Ex-Dallas Cowboys lineman Stepnoski tells Indiana newspaper of doubts
Former Dallas Cowboys and Houston Oilers lineman Mark Stepnoski has become the latest notable public figure to question the government's official 9/11 story, speaking to an Indiana newspaper about his fascination with the 9/11 truth movement and his doubts about Building 7, insider trading, and the alleged hijackers.
Stepnoski was a highly regarded offensive lineman in the 90's, winning two Super Bowls while with the Cowboys and was a five time Pro Bowler, attending the game from 1992 through 1996. Since his retirement from the game in 2000 he has become politically active in arguing for the decriminalization of marijuana.
In an interview with the Indiana-based Eerie Times-News published yesterday, Stepnoski speaks at length about his deep research into the events of 9/11 and why the official explanation seems suspect.
"It interests me because I don't think we're being told truth about what really happened on Sept. 11, 2001. I'm highly skeptical of government accounts of what really happened. It's one of those things that really won't go away. I've been reading about that event and studying about it a great deal. I've read several books and a lot online pretty much since it happened, just because I'm curious about it and just because of other events in our historical past, like the Kennedy assassination for example," the newspaper quotes Mark Stepnoski as saying.
"Before anyone wants to try and pigeonhole me as conspiracy theorist, it's like a lot of things. If you're just willing to scratch beneath the surface and do a little research maybe you can find out some things, maybe more people would be more skeptical about our government's involvement with 9/11," he added.
Stepnoski goes on to highlight the collapse of WTC 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell into its own footprint in under seven seconds at 5:20pm on 9/11 despite not being hit by a plane. News networks like BBC and CNN reported the collapse of the building before it happened, leading some to allege that the perpetrators of the attack were feeding the media a script of events yet to unfold.
"We're being lied to. That's what bothers me the most. There's a lot of evidence in almost any area of the entire event, and you can bring up a lot of inconsistencies and unanswered questions just about the event itself. Two of the three steel-frame buildings that day collapsed due to fire, and that's never happened before, never in history. But that day it happened three times, including one building that didn't get hit by a plane. Building Number 7 didn't get hit by a plane and it went straight down in six and a half seconds. In the vast majority of U.S. cities that would have been the tallest building in the city. It had nothing but a couple of small fires on a couple of floors, but it fell down at free-fall speed in six and a half seconds. There are several engineers and architects who have made the argument that it was a controlled demolition because, again, there's never been a steel building collapse due to fire. So how can it happen three times in one day?" said Stepnoski.
He went on to discuss insider trading in the days before the attack as well as the disputed identities of the alleged hijackers.
"A whole lot of insider trading occurred beforehand, and that's a huge red flag that there was foreknowledge of the event. There were large financial transactions made ahead of time, a lot of trades made to buy stock in United and American airlines beforehand with the expectation that those stocks were going to go down drastically. A lot of the hijackers from the list released by FBI -- a lot of those guys are alive. Many, many guys on the list are the wrong identity. One guy was a pilot for Saudi Airlines, another guy is living in Lebanon and is suing the U.S. government to clear his name."
Stepnoski concluded by questioning the flight that hit the Pentagon as well as the fabled impartiality and scope of the 9/11 Commission.
"I'm compelled because as time goes on there is a greater and greater growing voice among people in areas involved with different aspect of that day. You have pilots speaking about what would be involved with trying to fly a plane into the Pentagon that day in the way that it was portrayed. You have architects and engineers speaking out over the actual explanation that jet fuel could melt steel and cause buildings to collapse. You have former people who worked in the Bush administration or the military who have come forward to express doubt about the official story," he said.
"Consider the fact that the Bush administration really fought the formation of the 9/11 Commission the whole way. It fought over who was going to head it and who was going to be on it. Initially Henry Kissinger was supposed to be the chairman, but he stepped aside because of conflict of interest issues. The commission didn't come together until a year and a half after the event. ... And you think about how the government spent $15 million on the commission to investigate 9/11, which sounds like a lot. But then you make the comparison that the government spent $40 million to investigate the Monica Lewinsky affair. I certainly share a lot of those views."
Refreshingly, the usual sardonic dismissal of such comments on behalf of the article's author was absent this time, leaving the reader to make up their own mind.
Stepnoski is the fourth public figure inside ten days to speak on the record about 9/11.
Why is it noteworthy that an ex-NFL star is talking about 9/11 truth? For one it shows that beyond the hundreds of scientists, physicists, professors, other experts, and ex-government and military officials who have all gone public in questioning 9/11, a large body of the general public from all walks of life are now getting educated about 9/11 truth.
In addition, celebrities have instant access to a vocal platform and can use their influence to bring attention to an important subject, instantly bypassing the gatekeeping media and forcing a national debate about 9/11 truth.