18 votes

John Kerry admits World Trade Center 7 brought down in controlled demolition?

What do you make of this?


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

so what

he didn't "admit" shit...he doesn't speak for anyone and just didn't know what the official story was and was just trying to sound knowledgeable. He;s a complete dickface but that doesn;t mean he is "in the know" and can "admit" things just because he has a job with the govt and some doofus asked him a question.

Cue the ad hominems, I can't wait.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

I love the body language!

Yes John, your body gave it away that you know building 7 was a pre planned demolition job, you're just not stating it.

this is depressing

it means little ..is a distraction and its john kerry ..geez..there must be someone who is worth quoting here.

Humpty Dumpty

They're startin to crack.....

It looks like after being asked 3,087 times on video about WTC-7 he can't keep replying:

" What's WTC-7 .........? "

Next question please.

Because: Some animals are more equal than other animals. -Animal Farm-

What the? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MTIwY3_-ks

OP of this thread should

OP of this thread should change the title. John Kerry didn't admit or say that at all. Libertarians pride themselves on having consistancy and of our desire for accuracy and hard evidence. We must always be skeptics of the skeptics for they are preconditioned to beleive there is a conspiracy under every rock. I want the truth of 9-11 as much as anyone and yes I do believe WTC 7. Imploded on its own footprint due do explosives but there is a very large problem when we as liberty lovers accept soft evidence as hard evidence and this thread is the poster child of what I'm talking about. Kerry said there was a controlled effort. NOTHING about knowing whether or not he has any knowledge of the events of Sept. 11 or that of building 7. If anything Kerry was talking out of his ass to save face and he happened to use the word CONTROLLED in his dialogue because he had just heard that word from the audience member who had asked the question.

The best way I look at it I ask this simple question....would this be used as evidence in a court of law to justify the position that Kerry has inside knowledge?-- the answer an obvious NO.

If I had asked the question I would have liked to follow up to get a clarified response from Kerry.

Please use your noggin

- Brennan

You said

Due do

robot999's picture

Maybe you should use your ears?

Kerry: "I think they made a decision, based on the danger that it had of destroying other things, that they DID IT IN A CONTROLLED FASHION" (emphasis mine) "I think" are words that reflect ones individual knowledge or belief. He goes on to say that he will look into it, which supports the idea that he felt there might be something to actually look into.

I don't think the OP is claiming "hard evidence" as you go on to imply as one of the bases for your post. Then you go on to demean people who happen to believe other than you do using derogatory terms like "conspiracy under every rock". Next you bash the OP by stating outright falsehoods "there is a very large problem when we as liberty lovers accept soft evidence as hard evidence and this thread it the poster child of what I'm talking about." Please point out where the OP stated that this was Evidence of any sort. What I understand about the post is that Kerry made some very pointed statements about his understanding of BLDG 7 on 9/11, and the OP asked the DP what they think about it.

You further grasp at straws saying "NOTHING about knowing whether or not he has any knowledge of the events of Sept. 11 or that of building 7". Yet the fact is Bldg 7's destruction on 9/11 is the exact context of the conversation. The person asking the question was crystal clear about his statements, and Kerry was paying very close attention to his words. You are the one being deceptive by taking Kerry's words out of context.

Finally you do the exact same think that you accuse the OP of doing, which is speculate based on NO facts (at least the OP has a video to back up their point) with the following: "If anything Kerry was talking out of his ass, and he happened to use the word CONTROLLED..." (people can read the rest). You know this how?

I'm calling BS on your post because that is exactly what it is.

"Government is the entertainment division of the military-industrial complex". - Frank Zappa

My post is BS....where is the

My post is BS....where is the evidence there? do you have video? haha..everything humans claim is all conjecture and opinions until you get someone to admit something. Please do not assume my motives...you do not know me. I know we all hope to catch him in some GOTCHA moment but in reality he didn't give anything indicative to suggesting that he had first hand knowledge. I am not "demeaning"---again, here you are implying you know my motives which is very naive.

Yes the OP made the claim by default of the title of the thread that this video is evidence to Kerry having some sort of knowledge.

Sorry to tell you that everyone in the world grasps straws to try and connect the dots, explain something....but I didn't use a strawman argument---strawman arguements include false or vague claims...i have not made a claim, i have stated that no claim has been directly made by kerry.

This to me seems to be the case of people being using their underlying emotional distrust of government and jumping to conclusions to fuel their position that there is some massive evil endgame.

Put simply...

It is just as unhealthy to stick your head up your ass as it is to stick your head in the sand.

Use logic....not emotion.

Thaaaanks!...remember to drive hybrids guys!!!!

- Brennan

It's the title

Of the video.

I didn't say it was hard evidence. I asked what you guys make of it.

Ron Paul convert from the Heart of Dixie

well, i make of it as being

well, i make of it as being no more than some off-handed idiotic remark where Sen. Kerry attempted to convey empathy and understanding to an issue he knows knew about....he even says in the video that he knows really nothing about what the audience member had asked him until just then. I try and not read too much into it but if it were me I would follow up with clarification because Kerry makes some vague statement about there being some control involved with..what i guess is...facilitating something.(whether that be bringing the building down or evacuated people).

Either was Kerry should see the lack of WTC 7 in the 9/11 Commission Report as enough food for thought to look into the matter.

- Brennan

Kerry is not the brightest bulb

I don't see this as proof of anything other than that John Kerry is a pathological liar. It's impossible to believe any word that comes out of his mouth and I think this is another example of him saying what he thinks his audience wants to hear to defuse a potentially uncomfortable question.

I have no doubt that WTC7 was demo'd but I do doubt that the ones behind it were dumb enough to let John Kerry in on the secret.

THANK YOU!!! this is evidence


this is evidence of nothing and it seems to me that all that came out of Kerry's mouth was verbal diarrhea and shouldn't be concocted as some kind of suggestion that he knows or admitted any knowledge of the events that day.

- Brennan

History shows that steel skyscrapers CAN collapse due to fire!

Oh and just recently I realized after looking at aerial photos that other towers (4,5 etc.) were also probably demolished under the cover of WTC-1&2 going down.
The photos clearly show mostly neat rubble piles of pulverized material.

I googled "how to detect a con artist"

I just found it curious how well a lot of it fit with the politics around 9/11 and the Iraq war right after and about most politics in general its almost a trademark :P. Also you will never get a con artist to admit that he is wrong.

"Lavish flattery
If you’ve just met someone who is overwhelming you with praise, attention and concern, be careful. Be particularly careful if you’re lonely and looking for love—con artists know exactly how to play that tune."
The election time anyone?

"Credentials—exaggerated and fabricated
Con artists may “prove” themselves by namedropping or volunteering detailed resumes or credentials. If you’re at all suspicious, check their references."

yes they all have good connections, doesn't make them right for the spot though.

"Building your trust
Con artists will sometimes honor their commitments in the beginning so that you begin to trust them. They’ll pay back initial loans, or appear to be unselfishly helping other people. Their objective is to get you to drop your guard."

Oh election promises...

"The story doesn’t quite add up
The con artist’s story may have small inconsistencies or unexplained loose ends. If you ask questions, the con will glibly provide an explanation—which may also not add up. Or, he or she will sidestep the issue by accusing you of paranoia or mistrust."

War propaganda anyone?

"“I need an answer now.”
A crisis needs to be averted, an opportunity will disappear—whatever the reason, a con artist will want an answer right away. If you have time to think, research or ask advice, you may realize that con artist’s plan is a ploy. The con will want your money before you figure it out."

We have our 1 day undeniable truth report here, now attack!

"Intense eye contact
Typically, when people talk to each other, they look each other in the eyes and then briefly look away. Sociopathic con artists often exhibit a “predatory stare”—unblinking, fixated and emotionless. It’s not a sign of empathy—it’s an effort to assert control."

The Obama stare, anyone else seen it in his speeches? the pauses where he smiles to him self.

Con artists will slowly and subtly separate you from people who may question their plans. They may intercept phone calls from your friends. They may refuse to associate with your family. They’ll tell you, “It’s you and me against the world, baby.” Soon, you’re alone with them, snared in their net."

Truthers and conspiracy theorists...

Well, there you have it, the "smoking gun".

It takes at least a week to set up a controlled demolition of a building that size, or so I have heard.

Larry Silverstein gets the

Larry Silverstein gets the award for being luckiest man to have ever lived in the history of the planet. He made 5 billion on a 150 million dollar bet.

It's not luck

when you know how the dice are loaded. Is there any way explosive charges could have been planted in the three towers without the building's new owner knowing all about it? You think a bunch of government agents or saboteurs could have walked into those buildings without building management being aware of it, and worked for several days setting the charges? I've worked in building security myself, and I've got to tell you, building management has to authorize all the kinds of "repair work" that could have been used as cover to plant the explosive charges.

Silverstein is the indispensable "inside man," the ONE guy whose cooperation and complicity was needed to bring the towers down. It's probably just a coincidence that he's a friend of Benjamin Netanyahu. And another that the suspicious pre-9/11 stock trades came out of Israel. And another that a Mossad team was set up in advance to film the attack. And another that Odigo employees were given advance warning of the attack. And that for the first time since he bought the buildings, Silverstein did not have breakfast in the building on 9/11.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

Youtubes don't go away, and 'their' global control matrix

can't exist without the internet.

The TV culture of brainwashing is OVER.

Kerry has spent his life being an idiot.

ConstitutionHugger's picture

I remember on 9/11 the news said it was brought down

for safety reasons. Saying that it fell down because of a fire (or fires) isn't much of a better lie. But nearly everybody bought one or the other story.

Gilligan's picture

What?? Did I hear that right??


Google is government.

That's right - right at the end he said it...

"I don't know what the hell I just said."

It was probably the pandas.