Sunday, March 30, 2014

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


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0lD-Qrn3XI
*More information here

18 comments:

Nick Dean said...

So what? Almost no-one has heard about WTC7. There is no reason to assume Rumsfeld would know about it because no-one has shown that Rumsfeld had anything to do with 9/11. He's just a goofball politician, a drone frontman for other parties who would have no interest in enlightening him about WTC7.

Anonymous said...

"no-one has shown that Rumsfeld had anything to do with 9/11"?

What about these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6Xoxaf1Al0

"Rumsfeld says Flight 93 was "shot down.""

The official story said Flight 93 was taken down by courageous passengers, but the debris field shows otherwise.

http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=3845

"Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center."

The missile that destroyed the Pentagon? It seems Rummy was being honest, since the official story claimed it was Flight 77, but, again, the evidence shows otherwise.

In case you think it was just some slip-of-the-tongue by Rumsfeld, hear this 9/11 Commissioner say a missile hit the Pentagon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUmr9dFbf2c

And a reason why most Americans have never heard about Building 7 is because its collapse was never aired on network television after 9/11, and it was never mentioned in the official 9/11 Commission coverup Report.

zapoper said...

"He's just a goofball politician, a drone frontman for other parties"

Just the fact that Rumsfeld served under Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and George W. Bush's administrations tells me that he's more than that but that's just my opinion.

WHOOLI said...

Nick Dean said...

"So what? Almost no-one has heard about WTC7. There is no reason to assume Rumsfeld would know about it because no-one has shown that Rumsfeld had anything to do with 9/11. He's just a goofball politician, a drone frontman for other parties who would have no interest in enlightening him about WTC7."

What a stupid-assed comment. Donald Rumsfeld is a long-time,well connected, neo-conservative insider.
He was probably one of the few people in Washington D.C. on 9/11 that knew everything that was happening. He probably played a big roll in planning the event.

Noor al Haqiqa said...

Nick, Please come out of hiding and face facts. Rummy knew just as he knew that the day before $23 million went missing and the Pentagon hit just accidentally wiped out the area where the information was stored....

RJ Livegood said...

it was 2.3 trillion with a T . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVpSBUgbxBU

zapoper said...

Then there's the $230 million worth of gold and silver bars allegedly missing from the twin towers.

Quite confusing. The 23 enigma.lol

Nick Dean said...

Faux Capitalist,

in that youtube clip, Rumsfeld appears to say that terrorists 'shot down the plane in Pennsylvania' -- are you saying that's true?

How do we go from Rumsfeld reading this sentence (and do we for some reason assume that we have here a politician who writes his own speeches?), to Rumsfeld knows about WTC7 or had anything to do with 9/11?

In the Parade Magazine interview, it would be reasonable to understand him as meaning to say, "using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, [as a] missile to damage this building." And even moreso with the Tim Roemer interview, Do we know that was Roemer behind 9/11 too, merely because he (correctly in fact, according to the official story) talks about a missile-plane hitting the Pentagon?

If DR really intended to say that a (non-passenger plane) missile hit the Pentagon, and we should therefore take that as as admission. What about when he says in the same interview,

"[I] asked a person who'd seen it, and he told me that a plane had flown into it.

"I had been aware of a plane going into the World Trade Center" /endquote

and more generally backs up the official story?

But if we take it as a slip of the tongue, then we have Rumsfeld 'letting slip' that hijackers with plastic knives 'used' a jet filled with US citizens (for something) and used a missile to attack the Pentagon.

Either way, however much Rumsfeld deviates from the official version, he also deviates from what we know to have happened or not happened. And I would submit that if you interviewed 100 people about 9/11, dozens of them would fudge sentences or express opinions that are at variance with one or other aspect of the official or actual story.

I say again, so what?

If you have any evidence that this buffoon was behind 9/11 I'll look at it. But let's not confuse evidence that Rumsfeld can't express himself clearly with evidence he was one of 9/11's masterminds.

Nick Dean said...

WHOOLI,

"Donald Rumsfeld is a long-time,well connected, neo-conservative insider"

I'd agree except I'd say neocon 'outsider'. Non-Jews like Rumsfeld play supporting roles only in neoconservatism.

"He was probably one of the few people in Washington D.C. on 9/11 that knew everything that was happening. He probably played a big roll in planning the event."

I say he probably wasn't and we should get some evidence before making the claim.

Nick Dean said...

On neoconservatives and their hapless non-Jewish frontmen:

quote:

Non-Jewish Participation in Neoconservatism

As with the other Jewish intellectual and political movements, non-Jews have been welcomed into the movement and often given highly visible roles as the public face of the movement. This of course lessens the perception that the movement is indeed a Jewish movement, and it makes excellent psychological sense to have the spokespersons for any movement resemble the people they are trying to convince. That’s why Ahmed Chalabi (a Shiite Iraqi, a student of early neocon theorist Albert Wohlstetter, and a close personal associate of prominent neocons, including Richard Perle) was the neocons’ choice to lead postwar Iraq.12 There are many examples—including Freud’s famous comments on needing a non-Jew to represent psychoanalysis (he got Carl Jung for a time until Jung balked at the role, and then Ernest Jones). Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict were the most publicly recognized Boasian anthropologists, and there were a great many non-Jewish leftists and pro-immigration advocates who were promoted to visible positions in Jewish dominated movements—and sometimes resented their role.13 Albert Lindemann describes non-Jews among the leaders of the Bolshevik revolution as “jewified non-Jews”—“a term, freed of its ugly connotations, [that] might be used to underline an often overlooked point: Even in Russia there were some non-Jews, whether Bolsheviks or not, who respected Jews, praised them abundantly, imitated them, cared about their welfare, and established intimate friendships or romantic liaisons with them.”14

There was a smattering of non-Jews among the New York Intellectuals, who, as members of the anti-Stalinist left in the 1940s, were forerunners of the neoconservatives. Prominent examples were Dwight MacDonald (labeled by Michael Wrezin “a distinguished goy among the Partisanskies”15—i.e., the largely Jewish Partisan Review crowd), James T. Farrell, and Mary McCarthy. John Dewey also had close links to the New York Intellectuals and was lavishly promoted by them;16 Dewey was also allied closely with his former student Sidney Hook, another major figure on the anti-Stalinist left. Dewey was a philosemite, stating: “After all, it was the Christians who made them ‘it’ [i.e., victims]. Living in New York where the Jews set the standard of living from department stores to apartment houses, I often think that the Jews are the finest product of historical Christianity…. Anyway, the finest living man, so far as I know, is a Jew—[humanitarian founder of the International Institute of Agriculture] David Lubin.”17

This need for the involvement of non-Jews is especially acute for neoconservatism as a political movement: Because neoconservative Jews constitute a tiny percentage of the electorate, they need to make alliances with non-Jews whose perceived interests dovetail with theirs. Non-Jews have a variety of reasons for being associated with Jewish interests, including career advancement, close personal relationships or admiration for individual Jews, and deeply held personal convictions. For example, as described below, Senator Henry Jackson, whose political ambitions were intimately bound up with the neoconservatives, was a strong philosemite due partly to his experiences in childhood; his alliance with neoconservatives also stemmed from his (entirely reasonable) belief that the United States and the Soviet Union were engaged in a deadly conflict and his belief that Israel was a valuable ally in that struggle. Because neoconservatives command a large and lucrative presence in the media, thinktankdom, and political culture generally, it is hardly surprising that complex blends of opportunism and personal conviction characterize participating non-Jews.

http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/UnderstandJI-3.htm

Nick Dean said...

Noor al Haqiqa said ...

"Rummy knew"

Do you have better reasons for believing this than all the others in this thread who share your belief. NaH?

Yes, Rummy bad. But also, Rummy stupid, Rummy politician, Rummy Jew-stooge. Rummy not criminal mastermind.

Anonymous said...

Rummy is a criminal & a mass murderer for lying to the Americans to support the mass slaughter of Afghanistan and Iraq... He is directly responsible for killing thousands of children & poisoning millions with DU... Evil people like him & Dick Cheny have no conscious... He can't and won't ever face his crimes if he did so he would do what Judas did... And maybe he would given a chance to return in the next life as a fly... And that pushing it... He deserves not even to be a fly...

Anonymous said...

Nick,

Are you arguing that no non-Jews were on the inside of planning 9/11?

As for Rumsfeld saying terrorists shot down the plane in Pennsylvania, what part do you disagree with? That "terrorists" did it, or that it was shot down, or both?

The debris field shows that terrorists did shoot it down. Whether he intentionally said shot down or not, the fact that he would say what actually happened, in contradiction to the official story that every top-level official had been bandying about, gives me a reasonable inference that he is part of a group that was covering up what really happened on that day.

With his statement about a missile hitting the Pentagon, the hole and the lack of debris show it wasn't a Boeing commercial airliner that hit there, but instead, a missile, to be able to penetrate through all that concrete, so why would you think he was referring to a plane-missile when the official story said plane?

Do you really think that he wouldn't have known about the Pentagon strike beforehand, considering he was the head of the Defense Department? You know, that strike that hit the fortified part of the building, built to withstand a terrorist attack, housing much of the financial documents, and where the alleged pilot who could barely fly a Cessna hit with pinpoint accuracy after intentionally flying past the other side of the building where all the top brass were? Really?

Nick Dean said...

Faux Capitalist, you're arguing that 9/11 happened differently to the way we're told, you're not offering proof that Rumsfeld was one its architects.

People here are seeing what they want to see and trying to have it both ways:

1) Rumsfeld says he doesn't know anything about WTC7, therefore we know he's behind the destruction of WTC7.

2) Rumsfeld may have let slip that a missile hit the Pentagon, therefore we know he's behind the missile attack.

The people who believe point (1) about the WTC7 ought to be persuaded of Rumsfeld's guilt regarding the Pentagon when he denies any knowledge of a missile hitting the Pentagon - his official position. Yet when the opposite appears to happen, they jump on that as proof.

The people who believe point (2) about the Pentagon should be persuaded of Rumsfeld's guilt over WTC7 if he were to let slip some comment about controlled demolition, not by his saying he's never even heard of Building 7.

It's just not a fair trial. It's not for his sake that I think he should have one, it's for ours - and how we look if our arguments are bad and our evidence flimsy.

Nick Dean said...

Faux Capitalist said ...

"Are you arguing that no non-Jews were on the inside of planning 9/11?"

I wouldn't imagine any were on the inside, no (but of course none of us really can know).

I think Jeff Gates provides the most useful way of looking at the categories of actors involved in these Jew-scripted events.

People like Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney are not known to have deep political or moral convictions such as would be required by people seeking to pull off 9/11. Rather they are known to be vain, stupid, corruptible and manipulable. In 9/11 and generally they represent a non-Jewish type Gates calls 'assets' in contradistinction to Jewish 'agents' and 'sayanim.'

quote: Assets are people profiled in sufficient depth that they can be relied upon to perform consistent with their profile. Such people typically lack the state of mind required for criminal culpability because they lack the requisite intent to commit a crime.

Nevertheless, assets are critical to the success of Israeli operations in the U.S. They help simply by pursuing their profiled personal needs—typically for recognition, influence, money, sex, drugs or the greatest drug of all: ideology.

Thus the mission-critical task fulfilled by political assets that the Israel lobby “produces” for long-term service in the Congress—while appearing to represent their U.S. constituents.

Put a profiled asset in a pre-staged time, place and circumstance—over which the Israel lobby can exert considerable influence—and Israeli psy-ops specialists can be confident that, within an acceptable range of probabilities, an asset will act consistent with his or her profile. /endquote

There is no reason to think Rumsfeld is anything other than a typical politician. I'd pull the lever to fry him in an electric chair quite happily, but not for 9/11 for which there's no good evidence he was guilty.

Nick Dean said...

FC ... "As for Rumsfeld saying terrorists shot down the plane in Pennsylvania, what part do you disagree with? That "terrorists" did it, or that it was shot down, or both?"

I don't think Rumsfeld was trying to be clever. He wasn't saying "terrorists did x. y and z, but guess what dumbasses, we're the terrorists."

FC ... "Whether he intentionally said shot down or not, the fact that he would say what actually happened, in contradiction to the official story that every top-level official had been bandying about, gives me a reasonable inference that he is part of a group that was covering up what really happened on that day."

No planes were hijacked, Jason. There was no plane to send bombers to intercept. All that talk about knocking planes out of the air may well have gone on between Bush, Cheney and Rice, with Rumsfeld being kept in the loop, but that only proves what dupes they were.

I think your Pennsylvania debris field is like the debris field that turned up on the Pentagon lawn and in Manhattan after the event. I think it was all planted, even if it was some kind of plane that was shot down -- or otherwise exploded.

FC ... "With his statement about a missile hitting the Pentagon, the hole and the lack of debris show it wasn't a Boeing commercial airliner that hit there, but instead, a missile"

Yes of course no Boeing, and I think a missile is the likeliest explanation, dressed up to look like a plane would help solidify independent witness testimony. But I'm open as well to no actual hit, just a flyover (or two) and an explosion.

FC ... "so why would you think he was referring to a plane-missile when the official story said plane"

The official story is plane as missile. When Roemer then says plane-missile, I'm OK with giving him the benefit of the doubt that he means, plane-missile. I'm also quite prepared to believe he knows it was a missile, Global Hawk or whatever, and inadvertently misspoke. But even if Roemer does know it was a missile and let it slip, that doesn't mean he was behind 9/11, and if it doesn't mean it for him it doesn't for Rumsfeld either.

FC ... "Do you really think that he wouldn't have known about the Pentagon strike beforehand, considering he was the head of the Defense Department?"

Yes. Why would they tell a moron? Rumsfeld's Deputy, Paul Wolfowitz is a better candidate because he is known to have personal motives of the strongest kind (both biological and moral) for wanting a war against Israel's enemies.

FC ... "You know, that strike that hit the fortified part of the building, built to withstand a terrorist attack"

Are you being sarcastic? I think it more likely that the recent restructuring was a weakening exercise.

Anonymous said...

This "Nick Dean" knows what he is doing, and you are, while doing a very admirable job of presenting information and very reasonable deductions, are simply falling-prey to the antics of a Troll.

Lindsey

zapoper said...

A troll calling out a troll or just dumbass yapping???