While a guest on In the Room, hosted by Peter Bergen, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is currently challenging President Joe Biden in the Democratic national primary, was asked what he thought about 9/11.
First qualifying that he hadn’t researched the issue deeply, Kennedy didn’t hesitate to acknowledge the problem surrounding World Trade Center 7, which fell at 5:20 PM in the afternoon of September 11, 2001, without having been hit by an airplane.
Bergen — who is also a national security analyst for CNN — immediately attempted to challenge Kennedy’s opinion, yet the candidate stood his ground.
The entire exchange can be heard in the video below:
Peter Bergen: The official explanation of 9/11 — do you buy? Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: Which is what? Bergen: Al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11. Kennedy: I don’t know what happened on 9/11. I mean, I understand what the official explanation is. I understand that there is dissent. I have not looked into it. I haven’t examined it. I’m not a good person to talk to about it. Bergen: Well, I mean, so there’s doubt in your mind that al-Qaeda was responsible? Kennedy: Well, I know, I don’t know, you know. I know there’s strange things that happened that don’t seem — Bergen: What are the strange things? Kennedy: Well, one of the buildings came down that wasn’t hit by a plane. So, you know, was it Building 7 or Building 10? Bergen: That collapsed because two of the world’s biggest buildings collapsed on top of it. Kennedy: No, they didn’t collapse on top of it. My offices were down there. My offices were closed — Bergen: So one of the buildings, next to the Trade Center — Kennedy: There’s pictures of it collapsing. There’s nothing collapsing on top of it. I mean, listen, I don’t want to argue any theories about this because all I’ve heard is questions. I have no explanation. I have no knowledge of it. But what you’re repeating now, I know not to be true.
As Bergen’s robotic-sounding interruptions of Kennedy demonstrate, the media establishment is still trying to stifle any challenge to the official explanations given to us by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for why towers 1, 2, and 7 of the World Trade Center completely collapsed on September 11, 2001.
Overlooking contrary evidence and observable facts, NIST continues to assert that the three towers fell because of random office fires.
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth contends through our own research that each tower came down due to controlled demolition.
Considering that Bergen was eager to reinforce the narrative offered by NIST in the agency’s report on WTC 7 before even allowing Kennedy to finish speaking and that Bergen himself introduced the topic by asking Kennedy what his thoughts on 9/11 were, one could strongly speculate that Bergen inserted the controversial 9/11 issue into the discussion so that Kennedy’s anticipated answer could be used to generate a wave of corporate media indignation against him and his campaign.
After all, Kennedy is challenging an establishment-backed president.
US Presidential Candidate Robert Kennedy Jr, Claims CIA Killed JFK and Covered Up Assassination. Robert F Kennedy Jr with his late late uncle and former president John F Kennedy
This drive-by media tactic was used to attack the candidacy of Republican candidate, Debra Medina when she ran for governor of Texas in 2010. She was in a similar position as Kennedy at the time by taking on Republican incumbent, Rick Perry, with her following consisting mainly of party members that were unhappy with their governor and the direction that their party was heading in.
While appearing on the Glenn Beck radio show, Beck — who had many times expressed open hostility towards the 9/11 Truth Movement — asked her about possible “9/11 truthers” on her campaign team, and whether she believed the official story of 9/11 herself.
Here is the clip:
Medina’s hesitancy to directly answer Beck’s question was seized upon throughout the corporate media to pan her as a “9/11 truther” and as someone unfit (by mainstream media standards) to hold office.
Her indecisive answer also alienated a significant portion of her following who supported a new 9/11 investigation.
Kennedy’s willingness to express his doubts about 9/11 is unlikely to turn off potential supporters. He has already been outspoken about a number of controversial issues, and the public seems more open to embracing candidates who will rebel against the blatant thought-control techniques of the corporate media.
Kennedy also enjoys the unique status of not only being the nephew of a president whose legacy has been overwhelmingly celebrated in our nation’s history but also the son of a past attorney general and presidential candidate who is also remembered in a largely positive light.
Though, as Kennedy said, he hasn’t researched the questions surrounding 9/11 deeply, one doesn’t have to do a lot of research to question why World Trade Center 7 fell. Simply watching a video of its seven-second descent, along with the speed and symmetry of its fall, intuitively raises doubts in the minds of many as to whether random office fires truly facilitated its destruction.
Complementing any intuitive doubts that one might have about WTC 7, the extensive evidence put forth by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth over the years has made it apparent that it came down because of controlled demolition. Also, a report put out by the University of Alaska Fairbanks in 2020 demonstrated the only way that building could have fallen in the manner that it did was if its core and exterior columns were all severed within seconds of each other, over at least eight stories…an event that’s highly improbable random office fires could have initiated.
Though running for president is exhaustive work, we invite Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to take the time to familiarize himself with our evidence, as 9/11 remains one of the biggest issues still haunting our country and would continue to be in a potential Kennedy presidency. While we have many supporters who are enthusiastically behind Kennedy’s presidential run, the grave importance of our mission dictates that, if Kennedy is elected president, we hold him just as accountable as we have previous presidents, and that we implore him to use his high position and any legal means he can to deliver the American public the real 9/11 investigation it deserves. Especially since he has now publicly expressed his doubts about the official narrative.
To any candidate for office who questions 9/11 we offer the following advice — when asked or confronted about your doubts, say them loud and say them proud. The corporate media of 2023 is a parody of itself…the dying ember of a once mighty firewall protecting our nation’s power establishment. Thanks to the internet and to the efforts of countless activists and independent journalists over the years, more people are now questioning official narratives than ever before, including that of 9/11. Voters on both sides of the political aisle are dissatisfied with traditional candidates who avoid controversial issues.
Candidates who are unafraid to express their true thoughts about taboo topics enjoy more popularity among the grassroots of both the left and the right.
The grip that members of the mainstream media have on the wheel of public opinion is as loose as it has ever been, and now is the time for those seeking office to shift towards a newly forming reality where honesty and integrity are sincerely valued by a deception-weary American public. Only then can our nation move into a fresh era where truth and accountability are celebrated and not shirked by the cynical politicians of the past.
The United States can survive the truth of 9/11.
What it can’t survive is more of the status quo.
As engineers, we have a legal responsibility to guard the public’s safety.
"Steel buildings do not globally collapse due to fire, and yet on 9/11, we're told that three of them came down from office fires alone in the same day."
From Architects & Engineers for 9/11Truth and filmmaker, Dylan Avery comes this short documentary that is both hauntingly beautiful in its presentation and startlingly grim in its revelations.
Join civil engineer, Jonathan Cole through an informational odyssey as he revisits the controversy surrounding the impossible destruction of towers 1, 2 and 7 on September 11th 2001, and how his research, along with the research of others, has pulled the rug out from under the conclusions offered by the federal government on why those three buildings ultimately failed.
Through Cole's testimony, and that of mechanical engineer, Tony Szamboti, a dark picture comes into focus that demonstrates that not only is the official story of what killed so many people on America's darkest day provably false but that the federal government actively and willfully turned a blind eye to the observable facts during its unscientific investigation of the building collapses.
In a little over twenty minutes, Thirty Seconds of Silence reveals more about the destruction of the three World Trade Center towers on 9/11 than the media has revealed to the public in the over twenty years since the event took place.