Retired NFL Cowboy Mark Stepnoski adds to the critical mass of 911 inquirers at end of interview.....fwi...TM7
http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071104/FOOTBALL04/711040515/-1/FOOTBALLQ. Anything else you want people to know?
A. Well, you asked. I've got a lot of things I like to do, I read a lot and travel and all that. I don't even know if you want to get into this, since it's a little bit political in tone. But I'm really interested now in the things the 9/11 truth movement is doing. I guess I could spend a lot time talking about that and cover all kinds of policies and statistics, but I don't know how much people want to know.
It interests me because I don't think we're being told truth about what really happened on Sept. 11, 2001. I'm highly skeptical of government accounts of what really happened. It's one of those things that really won't go away. I've been reading about that event and studying about it a great deal. I've read several books and a lot online pretty much since it happened, just because I'm curious about it and just because of other events in our historical past, like the Kennedy assassination for example.
Before anyone wants to try and pigeonhole me as conspiracy theorist, it's like a lot of things. If you're just willing to scratch beneath the surface and do a little research maybe you can find out some things, maybe more people would be more skeptical about our government's involvement with 9/11.
I used to read a lot of things on one Web site called "From the Wilderness." The site no longer exists. It was run by a guy named Mike Ruppert, who wrote one of the best books on the subject called "Crossing the Rubicon." It came out right after the 9/11 Commission report a few years ago, and I read it right after it came out.
We're being lied to. That's what bothers me the most. There's a lot of evidence in almost any area of the entire event, and you can bring up a lot of inconsistencies and unanswered questions just about the event itself. Two of the three steel-frame buildings that day collapsed due to fire, and that's never happened before, never in history. But that day it happened three times, including one building that didn't get hit by a plane. Building Number 7 didn't get hit by a plane and it went straight down in six and a half seconds. In the vast majority of U.S. cities that would have been the tallest building in the city. It had nothing but a couple of small fires on a couple of floors, but it fell down at free-fall speed in six and a half seconds. There are several engineers and architects who have made the argument that it was a controlled demolition because, again, there's never been a steel building collapse due to fire. So how can it happen three times in one day?
There are many, many other things I could talk about, several inconsistencies we could talk about for a long time. If you read some of the authors like Mike Ruppert and Barrie Zwicker, and look at some Web sites, you can get a fuller account. A whole lot of insider trading occurred beforehand, and that's a huge red flag that there was foreknowledge of the event. There were large financial transactions made ahead of time, a lot of trades made to buy stock in United and American airlines beforehand with the expectation that those stocks were going to go down drastically. A lot of the hijackers from the list released by FBI -- a lot of those guys are alive. Many, many guys on the list are the wrong identity. One guy was a pilot for Saudi Airlines, another guy is living in Lebanon and is suing the U.S. government to clear his name.
I'm compelled because as time goes on there is a greater and greater growing voice among people in areas involved with different aspect of that day. You have pilots speaking about what would be involved with trying to fly a plane into the Pentagon that day in the way that it was portrayed. You have architects and engineers speaking out over the actual explanation that jet fuel could melt steel and cause buildings to collapse. You have former people who worked in the Bush administration or the military who have come forward to express doubt about the official story.
Consider the fact that the Bush administration really fought the formation of the 9/11 Commission the whole way. It fought over who was going to head it and who was going to be on it. Initially Henry Kissinger was supposed to be the chairman, but he stepped aside because of conflict of interest issues. The commission didn't come together until a year and a half after the event. ... And you think about how the government spent $15 million on the commission to investigate 9/11, which sounds like a lot. But then you make the comparison that the government spent $40 million to investigate the Monica Lewinsky affair. I certainly share a lot of those views.
