32 votes

9/11: Donald Rumsfeld - "What is building 7?"

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Regan sounded like this the more elderly he got...

This is old age, isn't this guy like 84? He can't even wipe his rump I'll bet.

Clearly Mr. Rumsfeld has been

Clearly Mr. Rumsfeld has been drinking too much aspartame. (Since he is the guy who got it approved!)

If you walk blindly through life, you will run into a lot of walls.

Seeing this video years ago

Was the first time I ever questioned 9/11.

I never turned back. Obviously he knew about building 7. I was a freshman in high school on 9/11 and I never once forgot about building 7.

"Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito."

C_T_CZ's picture

Missing $2 Trillion....

Why doesn't Rand or Amash reopen that missing $2 Trillion investigation ? Wasn't Rumsfeld testifying on Sept. 10 about it?

Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof

And he's never heard of Aspartame either, right?

Rumsfeld has been instrumental in the deaths and harm of many Americans.

And it continues to this day by what he did about allowing artificial sweeteners onto the market even when the FDA was trying to ban them.

Because he was invested in the company (Monsanto) which markets it.

Rumsfeld is one P.O.S. of a human being. You all DO know what P.O.S. means right?

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

And Chris Christie Had Nothing to Do

...with "Bridge-Gate".

That's what the man said on the TV.
So it must be true. (snicker)

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!

Who is using Saddam's golden toilets?

Isn't that loot government property?

Free includes debt-free!

Those buildings did not

Those buildings did not collapse. They were largely (not completely) turned to dust in mid-air. The seismic readings from WTC 7 was impossible to decipher from background noise. Let me say that again - when WTC 7 fell it hit the ground without any measurable impact. The twin towers delivered a seismic impact of about 30 floors falling. The rest of the building turned to dust in mid-air. The point is, if it were demo'd the the evidence would be much different. Much of the steel at ground zero was twisted, mangled and suffered extreme rusting after 9/11. Steel takes a long time to rust but these germs were rusted in MINUTES. Look up Judy Wood for more in this. Wrote this on my HTC ONE so there's GONNA be some typos.


Here's an interview in which Dr. Wood explains "dustification":
(First of three parts, there's a playlist linked there to play all three.)

This is a must-see video for anyone who takes Dr. Wood at all seriously. All three parts.

"Dr." Greg Jenkins was

The Real Explanation - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bITl3lmbWb8

"Dr." Greg Jenkins was clearly there to attack and belittle her. At one point she says, "There was some debris there". To which he quickly says, "I don't understand how you can say there was NO debris there"?

When a so-called interviewer does that then you know you're dealing with b.s. The implications of those towers turning to dust is immense, but it does not make it wrong. The implications of the bombs being drops on Japan were just as immense and they were TRUE. For me, I appreciate the attempt by Woods to investigate why "there was so little rubble" as Jennings asked on 9/11.

From the transcript

The part you're referring to is in the transcript section below, so people can see it in context.

GJ: So…what’s going down? Is there any debris falling?

JW: I don’t see anything that’s really falling there.

GJ: You don’t see any debris falling from the building?

JW: I see a round snowball. I call this a snowball.

GJ: Okay, so there’s no debris falling in that picture.

JW: I didn’t say no debris.

GJ: How much debris? What debris is falling in that picture?

JW: I see some… I don’t have a magnifying glass. Sorry!

GJ: Oh, it’s that small you can’t tell what’s falling from the picture?

JW: Below this point here (points to bottom of the snowball). I don’t really see much
difference. It looks like the building is in good health. There’s a little bit of cloud of haze
there, but… I don’t see any major material and the building is still completely intact from
this point down, at that moment, below the snowball.

GJ: So you really don’t see any falling debris there?

JW: Are you asking these questions for sincere, honest purposes?

GJ: I really am. This is sincere. I see falling debris in that picture and I’m wondering, I
just can’t fathom why you don’t see falling debris in that picture. It’s hard for me to
understand. Because maybe I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.

JW: I’m not saying there is absolutely no debris, because someone may have had
some… pennies on their windowsill that fell out. They might be falling down.
But it’s
not a significant volume of material. The snowball here is about… it’s bigger than the
width of the building, and about that same amount in height. So, it’s a little bit wider so
you can’t say it’s the density of the building.


Great word, however tragic the implication....

What would the Founders do?


liar of our time.

"Building seven? I've never heard of that."

Please, Mr. ScumsFeld, no more Tomfoolery.


If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

Don "Scamiflu" Rumsfeld is a terrorist who needs to be

taken out in a drone strike.

What would the Founders do?

Was this a very subtle way to encourage an investigation?

It would seem logical that a less controversial response could have been prepared in advance. He could have simply said ,oh that's been investigated and determined to be caused by fire. To simply say he had never heard of it, just adds to the controversy, because obviously he had to know about it. Was this his way to encourage an investigation without saying so?
To answer the question in a way no one could possibly believe is very telling.

This guy is walking evil!

God save our Country!


there were only two towers and that is a fact

don't be trying to pretend like there was a third building that fell HOURS LATER and wasn't even hit with a plane. You people call yourselves Americans while trying to say that a so called building seven dropped at free fall speed!

support the troops
U.S.A all the way
fall in line or get out of the way
hoo rahhh


http://shelfsufficient.com - My site on getting my little family prepped for whatever might come our way.

http://growing-elite-marijuana.com - My site on growing marijuana

How did the rest of the

How did the rest of the interview go?

The slogan press on has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race. No person was ever honored for what he received. Honor has been the reward for what he gave.

- Calvin Coolidge

What in the H***?

It's almost like he's already occupying the "rewritten history".

I am Ron Paul

scawarren's picture

Right... sure... he's never

Right... sure... he's never heard that my a-- :/

It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. – Mark Twain

Rumsfeld... *sigh* ... ignorance at it's finest...

A valid argument against 9/11 inside job theories is that government bureaucrats are too incompetent to organize such elaborate / secret plans. I tend to agree with this notion.

For those that argue that "a steel building cannot collapse because of fire" -- that's not a statement that can be said without supporting facts and series of tests and models such as finite element analysis and so forth. Unless one has a thorough understanding of heat transfer, statics, structural engineering, and other areas of study, blanket statements as that undermine the search for transparent truth.

I have never heard the theory that steel buildings

Cannot fall from fire alone, what I heard was they were the first steel frame buildings in history to collapse from fire, and there were three in the same day. Did I miss something?

Always remember:
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." ~ Samuel Adams
If they hate us for our freedom, they must LOVE us now....

Stay IRATE, remain TIRELESS, an

Good grief.

"A valid argument against 9/11 inside job theories is that government bureaucrats are too incompetent to organize such elaborate / secret plans. I tend to agree with this notion."

And you believe this "argument" has greater validity than the "steel building cannot collapse because of fire" argument?

Seriously? Please take a step back for a moment if you can. The steel building v. fire argument can be backed by many examples around the world, while the incompetent bureaucrat argument isn't really an argument at all but rather a loose assumption about diverse groups of people's individual competencies and collective intelligence (or lacks thereof) and their resulting performance(s). Right off the bat, this isn't remotely scientific or quantitatively observable. Get what I'm saying? Not on the same level at all.

I think your use of the word "notion" to describe the incompetent bureaucrat theory (and I'm being generous in even using the word "theory" here) is the best part of your comment, as that theory you purport to be the most reasonable is at best only a notion.

What would the Founders do?


talk about irony

http://shelfsufficient.com - My site on getting my little family prepped for whatever might come our way.

http://growing-elite-marijuana.com - My site on growing marijuana

scawarren's picture

With all do respect,

With all do respect, objectivefreedom I'm in Arkansas and I have no direct connections to anyone in NYC nor did I on 9/11 but still yet I knew that a building collapsed that wasn't hit by a plane that evening... and all it takes to understand that
"a steel building cannot collapse because of fire" is high school science and an open mind.

It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. – Mark Twain

See... this is the exact thing I'm talking about

All it takes is "high school science and an open mind". That's a pretty condescending argument. That's implying that anyone who does not agree with you 100% is ignorant and/or close-minded. That's not very persuasive. How much did the twin towers weigh? How did the force exerted from their collapse affect the soil mechanics and the foundation of neighboring buildings? How did building 7 catch fire? These are questions an "open-minded" engineer investigating the collapse of building 7 would ask.

I'm not surprised my comment received so many down votes to the point of minimization either.. So much for opposing view points... I guess group-think exists in every ideology.

My point only is this: don't say things like "the moon landings were fake because you can't see any stars in the pictures, anyone with eyes can see that" without having any understanding of camera shutter speed / exposure time. That's all.

Group smells your shoes, and they stink, I think

I'll start with your condescending whine, and then help explain why you were "minimized".

"I'm not surprised my comment received so many down votes to the point of minimization either.. So much for opposing view points... I guess group-think exists in every ideology."

I agree with the comment that irked you, that one needs no more than "high school science and an open mind", to surmise that most of what happened on 9/11, obviously didn't happen by natural causes, and in due order. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth have continued to swell in their ranks because they have so abundantly explained this by their multi-disciplined, scientific analysis, and NO ONE has gone on court record to scientifically refute any of their findings.

When studying most aspects of the 9/11 WTC complex events; where a TRIO of buildings collapsed into their own footprints, by a DUO of planes that impacted ONLY the two taller buildings; one only has to have an open enough mind to comprehend the evidence that a small, compartmentalized circle-of-command secured the means to accomplish this daring chain-of-events, in order to assert their twisted, "greater good", of a more malleable American society and world, under their trusted, and/or forced, control.

An, "opposing viewpoint", might try to explain your coincidence-theory a bit more scientifically, before dismissing those who recognize reasons to look elsewhere for truth. Here's a list of FAQs on the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth site. Maybe you could help them understand the error of their ways, eh?


Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. - Frederick Douglass

When will Building Codes be replaced?

If the buildings were demolished then there is no need to update building codes!

Free includes debt-free!

Just as I thought...the Class of 2011

Were you guys all in the same indoctrination grouping...so you were like all directed at the lunch table to target and join the DP?

Anybody who leads off with the "incompetence argument" aimed at one of the world's most accursed and successful evil genius's and then end with "We Need To Ask The Experts"...loses credibility immediately. Rumsfeld...an incompetent dolt? Are you freakin' nuts? You definitely don't know shitaboutit and are talking' out yer ass. Go and never come back.

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?