John Kerry is Questioned on 911 Theories

Strangely they also fail to quote the bit where he says

"I don't know enough about it"

Just an oversight I'm sure...



[edit on 23-4-2007 by timeless test]

The point is this.

He said they did it in a 'controlled fashion' and made the hand jesture of a building imploding.

Now, I think it is obvious that he will back away from these comments later on. But he probably heard through the grapevine that they imploded a building that day because one of its outer walls were damaged.

That is probably how the story was sold to him originally.

He will back away from this, no doubt.

I have to admit he looked genuinely interested in the questions on this and I don't think anyone can act that effectively.

I think the question should have been phrased differently since right now the term "PULL IT" is open to debate and it just makes things complicated.

The question should have focused on the facts, the facts of the day.

Building 7 was omitted from the 9/11 report, had a lot of classified info inside it and came down in what looked like a controlled demolition.

That is enough to have a proper independent investigation.

The investigation shouldn't be by 'Controlled Demolition Inc' or other gov paid agenies, but a truly independent group, so we can end this debate once and for all.

Kerry might have misspoke, but he did look like he was serious.

i dont like the way he crossed his arms so closely. i do it in places im not comfortable, it eases anxiety for me. what is making Kerry feel anxious?

could it be the hours of debreifing he is going to have go through in order to burry this little interview?

Kerry says "I think that", is he making it up or stating the fact?

Kind of like Clinton "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

You have to look at it in the whole context of what he said and not just focus on two words.

Originally posted by etshrtslr

You have to look at it in the whole context of what he said and not just focus on two words.

Well I looked at the whole context and don't believe what the video is quoting correctly, or it was intentionally to leave some words out.

Originally posted by deltaboy

Well I looked at the whole context and don't believe what the video is quoting correctly, or it was intentionally to leave some words out.

His words are on the video for you to hear. Are you implying they left some audio out?

Originally posted by etshrtslr

His words are on the video for you to hear. Are you implying they left some audio out?

I heard everything, and I believe this video was intentional to mislead people in thinking Kerry was stating that the building was brought down.

Do you have any explanation as to the inconsistencies of the quotation of Senator Kerry's words?

Originally posted by deltaboy


I heard everything, and I believe this video was intentional to mislead people in thinking Kerry was stating that the building was brought down.

Do you have any explanation as to the inconsistencies of the quotation of Senator Kerry's words?

Here is a video that does not use text.


"I think" its irrelevant what the quoted text says. What is important is what Kerry says. Your trying to make a strawman out of the quoted text and two words missing instead of focusing on his actual words and the whole of his answer.

Kerry either thinks building 7 was brought down in a controlled fashion or he knows it was. Either way its pretty important that a us senator is saying what he said.

[edit on 23-4-2007 by etshrtslr]

Originally posted by etshrtslr


"I think" its irrelevant what the quoted text says. What is important is what Kerry says. Your trying to make a strawman out of the quoted text and two words missing instead of focusing on his actual words and the whole of his answer.

Funny...it was you who posted that video to quote him in the first place.

And to say that those words are irrelevant makes me laugh when the words I THINK pretty much stands out that he is expressing an opinion than stating the fact.

As one would say, "words have meaning..."

Originally posted by deltaboy


Funny...it was you who posted that video to quote him in the first place.

And to say that those words are irrelevant makes me laugh when the words I THINK pretty much stands out that he is expressing an opinion than stating the fact.

Like I said He either thinks it was brought down in a controlled fashion or he knows it was. To have a us senator even thinking that building 7 was brought down in a controlled fashion goes against the official 9-11 story.

So ask yourself the question why would he even be thinking that building 7 was brought down in a controlled fashion? And who are the "they" that he either thinks or knows who did it?

[edit on 23-4-2007 by etshrtslr]

Originally posted by etshrtslr

So ask yourself the question why would he even be thinking that building 7 was brought down in a controlled fashion?

I don't know, he look like he just making a response to the questioner about "pull" and "demolition" and he decided to just make a comment about it.

In fact we should go listen to what the questioner put out.



Interesting...

Originally posted by deltaboy

I don't know, he look like he just making a response to the questioner about "pull" and "demolition" and he decided to just make a comment about it.

Umm ok

Why not just stick to the official story then?

Why say "I think they did it in a controlled fashion" if you did not think that?

Remember words have meaning.

Originally posted by etshrtslr

Umm ok

Why not just stick to the official story then?

Why say "I think they did it in a controlled fashion" if you did not think that?

Remember words have meaning.

Well since he said he never heard about this story on this demolition building he just made up his mind about the event anyways.

Originally posted by deltaboy


Well since he said he never heard about this story on this demolition building he just made up his mind about the event anyways.

Do you have any evidence he just made up his mind on the event? Or is that just your speculation so it wont destroy your view of the official story?

He said he knew the wall was in danger and in danger of destroying other things.

When did he know this? It was not asked in the question.

And based on that he said " I think they made the decision on it of the danger it had of destroying other things they did it in a controlled fashion".

Originally posted by etshrtslr


Do you have any evidence he just made up his mind on the event? Or is that just your speculation so it wont destroy your view of the official story?

Pretty much made his mind on the event based on visual and audio, and no this don't destroy my view.

He said he knew the wall was in danger and in danger of destroying other things.

And based on that he said " I think they made the decision on it of the danger it had of destroying other things they did it in a controlled fashion".

Its in his response to the questioner about the demolition of the building. Of course he would make a comment about what happend.

Not to mention look at what he does when he said the words "I think that they made the decision.... After all, it is his response to the questioner who said pull which is the demolition term for taking down the building.

Originally posted by the_doc
Just a quick couple of observations I noticed.

a) John Kerry refers to "the wall" being brought down in a controlled matter. It is apparent that he is referring to this wall:

b) It doesn't make sense that the perpetrators of such an attack would tell their political opponent that they just committed the largest conspiracy in history.

c) Kerry would have used this against Bush in the 2004 election if he did think that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

d) Kerry admits he has never heard of the claims that the questioner is making.

A) more than likely you are right on this one

b) and c) why not? the american people would never back a political candidate that attacked the other party with such outrageous ideas. Remember people the MEDIA feeds our citizenry to believe it happened like they said it happened, no other way... a politician who says the media is a bunch of liars and heres the proof is always made to look crazy. I think he wanted a chance a the presidency, one he would of never fathomed had he come out for 9/11 truth movement.

D) also validate point


Not arguing but I work in State politics(hobby) and I know what would happen if even the lowliest level government employee here came out against the popular opinion. just imagine it 50x larger to see it on a presidential scale.

Coven Out

Originally posted by the_doc
Just a quick couple of observations I noticed.

a) John Kerry refers to "the wall" being brought down in a controlled matter. It is apparent that he is referring to this wall:

b) It doesn't make sense that the perpetrators of such an attack would tell their political opponent that they just committed the largest conspiracy in history.

c) Kerry would have used this against Bush in the 2004 election if he did think that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

d) Kerry admits he has never heard of the claims that the questioner is making.

A) more than likely you are right on this one

b) and c) why not? the american people would never back a political candidate that attacked the other party with such outrageous ideas. Remember people the MEDIA feeds our citizenry to believe it happened like they said it happened, no other way... a politician who says the media is a bunch of liars and heres the proof is always made to look crazy. I think he wanted a chance a the presidency, one he would of never fathomed had he come out for 9/11 truth movement.

D) also validate point


Not arguing but I work in State politics(hobby) and I know what would happen if even the lowliest level government employee here came out against the popular opinion. just imagine it 50x larger to see it on a presidential scale.

Coven Out

Originally posted by deltaboy


Its in his response to the questioner about the demolition of the building. Of course he would make a comment about what happend.

Not to mention look at what he does when he said the words "I think that they made the decision....

After all, it is his response to the questioner who said pull which is the demolition term for taking down the building.

Again, he said "I think" after he said he "knew" there was damage to the outer wall and danger of destroying other things.

Why not just stick to the official story in response to the question?
All he had to say is it fell from damage to the outer wall and fire.

Why would he speculate on a controlled demolition if he did not "think" it was?