Caught in the Lie: The Clintons and the Legacy of 9/11

Believe me when I say that I am ready to stop writing about 9/11. I have come to accept the cold and brutal fact that most people either don’t care about the truth or do not want to know the truth.Yet it’s hard to stop writing about this classically orchestrated false flag operation when I keep coming across obscene rubbish like these two videos of President Clinton posted on YouTube. In the first video Clinton is caught denying any knowledge about Building 7. In the second video the former President slips up by admitting that the “Pentagon was bombed.” Clinton denies knowledge about Building 7 & Clinton says Pentagon was bombed

Firstly, there is no conceivable way that Clinton was unaware of what happened to Building 7 on the afternoon of September 11. For God’s sake he was leader of the free world for two terms. In fact, he was the Commander In Chief when the WTC was attacked in 1993. Isn’t it fair to say that he knew more about the WTC complex than most people in the world?

Moreover, President Clinton had access to top secret classified documents regarding the aftermath of 9/11. Putting all of this together leads one to the conclusion that there is no conceivable way that he was uninformed about a third collapsed skyscraper on 9/11. And a third skyscraper did indeed fall to the ground in its own footprint at 5:20 pm on September 11, 2001. The 47 story tall building, located 300 feet north of WTC 1, was NOT hit by a plane. Although the building sustained minor damage and had a few small, scattered fires, it was somehow completely destroyed in free fall fashion in less than 10 seconds. According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which was the agency responsible for investigating the collapse, this total destruction was due to “normal office fires…fueled by office furnishings.”

Does it matter that no other skyscraper in history had ever collapsed from normal office fires before 9/11? Either way, Clinton’s claim that he does not know anything about it is beyond absurd. He could have said he does not want to talk about it; he could have referenced the NIST report; he could have conjured up an obscure physical explanation he remembered from his high school physics class, or blame he could have blamed it on aliens. What he can not say is that he doesn’t know where the building is. That is absolutely unacceptable from a man in his position of knowledge and power. Truthfully speaking, all this denial does is raise suspicions about what he actually knows and why he looks so nervous whenever the topic of 9/11 comes up, which, by the way, it rarely does. If Donald Trump can be commended for anything, it is his willingness to talk about the events of 9/11 with a certain degree of critical analysis and philosophical scrutiny. The other candidates treat it as if it never happened or is the great thou which shall not be discussed. (It should be noted that President Clinton is not the only leader from this period to have messed up the protocol on 9/11. Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush have all been caught on camera saying things which clearly contradict the official narrative. Rumsfeld admits Flight 93 shot down & Cheney admits Flight 93 shot down)Gandhi Logo1

The bottom line is simple. The destruction of Building 7 has all of the characteristics of a controlled demolition with explosives. Over 2,200 trained architects and engineers have conceded that the collapse had to be controlled based on the simple laws of physics. Shockingly the building fell almost symmetrically straight down in less than 7 seconds-and at free-fall acceleration for the first 100 feet. The overall building mass fell uniformly through what was the path of greatest resistance. Furthermore, the kink in the roofline showed the characteristics of a demolition timed sequence where the walls are collapsed inward. Building 7 collapse

Once experts arrived at the logical conclusion that Building 7 was demolished by incendiaries (the presence of which FEMA documented in May, 2002) the next series of questions should be obvious. Who strapped the building with explosives? Why would someone “pull” a building that could have been saved by conventional firefighting? How long before the first two plane crashed into WTC 1 and WTC 2 were explosions present in Building 7? What correlation is there between the alleged downed flight in Pennsylvania and the demolition of Building 7? Why was Building 7 omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report? Why is every leader’s reaction to questions about Building 7 the same? They begin with a moment of embarrassed surprise, which is then followed by a look of personal shame, and then comes the suspension of reason. It’s bizarre to watch.

If only President Clinton had enough self-doubt and professional decency to ask himself how he could not know about Building 7, perhaps the world community would be getting somewhere with a real investigation of 9/11.

That said, the dark and monstrous truth is that Clinton knew damn well about Building 7. He likely knew much more than that. Do I dare ask what Secretary Clinton knows about that fateful day in September when our nation was hijacked by the same forces sworn to protect it?

George Payne

Rochester, NY


One thought on “Caught in the Lie: The Clintons and the Legacy of 9/11”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s