News Ticker

Trump: Only Explosives Could Have Brought Down the World Trade Towers

TWIN TOWERS II: Donald Trump once proposed replacing the old World Trade Center with a rebuilt twin towers – one floor higher than the ones al Qaeda toppled in 2001. PHOTO: DailyMail.co.uk

In a radio interview on Sept. 11, 2001 — before the “Sharknado” narrative even got started — Donald Trump essentially gave the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth version of the World Trade Center towers free fall. The Architects and Engineers presentation can be viewed in the second video below. Trump, who was knowledgeable about the buildings, called the towers “very strong structures” and stated only powerful explosives could have taken them down. He dismissed cartoon physics and remarked that an aluminum plane could not have sliced through the steel-girded exterior.

Trump’s interview aired on Sept. 11, 2001. Clearly at this point, he hadn’t yet received the Crime Syndicate memo.

In the next video, we see John Gross of NIST dismissing evidence of molten steel at the WTC site.

More sketchy statements around 911. Perhaps Abraham Lincoln said it best: “No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar.”


Read: NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s Pants Were on Fire During 9/11: A Case Study in Lie Spotting


WTC in slow motion on 911: What do you see?

During his 2004 presidential campaign, former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry was filmed taking questions at a small gathering. The outcome illustrates why these campaigns have become controlled, orchestrated events. After all, you never know when the truth might suddenly come right at you. The questioner asked Kerry about WTC 7 on 9/11.

Kerry’s answer should floor anyone. He says WTC 7 was dropped in a controlled demolition. This was after the cartoon physics NIST report stated WTC7 fell from “structural failure caused by fire” with no claim of a demolition. It suggests that Kerry forgot the script.

A second theory is that Kerry (like most Americans) was largely clueless or disinterested in what transpired on 9/11. But, given Kerry’s military background and his nearly 20-year term as senator from Massachusetts, ignorance isn’t a plausible conclusion.

Either would be a nasty scenario, giving license to rampant criminal conspiracy.

Separately, Kerry claimed ignorance about his own family history when confronted with it publicly. While launching his political career in the 1970s and ’80s, he claimed he was of Irish descent, which was politically advantageous in Boston. Turns out, the story was sophistry. The real story has to be seen to be believed. [See The Sordid Family History of John Forbes Kerry]

27 Comments on Trump: Only Explosives Could Have Brought Down the World Trade Towers

  1. Israel did 9/11 and till this day every single American politician in congress, senate and the White House are willing to cover up this fact to advance their career. The same goes for the media whores. There is another 9/11 attack that is often forgotten, certainly not as bad as the controlled demolitions in New York and Pentagon and the ridiculous airplanes CGI:s but worth remembering all the same.This seems to be a significant date for the zionists.

    On September 11 2012, seven years ago, the CIA executed a successful false flag attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, killing a number of people including the American ambassador Chris Stevens and burning down the buildings, destroying evidence of the activities going on there. The purpose of the attack was to cover up the fact that the U.S. State department had used the facilities to smuggle weapons, including illegal chemical weapons, to Syria via Turkey.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/10218288/CIA-running-arms-smuggling-team-in-Benghazi-when-consulate-was-attacked.html

    • I so fucking called this! Anytime a .GOV employee is killed and martyred they are trying to cover up a darker story. The locals were right to torch the place and kick the vermin out.

  2. All you hear from Trump now is the sound of silence, and that is all that matters. Just another puppet on a string, like all the rest.

  3. One thing is for sure the 911 Commission of Omission was a sham meant to deflect a serious inquiry into what really happened

  4. “”He dismissed cartoon physics and remarked that an aluminum plane could not have sliced through the steel girded exterior.””

    he was correct; a real plane could not have physically behaved in the manner exhibited by either of the only 3 official videos. the sad part is that to this day, the majority of 9/11 ‘truth-tellers’ and ‘researchers’ still insist that real aluminum planes really struck and critically damaged the very real giant steel beams that were the 2 giant (of the all 7 total destroyed) WTC.

    • Certainly explosives were planted in the towers to weaken the structure enough to collapse it beyond free fall speed. Numerous witnesses reported explosions seconds before the planes hit(in the underground lots), and after the planes hit to bring them down. Of course planes hit the towers, didn’t you see the films?

      • ya i saw the films. there were 3. they showed aluminum plane gliding right into steel tower without meeting any resistance whatsoever.
        physically impossible. was computer generated imaging.

        • The other problem, besides the films, is that airplane parts and parts of engines were found in and around the remains of the towers.

          • there was a stake-bed pick-up truck driving around with the words “airplane parts” spray painted on the side of it. there was also a photo of several airliner seats that was supposedly taken from the rooftop of a neighboring building.
            the towers were rendered almost entirely into powder at the rate of 11 floors/second.
            the entire 9/11 incident was staged from top to bottom.

        • I used to think that too. But while what we saw on TV is inconsistent with reality, perhaps some unfathomable technology visually turned missiles into crude, plane-like shapes . Richard Hall’s video caused me to reassess my original views on CGI. However they managed to create the plane images, the extreme pulverization of refractory building materials remains the real mystery. Building 7 does indeed appear the classic controlled demolition, and I can believe several bombs being used and maybe some thermite, too (distraction? structural weakening?) on 1 & 2, but that in no way explains the overall destruction.

            • 1100º on the rubble? Steel-capped boots melt but their wearers are unharmed? This is impossible with our conventional understanding. Something apart from extreme heat must have caused this, if the witnesses are to be believed (and I do believe them). First responders in T-shirts and dogs seemed oblivious to any great heat. The smoking debris that continued for months part of the same mystery.

              • ok brother man, i am glad to see that we are on the same page; real planes, remote control planes, CGI, thermite, nukes, DEWs, even evil sorcerers casting a spell… all are more plausible than what the bush jr govt/media claimed. certainly the official fairy-tale is just that; a fairy-tale.

                • Yeah, the important take-away is that whoever pulled this off had at their disposal the world’s most advanced materials technology and military know-how, not, pace Rumsfeld, some guys in a cave in Tora Bora.

                  • The strange damage to distant cars is, again, not explicable with conventional theories, let alone the Official Story.

                  • ya cave men did it – it was fred flintstone!
                    i remember that presentation on TV of the bad guy’s secret hide-out. remember colin powell waving around a little bag of anthrax to scare everybody?

              • Firemen express amazement at molten metal but don’t appear to harmed by close proximity. This strange occurrence is at odds with Jones’ thermite theory, one which features enormous temperatures.

              • right, and they sprayed water on it for the entire time that it kept smoking – and it just kept smoking.

        • A plane hitting one of those towers would be roughly analogous to an egg hitting a chain link fence. Why this is difficult for most Americans to grasp puzzles me.

          As for a kerosene fire melting massive, asbestos-clad steel beams- steel gets stronger when heated, not weaker. Structural steel at 500 F is stronger than the same steel at room temperature. Only when it starts to show color is it beginning to lose strength.

  5. “Explosives”
    “controlled demolition”
    “collapse”
    “down”

    These words should have clear specific meanings but instead they have been weaponized and used to deceive us.

    The Dr. Steven Jones / Richard Gage Architects and Engineers nanothermite gang version is the main continuing deception vehicle used for the deception and diversion of all 9-11 truth seeking efforts since day 1.

    I remember listening to Steven Jones and Alex Jones in the very early days and they both consistently ridiculed the idea of “no planes”, and that is a term that has been weaponized and not been understood correctly by many as well.

    Dr. Steven Jones, now faded off the scene and Richard Gage, now fading off the scene but A&E 911 Truth group resurrects itself around every 9-11. They all are one group and have been the main 9-11 deceivers from the very beginning and have been totally owned and operated by the perpetrators of the event.

    • Cartoons like those of the 9/11 planes impacting the towers are easily reproducible by graphic artists. What is hard to appreciate is the absolute gall of the Israel-firsters behind the show.

  6. I like the NTSB report. Fires in the building raged to 1500 degrees to melt or weaken steel.
    Pray tell, what was in the office that burned that hot and that long? Lets think of conservation of mass and what fuel is needed to keep a fire burning.
    When the planes hit the buildings, a giant fireball erupted. This means:
    A) the fuel burned up immediately (this isn’t true, the NTSB said so)

    or
    B) the building was obviously full of explosives that somehow ignited when the plane hit because the NTSB says the cause of the steel to weaken and buckle was the remaining jet fuel burning, 45 minutes after the crash.

    We know B is true because the plane needed to not ignite some of its fuel on impact so it could save it for later to burn WTC1 and 2.

    Totally plausible, right?

    I know my office building is loaded with all kinds of highly flammable, slow burning, high temperature fuel just waiting around for a match.

    • How about option C, the planes did hit but they were trojen horses, carrying onboard explosives, perhaps even an attached remote controlled, hardened missile. THis in addition to the preplanted charges.

  7. Nothing conventional can explain the hundreds of thousands of tons of micronized steel and other hard building materials that literally float up into the stratosphere. Explosives create a very broad range of fragment size, and far less nanoparticulates than we saw on 9/11. Thermite doesn’t explain that either.

Post a Comment

%d bloggers like this:
Secured By miniOrange