Skip to content or view screen version

George Galloway, MP: Building 7 collapse "practically impossible"

G | 23.04.2009 18:02 | Anti-militarism | Iraq | Terror War | World

Edited audio from George Galloways friday and saturday radio show in which he makes it quite clear that he disagrees with the official conspiracy theory surrounding the events of 9/11 and asks people to investigate further.

Audio George Galloway show (edited)- 17th April 2009 - mp3 15M

Audio George Galloway show (edited) - 18th April 2009 - mp3 18M

George Galloway
George Galloway


George Galloway MP had a New Yorker called Tom Kiley on his Talksport radio show friday and saturday night talking about 9/11 and with particular focus on the destruction of the Twin Towers and World Trade Centre Building 7. George Galloway opens the first show  http://www.wearechange.org.uk/galloway17april.mp3 explaining that he still holds Islamic extremists responsible but a recent chance meeting with Tom in New York has planted seeds of doubt in his mind. Soon into the second show  http://www.wearechange.org.uk/galloway18april.mp3 George Galloway admits "it's hard to see scientifically why both of the Towers fell down in the way that they did and it's practically impossible for me to see how Building 7 could have fallen down in the way it did"

Some of the professional organisations mentioned include:

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
 http://ae911truth.org

Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice
 http://stj911.com

Little over a week ago 9 members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice had a peer-reviewed paper 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe' published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal. According to one of the scientists involved Professor Steven E Jones "in short, the paper explodes the official story that 'no evidence' exists for explosive/pyrotechnic materials in the WTC buildings." It can be read at  http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM.

In 2008, several of these authors published three articles challenging the official reports in US scientific journals, The Open Civil Engineering Journal  http://bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM, The Environmentalist  http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10669-008-9182-4, and The Journal of Engineering Mechanics  http://ascelibrary.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY=JENMDT&Volume=134&Issue=10#DISCUSSIONS%20AND%20CLOSURES. Dozens of other papers making similar challenges have been published in the sister publication of the Scholars group, The Journal of 9/11 Studies  http://journalof911studies.com

DISCLAIMER: We Are Change London do not endorse all of Tom Kiley's positions.

G
- e-mail: info@wearechange.org.uk
- Homepage: http://www.wearechange.org.uk

Comments

Display the following 24 comments

  1. Yes of course. — Its true!!!!!!!
  2. Yep, we are! — Bankrupt Nation.
  3. Accompanying articles — Scientific Method
  4. A Tough Choice... — Me
  5. 9/11: The Facts Speak for Themselves — Scientific Method
  6. Why Tower 7 would have fallen the way it did. — Onlyme
  7. @ onlyme — Scientific Method
  8. @ Scientific Method — Onlyme
  9. Which experts? — Which experts?
  10. Re. yep we are! — Its true!!!!!!!
  11. @ Its true!!!!!!! — 9/11 Truth Activist
  12. when in doubt bring out the lizards — A
  13. Path of least resistance — MonkeyBot 5000
  14. New guidlines? — Why oh why?
  15. Food for thought — clueless idiot
  16. Nick Griffin? When in doubt bring out the nazis — reductio ad nazium
  17. 911 atrocity was 21st Century televisual scam — FITwatcher general
  18. @ FITwatcher general — 9/11 Truth Activist
  19. Project Censored on 9-11 — 2%Human
  20. Think it through — Stroppyoldgit
  21. You need to look at all the evidence before theorising — 2%Human
  22. dear activist — FITwatcher general
  23. Conspiracy vs. Coincidence — California Dreaming
  24. A picture is worth years of waffle? — Thermate