1. Cube Radio

    Cube Radio Member

    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcKlPhFIE7w

    [Mod: Post edited to add transcript and full video]
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2016
  2. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    No he didn't. He said @7:19 "i just think there was a plane with more than just fuel".
    ie: possibly bombs on the planes.

    The conversation starts at 5:25. the first thing Donald says is "well it was an architectural defect". your quote is about 6:40 in the full interview here. It is important to note this interview took place ON 9/11/2001. Mr. Trump, who shows he really knows nothing about the structure of the TTs, is just speculating as a layman.

    Source: https://youtu.be/PcKlPhFIE7w?t=437
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2016
  3. Cube Radio

    Cube Radio Member

    I represented Trump's quote accurately and backed it up accurately using an accurate time reference to a genuine recording.

    It is exactly what he said.

    Trump doesn't say it was an architectural defect, he says it WASN'T an architectural defect. You have to listen carefully for this but it is perfectly clear from the context that this is what he said, immediately following the remark with "they were known to be very strong buildings" and going on to expand on why he thinks they were so strong.

    As a builder of huge towers, Trump's "lay speculations" are surely more significant than your own. You didn't take a tour of the buildings together with a structural engineer, did you?
  4. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    at 5:33 he says "well it was an architectural defect". There's no "n't" in his words regardless of what you think the rest of what he was saying meant.

    Not by how he is describing the outer wall.
  5. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    Trump does not say
    which is the title of your thread here.
  6. Nada Truther

    Nada Truther Active Member

    I believe that he said "Was an architectural defect", not "Wasn't an architectural defect". If Trump DID say "Wasn't", instead of "was an"... He is speaking with horrible grammer. "It WAS AN architectural defect...." or "It WASN'T architectural defect....". Which one sounds more grammatically correct? I do believe that Donald Trump is a pretty articulate guy, so I would have to go with the "was an" option. Also, since when is Donald Trump an expert on architecture and engineering? Has he ever come out any other times supporting this hypothesis? Have we ever not known DT to not try to be "the guy" when it comes to talking about anything? If there were bombs in there, he would probably want to be able to say "I was the guy who first said it. I am great, I am fantastic, etc." I don't know if I would spend money on any billboards for this one AE911Truth.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Miss VocalCord

    Miss VocalCord Active Member

    Yes, it sounds to me he is saying (if you listen to the complete audio; around 2.06) he thinks there were bombs on the plane also. Not in the building.
  8. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I have altered the title of the thread, as Trump clearly thought there were explosives on the planes.
  9. Efftup

    Efftup Senior Member

    I would agree with Cube radio that he PROBABLY said "Wasn't Architectural defect" from the context of what he said later, but what he said missed out the fact that actually the MAIN strength in the building was the central core and NOT the outer skin so his description of a Can of soup was not very accurate.

    But although the quote in the OP is accurate, as others have pointed out already, from other things he says in the interview, it definitely sounds like he thought any bombs would have been on the planes rather than in the buildings.

    I still question the relevance of what Donald Trump thought on the day.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Here's the automatic transcript from YouTube, partially cleaned up

    0:00 we are having some technical
    0:01 difficulties which is totally
    0:03 understandable when you try to do you
    0:05 know ad hoc reporting and getting
    0:07 information to you as fast as we
    0:09 possibly can and making sure that it's
    0:10 accurate at the same time so Donald
    0:12 Trump is on the line and we know him as
    0:14 the man behind lots of real estate in
    0:16 Manhattan and of course the Donald
    0:19 understand you were actually a witness
    0:21 to what happened this morning

    0:22 well I have a window that looks directly
    0:24 at the World Trade Center and I saw it
    0:27 this huge explosion I was with a group
    0:29 of people and I you really couldn't
    0:32 believe it and even I think worse than
    0:34 that for years I've looked right
    0:36 directly at the building I see the
    0:38 Empire State Building in the foreground
    0:39 and the world trade center of the
    0:41 background and now I'm looking at
    0:43 absolutely nothing it's just gone and
    0:46 it's just hard to believe

    0:47 Donald Alan
    0:48 Marcus here, your building is Trump
    0:51 Tower is one of the great tourist
    0:54 attractions in the world it's well known
    0:56 universally are you taking any
    0:58 precautions there and light of what
    1:01 happened at the World Trade Center

    1:02 Well Alan, we've always had as you know very
    1:04 very strong security but there's very
    1:06 little you can do about planes crashing
    1:08 into a building when you look at Larry
    1:10 Silverstein is a terrific owner in New
    1:12 York and a very good friend of mine who
    1:13 i just called i was very worried about
    1:15 him because I assume maybe he was in the
    1:17 building he took possession of the
    1:18 building one week ago as you know he
    1:21 just bought the world trade center (right)
    1:22 and that he was in his office and he was
    1:24 getting ready to move into the World
    1:26 Trade Center over the next two weeks so
    1:28 when I just spoke to him there's nothing
    1:30 you can do when people are gonna be
    1:31 bombing planes at your building. Now I
    1:35 guess maybe the world is going to be
    1:36 changing and maybe even have f-16s
    1:39 flying all over the city etcetera but
    1:40 it's a pretty tough situation

    1:43 Donald you
    1:44 have one of the landmark buildings down
    1:45 in the financial district, 40 wall street
    1:48 uh did you have any damage or did you
    1:50 know what's happened down there

    1:52 well it was an amazing phone call I made
    1:54 41 feet actually was the second tallest
    1:56 building in downtown Manhattan and it
    1:59 was actually before the World Trade
    2:00 Center was the tallest and then when
    2:02 they built the World Trade Center it became
    2:04 known as the second tallest to now it's
    2:05 the tallest and I just spoke to my
    2:07 people and they said it's the most
    2:10 unbelievable sight it's
    2:13 probably seven or eight blocks away from
    2:15 the world trade center and yet wall
    2:17 street is littered with two feet of
    2:19 stone and brick and mortar and steel and
    2:23 there are thousands of people walking
    2:25 over the debris over the brooklyn bridge
    2:29 where they're sending them out over the
    2:30 brooklyn bridge to brooklyn and then I
    2:32 guess we're gonna have to figure out how
    2:33 to get home from there. But they have
    2:36 between a foot and two feet of debris
    2:38 right in front of a building that's
    2:40 probably you would say Alan six or seven
    2:42 blocks away

    2:43 Donald this is Roland Smith ...
    2:46 ... this kind
    2:48 of day you know at some point we're
    2:52 gonna put all this behind us and you as
    2:54 a visionary particularly and in New York
    2:57 real estate
    2:57 what do you think that we ought to do as
    3:00 a city as a people when all of this gets
    3:03 in the morning stops when when the dead
    3:07 are honored and and we found out what
    3:11 caused it maybe corrected it
    3:13 what does the city needs to do

    well I
    3:14 guess the big thing that that you really
    3:16 will have to do is never forget. you just
    3:18 can't forget that something like this
    3:20 happened I was so disappointed when they
    3:22 close the stock exchange but of course
    3:24 at some point you had no choice you know
    3:26 what they initially announced it was
    3:28 closing because you want to just say the
    3:30 hell with that you're going forward
    3:31 nothing's going to change but the fact
    3:34 is something has changed very
    3:35 dramatically and I think one of the very
    3:37 sad things is going to be when you look
    3:39 at the skyline of New York which has
    3:41 become so emblazoned in your own memory
    3:43 and you looking at the skyline of New
    3:45 York and you see these buildings these
    3:48 two buildings whether you love them or
    3:50 don't love them they were a great part
    3:51 of the skyline and then when you look at
    3:54 the skyline after 2001 and you're going
    3:57 to see a skyline without these two
    3:58 that you can see what happens
    3:59 people will believe it you know when you
    4:01 show your children or your grandchildren
    4:03 and years to come what New York look
    4:05 like in the year 2000 and then New York
    4:09 looked like just a year later they're
    4:11 gonna say what happened
    4:12 It's hard to believe

    4:14 2000 Donald you considered running for
    4:17 president if if if you had done that and
    4:19 if you had been successful
    4:21 what do you think you did
    4:23 right now

    4:24 well I be taken a very very
    4:26 tough line Alan I mean you know most
    4:29 people feel they know at least
    4:31 approximately the group of people that
    4:34 did this and where they are but boy
    4:37 would you have to take a hard line on
    4:38 this this just can't be tolerated and
    4:40 it's going to be very very strange.
    4:42 this is as you and I were discussing
    4:43 before Alice was probably worse than
    4:46 Pearl Harbor many more people are dead
    4:48 and you know they don't know they have
    4:50 no idea but i have somebody that was
    4:53 down there who witnessed at least 10
    4:54 people jumping out of the building from
    4:56 70 and 80 stories up in the air
    4:59 I mean you probably have twenty-five or
    5:01 thirty thousand is the number i've heard
    5:02 but i would think would be much more
    5:03 than that I think the most of the damage
    5:06 will because not by even in the building
    5:08 in terms of the people dead but by the
    5:10 people on the streets from falling
    5:12 debris

    5:13 Donald you're probably the
    5:14 best-known builder particularly of of
    5:17 great buildings in the city. There's a
    5:20 great deal of question about whether or
    5:22 not the damage and and the ultimate
    5:25 destruction of the buildings was caused
    5:26 by the airplanes by architectural defect
    5:29 or possibly by bombs or aftershocks
    5:31 do you have any thoughts on that?

    5:33 Well it wasn't architectural defect, you know the world
    5:35 trade center was always known as a very
    5:37 very strong building, don't forget that
    5:38 took a big bomb in the basement now the
    5:40 basement is the most vulnerable place
    5:41 because that your foundation and it
    5:43 withstood that and I got to see that
    5:45 area about three or four days after took
    5:48 place because one of my structural
    5:49 engineers actually took me for a tour
    5:52 because he did the building and I said I
    5:54 can't believe that the building was
    5:55 standing solid and half of the columns
    5:58 were blown out of itself
    5:59 this was an unbelievably powerful
    6:01 building if you know anything about
    6:03 structure it was one of the first
    6:05 building that was built from the outside, the
    6:06 steel, the reason the World Trade Center
    6:08 had such narrow windows is that in
    6:10 between all the windows you had the
    6:12 steel on the outside, so you had steel on the
    6:13 outside of the building that's why when
    6:15 I first look, and you had big heavy i-beams,
    6:18 when I first looked at it I couldn't
    6:20 believe it because there was a hole in
    6:22 the steel and this is steel that was, you
    6:25 remember the the width of the windows of
    6:26 the World Trade Center folks I think you
    6:28 know if you're ever up there they were
    6:30 quite narrow and in between was this heavy
    6:33 steel I said how could a plane even a
    6:35 plane even a
    6:36 767 or 747 or whatever it might have been
    6:40 how could it possibly go through this
    6:41 steel? I happen to think that they had not
    6:43 only a plane but they had bombs that
    6:45 exploded almost simultaneously because I
    6:47 just can't imagine anything being able
    6:50 to go through that wall
    Both buildings
    6:51 are built with the steel on the
    6:53 inside around the elevator shaft
    6:54 this one was built from the outside
    6:56 which is the strongest structure you can
    6:58 have and it was almost just like like a
    7:01 can of soup

    7:02 you know Donald we were looking at
    7:03 pictures all morning long of that plane
    7:05 coming into building number two and when
    7:08 you see that approach the the far side
    7:12 and then all of a sudden within a matter
    7:14 of milliseconds the explosion pops out
    7:16 the other side

    7:17 I just think that it was a plane with
    7:20 more than just fuel.
    I think obviously
    7:22 they were very big planes that are going
    7:24 very rapidly because I was also watching
    7:26 where the plane seems to be not only
    7:28 going fast it seems to be coming down
    7:30 into the building so is getting the
    7:33 speed from going downhill so to speak.
    7:35 It just seemed to me that to do that
    7:37 kind of destruction is even more than a
    7:40 big plane because you're talking about
    7:41 taking of Steel the heaviest calipers
    7:44 steal that was used in building these
    7:45 buildings were rock-solid and you know
    7:48 it's just an amazing it's an amazing
    7:50 thing it's this country is different
    7:53 today and and it's going to be different
    7:57 than it ever was for many years to come

    8:00 very profound statement and very true
    8:02 Donald one last question for you
    8:04 given the the magnitude of of how much
    8:08 of American commerce took place within
    8:10 the twin towers
    8:12 what do you is you're an expert on this
    8:14 what do you think is going to be the
    8:16 fallout over the next many several weeks
    8:18 months even years
    8:20 given what we have lost in terms of
    8:23 those buildings going down and and all
    8:25 that was within it

    8:27 well I I as an example allen and you
    8:29 might use them too but i have an
    8:30 insurance company that was 102nd floor
    8:32 of the world trade center they got I
    8:36 don't know who's gone
    8:38 I don't know anything other than their
    8:40 offices are no longer there
    8:41 they wiped out the Morgan Stanley group
    8:46 you know Morgan Stanley a big powerful
    8:47 firm they had 50
    8:49 stories in the building Don I mean
    8:52 you're talking about some firms that
    8:53 have just gone now Morgan Stanley in
    8:56 that case had a lot of its officers in
    8:58 midtown and they had about half downtown
    8:59 Morgan Stanley's a big powerful firm
    9:02 they got many firms had all of their
    9:05 offices as you know in the World Trade
    9:07 Center it was eight million square feet
    9:09 8 million square feet is the size of
    9:11 some cities and we had eight million
    9:14 square feet of the word four million in
    9:15 each building they were huge buildings
    9:17 not only in height but you know each
    9:19 each floor was 50,000 feet they were a
    9:22 much restores each floor was almost a
    9:25 city in itself and they had a hundred
    9:28 and ten floors are so you know many
    9:31 firms that were easily recognizable for
    9:34 those of us in the financial world for
    9:36 those of us that read the papers and see
    9:38 the financial pages they're gonna be
    9:40 gonna mean they just not gonna just
    9:42 anywhere they've got Donald Trump the
    9:44 other people have done with Donald Trump

    9:46 thank you so very much for joining us is
    9:48 really really appreciated thank you so
    9:49 do you to our prayers are with everyone
    9:52 to an apology is going to bring us
    9:54 up-to-date
  11. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Yeah, but you omitted the fact that he thought the bombs were on the planes.

    I have edited your post to conform to the posting guidelines by including a transcript with context, and the full video without dramatic music and misleading mages. This is something you should have done yourself.
  12. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It was incredibly inaccurate. He also said in the 1993 bombing that half the columns were gone, when in fact even the column that the van was parked next to did not even buckle, the damage was largely to horizontal structures and non-structural walls. He's obviously just talking off the top of his head. He remembers the narrow windows, and then extrapolated from that the exterior walls were the primary structural elements, which they were not.
  13. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    I agree that he says "... wasn't architectural defect..."
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Yes, and that's what the Youtube robot thought too, in the transcript. It makes sense in the context of him thinking the towers were like super strong cans.
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  15. Nada Truther

    Nada Truther Active Member

    I guess I am missing the point of the OP and this thread. Are we supposed to believe that because Donald Trump, a businessman and media hound, not an architect or engineer, or explosives expert, thought that there were bombs in either the building or the planes, it means that this was a CD? He said all of this on the day that it was happening. Did he even know at the time that they were commercial jet liners? Did he think that these were possibly high-jacked jets that the terrorists would have had time to land and plant with explosives, then fly into the towers?

    I know that there is many a thread here about the logistics of planting bombs in either, so..... what are we saying here, Cube?
    • Agree Agree x 2
  16. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    he says "well it was an architectural defect". i just relistened to it 5 more times trying to hear a negative and he says "was an". even his accentuation in speech patterns indicate a positive, the vocal stress point is on "was". his voice goes up.

    edit add: PS. he is answering the question [/EX] There's a
    5:20 great deal of question about whether or
    5:22 not the damage and and the ultimate
    5:25 destruction of the buildings was caused
    5:26 by
    the airplanes by architectural defect
    5:29 or possibly by bombs or aftershocks
    5:31 do you have any thoughts on that? [/EX]

    Just because he changes thought streams after he answers is irrelevant.
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2016
  17. Keith Beachy

    Keith Beachy Active Member

    This was what Trump said on 9/11, and is a first impression. Trump is not an engineer.

    Not knowing the speed of the planes, at 175's impact I thought UBL had brought his own planes with explosives; I did not know Flt 175 was going 590 mph, which would make a KE impact equal in energy to a 2093 TNT bomb.
    Learning they were airliners hijacked as a ruse, there were no bombs on the planes. It was kinetic energy. KE has a velocity squared term, the KE did the damage at impact. Trump was talking about impacts being like bombs, they had the energy of bombs. Once again, simile, a figure of speech, fails to be evidence for explosives and an inside job false flag fantasy (IJFFF).

    Normal plane crashes have the kinetic energy of 180 pounds of TNT, the impacts on 9/11 had 1400 to 2000 pounds of TNT. No wonder anyone might think the planes had explosives, the impacts were an order of magnitude greater than (aka 10 times greater) aircraft crashes where the pilots tries to fly/crash as slow as possible.

    The WTC were very strong as a system. Once you break the systems it fails. The floors were hanging on the core and the shell. The floors were an important part of a system holding the shell to the core; thus the core had the lateral support of the shell. The system failed on 9/11 due to the top mass falling on lower floors. A floor can only hold 29,000,000 pounds statically. Simple math and physics explains why the propagation of the upper mass falling continued, as floors failed when overloaded.

    The video was done on 9/11, and Trump had limited facts and evidence. I agree, the Towers were very strong as a system of core, shell and floors.
  18. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I disagree, I think he's saying "It wasn't architectural defect"

    "wasn't" is phonetically very similar to "was an"
  19. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    we're gonna have to agree to disagree. Maybe someone else familiar with NY accents can chime in.
  20. Dan Page

    Dan Page Active Member

    My ears hear "it wasn't architectural defect", and this is somewhat confirmed by the question he was asked
    and Donald goes on to say how well the buildings were built and how strong they were, sort of to strengthen his statement that it wasn't architectural defect.
    However I have to add, who cares what Donald said, he is not an architect, he is not an engineer, why does anybody care what he said or thought?
    • Agree Agree x 2
  21. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    i do understand that it may seem like that, but if you listen to him around 1:30 he doesnt answer that question normally either, he starts talking about what he wants to talk about. he's weird.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  22. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member


    Leslie Robertson suspected a plane could penetrate the facade when he designed it.

    A bombs on the plane theory is not something most of the "truthers" believe.

    Trump also says climate change is a "hoax" and there is no drought in California.

    What is your point?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  23. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    My three cents:

    1. I had heard "wasn't architectural defect" the first three times I listened to that recording, days ago.

    2. I think we all agree that Trump's ad hoc speculation, being a non-expert, carries no weight towards why and how the towers collapsed

    3. However, he is now President, and so the relevance might be in the near future that if he still believes that planes alone could not have penetrated the perimeter, he might have a bit of sympathy towards a "new investigation" - at least in the hopes, dreams and hot fever fantasies of Truthers. On the other hand, Truthers will not like that he calls Silverstein an excellent guy and great friend. And some Truthers will not like the idea that Trump, a big supporter of the state of Israel, will certainly not share in their favorite "The Jews are prime evil always, everywhere and since the dawn of time, so get at them!" version of the "New Investigation" theme.
  24. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    his original title to the thread was upload_2016-11-17_15-2-39.

    and his OP said "in the twin towers". Cube believes Trump was saying there were bombs in the TTs. But Mick changed the thread title.
  25. Nada Truther

    Nada Truther Active Member

    I guess it depends on his relationship to a soup can. Does he consider a soup can strong or weak? It seems like he was speaking in terms of the tower being built strong. President [elect]trump is pretty good a talking around in circles. Maybe he confused himself. It still doesn't mean that there were, in fact, bombs anywhere, just because he said it. Is that what this post is trying to say?
  26. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    i should note it's not just CubeRadio, James Tracy and others are claiming this also.
    :) i know, i can't figure out how a soup can matches his "it was strong" speech either. a soup can is hollow inside.. maybe he didnt know there was a core at all. ??
  27. Cube Radio

    Cube Radio Member

    It's in no way conclusive from the transcript that Trump was first talking about bombs on the planes. The interviewer initially asks if bombs could have caused the destruction of the towers: Trump seems to agree that "they had bombs".

    This is perfectly obvious to anyone who actually takes the trouble to view the footage of the towers collapsing, particularly in slow motion.

    Certainly, later he speculates that there was something "more than just fuel" on the planes.

    It seems terribly sad to me that dierdre has wasted so much time insisting a "was" rather than a "wasn't" was said when the context makes it perfectly clear what he said. But then nonsensical semantic quibbling is entirely what I expect here, and that's exactly what I've seen.
  28. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    And of course Trump had not seen that footage at that time. He's talking about how the planes penetrated the outer wall. He's speculating about the cause of the hole.

    30 seconds later. It's not as if they were discussing something else.

    He could not figure out how a plane could make the hole. We now know it's because the planes were going fast. And the construction manager of the building said this is exactly what would happen.

    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fQlC2AIWrY

    (0:31 "the jet plane is just a pencil, puncturing that screen netting")

    As I'm sure you are familiar with.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  29. Cube Radio

    Cube Radio Member

    How do you know Trump hadn't seen the footage of the towers exploding, [...] He saw the hole, so it's reasonable to imagine he was also watching when they blew up.
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 18, 2016
  30. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    whether or not he said "was" (which he does) really has nothing to do with the fact that throughout the interview he is only saying he thought there might have been bombs on the plane. Youre right i shouldnt go off-topic by arguing about it, i just find it fascinating that so many people are mishearing him.
  31. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I'm sure he saw SOME footage. But the point here is that he's talking about the hole, not the collapse.
  32. Cube Radio

    Cube Radio Member

    I love how you admit that you went entirely off topic with some quibble -- but my preceding post gets edited to remove a detail that proves there were bombs because, presumably, you've decreed that detail wasn't on topic.
  33. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The topic is what Trump said about bombs or explosives. The issue of if he said it was or was not an architectural defect pertains to that, because it relates to his understanding of the entire situation (an understanding that we can see was very poor, as it was unaware of the core structure).

    If you could "prove" there were bombs then we would not be having this discussion.

    If you post more off topic things, you will be removed from this thread.
  34. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    i didnt edit it. and you didnt have anything that proved there were bombs.
  35. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    oh good.. then ill just point out (then i'll drop it promise)... it WAS an architectural defect. Trump watched the buildings collapse to the ground, his choices were "architectural defect, aftershocks, bombs". He doesnt mention bombs or aftershocks.
    It was an architectural defect BUT the buildings stood for like an hour because you know, they were strong. :)

    ok i'm done.
  36. Cube Radio

    Cube Radio Member

    What kind of architectural defect? I mean, if you know it WAS an architectural defect, you must know what kind Trump was talking about -- because the context seems to me, and many others here, that he said the reverse.

    Oh, sorry: you're done.
  37. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    the kind that makes a giagantic strong skyscraper collapse to the ground if a plane flies into it.
  38. Cube Radio

    Cube Radio Member

    And your evidence for that is what? Does NIST back you up on this?
  39. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    the topic is Trumps [in shock, just newly witnessing the collapse] conversation he had with a news station the day of the attacks. Nist is irrelevant.
  40. Nada Truther

    Nada Truther Active Member

    How does Donald Trump (Not an expert on this) saying that he "thinks" there must have been more than fuel "Prove" there were bombs? And who cares if he said that there was or wasn't a defect? HE IS IN NO WAY AN EXPERT ON THIS! Just because he has been involved with the building of buildings, doesn't mean he knows anything about structural engineering. He is a high profile New York guy that loves to be the one who is "in the know" and is speaking about something before anyone really even knows what happened. This is not evidence of bombs at all. At least that is what "I think" so it must be true, right? I blew a lot of crap up when I was a kid, so I am an expert.
    • Agree Agree x 6