I am ashamed to admit I voted for George W. Bush.
Granted, the alternative was no better.
Actually, I should probably rephrase that….I’m ashamed I wasn’t red-pilled enough back then to understand what was going on.
Not many of us were.
We all thought the Bushes were great patriots….great Republicans.
In fact, we thought the battle was Republican vs. Democrat.
We know better now.
Now we see it for what it really is….globalists vs. nationalists.
Those who hate America and want to destroy it vs. those who LOVE America.
We see clearly now.
But there was a time we supported Bush and trusted what he said.
Oh even then we knew he wasn’t the smartest tool in the shed.
And that may be his ultimate downfall, because I have been searching for this video for a long time and finally found it again.
This is the video where GWB admits there were explosives used in 9/11.
No, it’s not as if he “comes clean” and admits the whole thing….more like he’s just not smart enough to even realize when he’s just accidentally “told the truth”.
Watch it here on Rumble:
Did you support Bush at one time?
Did you vote for him?
Do you regret it now?
Leave a comment below.
By the way, it’s not the first time allegations of explosions have been made.
There is a mountain of evidence (plus common sense and trusting what our eyes saw) to realize that it was a controlled demolition.
Even Trump himself said so the week of the wreckage.
Read this from Daily Commercial News:
Despite strong contrary arguments, a McMaster University engineering professor steadfastly maintains the collapse of three World Trade Center buildings after the infamous 9/11 attacks can only be adequately explained if “controlled demolition” is part of the equation.
Robert Korol, a civil engineering professor emeritus and a fellow of the Canadian Society of Civil Engineering, authored a report with Steven Jones, former professor of physics at Brigham Young University, Anthony Szamboti, a mechanical design engineer in the aerospace and communications industries and Ted Walter, director of strategy and development for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth). The report was titled 15 Years Later: On the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses published last year in the Europhysics News journal which is a magazine for the European physics community and owned by the European Physical Society.
In the controversial paper, the authors reflect the overarching premise of the AE911Truth, which has collected 2,936 signatures from engineers and architects. Among those petition signatories are 19 who earned their respective degrees in Canada, including 15 who live here.
AE911 Truth posits: “there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7.”
The group has long been controversial and its arguments have ignited many debates. The overwhelming consensus has favoured the official explanation which states that fires burning inside the buildings weakened the structural steel and triggered their collapse. This has consistently been reaffirmed by U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) over the last 16 years.
The Europhysics News editors also recognize the controversy, publishing the article with the following note: “This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation. However, given the timing and the importance of the issue, we consider that this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors.”
Reached at his home in Dundas, Ont., Korol shrugs off the controversy.
“I’ve been scratching my head over this one since it happened on Sept. 11, 2001,” he says. “I just couldn’t understand how those buildings collapsed. It didn’t make sense.”
JEFFMOCK/WIKIMEDIA COMMONS — World Trade Center Building 7 is the red-tinted building behind and to the left of the Twin Towers.
While the most iconic images of that fateful day are the collapse of the twin towers World Trade Center 1 (WTC 1) and World Trade Center 2 (WTC 2) within moments of each other, following the fires started by a passenger airplane crashing into each of them, there is a third building most often cited as the smoking gun in the “controlled demolition” theory. This building, World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) was not hit by any aircraft and yet it too imploded like a house of cards, says Korol and his co-authors and others note it housed CIA and Secret Service offices.
“Indeed, neither before nor since 9/11 have fires caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise — nor has any other natural event, with the exception of the 1985 Mexico City earthquake, which toppled a 21-storey office building,” they argue. “Otherwise, the only phenomenon capable of collapsing such buildings completely has been by way of a procedure known as controlled demolition, whereby explosives or other devices are used to bring down a structure intentionally.”
Korol, who has taken contrarian positions on other engineering-related issues, says it’s important to keep challenging the status quo because we need to know how and why the buildings collapsed in order to prevent reoccurrences.
“The fires were on the upper floors, there’s little chance the heat would have spread down and caused the steel columns, or the connectors or floor beams, to sufficiently weaken and collapse in the twin towers,” he tells the Daily Commercial News.
“Also they were treated with a fire retardant which would have insulated them.”
Further, he says, when the structures did fail they did so with such explosive force that pulverized concrete was ejected at high velocity and scattered on a debris field some 370 metres away.
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION/WIKIMEDIA COMMONS —
An aerial view of the remains of the collapsed World Trade Center (WTC) buildings on 9/11. The original footprints of the WTC Twin Towers 1 and 2 and Building 7 are outlined.
The most probable explanation is a controlled explosion and mostly likely using thermite, he says, adding in the case of WTC 7 some 67 per cent of the supporting steel strength in Column 79 — pinpointed as the cause of the fatal collapse — would have to be lost before it failed and that would mean temperatures of 660C.
The paper also notes sprinkler systems would have reduced heat factors, while the overall design of the steel structure would isolate any failure and prevent a domino-effect collapse.
The NIST however maintains the heat factor triggered an expansion in floor beams, pushing them off their seats and causing the collapse when other components also failed due to thermal expansion.
Korol and other likeminded colleagues, stubbornly disagree.
Watch more here: