The Last American Vagabond interviewed David Meiswinkle regarding the events of 9/11, particularly regarding the collapse of the buildings. I couldn't bare to watch the whole video because Meiswinkle, who is trying to get a grand jury to consider the evidence that the official narrative is a joke, which it is, is a joke himself. I sent this email to a couple people at The Last American Vagabond. Here i am correcting a few small typos and i added a few links.
re: David Meiswinkle Interview – Ongoing Suppression Of 9/11 Truth & Proof Of Controlled Demolition
you folks do an incredible job overall and i appreciate your work so very much, especially you Whitney, however no one gets it right every time and this interview with Meiswinkle is particularly disappointing
whenever i see the word "proof" used in a headline, red flags are raised and in this case, for good reason
Meiswinkle is not a dummy and i'm sure his intentions are good, however he is ignorant of many facts regarding 9/11, as is the 'truther' community at large, to the point where he destroys his own credibility
here are *some* of the problems with his statements...
WTC 7 and "small office fires":
that is provably and laughably false - 7 burned for ~8 hrs with little or no effort to extinguish the fires for multiple reasons, such as the fact that many firefighters died in the collapses of the towers and little or no water pressure due to broken lines - 7 was raging with fires, however the "truther" community only likes to show pix of the S side of the building which wasn't visibly burning - they don't show the images and videos of the N side from which a massive amount of smoke was billowing and where several fires can be seen through the windows
the morons that did the Alaska study also parrot the same bullshit (small fires, no fires above floor 30, etc.) while anyone with a functioning eyeball can see the fires, including fires raging far above the 30th floor
i talked personally with a senior FDNY fireman who i spent time with at a camp and he confirms that the building was essentially engulfed and adds that he wasn't at all surprised that it collapsed
does this mean the NIST study is accurate regarding 7? no, not necessarily, but it sure as hell proves that the AL study is flawed and that the "truther" community is made up of people who parrot whatever source confirms their preconceived bias
i won't put links here because of the possibility of this mail being flagged as spam, so just do a phrase search for "Possible problems with the UAF WTC 7 collapse study" which is an article i wrote regarding the AL study
like the NIST study, the AL study proves nothing - it is a theory and one which is built on provably false pretenses
William Rodriguez - the last man out:
at least one other person exited after Rodriguez (i forget the name), yet Rodriguez constantly promotes himself as being last which i think raises doubts about his credibility (he was also a magician for a long time, for whatever that's worth)
this of course does not disprove the possibility of explosions prior to plane impact, but it is evidence that Rodriguez may not be all he seems to be
credibility of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth:
Richard Gage and the Pentagon...
despite the mountains of evidence, such as the fact that HUNDREDS of people saw a *plane* approach and/or hit the Pentagon, and no one saw it fly away (not to mention recovered plane parts, DNA for every passenger and crew except one baby), Gage promoted the missile bullshit for *years*, stating that no plane could have penetrated 6 steel reinforced concrete rings of the building
he's right .... except the plane didn't penetrate 6 walls, it punched through TWO walls
yes, this genius -- this professional architect -- NEVER BOTHERED TO LOOK at the design of the building! (the rings are on top of the first floor, not at ground level where the plane largely struck)
you may have noticed that he has very quietly given up on the missile bullshit
Gage promote that 'x' number of architects and engineers are fully on board with A&E911, except many aren't - many have found themselves added to their list *without their consent*
steel from WTC 1 & 2 was not studied, analyzed, photographed:
so the pictures of the samples collected by NIST and several other groups and presented in their papers are.... fake? again, this is the claim of an idiot
while we can certainly argue that the studies are flawed and that the crime scene could have been better preserved and that there was a massive amount of secrecy and corruption involved throughout the cleanup and the studies, and that NIST won't release their computer models, etc., etc., etc., no one in their right mind can claim that none of the steel was studied
also the 'cuts' Meiswinkle refers to in the steel i suspect are the diagonal cuts seen in photographs which are used by the "truther" community to "prove" demolition - i worked in demolition and it's blatantly obvious that the cuts in the ground level steel beams standing generally upright are a) made by an oxy-accetelene torch (not thermite) and b) are not consistent with cuts used to prepare the steel for demolition - in other words, it appears the cuts were made during cleanup
WTC 7 "simultaneous" collapse:
the beams in 7 did not all give way at the same time - again, Meiswinkle and anyone else believing this nonsense has to be blind to not see that the W end of the penthouse collapses first, followed by the remainder of it, followed by the exterior walls
i stopped the video at 12:56 when this moron starts talking about the collapses of 1 and 2 - i guess according to Meiswinkle, the steel should've been pounded into the ground like a nail instead of ejecting sideways, which was the only direction it could go!
whatever - you people need to quit parroting this f'n garbage
you want answers, look to the "intelligence" community and particularly Israel