule, I dislike billionaires. With so much money, what are they doing there answering questions that make them uncomfortable? Why aren't they doing something fun? It's just an indication of how sick they really are.

Debating with Debunkers, some help with details ...

Hey people, I have become involved in some CD debates inside the facebook group called 9/11 Truth Movement.
Its been dominated by debunkers in the forums lately and they are the type that jump all over the weak points and ignore the strong points.
Does anyone know a link to the thermite cutting charge patent, I cant find this anywhere at the moment.

Here's the video that Steven Jones recently showed in ATX

Linear Thermite Cutting Charges

Check out the website from the Vid and you might find more info about it there:

There's an option to contct them for more info on their website.

Or try watching the SJ presentation in ATX where he talks about the patent:


I think it's in part 2 when he mentions the patent but not positive.

If none of this helps answer your question, try shooting SJ an email and request a link to his source for the patent:


Google this and you'll find what you're looking for I believe....


"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace


Patent #6766744

I have a local copy
(but no figs)

Debating The Debunkers

We are endeavouring to research the debunkers in as much detail as we can
Our experience shows that they mostly have an authoritarian personality. This manifests itself in lots of ways.. But primarily takes the form of claiming authority for themselves.and relying on the authority of NIST and credentials.

There's quite a lot of useful stuff on wikipedia about this. We have the support of a practising and well qualified psycologist to help.

I have started a blog entry on my blog where you can leave any observation and input you may have..

Mostly it appears debunkers are psycopathic liars and their authority figures have the same traits.
my blog is here
we need feedback from bloggers who venture into "enemy territory" in the info war.

If the blog entry isnt there then leave a comment in either of the other 2 entries.

Any psychologists out there? In truth land