washingtonpost.com — On Dec. 7, 2001, nearly three months after the terrorist attack that had made him a national hero and a little over three weeks before he would leave office, New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani took the first official step toward making himself rich.
May 13, 2007 View in Crawl 4
bsmangMay 13, 2007
This account has been closed by the user
retsepMay 14, 2007
This historical revisionism is getting insane. Rudy was one of many heroes on 9/11 (and he was nearly killed in the first collapse)...it isn't that a Mayor always is right at a disaster site leading from the front...look at Ray Nagin who fled to Baton Rouge in the face of danger. It's all about leadership, Rudy is a leader, and clearly this is not a common trait among all mayors (ie Ray Nagin).
r0cc0May 14, 2007
I won't digg you down. I'll even go as far as to say that i don't entirely like aspects of the controlled demolition explanation.But i will say that the more exposure these questions get the better off this country will be.9/11 stinks to high heaven. It has from day 1. I say the sooner people start becoming skeptical about what they're being fed, the better.There are decisions being made everyday that will effect the whole world for years and years. It's about time this country starts getting concerned about the real issues, and quit complaining about gay rights and who thinks what about abortion.
danaramaMay 14, 2007
the CIA invented al queda...look it up
babar77May 14, 2007
Sorry, but I forgot one last point. I know there are companies out there that are unethical. But even given this, can you imagine a company willing to take on the liability or being unmoral or unethical enough to strap explosives to major building like WTC7 while people are still occupying the building! I can't see how anyone could hide that operation, all it would take is one whistle-blower in a crew of at least a hundred, or one of the thousands of workers to see something to blow the cover on the whole thing. I don't care who you are, if you see TNT or something that looks like that being brought into the building you work, you're going to say something - and LOUD. It's far easier for me to believe fire took that building down and not explosives.
mageantMay 14, 2007
If there were only jet fuel fires in the buildings then how did they actually melt the steel, since pools of molten steel were found weeks later in the wreckage of the WTC. Infra-red satellite photographs confirmed this.<a class="user" href="http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.htm">http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.htm</a><a class="user" href="http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html">http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html</a><a class="user" href="http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf">http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf</a>
Closed AccountMay 14, 2007
"It should also be mentioned that other high-rise buildings have suffered significantly more serious fires than those of the twin towers on September 11, and did not collapse."Lots of things are designed with certain intentions in mind. Notice, however, that neither of the buildings ever went through a rigorous testing phase when it came to what kind of an impact they would withstand.Thanks for Copy and Pasting from one of your truther sites, though.
drmobutuMay 14, 2007
One of the questions you might want to ask when trying to get to the bottom of any suspicious activity is this: Who benefits?
Closed AccountMay 15, 2007
*note to self* When mentally noting possible spelling errors, refer to uncommonly used British alternatives.
lucidoneMay 15, 2007
Why?