PDA

View Full Version : MARTIN SHEEN questions 9/11



stephanie
10-30-2007, 04:21 AM
:laugh2:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ocUxplGLnT4&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ocUxplGLnT4&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocUxplGLnT4

jimnyc
10-30-2007, 08:44 AM
I wonder if Sertes is the illegitimate son of Sheen? The "pull" for building 7 was only explained by about 2 dozen firefighters that were on the scene that day, but I guess it's easier to ignore what they had to say so they can keep their delusions going.

Sertes
10-30-2007, 02:00 PM
I wonder if Sertes is the illegitimate son of Sheen? The "pull" for building 7 was only explained by about 2 dozen firefighters that were on the scene that day, but I guess it's easier to ignore what they had to say so they can keep their delusions going.

jimNeocon cannot let one bit of truth slip! Take this for example Firefighters commenting the impending demolition of WTC7:

58h0LjdMry0

Source, english version: http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1795

jimnyc
10-30-2007, 03:37 PM
jimNeocon cannot let one bit of truth slip! Take this for example Firefighters commenting the impending demolition of WTC7:

Well, that explains it all then! Let's believe some wackos from Italy reporting about events from the USA instead of the dozens of firefighters who testified to the events of that day. These firemen, who were actually on the scene and not eating pasta in Italy, stated the fires were out of control and huge for many hours before the collapse. These firefighters, at least a couple dozen, explained clearly what was meant by the "pull" order and that it was meant to get out of the building and away as they felt it was uncontrollable and likely to collapse.

My apologies if I tend to believe those directly on the scene fighting the fire in WTC7 instead of some spaghetti heads thousands of miles away.

Abbey
10-30-2007, 04:06 PM
As a country, we need to fund a home for wacko actors. Someone needs to care for them in their delusional state, poor dears.

And btw, who pulled the masking tape off Sheen's mouth? He or she needs to be punished.



http://images.google.com/url?q=http://www.celebrityhypocrites.com/msheen_tape.jpg&usg=AFQjCNFLy6hEuqioZCroXcXMLttlt5JZCw

Sertes
10-31-2007, 02:27 AM
Well, that explains it all then! Let's believe some wackos from Italy reporting about events from the USA instead of the dozens of firefighters who testified to the events of that day. These firemen, who were actually on the scene and not eating pasta in Italy, stated the fires were out of control and huge for many hours before the collapse. These firefighters, at least a couple dozen, explained clearly what was meant by the "pull" order and that it was meant to get out of the building and away as they felt it was uncontrollable and likely to collapse.

My apologies if I tend to believe those directly on the scene fighting the fire in WTC7 instead of some spaghetti heads thousands of miles away.

Too bad there was no firefighters in the building at the time of the pull order!!! So what does "pull it" mean, really?

You say "Uncontrollable and likely to collapse"! No other steel framed high-rise building ever fell from fires alone, ever in history, and you believe the spontaneous collapse version, and that fireman know that. Want to see what fireman knew? Watch the video and hear from them directly, instead of reporting "hearsay": Policeman shouting "the whole building is about to blow up", Fireman shouting "Seven is exploding".
Blow up, exploding...


I tend to believe those directly on the scene fighting the fire in WTC7 instead of some spaghetti heads thousands of miles away.

No, you tend to dismiss any evidence that challenge your faith. If you don't, try to comment the end of the 6 minutes video, if you can with your "I support firemen version", because firemen version is controlled demolition.

jimnyc
10-31-2007, 06:24 AM
Too bad there was no firefighters in the building at the time of the pull order!!! So what does "pull it" mean, really?

You say "Uncontrollable and likely to collapse"! No other steel framed high-rise building ever fell from fires alone, ever in history, and you believe the spontaneous collapse version, and that fireman know that. Want to see what fireman knew? Watch the video and hear from them directly, instead of reporting "hearsay": Policeman shouting "the whole building is about to blow up", Fireman shouting "Seven is exploding".
Blow up, exploding...

No, you tend to dismiss any evidence that challenge your faith. If you don't, try to comment the end of the 6 minutes video, if you can with your "I support firemen version", because firemen version is controlled demolition.

No firemen in the building? You know what the firemen thought and knew? The firemen version is controlled demolition?

Considering I already gave you direct quotes from many firemen and the fire leaders in charge that day, you look really really stupid as usual! But I'll repeat myself since you obviously never followed my link, and provide most of it here. Videos are being left out, feel free to follow the link at the end to view them:



Yes, that worker certainly does say they’re getting ready to “pull” building six. Then we have a quote from Luis Mendes, from the NYC Department of Design and Construction:
“We had to be very careful about how we demolished building 6. We were worried about building 6 coming down and damaging the slurry walls, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area.”
Interesting. They needed to be sure that building 6 came down in a “controlled” way. But wait a second: the video clip that Alex Jones presents – the clip that’s shown on all the conspiracist websites –ends abruptly at this point. Huh? Where’s the money shot? Why’d they cut it there?

Here’s why:
Because the following scene shows how building 6 was “pulled”: with cables attached to the hydraulic arms of four excavators, not with explosive charges.


“We’ve got the cables attached in four different locations going up. Now they’re pulling the building to the north. It’s not every day you try to pull down a eight story building with cables.”
Narrator Kevin Spacey: “The use of explosives to demolish World Trade Centers 4, 5 and 6 was rejected for fear workers would risk their lives entering buildings to set the charges.”


Why do they pull that part of the documentary out of the conspiracy story? This is yet another example of outright deception by the so called "truth" movement and its leaders like Alex Jones. They draw their stories around the truth like a child drawing around their hand.

However, was the fire more severe than conspiracy theorists let on and was Silverstein's quote taken out of context? The two are related and are explored below.

Silverstein's Quote:

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
-Fact which is undisputed by either side, he was talking to the fire commander
-Fact which is undisputed by either side, both are not in the demolition business


Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:

"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."
He could be lying, right? But here is the corroborating evidence...

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/
Banaciski_Richard.txt (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Banaciski_Richard.txt)



Here is more evidence they pulled the teams out waiting for a normal collapse from fire...

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/
Nigro_Daniel.txt (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Nigro_Daniel.txt)

"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Cruthers.txt (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Cruthers.txt)

"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Ryan_William.txt (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Ryan_William.txt)

"Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?

Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn’t know exactly what it was,but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.

Firehouse: How many companies?

Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we’re heading east on Vesey, we couldn’t see much past Broadway. We couldn’t see Church Street. We couldn’t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty."

"A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. (http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm)

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it (http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm). And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...e/gz/boyle.html (http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html)
This proves there was a big hole on the south side of the building. From the photographic evidence and these quotes which aren't meant to be technical, I suspect there was a large hole in the center of the building which may have gone up 10 stories connected to a large rip on the left side of the building which continued up another 10 or more stories. Together they would make "a hole 20 stories tall (http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm)".

Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?

Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that’s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that’s a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn’t seem so bad. But that’s what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didn’t want to lose any more people that day. And when those numbers start to set in among everybody… My feeling early on was we weren’t going to find any survivors. You either made it out or you didn’t make it out. It was a cataclysmic event. The idea of somebody living in that thing to me would have been only short of a miracle. This thing became geographically sectored because of the collapse. I was at West and Liberty. I couldn’t go further north on West Street. And I couldn’t go further east on Liberty because of the collapse of the south tower, so physically we were boxed in.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html (http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html)

It mirrors what Silverstein said.

WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]
Heavy, thick smoke rises near 7 World Trade Center. Smoke is visible from the upper floors of the 47-story building. Firefighters using transits to determine whether there was any movement in the structure were surprised to discover that is was moving. The area was evacuated and the building collapsed later in the afternoon of Sept. 11.

http://www.firehouse.com/911/magazine/towers.html (http://www.firehouse.com/911/magazine/towers.html)

And now for the best video evidence to date from our friends at 911myths... http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi (http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi)

That alone should end this debate. The fire department didn't have orders from on high. So that leaves the fire department lying to cover up a demolition for Bush or the firefighters made a good call.
More from another blogger…

RealityCheck

“(1) In your own quote we have a Fire Dept. COMMANDER saying: "....they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire......". How and why is everyone ignoring the fact that the COMMANDER, obviously based on his relevant/authoritative experience/knowledge, judges that the WTC7 fire is OUT OF CONTROL!
I ask any reasonable person to tell me WHAT POSSIBLE OPINION from ANY 'civilian' could have been persuasive enough to CHANGE THE COMMANDER'S MIND enough to continue with a 'lost cause'? [....the persistence with which 'lost cause' could only INEVITABLY have resulted in greater loss of life than if they "pulled back" NOW and leave it to burn out while concentrate on preventing its spread further afield, heh? ].
So, whatever Silverstein might have WANTED, in light of what the COMMANDER said, it is OBVIOUS to any reasonable person that Silverstein could have had little OTHER choice than to recognize and acquiesce/concur with the FIRE COMMANDER'S professional judgment Wouldn't you agree?
(2) As to the term "pull":
Given that the fire department is organized/regimented along semi-milaristic lines (evidence terms such as Battalion and Commander), would it seem unreasonable to find that OTHER traditional 'military' terms are used?......like withdraw[ or move out or PULL (back) etc. .......in such a structure/culture as in a FIRE DEPT. COMMAND STRUCTURE maneuvering/ordering about MANY 'troops' (firemen)? I for one would find it extraordinary if such an organization did NOT use such traditional and well understood/useful (and to the point) terms to ISSUE ORDERS WHICH COULD NOT BE MISUNDERSTOOD EVEN IN THE HEAT OF 'BATTLE' (remember the term "Battalion" which is part of their organizational/operational structure?).
RC.
As for Building 7 and the evidence for Controlled Demolition, let's review the evidence...

What we do have for sure.

1) Fireman saying there was "a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors." "I would say it was probably about a third of it".

2) A laymen officer the fireman was standing next to said, "that building doesn’t look straight." He then says "It didn’t look right".

3) They put a transit on it and afterward were "pretty sure she was going to collapse."

4) They "saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13".

5) Photographic evidence of a fire directly under the penthouse which collapsed first.

6) The penthouse fell first, followed by the rest of the building shortly after.

7) The collapse happened from the bottom.

8) Photographic evidence of large smoke plumes against the back of B7. Plumes of smoke so large you can't see the entire rear of the 47 story office building.
9) Silverstein is not a demolition expert and was talking to a fire fighter and not a demolition expert. Why would he use the word "Pull" to describe the demolition to a fire fighter?
10) Silverstein denies "Pull" means "Controlled demolition". He said it means "Pull" the teams out of the building.
11) Silverstein did not make the decision to "Pull". (Whatever that means) "they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse"
12) Another fire fighter used "Pull" to describe the decision made to get him out of the building.
What we don't have...

1) Clear view of the large hole

2) Number of columns and location of columns taken out by the tower impact

3) Clear view of all the fires seen on the south side

4) Any sign of an actual explosive.
Maybe none of these things by themselves mean anything but together it means there is no case. The person who said "Pull" and started this cascade later clarified. Fireman use the word "Pull" to describe getting out of a building and the person who made the order was not Silverstein according to the same first interview.
9/11 conspiracy sites are being dishonest. You have to ask yourself why?
They are interviewing this woman (http://msnbc.com/m/mp/dwvideo.asp?v=n_banfield_sevenwtc_010911) with Building 7 in the background because they knew well in advance the building was going to collapse. The reporter says “This is it” as if they are waiting for the collapse. Then the other reporter says “What we’ve been fearing all afternoon has finally happened.” Why did they fear a controlled demolition? If it was a secret demolition for money why did the media know about it ahead of time?
There is no doubt "Pull" means pull the firemen out.

Here is an e-mail from Chief Daniel Nigro
Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

In pure conspiracy theorist form, the second paragraph on this page has been taken out of context. Yes, building 7 fires were unfought but that doesn't mean there wasn't firemen on the scene, does it? Daniel Nigro said there were RESCUE OPERATIONS that were ongoing. He also says it was HE and not Silverstein who ordered the firemen out.

I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. Chief Nigro
There is more than enough evidence that there were firemen around Building 7 to "Pull" from the area.

We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. Chief Hayden
What part of this is difficult for the people who purport to be scholars? While my grammar is admittedly poor, the conspiracy theorists reading comprehension seems to be worse. Or is it? I think they're hoping everyone else has poor reading comprehension. For those who are reading comprehensionally challenged let me clear this up for you.
The firemen started search and rescue operations for people who may have been trapped or hurt in Building 7. By 2:00PM they knew the building was going to collapse and PULLED them away. These are the firemen saying this. Not me, not Bush, but the firemen.
What about just listening? Do the conspiracy theorists know how to listen?
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi (http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi)
Do they really think the immediate area around the building was vacant with not a soul for blocks? Of course they don't. They pounce on any and all quotes which have the slightest possibility of being taken as a contradiction. This is the theme which runs throughout the so called truth movement (http://www.jod911.com/).
Here is evidence they had rescue operations IN Building 7:


We made searches. We attempted to put some of the fire out, but we had a pressure problem. I forget the name of the Deputy. Some Deputy arrived at the scene and thought that the building was too dangerous to continue with operations, so we evacuated number 7 World Trade Center.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_ (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110313.PDF)
WTC_GRAPHIC/9110313.PDF (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110313.PDF)

You can't evacuate a building no one is in...
How many firefighters are they going to call liars? How many?... These heroic firefighters who would risk their lives for these opportunists. The personal attacks on me are to be expected but the attack on these brave men and women should not go unnoticed. E-mail the conspiracy theorists and tell them to stop lying about the firemen's quotes for monetary and/or personal gain. One of whom is dead and can't defend himself. (http://www.debunking911.com/fires.htm)
What Silverstein said means nothing in the light of the firemen's quotes. It's not unreasonable to conclude Silverstein was under the impression the firemen were containing the fires when in fact the firemen were performing a rescue operation. There is the real possibility Silverstein was told by Nigro that (Paraphrasing) 'there are firemen in the building and I'm going to have to pull them out.' Silverstein may have just assumed they were fighting the fires, which isn't unreasonable. Maybe they were fighting fires in the very beginning but when the "attempt" failed due to a lack of water pressure, they switched to rescue only? So for the purposes of the report. there were no firefighting in the building because they had low water pressure. At least I've provided you with evidence to support this conclusion.
Is that the evidence of explosives? Do you want to put Silverstein in jail because he used the word pull "it" to describe getting the firemen out of the area? Or because he didn't know the task the firemen were performing in the building? Is that reasonable? Of course not.
Using conspiracy theorists logic, since conspiracy theorists have created a small industry around this event, maybe they blew up the towers?
And much, much more at this link - http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Now crawl back to the lab and see if you can find what is left of your brain, my little pepperoni eating rat.

Sertes
10-31-2007, 07:44 AM
Now crawl back to the lab and see if you can find what is left of your brain, my little pepperoni eating rat.

I have video evidence, rather that reported hearsay and conjecture form bogus debunking sites, like the "photo evidence of a 25% gaping hole" you already failed to show.

So, could you comment the video when:

1) The policeman says "stay back, the building is about to blow up"

2) And the fireman says "seven is exploding" then the explosion is heard in the video.

They knew in advance, and use the terms "blow up" and "exploding"

Thanks again for your time.

PS: no one of your reported articles ever mention the fact that at the time Silverstein talked to the fire commander there was no fireman in WTC7, so he was not referring to "pulling fireman out" because there was none, but rather to "pull the building" which means demolishing it.

jimnyc
10-31-2007, 08:17 AM
You keep believing what you want, little pasta fagioli eating boy, I'll stick with reality with the rest of the non-delusional world. Say hello to Luigi for me!

Sertes
10-31-2007, 08:31 AM
What we do have for sure.

1) Fireman saying there was "a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors." "I would say it was probably about a third of it".

We have to take his word for it, or can you show some photo evidence? The one you shown in the debate only showed 7% damage rather than the 25% reported

2) A laymen officer the fireman was standing next to said, "that building doesn’t look straight." He then says "It didn’t look right".
So?

3) They put a transit on it and afterward were "pretty sure she was going to collapse."
Nice opinion, despite no other steel framed high-rise building ever fell from fires alone anytime before nor after 9/11/2001

4) They "saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13".
Ah! Now it's only 4 floors on 47.

5) Photographic evidence of a fire directly under the penthouse which collapsed first.
6) The penthouse fell first, followed by the rest of the building shortly after.
7) The collapse happened from the bottom.
All three are elements of a controlled demolition: Controlled demolitions start from under the inner part of the building plant (the center of the building, if looking to it from above it), then proceed to the rest of the building, so the inner part pulls the outer part inward, so you have the controlled demolition rather than a demolition only that goes sideway unto other buildings


8) Photographic evidence of large smoke plumes against the back of B7. Plumes of smoke so large you can't see the entire rear of the 47 story office building.
Big smoke is reported, big fires aren't

9) Silverstein is not a demolition expert and was talking to a fire fighter and not a demolition expert. Why would he use the word "Pull" to describe the demolition to a fire fighter?
10) Silverstein denies "Pull" means "Controlled demolition". He said it means "Pull" the teams out of the building.
11) Silverstein did not make the decision to "Pull". (Whatever that means) "they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse"
There were no firefighters in the building when he used the term "they made the decision to pull it", so he is not referring to making people exit the building


12) Another fire fighter used "Pull" to describe the decision made to get him out of the building.

I used pull to describe my action after I've finished at the toiled, I pull the cord. Not all the phrases using pull have the same meaning, the fact another fire fighter used pull to some other extent is no consequence.

What we don't have...
5) We don't have people dying in WTC7 because the whole area was evacuated hours before the "collapse"
6) We don't have people in WTC7 when "they made the decision to pull it"
7) We don't have an official explanation of why the building fell at freefall speed through the path of most resistance like the supporting columns gave no resistance
8) We don't have an official explanation for what caused a number of pools of molten steel found under the basement of WTC7 as much as 40 days later.
9) We don't have a study or explanation by any official source, NIST included, as pointed out by former director of NIST fire department James Quintiere

Sertes
10-31-2007, 08:33 AM
You keep believing what you want, little pasta fagioli eating boy, I'll stick with reality with the rest of the non-delusional world. Say hello to Luigi for me!

Still no answers...

Policeman: Stay back, the whole building is about to blow up

Fireman: Seven is exploding (loud boom)

58h0LjdMry0

dan
10-31-2007, 08:56 AM
So, who exactly is responsible for this? The president that the left has been painting as an infantile retard for the past 7 years? Nah, it's obviously a massive conspiracy, since nothing ever gets leaked from our government, and there aren't lots and lots of people in the media watching over our government's every move. This is sheer idiocy, but, hey, everybody's gotta have something to get them out of bed in the morning!

Sertes
10-31-2007, 11:14 AM
So, who exactly is responsible for this? The president that the left has been painting as an infantile retard for the past 7 years? Nah, it's obviously a massive conspiracy, since nothing ever gets leaked from our government, and there aren't lots and lots of people in the media watching over our government's every move. This is sheer idiocy, but, hey, everybody's gotta have something to get them out of bed in the morning!

Would you consider hard evidence if it would challenge your beliefs on this matter?

Let's say, it's hypotetic, that I can prove to you the official version is omitting or distorting every major issue to reach the goal of blaming Alquaeda for 9/11, would you spend 15-30 minutes of your time reading checked facts I would submit you?

Or maybe we can make it the other way: name a time you want to spend on the issue, I'll submit you video and/or reading material that covers that time, then you come back telling me what you think afterward.

(For example, about the "infantile retard": Remember that behind every puppet there's a puppetteer. The "infantile retard" is just the patsy, a novel Lee Harvey Oswald to be used later as a scapegoat, no one is blaming HIM for 9/11)

manu1959
10-31-2007, 12:45 PM
I have video evidence, rather that reported hearsay and conjecture form bogus debunking sites, like the "photo evidence of a 25% gaping hole" you already failed to show.

So, could you comment the video when:

1) The policeman says "stay back, the building is about to blow up"

2) And the fireman says "seven is exploding" then the explosion is heard in the video.

They knew in advance, and use the terms "blow up" and "exploding"

Thanks again for your time.

PS: no one of your reported articles ever mention the fact that at the time Silverstein talked to the fire commander there was no fireman in WTC7, so he was not referring to "pulling fireman out" because there was none, but rather to "pull the building" which means demolishing it.

so let me see if i have this right.....

silversteen knew the US govt was going to blow up the WTC so he paid a demoltion team to wire his building (it takes about two weeks to do this and you also have to cut into certian main strutural compontents and partially demo the building to get a "good" collapse) and he did all this in the weeks prior to 911 while it was what 80% leased and occupied....then he made sure the NY fire and police department knew it was wired so when the US govt. blew up the WTC he could blow up his building collect the insurance and build a new building....and everyone involved in this little insurance scam has not said a word....and the insurance copy with all this evidence paid out anyway....

Sertes
10-31-2007, 01:11 PM
so let me see if i have this right.....

silversteen knew the US govt was going to blow up the WTC so he paid a demoltion team to wire his building (it takes about two weeks to do this and you also have to cut into certian main strutural compontents and partially demo the building to get a "good" collapse) and he did all this in the weeks prior to 911 while it was what 80% leased and occupied....then he made sure the NY fire and police department knew it was wired so when the US govt. blew up the WTC he could blow up his building collect the insurance and build a new building....and everyone involved in this little insurance scam has not said a word....and the insurance copy with all this evidence paid out anyway....

IMHO you got everything wrong. But it's easier to dismount a blatantly wrong claim than those, let's say, of the 9/11 truth movement.

I can give you some more facts about WTC7, then you might come up to a more realistic conspiracy theory:

1) Insurance is described as "the little game in 9/11", as Silverstein increased the insurance to cover for terrorists attacks about a month prior to 9/11.

2) Enron trial papers are described as "the middle game in 9/11", as WTC7 contained all the papers for the Enron trial and other very important trials which were later delayed, stopped, changed course, etc.

3) Rudolph Giuliani emergency bunker was built after 1993 bombing of WTC, it was the perfect place to run an emergency situation like 9/11, with a source of electricity, water, air, it was designed to respond to rally nasty attacks, but he never enter it for some unknown reasons.

4) If you think WTC7 was "fragile" as some disinfo agent will tell you, please consider again that the mayor built his "extreme emergency" bunker in it.

5) WTC7 "collapse" has 10 points in common with controlled demolitions while showing none of the elements of a genuine gravitational collapse, as told by 206 real-life architects and engineers, professionals listed with name, surname, and title here: ae911truth.org (look to right column).

6) Of the three officials studies on WTC7, the FEMA report never mention the building, the 9/11 commission report never mention the building, NIST reports acknowledge the existence and the "collapse" of the building, but fail to provide an explanation. The promised study on cause and dynamic of the "collapse" is long overdue

7) Media shows again and again the hit on the towers, and the towers collapses, but never the wtc7 collapse (nor the hit on the pentagon)

FACTS.

So if you want to make a theory on WTC7 please remind those points.
Mine is: "it never was central to the plan, but as an added bonus they cancelled all those nasty trials, and to provided the much needed assistence from the owner of the WTC complex, they promised a huge payback in terms of insurance. So they mined it, made all the people withdraw, and pulled it down with explosives. Years later, when the story of WTC7 finally came out, the owner made his famous interview in which he alerted the people who promised to cover him that he was in danger, he was ready to talk if left alone, so they just started to cover for him"

A question: do you think any insurance firm CEO would face the 9/11 conspirators rather to pay the bill and keep living?

darin
10-31-2007, 01:20 PM
Sertes - holy shit dude...after your debate with Jim, you STILL believe that tripe?

manu1959
10-31-2007, 01:33 PM
IMHO you got everything wrong. But it's easier to dismount a blatantly wrong claim than those, let's say, of the 9/11 truth movement.

I can give you some more facts about WTC7, then you might come up to a more realistic conspiracy theory:

1) Insurance is described as "the little game in 9/11", as Silverstein increased the insurance to cover for terrorists attacks about a month prior to 9/11.

2) Enron trial papers are described as "the middle game in 9/11", as WTC7 contained all the papers for the Enron trial and other very important trials which were later delayed, stopped, changed course, etc.

3) Rudolph Giuliani emergency bunker was built after 1993 bombing of WTC, it was the perfect place to run an emergency situation like 9/11, with a source of electricity, water, air, it was designed to respond to rally nasty attacks, but he never enter it for some unknown reasons.

4) If you think WTC7 was "fragile" as some disinfo agent will tell you, please consider again that the mayor built his "extreme emergency" bunker in it.

5) WTC7 "collapse" has 10 points in common with controlled demolitions while showing none of the elements of a genuine gravitational collapse, as told by 206 real-life architects and engineers, professionals listed with name, surname, and title here: ae911truth.org (look to right column).

6) Of the three officials studies on WTC7, the FEMA report never mention the building, the 9/11 commission report never mention the building, NIST reports acknowledge the existence and the "collapse" of the building, but fail to provide an explanation. The promised study on cause and dynamic of the "collapse" is long overdue

7) Media shows again and again the hit on the towers, and the towers collapses, but never the wtc7 collapse (nor the hit on the pentagon)

FACTS.

So if you want to make a theory on WTC7 please remind those points.
Mine is: "it never was central to the plan, but as an added bonus they cancelled all those nasty trials, and to provided the much needed assistence from the owner of the WTC complex, they promised a huge payback in terms of insurance. So they mined it, made all the people withdraw, and pulled it down with explosives. Years later, when the story of WTC7 finally came out, the owner made his famous interview in which he alerted the people who promised to cover him that he was in danger, he was ready to talk if left alone, so they just started to cover for him"

A question: do you think any insurance firm CEO would face the 9/11 conspirators rather to pay the bill and keep living?

like i said....silversteen was told before 911 that the US govt was going to blow up the WTC so he took advantage of it like the good jew he is and blew up his building for the insurance money so he could build a new building .....

given all your "facts" everyone including the insurance companies are in on it.....and no one is talking.....

which demo company do you think he used......

got a link to any of the tenant's eye witness reports of demo and constrction crews in the building preping it for a pull?

how about copies of the buidling permits to "do construction" ....or is the entire building and inspection department in on it as well?

when do you think the whistle blowers will start comming forword...

Sertes
10-31-2007, 02:32 PM
Sertes - holy shit dude...after your debate with Jim, you STILL believe that tripe?

Sure, why not? If you haven't noticed he didn't answer all the critical issues.
It's two years that I debate this, Jimnyc proved the most polite and one of the most prepared, he surely was very dedicated to the debate even if he mainly posted other people links, he didn't use the cheap rhetoric card until the last post, but the failure is in the position he was supporting, the official version doesn't stand up to close scrutiny.
That's why he still cannot answer easy direct questions like "where was Dick Cheney at 9:30" or "what caused WTC7 collapse" or "what caused the 12-foot round punch out hole at the pentagon"... he is left clueless on the issues the official version doesn't cover.
But I like him, the fact he gets angry and insults away means he is genuine.

darin
10-31-2007, 02:45 PM
Sure, why not? If you haven't noticed he didn't answer all the critical issues.
It's two years that I debate this, Jimnyc proved the most polite and one of the most prepared, he surely was very dedicated to the debate even if he mainly posted other people links, he didn't use the cheap rhetoric card until the last post, but the failure is in the position he was supporting, the official version doesn't stand up to close scrutiny.
That's why he still cannot answer easy direct questions like "where was Dick Cheney at 9:30" or "what caused WTC7 collapse" or "what caused the 12-foot round punch out hole at the pentagon"... he is left clueless on the issues the official version doesn't cover.
But I like him, the fact he gets angry and insults away means he is genuine.


So - lemme get this straight:

Is my understanding correct that unless EVERY QUESTION you ask is answered to your satisfaction, you'll continue to believe what you do? What about the hundreds of bits of information to counter 'most' of your claims? It seems to me when you don't like an answer you change the question and claim it was never answered.

manu1959
10-31-2007, 02:49 PM
Sure, why not? If you haven't noticed he didn't answer all the critical issues.
It's two years that I debate this, Jimnyc proved the most polite and one of the most prepared, he surely was very dedicated to the debate even if he mainly posted other people links, he didn't use the cheap rhetoric card until the last post, but the failure is in the position he was supporting, the official version doesn't stand up to close scrutiny.
That's why he still cannot answer easy direct questions like "where was Dick Cheney at 9:30" or "what caused WTC7 collapse" or "what caused the 12-foot round punch out hole at the pentagon"... he is left clueless on the issues the official version doesn't cover.
But I like him, the fact he gets angry and insults away means he is genuine.

so tell us then....

where was dick at 9:30....or better yet where should he have been?

what caused WTC 7 to collapse?

what caused the 12 foot round hole?

Sertes
10-31-2007, 03:04 PM
like i said....silversteen was told before 911 that the US govt was going to blow up the WTC so he took advantage of it like the good jew he is and blew up his building for the insurance money so he could build a new building .....

Maybe, that's more reasonable, but no one is blaming the US govt as a whole.
The current working hypotesis is that some elements within the political, military and media elite planned, executed and covered it up.
For example Mineta is a member of the US govt, but he is the most prominent voice of opposition to the official version.



given all your "facts" everyone including the insurance companies are in on it.....and no one is talking.....

No, why? Like I asked, hypotetically,if you were the insurance company CEO facing people that killed 3000 of their own citizens, why would you try to
It's not your money, it's the company money! But the life is yours! So you keep quiet and go with the flow, no one will blame you for sure.



which demo company do you think he used......

Ask this to Controlled demolition, Inc. , the only company to be allowed to remove the rubble (destroying the crime scene, some say, hint, hint)



got a link to any of the tenant's eye witness reports of demo and constrction crews in the building preping it for a pull?

No, that would mean the end of the conspiracy since 9/12. Like I wrote at the end of the debate we only have INDIRECT evidence of the conspiracy, but we also have DIRECT evidence of the official version being false.

The closest event answering to your question we have is reports of a "construction crew" that had to hastily finish some important works on the South Tower the weekend prior 9/11, where the electricity was cut for more than 20 hours on the upper half of the tower, an unprecedented event, and the "construction crew" worked so hastily and so badly they left everything dirty.
zhauHfDJ4b4



how about copies of the buidling permits to "do construction" ....or is the entire building and inspection department in on it as well?

Why, is this the element that would make it unbelivable?
All three buildings are owned by the same man, all three buildings security is assigned to a single company. Would it be difficult to bribe someone into silence some month before 9/11 even without having him join the conspiracy? Please, people!



when do you think the whistle blowers will start comming forword...

Ehm, they already did. Question is when the american media will start covering them?

look here: http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=142415&postcount=48

Or did you mean someone from whitin the conspiracy planning, exectution or coverup acutally accusing himself of being part of the conspiracy that killed 3000 citizens for the sake of truth?

No political party has to gain from 9/11 truth. That the most sad part of 9/11, people acting only for interests rather than protecting people. Like when they said on 9/13 to rescue workers that the air in NY was clear to breath, and now they're dying from lung cancer. Sorry people, no one said that it was easy or that I would never remove the gloves.

manu1959
10-31-2007, 03:10 PM
Maybe, that's more reasonable, but no one is blaming the US govt as a whole.
The current working hypotesis is that some elements within the political, military and media elite planned, executed and covered it up.
For example Mineta is a member of the US govt, but he is the most prominent voice of opposition to the official version.


No, why? Like I asked, hypotetically,if you were the insurance company CEO facing people that killed 3000 of their own citizens, why would you try to
It's not your money, it's the company money! But the life is yours! So you keep quiet and go with the flow, no one will blame you for sure.


Ask this to Controlled demolition, Inc. , the only company to be allowed to remove the rubble (destroying the crime scene, some say, hint, hint)


No, that would mean the end of the conspiracy since 9/12. Like I wrote at the end of the debate we only have INDIRECT evidence of the conspiracy, but we also have DIRECT evidence of the official version being false.

The closest event answering to your question we have is reports of a "construction crew" that had to hastily finish some important works on the South Tower the weekend prior 9/11, where the electricity was cut for more than 20 hours on the upper half of the tower, an unprecedented event, and the "construction crew" worked so hastily and so badly they left everything dirty.
zhauHfDJ4b4


Why, is this the element that would make it unbelivable?
All three buildings are owned by the same man, all three buildings security is assigned to a single company. Would it be difficult to bribe someone into silence some month before 9/11 even without having him join the conspiracy? Please, people!



Ehm, they already did. Question is when the american media will start covering them?

look here: http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=142415&postcount=48

Or did you mean someone from whitin the conspiracy planning, exectution or coverup acutally accusing himself of being part of the conspiracy that killed 3000 citizens for the sake of truth?

No political party has to gain from 9/11 truth. That the most sad part of 9/11, people acting only for interests rather than protecting people. Like when they said on 9/13 to rescue workers that the air in NY was clear to breath, and now they're dying from lung cancer. Sorry people, no one said that it was easy or that I would never remove the gloves.

and all this was done by all these people because they wanted to .....what....the big payoff is what....what did they all get....

Sertes
10-31-2007, 03:21 PM
so tell us then....

where was dick at 9:30....or better yet where should he have been?

what caused WTC 7 to collapse?

what caused the 12 foot round hole?

Why, the fact the official version cannot answer them is not enough?!

Ok, here we go again:


where was dick at 9:30....or better yet where should he have been?
The 9/11 commission has a version, he was at the white house unaware of what's happening. Norman Mineta testimony under oath before the 9/11 commission (later not reported in the 9/11 commission report) places him in command, aware of the pentagon plane position, bearing, altitude, and there was the possibility for a shotdown order.

It's covered in much detail here, including a portion of 9/11 commission report, video of the deposition and photo maps of the pentagon area
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=142415&postcount=48

It's the single most important issue in 9/11.


what caused WTC 7 to collapse?
A controlled demolition, as explained by 206 engineers and architects: ae911truth.org, right column


what caused the 12 foot round hole?
An explosive directional shockwave from an aircraft similar to either a tomahawk cruise missile or a global hawk drone painted to appear as a miniature 747-200.
That's the only possibility that doesn't contradict the 12-foot round punch out hole (explosive shockwave), the single engine found at the pentagon, the 12-foot punch-in hole, the lack of the damage from the alleged hit of the rear tail wing of the 747 that is missing in first responders photo, the lack of the damage from the alleged hit of the two 4 tons engines of the 747 that is missing in first responders photo at the sides of the punch-in hole, the high manuvrability experienced from control towers that followed the "pentagon plane" hit, it's consistent with phone calls that could be routed trough it from where the real AA77 was, it's consistent to the fact you won't leave any single human pilot to screw it up a thing so big as 9/11.

Real size CGI plane added over the actual photo of the damage on the pentagon face by first responders, before the pentagon face crumbled
http://newguards.us/brent/jpg/Penta_Plane_3dsbd.jpg
---

See some nice dodging during the debate:
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=136996&postcount=18

emmett
11-01-2007, 09:05 PM
Why, the fact the official version cannot answer them is not enough?!

Ok, here we go again:

The 9/11 commission has a version, he was at the white house unaware of what's happening. Norman Mineta testimony under oath before the 9/11 commission (later not reported in the 9/11 commission report) places him in command, aware of the pentagon plane position, bearing, altitude, and there was the possibility for a shotdown order.

It's covered in much detail here, including a portion of 9/11 commission report, video of the deposition and photo maps of the pentagon area
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=142415&postcount=48

It's the single most important issue in 9/11.


A controlled demolition, as explained by 206 engineers and architects: ae911truth.org, right column


An explosive directional shockwave from an aircraft similar to either a tomahawk cruise missile or a global hawk drone painted to appear as a miniature 747-200.
That's the only possibility that doesn't contradict the 12-foot round punch out hole (explosive shockwave), the single engine found at the pentagon, the 12-foot punch-in hole, the lack of the damage from the alleged hit of the rear tail wing of the 747 that is missing in first responders photo, the lack of the damage from the alleged hit of the two 4 tons engines of the 747 that is missing in first responders photo at the sides of the punch-in hole, the high manuvrability experienced from control towers that followed the "pentagon plane" hit, it's consistent with phone calls that could be routed trough it from where the real AA77 was, it's consistent to the fact you won't leave any single human pilot to screw it up a thing so big as 9/11.

Real size CGI plane added over the actual photo of the damage on the pentagon face by first responders, before the pentagon face crumbled
http://newguards.us/brent/jpg/Penta_Plane_3dsbd.jpg
---

See some nice dodging during the debate:
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=136996&postcount=18

Hilarious!

Kathianne
11-01-2007, 09:20 PM
Is it just me or has the 'debate' started up again? Put it to rest, it seems no minds were changed. I agree with Jim, but that's beside the point.

Abbey
11-01-2007, 09:22 PM
Is it just me or has the 'debate' started up again? Put it to rest, it seems no minds were changed. I agree with Jim, but that's beside the point.

I agree, Kathianne. Once through is more than enough for this.

mrg666
11-01-2007, 09:24 PM
he's just after a part in the next wtc movie :laugh2:
the conspiracy directed by

manu1959
11-01-2007, 09:25 PM
cool....so why did they do all this.....motive.....

by the way your version doesn't answer the questions i posed either....your version answers your questions.....you don't have proof you have guesses.....

tell me ....

is it possible mineta lied to cover his own ass....

is it possible the plane made the round hole?.....is it possible the round hole was made by resuce crews ..... is it possible that something other than what you say made the hole ... made the hole?...photoshop for instance....

is it possible that wtc7 was hit by collateral debri and actually collapsed due to fire and structral damage.....at what point does steel loose it strength due to heat? it doesn't need to melt to colapse and fail....

if the plane hit the ground before it hit the building your diagram doesn't work....

you se if your version became the offical version....your version can not answer my questions to my satisfaction ..... so is that not enough....


Why, the fact the official version cannot answer them is not enough?!

Ok, here we go again:

The 9/11 commission has a version, he was at the white house unaware of what's happening. Norman Mineta testimony under oath before the 9/11 commission (later not reported in the 9/11 commission report) places him in command, aware of the pentagon plane position, bearing, altitude, and there was the possibility for a shotdown order.

It's covered in much detail here, including a portion of 9/11 commission report, video of the deposition and photo maps of the pentagon area
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=142415&postcount=48

It's the single most important issue in 9/11.


A controlled demolition, as explained by 206 engineers and architects: ae911truth.org, right column


An explosive directional shockwave from an aircraft similar to either a tomahawk cruise missile or a global hawk drone painted to appear as a miniature 747-200.
That's the only possibility that doesn't contradict the 12-foot round punch out hole (explosive shockwave), the single engine found at the pentagon, the 12-foot punch-in hole, the lack of the damage from the alleged hit of the rear tail wing of the 747 that is missing in first responders photo, the lack of the damage from the alleged hit of the two 4 tons engines of the 747 that is missing in first responders photo at the sides of the punch-in hole, the high manuvrability experienced from control towers that followed the "pentagon plane" hit, it's consistent with phone calls that could be routed trough it from where the real AA77 was, it's consistent to the fact you won't leave any single human pilot to screw it up a thing so big as 9/11.

Real size CGI plane added over the actual photo of the damage on the pentagon face by first responders, before the pentagon face crumbled
http://newguards.us/brent/jpg/Penta_Plane_3dsbd.jpg
---

See some nice dodging during the debate:
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=136996&postcount=18

Sertes
11-02-2007, 05:38 AM
Is it just me or has the 'debate' started up again? Put it to rest, it seems no minds were changed. I agree with Jim, but that's beside the point.

Why, we're in the conspiracy theory section, can't we talk about this matter?
If someone is interested, and has time to make questions I will find the time to write an answer, even if I covered in the debate, because it's long and complex to read, with all the answers and counter-answers.

Be assured I'll never put a "single sided" version here, I'm not pushing my personal conspiracy theory, I'm interested in showing how and why the official version is fake, so I'll try to put the real evidence and the official version side by side, you decide then.

Sertes
11-02-2007, 07:41 AM
cool....so why did they do all this.....motive.....

That's the real question, the motive for the big game, 9/11 itself. I answered it here:
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=137708&postcount=7
and here:
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=141793&postcount=10



by the way your version doesn't answer the questions i posed either....your version answers your questions.....you don't have proof you have guesses.....

You're completely right, you asked me my own questions, I have answers for them.
The first misconception about the 9/11 truth movement is that they have no answer for what happened, that's wrong, it's only they usually try to point out where the official version is fake rather than providing a real explanation.

So even if my version has no direct evidence in some points but only indirect evidence, at least it's only consistent with 100% of the evidence as today.
Instead the official version is easier to grasp, it's sold by media by repeating again and again, but it's not consistent with all the evidence, only with 75% of it, the other 25% openly contradicts it. CONTRADICTS.
But since mass media gave away its version, which is consistent with the limited evidence they presented, 9/11 is settled for you (a generic you).
The moment you spend 30 minutes looking at 9/11 by yourself with a clear mind you'll notice all the leaks.

My first answer in the debate, to Jimnyc question "why do you feel 9/11 was an inside job?" is: "because the official version doesn't stand up to close scrutiny"



tell me ....

is it possible mineta lied to cover his own ass....

Yes, sure. It's a very serious offense, lying under oath, if I'm correct your former president was put under impeachment charges for lying under oath (not for the bj itself).
But I don't see why should he "cover his own ass", since he was not in charge of anything that day! After all, all hijacking responses were in charge of the DOD, by an order signed 3 months earlier, the person to call was Donald Rumsfeld.
http://luogocomune.net/site/modules/911/911/2-Aerei/cambproc/hijack2o.gif
Mineta could not sidestep in the crisis management even if he wanted to. Only someone higher could, and there's not many.



is it possible the plane made the round hole?


No, the fuselage is the softer part of the plane, it cannot make the impact that disintegrates it, go through the forest of columns and make a 12-foot round punch out hole on the other side of third ring of the pentagon.
A landing gear wheel or a landing gear pole cannot either.
Sorry if I don't have any precise "official version" to comment, there's no official version on what caused the punch out hole. I keep asking, no one tells me what is the official version on this.



.....is it possible the round hole was made by resuce crews


No, they wrote "punch out" on side of it, it's straight on the "alleged plane trajectory", it's round and not regular, a rescue worker would have cut it straight down, rectangular.
http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pics/pentagon-punchout.gif



..... is it possible that something other than what you say made the hole ... made the hole?...photoshop for instance....


Unlikely, there's multiple photos for it, the official version doesn't dispute the existence of the punch-out hole, just assumes "some part of AA77 made it" some way or the other.
http://911review.org/brad.com/pentagon/pic/912_A-EDrive4.JPG
http://911review.org/brad.com/pentagon/pic/punch_out_sm.JPG



is it possible that wtc7 was hit by collateral debri and actually collapsed due to fire and structral damage.....


It's possible that wtc7 was hit by collateral debris, but that's undocumented.
It's possible that wtc7 collapsed due to fire and structural damage, but that's undocumented too.

We have only two small fires
http://www.rense.com/general65/WTC7firesnorthface.jpg

And a hole on 7% of the side of the building (photo submitted by Jimnyc during the debate)
http://www.debatepolicy.com/wtc7damage.jpg

With only those evidence existing, it's not strange there's no official explanation of why WTC7 "collapsed". Really, there's none.



at what point does steel loose it strength due to heat? it doesn't need to melt to colapse and fail....


The -start- of the collapse is very tecnical and as such is a common straw-man argument: an argument easy to solve (because it's difficult to prove otherwise) in the official way, that hopefully would close the issue.

I can concede the fires started the collapse even if no other steel-framed high-rise building ever fell from fires alone, anytime before nor after 9/11.
But it's the collapse itself is unexplainable:

There's no official explanation of how WTC7 "collapsed"
There's no phisical explanation of why a gravitational collapse can proceed at free fall speed through the path of most resistance
There's no phisical explanation of why a gravitational collapse can leave pools of molten steel found as much as 40 days later.



if the plane hit the ground before it hit the building your diagram doesn't work....

It didn't, the lawn is intact in EVERY photo of the pentagon hit.

In first responders photo, just after the hit:
http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/911/911/3-Pent/penetraz/gm5o.jpg

and even after the pentagon face fell:
http://911research.com/reviews/loose_change/docs/pentagon_lawn.jpg
(edit: changed the photo to a smaller one, the first one was too wide)


you se if your version became the offical version....your version can not answer my questions to my satisfaction ..... so is that not enough....

I wait for your considerations on the material I submitted, because if I answered all your points, you have a problem here.

jimnyc
11-02-2007, 07:58 AM
Evidence was given showing the Chief of Staff instructions to be purposely misrepresented. For those that missed it:

http://www.911myths.com/html/hijack_assistance_approval.html

Sertes
11-02-2007, 12:08 PM
Evidence was given showing the Chief of Staff instructions to be purposely misrepresented. For those that missed it:

http://www.911myths.com/html/hijack_assistance_approval.html

At last! One point on which we agree: Former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld was the one supposed to be in charge of directing the hijacking crisis management.

Even before june 2001? ok, that's fine with me.

"Former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld was the one supposed to be in charge of directing the hijacking crisis management" is now a fact until proved otherwise.

Nice find, Jim :clap:

jimnyc
11-02-2007, 12:20 PM
At last! One point on which we agree: Former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld was the one supposed to be in charge of directing the hijacking crisis management.

Even before june 2001? ok, that's fine with me.

"Former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld was the one supposed to be in charge of directing the hijacking crisis management" is now a fact until proved otherwise.

Nice find, Jim :clap:

Too lazy or too dumb to read the linked PDF documents on the page I sent you to? It clearly states that all requests or proposals for DOD military assistance are to be sent to the Secretary of Defense, with the exception of immediate responses

Sertes looks like an idiot once again, and it's very doubtful it can be proved otherwise! :laugh2:

Sertes
11-02-2007, 01:35 PM
Too lazy or too dumb to read the linked PDF documents on the page I sent you to? It clearly states that all requests or proposals for DOD military assistance are to be sent to the Secretary of Defense, with the exception of immediate responses

Sertes looks like an idiot once again, and it's very doubtful it can be proved otherwise! :laugh2:

Are you serious?? Really Jim, who's not reading??

You posted a link that debunks the claim the order were only 3 months new.

It doesn't address the fact the Secretary of Defense was the one to call for hijacking responses. That claim was never under any challenge!!

Read again your linked article.

Or better yet, GO FOR THE FUCKING ORIGINALS:

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf

Page 1, Applicability:


In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious
means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate
responses as authorized by reference d, forward requests for DOD
assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval. DOD assistance to
the FAA will be provided in accordance with reference d.

Page 17, References:


ENCLOSURE D
REFERENCES
[...]
d. DOD Directive 3025.15, 18 February 1997, “Military Assistance to
Civil Authorities”


So we move to DOD Directive 3025.15, to see if Hijacking got that special "immediate responses as authorized by reference d":
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/302515p.pdf



4.7.5.3. The Secretary of Defense shall manage the Department of
Defense's response to any acts or threats of terrorism.

4.7.5.4. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall assist the
Secretary of Defense when he or she is implementing the DoD operational response to acts or threats of terrorism. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall at all times maintain contingency plans for use in counter-terrorism situations.

So no, the Secretary of Defense had the last word on hijacking and threats of terrorism.

So what now, another blatantly wrong link or another round of insults & denial?

jimnyc
11-02-2007, 01:58 PM
Sorry, Pepperoni Boy, you followed the wrong trail! Allow me to AGAIN highlight the appropriate portions for you:

From here:
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/302515p.pdf

4.7.1 - Immediate Response

Requests for an immediate response (i.e., any form of immediate action taken by a DoD component or military commander to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage under imminently serious conditions) may be made to any Component or Command. The DoD Components that receive verbal requests from civil authorities for support in an exigent emergency may initiate informal planning an, if required, immediately respond as authorized in DoD directive 3025.1 (reference g)). Civil authorities shall be informed that verbal requests for support in an emergency must be followed by a written request, the nature of the response, and any other pertinent information through the chain of command to the DoD Executive Secretary, who shall notify the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and any other appropriate officials. If the report does not include a copy of the civil authorities written request, that request shall be forwarded to the DoD executive secretary as soon as it is available.

You are a very stupid little parmesan eating dolt. If the government thought for a moment that Cheney or Rumsfeld were derelict in their responsibilities on that day we would still be hearing about it to this day from all the Democrats. But we aren't, because even they aren't complete fucking idiots like you and your truther buddies.

jimnyc
11-02-2007, 02:10 PM
Sertes, you claim in our debate, and earlier in this very thread, that the single most important piece of evidence you have is the whereabouts of Cheney at 9:30, and that he was in charge and knew about the hijacked plane. Now you're very adamant about it being the Secretary of Defense having the last word on hijacking and threats of terrorism. So which is it, Cheney or Rumsfeld? Your earlier claim or your current claim? If we give you more time will you claim it Was Condoleeza who had final say?

Go eat a Calzone and discuss it with your buddies, then maybe you'll have some tinfoil left over for your warped head.

Sertes
11-02-2007, 02:53 PM
Nice, you choose another round of "insults and denial" and inserted "wrong linking in it"


Sorry, Pepperoni Boy, you followed the wrong trail! Allow me to AGAIN highlight the appropriate portions for you:

From here:
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/302515p.pdf

4.7.1 - Immediate Response

Requests for an immediate response (i.e., any form of immediate action taken by a DoD component or military commander to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage under imminently serious conditions) may be made to any Component or Command. The DoD Components that receive verbal requests from civil authorities for support in an exigent emergency may initiate informal planning an, if required, immediately respond as authorized in DoD directive 3025.1 (reference g)). Civil authorities shall be informed that verbal requests for support in an emergency must be followed by a written request, the nature of the response, and any other pertinent information through the chain of command to the DoD Executive Secretary, who shall notify the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and any other appropriate officials. If the report does not include a copy of the civil authorities written request, that request shall be forwarded to the DoD executive secretary as soon as it is available.

Too bad section 4.7 is:
"4.7. Requests for military assistance should be made and approved in the following ways:"

So 4.7.1 is REQUESTS FOR MILITARY ASSISTANCE: Immediate Response

The pharagraph you linked is used if a foreign nation military forces invades the U.S. with military forces. It's the one that would be used if the English come back with 100 warships and 1000 tanks to reclaim the colonies. It's the one that would be used if Al-quaeda used military planes to attack new york.

It's not for an hijacking response. It's not for counter-terrorism.

Instead section 4.7.5 is:
4.7.5. Support for Domestic Counter-terrorism Operations.

Since that section too is part of section 4.7 that makes:

REQUESTS FOR MILITARY ASSISTANCE: Support for Domestic Counter-terrorism Operations.

And here, in the appropriate section, we read:


4.7.5.3. The Secretary of Defense shall manage the Department of
Defense's response to any acts or threats of terrorism.

So, you really fell for your own lie, you think I'm really stupid. I can read english, do you???

LuvRPgrl
11-04-2007, 04:57 PM
Wasnt Sheen suppose to move out of the country if President Bush won election?

Ok, so once again, blah, blah, blah

Its simply IMPOSSIBLE for a conspiracy of such magnitude, requiring so many people to be in on it, without ONE OF THEM breaking ranks and going public and spilling their guts.
End of story


Nice, you choose another round of "insults and denial" and inserted "wrong linking in it"



Too bad section 4.7 is:
"4.7. Requests for military assistance should be made and approved in the following ways:"

So 4.7.1 is REQUESTS FOR MILITARY ASSISTANCE: Immediate Response

The pharagraph you linked is used if a foreign nation military forces invades the U.S. with military forces. It's the one that would be used if the English come back with 100 warships and 1000 tanks to reclaim the colonies. It's the one that would be used if Al-quaeda used military planes to attack new york.

It's not for an hijacking response. It's not for counter-terrorism.

Instead section 4.7.5 is:
4.7.5. Support for Domestic Counter-terrorism Operations.

Since that section too is part of section 4.7 that makes:

REQUESTS FOR MILITARY ASSISTANCE: Support for Domestic Counter-terrorism Operations.

And here, in the appropriate section, we read:


So, you really fell for your own lie, you think I'm really stupid. I can read english, do you???

Sertes
11-05-2007, 07:35 AM
Its simply IMPOSSIBLE for a conspiracy of such magnitude, requiring so many people to be in on it, without ONE OF THEM breaking ranks and going public and spilling their guts.
End of story

Here we go again, when presented to hard evidence people just draw out the MEMEs, small ideas that float the internet made appositely to dismiss an unsettling truth.

It's already covered, but it makes no harm telling it again:

1) The number is 200, not a thousand

2) Similiar plans, false flag attacks that include 200 people supposed to remain silent forever have been made even by the U.S. cfr: Operation Northwoods, official plans for a false flag series of terrorists attacks to blame on Cuba, to start a war and a following invasion of the island.

3) It leaked in many occasions, the evidence presented by Mineta is the prime example

4) Why anyone from the planning, execution, or coverup of a terrorist attack that killed 3000 of his own citizens, why would he come out and denounce everyone in the conspiracy is still a mystery to me.
He would be hanged for high treason at best, or killed by the conspirators along with all his relatives at worst. Leaks come from different sources, by those side by side with cospirators, those who saw the incongruencies and denounced them

Sertes
11-05-2007, 07:50 AM
Sertes, you claim in our debate, and earlier in this very thread, that the single most important piece of evidence you have is the whereabouts of Cheney at 9:30, and that he was in charge and knew about the hijacked plane. Now you're very adamant about it being the Secretary of Defense having the last word on hijacking and threats of terrorism. So which is it, Cheney or Rumsfeld? Your earlier claim or your current claim? If we give you more time will you claim it Was Condoleeza who had final say?

Go eat a Calzone and discuss it with your buddies, then maybe you'll have some tinfoil left over for your warped head.

Sorry, it appears my first answer to this was lost in the system failure. I'll write it again

You're getting it wrong, on purpose, again.

First of all you accuse me of changing version, having two claims: let's see what I wrote on the debate, which is not editable:


And who can make a stand down order of the entire US air force we witnessed? Only a couple of people in the world. One by not answering phone, the other by telling “of course the order still stand, have you heard anything on the contrary”

So my point, I'll explain it again, is that by standard procedures even the first plane could been intercepted before the first hit on the towers, but the man whose duty was to respond (Donald Rumsfeld) failed to it. For any reason, I don't care at this point, he has to answer why before a court.

Then again he didn't do it for the second plane.

You support the theory planes caused the collapses? FINE! DEMAND RESPONSABILITY!!

And after the second hit, when jetfighters scrambled anyway despite not having the authority, there was the need to direct them elsewere. That's where the VP come into action. If he was the one in charge as Mineta deposition tells us, HE HAS TO RESPOND BEFORE A COURT.

At the very least!

Then we can look to other evidence and accuse them both of more wrongdoings, but even the official versions should point finger in their direction.

Instead the 9/11 commission report just omits the part of Mineta deposition when he tells us where was the VP, what he was informed of, if there was a real chanche of shooting down the plane, and so on.
Also, we should ask the VP which is the order "that still stands" 7 minutes before the plane hit the pentagon.

M3q0uZAEd5w

jimnyc
11-05-2007, 07:54 AM
I'm not going to go crazy with another long reply. I spent 1/2 an hour on Friday replying to this Yo-Yo and my reply was lost due to the server failure.

First Sertes states the most important part of evidence was Dick Cheney and 9:30. Later he states that it was actually Donald Rumsfeld who had the last word for hijackings. Then in his last reply to me he claims the chain on the documents ends with 4.7.5. Support for Domestic Counter-terrorism Operations. - which states the President must authorize the military to intervene.

He can't even follow his own words.

So who was it that should have been responsible, Sertes, Cheney as you originally said? Rumsfeld who you later changed it to? Or the President who is listed in the last document you referenced?

Gaffer
11-05-2007, 08:20 AM
I'm not going to go crazy with another long reply. I spent 1/2 an hour on Friday replying to this Yo-Yo and my reply was lost due to the server failure.

First Sertes states the most important part of evidence was Dick Cheney and 9:30. Later he states that it was actually Donald Rumsfeld who had the last word for hijackings. Then in his last reply to me he claims the chain on the documents ends with 4.7.5. Support for Domestic Counter-terrorism Operations. - which states the President must authorize the military to intervene.

He can't even follow his own words.

So who was it that should have been responsible, Sertes, Cheney as you originally said? Rumsfeld who you later changed it to? Or the President who is listed in the last document you referenced?

You know the server failure was an attempt by the government to hush up sertes and keep the propaganda....I mean information, from getting out. It's all part of the conspiracy.

Sertes
11-05-2007, 09:26 AM
So who was it that should have been responsible, Sertes, Cheney as you originally said? Rumsfeld who you later changed it to? Or the President who is listed in the last document you referenced?

I answered at 1:50, just as you were writing your last round of insults.
I addressed the fact you blame me of changing versions.
Now, which version do you support, anyway?

The 9/11 commission report version

OR

The Mineta deposition version

I don't care for the insults or the accusations, but I will stop answering your questions if you don't answer mine. Respect that I have in the people who want to discuss this issue has its limits. You can show some, just a little. Even acknowledging that the two versions are just the opposite would be a start, a simple "yes they are opposite" will do.

Oh, by the way, the person supposed to be in command was Rumsfeld, and since the president was unreachable, guess who was second in command? GUESS.

jimnyc
11-05-2007, 09:49 AM
I answered at 1:50, just as you were writing your last round of insults.
I addressed the fact you blame me of changing versions.
Now, which version do you support, anyway?

The 9/11 commission report version

OR

The Mineta deposition version

I don't care for the insults or the accusations, but I will stop answering your questions if you don't answer mine. Respect that I have in the people who want to discuss this issue has its limits. You can show some, just a little. Even acknowledging that the two versions are just the opposite would be a start, a simple "yes they are opposite" will do.

Oh, by the way, the person supposed to be in command was Rumsfeld, and since the president was unreachable, guess who was second in command? GUESS.

I don't give a flying fuck what you don't like, and couldn't care less if you stopped your inane ramblings. If you don't like it, go post at the loony bin sites where the rest of the idiot truthers post at.

You say Rumsfeld was in command, then why would he have needed to reach the president or Cheney? While there are reports that communication was knocked out in various ways, do you have proof to offer that Rumsfeld couldn't reach either? Your last documented reference states that the president was the one who would need to authorize military intervention for domestic terrorism, so what does either Rumsfeld or Cheney have to do with it?

The Mineta deposition simply states that someone informed Cheney of a plane miles away from the Pentagon and coming in that direction. Cheney took no action, and wasn't supposed to as it wasn't his call to make. So what's your point? It still proves absolutely nothing at all.

More on Mineta:

http://72.14.205.104/custom?q=cache:QeW9J5ICDNAJ:www.jod911.com/The_PNAC_and_Other_Myths.pdf+Norman+Mineta&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us&client=pub-0982790381073093
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/07/what-norm-mineta-said.html
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Norman_Mineta

Sertes
11-05-2007, 12:30 PM
I don't give a flying fuck what you don't like, and couldn't care less if you stopped your inane ramblings. If you don't like it, go post at the loony bin sites where the rest of the idiot truthers post at.

You say Rumsfeld was in command, then why would he have needed to reach the president or Cheney? While there are reports that communication was knocked out in various ways, do you have proof to offer that Rumsfeld couldn't reach either? Your last documented reference states that the president was the one who would need to authorize military intervention for domestic terrorism, so what does either Rumsfeld or Cheney have to do with it?


The closer we got to the truth, the harsher the insults.

As I wrote here: http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=142979&postcount=59



As for VP being the one in command, maybe you don't know of the communication issue of 9/11: all communications with key elements of defense, intelligence and political power were cut off. The only one in charge was VP Cheney. Or, if you believe in the 9/11 commission report, no one was in charge when the pentagon plane struck.

CIA Director George Tenet: "With all hell breaking loose, it was hard to get calls through on the secure phone. Essentially, I was in a communications blackout between the St. Regis and Langley, the longest twelve minutes of my life."

As speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert was third in line for the presidency: "On that dreadful day I couldn't make the thing work. No matter what I did, I couldn't connect with the vice president. As the minutes passed, my frustrations grew."

Secretary of State Colin Powell was away in Lima, Peru: "I never felt more useless in my life than on the morning of the 11th of September. Phones [were] gone because of what happened here and what happened to the [communications] system here in Washington. They couldn't get a phone line through. I was able to get some radio communications--two radio spots on the way back--but for most of that seven-hour period, I could not tell what was going on here in my capital, and I'm the secretary of state!"

President George W. Bush reportedly experienced some serious problems in his attempts at contacting colleagues back in Washington. According to the 9/11 Commission Report: "The president told us he was frustrated with the poor communications that morning. He could not reach key officials, including Secretary Rumsfeld, for a period of time. The line to the White House shelter conference room--and the vice president--kept cutting off."

I cut the article to post the main points here, you can find the whole here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/12072

See, Rumsfeld was the one supposedly to be in command of the hijacking crisis management, but missing him and being the president unreachable, WHO WAS IN PLACE AND IN POSITION TO GIVE ORDERS?
It seems to me you are climbing glasses to save your neocon firends.



The Mineta deposition simply states that someone informed Cheney of a plane miles away from the Pentagon and coming in that direction. Cheney took no action, and wasn't supposed to as it wasn't his call to make. So what's your point? It still proves absolutely nothing at all.


So why the 9/11 commission report YOU linked in the debate:

1) tells us Dick Cheney was elsewere
2) tells us Dick Cheney was unaware of the pentagon plane
3) tells us NORAD was informed late and by chanche of the pentagon plane
4) cuts the Mineta deposition in all the critical parts

WHY?

WE HAVE THE ORIGINAL MOVIE OF THE DEPOSITION NOT SOME RANDOM SITE COMMENTING IT.

Sertes
11-05-2007, 01:37 PM
More on Mineta:

http://72.14.205.104/custom?q=cache:QeW9J5ICDNAJ:www.jod911.com/The_PNAC_and_Other_Myths.pdf+Norman+Mineta&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us&client=pub-0982790381073093
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/07/what-norm-mineta-said.html
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Norman_Mineta

The first two debunk the "shoot-down order" without adding any evidence of it really existing on AA77 (we know there was a shoot down order for UA93, the fourth plane, but the plane had already crashed as it was issued).
But facts tell us the plane was not shot down, and that jetfighters scrambled from Langley at 9:30, seven minutes before the hit, so there would have been time (even at half speed) to shoot it down if the order was indeed that one.

But it's not so important at this point, as they don't assess the incongruences between Mineta deposition and 9/11 commission report.

The third is more interesting because it tries to establish a timeline:


There is conflicting evidence about when the Vice President arrived in the shelter conference room. The 9/11 Commission concluded, from the available evidence, that the Vice President arrived in the room shortly before 10:00, perhaps at 9:58.
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Norman_Mineta

Those are about the exact words of the 9/11 commission report:


There is conflicting evidence about when the Vice President arrived in the shelter conference room. We have concluded, from the available evidence, that the Vice President arrived in the room shortly before 10:00, perhaps at 9:58.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

So, let's see Mineta deposition, again:



MR. MINETA: No, I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant. And --

MR. HAMILTON: The flight you're referring to is the --

MR. MINETA: The flight that came into the Pentagon.

MR. HAMILTON: The Pentagon, yeah.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.htm

See the link? 9-11 commission dot gov again. Just the opposite of what got on paper on 9/11 commission report.

So?

jimnyc
11-05-2007, 04:23 PM
There is no proof that Rumsfeld had issues contacting NORAD, Joint Chiefs of Staff or anyone else that would have been needed to notify. In fact, it's the FAA's responsibility to directly notify NORAD in hijacking cases, not Rumsfeld, not Cheney and not the president.

If there was some big conspiracy that Mineta is alluding to, then why aren't the Democrats up in arms over this? I assure you, if there was anything there it would be in every paper daily for years!

If fighter jets were scrambled from Langley at 9:30, that leaves them exactly 10 minutes to have intercepted the plane. Did they in fact catch up to the planes, and what happened once they were alongside them? Where are the official reports from NORAD showing the planes were scrambled and there whereabouts at 9:40? Can you please supply us with this information. I'm curious as to IF an order was given, where exactly these jets were at the time...

LuvRPgrl
11-05-2007, 05:22 PM
Here we go again, when presented to hard evidence people just draw out the MEMEs, small ideas that float the internet made appositely to dismiss an unsettling truth.

It's already covered, but it makes no harm telling it again:

1) The number is 200, not a thousand

2) Similiar plans, false flag attacks that include 200 people supposed to remain silent forever have been made even by the U.S. cfr: Operation Northwoods, official plans for a false flag series of terrorists attacks to blame on Cuba, to start a war and a following invasion of the island.

3) It leaked in many occasions, the evidence presented by Mineta is the prime example

4) Why anyone from the planning, execution, or coverup of a terrorist attack that killed 3000 of his own citizens, why would he come out and denounce everyone in the conspiracy is still a mystery to me.
He would be hanged for high treason at best, or killed by the conspirators along with all his relatives at worst. Leaks come from different sources, by those side by side with cospirators, those who saw the incongruencies and denounced them

No, a leak by one of those who conspired in the event. Just one, is there ONE who leaked, who was actually involved?

Sertes
11-05-2007, 06:32 PM
There is no proof that Rumsfeld had issues contacting NORAD, Joint Chiefs of Staff or anyone else that would have been needed to notify. In fact, it's the FAA's responsibility to directly notify NORAD in hijacking cases, not Rumsfeld, not Cheney and not the president.

No, we saw at the official papers, that was cleared out, right? DOD has the final word, in the person of the secretary of defense, on hijacking crisis management and counter-terrorism aid from the military to the civilian authorities. No one, not even governative debunkers challenge this claim.


If there was some big conspiracy that Mineta is alluding to, then why aren't the Democrats up in arms over this? I assure you, if there was anything there it would be in every paper daily for years!

Another off-topic MEME, can't we just cover one issue at a time? Every time I prove a point someone jumps up with an all-solving statement, which I already answered to. Can we finish the issue at hand, before I answer this again, since I never dodged a question?


If fighter jets were scrambled from Langley at 9:30, that leaves them exactly 10 minutes to have intercepted the plane. Did they in fact catch up to the planes, and what happened once they were alongside them? Where are the official reports from NORAD showing the planes were scrambled and there whereabouts at 9:40? Can you please supply us with this information. I'm curious as to IF an order was given, where exactly these jets were at the time...

Less time, actually: the fighter jets were effectively airborne at 9:30, the pentagon plane hit at 9:37, so it would leave just 7 minutes.

But a F16 flies at 1500mph top, which is 25 miles per minute, Langley is 105 miles out, simple math shows that they could get it there at half speed. Or at an higher than half speed they would have reached the pentagon plane while it was doing the 270 degrees turn above the pentagon, like a fat sitting duck, no game for jetfighters nor for air-to-air missiles.

So facts stands: we know Mineta himself was in contact with FAA number two which was following the pentagon plane on FAA radar in real time. We know the young man informing the VP too was aware of the plane position and distance relative to washington, "the plane is 50 miles out, 30 miles out, 10 miles out".
We covered above that there was the possibility for a shoot down, given the order.
We know there was an ongoing order, we know the VP was in charge, because it's of course it's to him the young man asked "does the orders still stands?"
And we know that plane hit the pentagon.

So the official version is that after 20 minutes of the two hits on the twin towers a commercial plane was able to fly undisturbed, toward the most heavily defended airspace in the world, circle above washington d.c. and hit the pentagon!
And do you want to know (according to 9/11 commission report) where those jetfighters were sent? Toward New York, to protect Washington d.c. from incoming AA11, the plane who struck the first tower 20 minutes earlier!
So we have to believe that even if FAA had the pentagon plane on radar, and someone was informing the VP the plane was 50 miles out and incoming, the 2 closer jetfighters were sent east rather than north to protect from a phantom flight by error!
What's that, "shit happens"?

See it for yourself, it's all here in the 9/11 commission report: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

Except for Mineta deposition. They asked him, then they didn't report it.

Sertes
11-05-2007, 06:34 PM
No, a leak by one of those who conspired in the event. Just one, is there ONE who leaked, who was actually involved?

Helloooooo
Am I supposed to answer only or can I get an answer from someone, as well??

Why do you expect anyone from the planning, execution, or coverup of a terrorist attack that killed 3000 of his own citizens to come out and denounce everyone in the conspiracy, facing hanging for high treason at best, or being killed by the conspirators along with all his relatives at worst?

Can you answer this little one for me?

jimnyc
11-05-2007, 06:39 PM
And do you want to know (according to 9/11 commission report) where those jetfighters were sent? Toward New York, to protect Washington d.c. from incoming AA11, the plane who struck the first tower 20 minutes earlier!
So we have to believe that even if FAA had the pentagon plane on radar, and someone was informing the VP the plane was 50 miles out and incoming, the 2 closer jetfighters were sent east rather than north to protect from a phantom flight by error!
What's that, "shit happens"?

See it for yourself, it's all here in the 9/11 commission report: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

Except for Mineta deposition. They asked him, then they didn't report it.

Who ordered the fighter planes to go where they were located? Why haven't you provided official documentation on this as I asked? I'll give you a hint, I already know the answers. I'll give you another hint, none of those you accuse had anything to do with the fighter jets that were scrambled or their whereabouts.

You just blabber the same crap over and over. You still have absolutely nothing and haven't convinced a single person here of one single thing.

Have some more cheese, ratboy, and come back to us when you have something of substance. All we have so far is clear evidence of 16 hijackers crashing planes into buildings, nothing more.

jimnyc
11-05-2007, 06:40 PM
Can you answer this little one for me?

Cause there is no one to come forward about anything. We have a massive government, and they all hate one another. If there was ANYTHING at all to go on, they would be running with it. But unlike you, they deal in facts and evidence, not retarded conspiracies.

Sertes
11-06-2007, 06:19 AM
Cause there is no one to come forward about anything. We have a massive government, and they all hate one another. If there was ANYTHING at all to go on, they would be running with it. But unlike you, they deal in facts and evidence, not retarded conspiracies.

Yeah, more blind denial that didn't answer the question. I asked LuvRPgrl:

Why do you expect anyone from the planning, execution, or coverup of a terrorist attack that killed 3000 of his own citizens to come out and denounce everyone in the conspiracy, facing hanging for high treason at best, or being killed by the conspirators along with all his relatives at worst?

Sertes
11-06-2007, 06:24 AM
Who ordered the fighter planes to go where they were located? Why haven't you provided official documentation on this as I asked? I'll give you a hint, I already know the answers. I'll give you another hint, none of those you accuse had anything to do with the fighter jets that were scrambled or their whereabouts.

You just blabber the same crap over and over. You still have absolutely nothing and haven't convinced a single person here of one single thing.

Have some more cheese, ratboy, and come back to us when you have something of substance. All we have so far is clear evidence of 16 hijackers crashing planes into buildings, nothing more.

First of all your insults doesn't impress anyone, here, removed those the substance of your posts is very little.

Second, it's 19 hijackers even in the official version, not 16, the one who asks for precision should be flawless himself, right? Instead you don't even know the number of hijackers and still want to lecture me.

Third, why is it important who ordered the planes elsewere? I showed you Rumsfeld had to respond to the hijacking crisis management and he didn't. I showed you Cheney knew the plane location, issued an order and the plane was able to hit the pentagon. So why are you pointing to side issues like who ordered the plane elsewere? The official answer is in the 9/11 commission report we both linked earlier, big deal.

jimnyc
11-06-2007, 06:52 AM
First of all your insults doesn't impress anyone, here, removed those the substance of your posts is very little.

Second, it's 19 hijackers even in the official version, not 16, the one who asks for precision should be flawless himself, right? Instead you don't even know the number of hijackers and still want to lecture me.

Third, why is it important who ordered the planes elsewere? I showed you Rumsfeld had to respond to the hijacking crisis management and he didn't. I showed you Cheney knew the plane location, issued an order and the plane was able to hit the pentagon. So why are you pointing to side issues like who ordered the plane elsewere? The official answer is in the 9/11 commission report we both linked earlier, big deal.

Dodge some more, ratboy! :laugh2:

You were the one who just made a big deal about how the planes were ordered elsewhere. So I simply wanted to know who it was that gave that order. NORAD knew the location of the flight that hit the pentagon, and it was NORAD that directed the jets, yet you continue to blame Cheney and/or Rumsfeld.

And I get plenty of positive reputation from members here for making a fool out of you, pepperoni breath, so apparently some are impressed! LOL

jimnyc
11-06-2007, 06:54 AM
Yeah, more blind denial that didn't answer the question. I asked LuvRPgrl:

Why do you expect anyone from the planning, execution, or coverup of a terrorist attack that killed 3000 of his own citizens to come out and denounce everyone in the conspiracy, facing hanging for high treason at best, or being killed by the conspirators along with all his relatives at worst?

Doesn't matter, dolt. You still claim you have direct evidence of the official report being wrong and claim other ridiculous theories to claim it was an inside job. Yet our massive government hasn't jumped on any of this regurgitated garbage you keep spewing. They jump all over BJ's, homos, bogus $100 donations & other ridiculous things to denounce one another, but not a peep from any respected government official is jumping on the inside job crap you rant on about.

Sertes
11-06-2007, 07:48 AM
Doesn't matter, dolt. You still claim you have direct evidence of the official report being wrong and claim other ridiculous theories to claim it was an inside job. Yet our massive government hasn't jumped on any of this regurgitated garbage you keep spewing. They jump all over BJ's, homos, bogus $100 donations & other ridiculous things to denounce one another, but not a peep from any respected government official is jumping on the inside job crap you rant on about.

Doesn't matter to you, fine. It matters to me, and I'm asking it to LuvRPgrl.

Don't feel obliged to answer all the question you can just because you cannot answer the big ones. That's not your fault, the official version didn't answer either, that's why you're clueless, you have no link to submit, and you never take sides with a genuine answer of your own. The things I asked YOU are:

Which part of AA77 made the 12-foot round punch out hole at the pentagon?

Where was Dick Cheney at 9:30?

What caused WTC7 collapse?

Sertes
11-06-2007, 07:59 AM
Dodge some more, ratboy! :laugh2:

You were the one who just made a big deal about how the planes were ordered elsewhere. So I simply wanted to know who it was that gave that order. NORAD knew the location of the flight that hit the pentagon, and it was NORAD that directed the jets, yet you continue to blame Cheney and/or Rumsfeld.


I make no big deal about how the planes were ordered elsewhere, I make a big deal on the location of Dick Cheney at 9:30.
Until you recognize that Mineta deposition and 9/11 commission report contradict one another I'll respond to your... inconsitencies.


And I get plenty of positive reputation from members here for making a fool out of you, pepperoni breath, so apparently some are impressed! LOL

Good for you, but since you're a moderator feel free to look at my PM, you'll see I convinced a couple of people who voted me back to positive reputation just for my comments on 9/11. Just don't publish their names, there are other self-styled patriots that know no better than insult the 9/11 truth movement, I don't want them to get all the insults you and the others are throwing at me.

jimnyc
11-06-2007, 08:04 AM
Doesn't matter to you, fine. It matters to me, and I'm asking it to LuvRPgrl.

Don't feel obliged to answer all the question you can just because you cannot answer the big ones. That's not your fault, the official version didn't answer either, that's why you're clueless, you have no link to submit, and you never take sides with a genuine answer of your own. The things I asked YOU are:

Which part of AA77 made the 12-foot round punch out hole at the pentagon?

Where was Dick Cheney at 9:30?

What caused WTC7 collapse?

I know for a fact that it wasn't nothing other than a plane that hit the pentagon that caused all the damage. I know it doesn't matter if Cheney screwed up the timeline, that it made no difference as to what happened at the pentagon. I know that WTC7 collapsed due to unprecedented jets hitting buildings and collapsing into surrounding buildings.

You seem to think just because certain aspects of unprecedented attacks can't be specifically explained that it immediately means there is a cover up or something shady going on. Never before in history has anything like this happened and it makes complete sense that there will be questions and things seemingly out of place. But to sound repetitive like yourself, I'll state again, after a couple of hundred posts by you on the subject you have offered NOTHING, not a single piece of credible evidence showing the attacks to be anything other than what they were reported as.

But keep on blabbering, every board needs it's village idiot to keep people amused!

jimnyc
11-06-2007, 08:07 AM
I make no big deal about how the planes were ordered elsewhere, I make a big deal on the location of Dick Cheney at 9:30.
Until you recognize that Mineta deposition and 9/11 commission report contradict one another I'll respond to your... inconsitencies.

Then why did you mention that they were ordered elsewhere that day?


Good for you, but since you're a moderator feel free to look at my PM, you'll see I convinced a couple of people who voted me back to positive reputation just for my comments on 9/11. Just don't publish their names, there are other self-styled patriots that know no better than insult the 9/11 truth movement, I don't want them to get all the insults you and the others are throwing at me.

You're a liar. You have received exactly 4 reputation comments since becoming a member on this board, 3 being positive, and all 3 from known liberal loony toons on this board! And what was the final voting on the debate again?

Sertes
11-06-2007, 12:41 PM
Then why did you mention that they were ordered elsewhere that day?

Because it's true.

Sure, I have no way to prove that was the order Cheney made, but we know he issued an order, and we also know that when the plane came 10 miles to washington the young man asked VP "do the order still stands?" and the VP answered "of course the order still stands, have you heard anything on the contrary?"

If it was a shoot down order, like the first two of your linked sites tells us, why the pentagon plane wasn't shoot down?

Instead if the order was a stand down order, or a "leave the pentagon plane alone, go to new york instead" that would be consistent with ALL the evidence we have.



You're a liar. You have received exactly 4 reputation comments since becoming a member on this board, 3 being positive, and all 3 from known liberal loony toons on this board! And what was the final voting on the debate again?

The first and the last reputation comment are about 9/11 related issues.
The first was directly on the debate, and the user also tells in the rep comment "Have to give you the win on debate there", but the user obviously didn't vote it later. Check it. Then tell us who's the liar, Jim

I wait for the apology, Jim. To them, not to me. Without telling the names, please.

Sertes
11-06-2007, 12:42 PM
I know for a fact that it wasn't nothing other than a plane that hit the pentagon that caused all the damage. I know it doesn't matter if Cheney screwed up the timeline, that it made no difference as to what happened at the pentagon. I know that WTC7 collapsed due to unprecedented jets hitting buildings and collapsing into surrounding buildings.

You seem to think just because certain aspects of unprecedented attacks can't be specifically explained that it immediately means there is a cover up or something shady going on. Never before in history has anything like this happened and it makes complete sense that there will be questions and things seemingly out of place. But to sound repetitive like yourself, I'll state again, after a couple of hundred posts by you on the subject you have offered NOTHING, not a single piece of credible evidence showing the attacks to be anything other than what they were reported as.

But keep on blabbering, every board needs it's village idiot to keep people amused!

Thanks, I will.

Let's get into the method, again:


I know for a fact that it wasn't nothing other than a plane that hit the pentagon that caused all the damage.

No, you know either what you're told (faith) or what you can demonstrate (science). Direct experience doesn't apply, since you weren't there like I weren't there.

That's why I analyze photos of the punch-out hole and ask: which part of AA77 caused this hole? If you admit you don't know for sure, that's fine with me. That's a point for us both, because it doesn't go against my theory, and it demostrates you're a serious person, that you can acknowledge to "not know" a detail even if I state it's important.
So after not knowing where the second engine has gone, and providing a dubious answer to why the damage from the tail wing is missing in the pentagon face, it's you that have to demonstrate me AA77 hit the pentagon.

So I'm asking you, what makes you so sure AA77 and not another plane or missile disguised as a miniature 747-200 that hit the pentagon? Is it faith, science, or something else I'm missing?

Remember that when I asked this in the debate (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=135416&postcount=8) you came up with a debunker site that analyzed the "pentagon plane video" and proved that in the frame where there should be the plane, there was none. Thought I forgot?


I know it doesn't matter if Cheney screwed up the timeline, that it made no difference as to what happened at the pentagon

It matters because he was in charge and he choose to make an ongoing order stand, and then people perished at the pentagon while there was the possibility for a shootdown. It's not just a screwup, it's a deliberate omission of Mineta deposition from 9/11 commission report, to protect the VP.


I know that WTC7 collapsed due to unprecedented jets hitting buildings and collapsing into surrounding buildings.

Again, you don't know, you just assume by faith that's what happened, and that's not even the official version, it's just your re-elaboration of pieces taken here and there. And you know why? Because there's no official version whatsoever of the collapse of WTC7!

And however the collapse starts, by fires, by debris, etc, no gravitational collapse can proceed at free fall speed through the path of most resistance, it's physics, believe the experts, they're all and openly on my side on this issue.

jimnyc
11-06-2007, 12:51 PM
The first and the last reputation comment are about 9/11 related issues.
The first was directly on the debate, and the user also tells in the rep comment "Have to give you the win on debate there", but the user obviously didn't vote it later. Check it. Then tell us who's the liar, Jim

I wait for the apology, Jim. To them, not to me. Without telling the names, please.

You stated "you'll see I convinced a couple of people who voted me back to positive reputation just for my comments on 9/11".

You DID NOT convince a couple of people. And if I'm wrong, surely they will find the time to chime in and claim they believe your stories have merit. Receiving a rep for writing a post DOES NOT mean you convinced anyone of anything. I give people rep all the time for well thought out and written posts all the time that I fully disagree with.

Again, the voting speaks for itself, as does the feedback you got on this board from countless members. Please show me where ANYONE is agreeing with your asinine assertions.

jimnyc
11-06-2007, 12:56 PM
No, you know either what you're told (faith) or what you can demonstrate (science). Direct experience doesn't apply, since you weren't there like I weren't there.

That's why I analyze photos of the punch-out hole and ask: which part of AA77 caused this hole? If you admit you don't know for sure, that's fine with me. That's a point for us both, because it doesn't go against my theory, and it demostrates you're a serious person, that you can acknowledge to "not know" a detail even if I state it's important.
So after not knowing where the second engine has gone, and providing a dubious answer to why the damage from the tail wing is missing in the pentagon face, it's you that have to demonstrate me AA77 hit the pentagon.

So I'm asking you, what makes you so sure AA77 and not another plane or missile disguised as a miniature 747-200 that hit the pentagon? Is it faith, science, or something else I'm missing?

Remember that when I asked this in the debate (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=135416&postcount=8) you came up with a debunker site that analyzed the "pentagon plane video" and proved that in the frame where there should be the plane, there was none. Thought I forgot?

Bodies recovered at the scene - undisputable.
Black box recovered at the scene - undisputable.
Tons of plane parts recovered at the scene - undisputuable.


It matters because he was in charge and he choose to make an ongoing order stand, and then people perished at the pentagon while there was the possibility for a shootdown. It's not just a screwup, it's a deliberate omission of Mineta deposition from 9/11 commission report, to protect the VP.Rumsfeld was in charge, your own posted document shows that.


Again, you don't know, you just assume by faith that's what happened, and that's not even the official version, it's just your re-elaboration of pieces taken here and there. And you know why? Because there's no official version whatsoever of the collapse of WTC7!

And however the collapse starts, by fires, by debris, etc, no gravitational collapse can proceed at free fall speed through the path of most resistance, it's physics, believe the experts, they're all and openly on my side on this issue.I saw the towers fall. I saw the damage caused to WTC7 from the collapse. I saw fires at WTC7. I read reports from the firemen on the scene and the battalion leaders. I read reports from structural engineers who went over the metal and fully explained how they became unstable as a result of the damage and heat. 'Nuff said.

Sertes
11-06-2007, 01:07 PM
Bodies recovered at the scene - undisputable.
Yes, those who worked in the pentagon + other people bodies. How are you sure the people bodies found in the pentagon wasn't placed there earlier just to make some photo later?


Black box recovered at the scene - undisputable.
Yes, it was already inside the pentagon when the drone struck it.


Tons of plane parts recovered at the scene - undisputuable.
True, no one is telling otherwise


Rumsfeld was in charge, your own posted document shows that.
No man, Rumsfeld was SUPPOSED to be in charge all the time, he wasn't all the time. Cheney was in charge at the time of the pentagon plane.



I saw the towers fall. I saw the damage caused to WTC7 from the collapse. I saw fires at WTC7. I read reports from the firemen on the scene and the battalion leaders. I read reports from structural engineers who went over the metal and fully explained how they became unstable as a result of the damage and heat. 'Nuff said.

Then it collapsed at free fall speed through the path of most resistance, leaving pools of molten steel that were still there 40 days later. So it's nuff for you who don't have any scientific background, but it isn't enough even for NIST, whose study we still await.

Did you miss the part where six years later THERE'S STILL NO OFFICIAL EXPLANATION ON HOW OR WHY WTC7 FELL???

jimnyc
11-06-2007, 01:42 PM
Ok, I give up, you have convinced me that 9/11 was an inside job. Where do we go from here now? Who should be brought up on charges? What agency will handle the proceedings? Who do we contact first to get the ball rolling? Surely it should be jumped on, even internationally, as many nations lost citizens lives that day. Please link me to the various government agencies both within the US and internationally that are performing the investigation of this inside job so that I can contact them and offer them my backing. Specific links to the investigations and contacts will be great. Thanks!

Hobbit
11-06-2007, 02:25 PM
Forget this, there's a new conspiracy afoot, one with far-reaching implications. I present to you...

UNFASTENED COINS (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=af07)

Sertes
11-06-2007, 05:33 PM
Ok, I give up, you have convinced me that 9/11 was an inside job. Where do we go from here now? Who should be brought up on charges? What agency will handle the proceedings? Who do we contact first to get the ball rolling? Surely it should be jumped on, even internationally, as many nations lost citizens lives that day. Please link me to the various government agencies both within the US and internationally that are performing the investigation of this inside job so that I can contact them and offer them my backing. Specific links to the investigations and contacts will be great. Thanks!

My pleasure, I have a couple that will suffice, in your own country, either way you vote:

Congressman Dennis Kucinich, presidential candidate from the Democratic Party is supporting the impeachment of "vice" president Dick Cheney:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/28427

EhMxCVNTZRM

Ron Paul, presidential candidate from the Republican Party is supporting questioning into 9/11 again (and questioning Iraq war motives):

http://dailypaul.com/node/5958

66Eh2EkfYzc


They both try to push Iraq war charges first, as they're easier to prove, I know it's strange but it can actually get the work done, it's like getting Al Capone jailed on tax evading charges, but hell, it worked in the past.

jimnyc
11-06-2007, 05:45 PM
My pleasure, I have a couple that will suffice, in your own country, either way you vote:

Congressman Dennis Kucinich, presidential candidate from the Democratic Party is supporting the impeachment of "vice" president Dick Cheney:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/28427


Ron Paul, presidential candidate from the Republican Party is supporting questioning into 9/11 again (and questioning Iraq war motives):

http://dailypaul.com/node/5958

They both try to push Iraq war charges first, as they're easier to prove, I know it's strange but it can actually get the work done, it's like getting Al Capone jailed on tax evading charges, but hell, it worked in the past.

I don't want to jump on board for the reasons specified in those links. Neither of them indicate that 9/11 was an inside job. Kucinich wants Cheney impeached, but not for any inside job on 9/11. Ron Paul stated he saw no evidence of an inside job on 9/11 but maybe some incompetence. I want to get behind those who actually are going forth on the "inside job" theory, those are the government links I want of you.

And what about internationally? Surely if one young lad from Italy can prove that the official 9/11 story is fake, as you have stated numerous times, massive governments can do a much better job. Please link me to the various foreign government agencies going forth on this inside job investigation too.

Thanks!

Sertes
11-07-2007, 07:44 AM
I don't want to jump on board for the reasons specified in those links. Neither of them indicate that 9/11 was an inside job. Kucinich wants Cheney impeached, but not for any inside job on 9/11. Ron Paul stated he saw no evidence of an inside job on 9/11 but maybe some incompetence. I want to get behind those who actually are going forth on the "inside job" theory, those are the government links I want of you.

And what about internationally? Surely if one young lad from Italy can prove that the official 9/11 story is fake, as you have stated numerous times, massive governments can do a much better job. Please link me to the various foreign government agencies going forth on this inside job investigation too.

Thanks!

Sorry, I don't agree with your conclusion that massive govs can do a much better job. No government can openly oppose the Cheney administration on 9/11, just like no one did oppose the U.S. gov after JFK assassination. There's an old saying:

If the wrong is done by the baron, go to the count
If the wrong is done by the count, go to the duke
If the wrong is done by the duke, go to the king
If the wrong is done by the king... you better keep quiet.

So what? In a real democratic system the people are supposed to be on top of the pyramid. If you want to support truth on 9/11 and on all the successive misfits (someone do it for the Iraq war fake wmd claims, someone do it for the civil rights suppression and against torture, someone do it for the mess they caused by inaction on kathrina, someone do it for the murdering of the first responders of 9/11 done by telling the air in NY was breathable on 9/13), then you have to support those politicians who declared they'll take action in the right direction or at least that they'll look in the matter again.
So, supporting any charge on any issue will do the trick.

In europe we have Giulietto Chiesa, he was within the defense commission of European Union, the closest we can go to having a defense ministery for Europe, he published a book on secret prisons of the CIA in euope and recently (last month) presented his movie "Zero" that highlights all the unanswered questions of 9/11.
He did what Al Gore did with his movie, he took the fight for truth around the traditional media, because papers and televisions are part of the problem, not part of the solution, the coverup worked so well that many people still don't know the real issues of 9/11, they still think that fires can demolish steel-framed buildings, and commercial planes can be lost in american skies during the full alert that followed the 2 hits on the towers! And try to ask someone how many buildings collapsed on 9/11, they'll look you weird and tell you: two.
So the problem at this phase is still in building knowledge and in showing the lies of propaganda done by traditional media, this way (maybe) the next presidential candidate can directly say: "I want to impeach Cheney for the number of issues on 9/11 we all know about", they cannot afford to say it today

jimnyc
11-07-2007, 08:05 AM
80+ countries lost citizens on 9/11. You claim you have proved that the official story for the 9/11 investigation is fake. Are you telling me that out of ALL of these nations, not a single one is going forth with similar proof as you have provided? Why don't these countries want to do the right thing after their citizens were killed? I'm confident leaders of foreign nations can get an international ear a bit easier than one citizen from Italy. I'm completely dumbfounded that not a single one of them is willing to step forward an take action against this proven false investigation.

And in the US we have many various forms of political parties, not just democrats and republicans. We lost thousands of citizens on 9/11. Many people in our government, from various affiliations, are completely opposed to our current government and would love nothing more than to bring a bad light on their actions. Please don't tell me they're afraid to speak out, because they accuse our current government already of some of the most heinous crimes. Why aren't all these political people and parties running with new investigations and claiming the official report is false? You proved it, and you're just one person, and none of our leaders are going to listen to one man from Italy. But surely if those in an official capacity commence an investigation, people will listen and take notice. Where are our countries elected officials and please link me to their new investigations so that I can get on board with them.

Hobbit
11-07-2007, 12:20 PM
I could go over scientific refutations piece by piece, but Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html) already did that. Instead, I offer 2 pieces of iron-clad proof that the whole claim is hogwash. First off,

The fact that this man is alive...
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/dylan_avery_big.jpg
...is proof that Loose Change is bullcrap!

The man above is Dylan Avery, creator of the video 'Loose Change,' which is a crappy internet film claiming to be a documentary which details just about every 9/11 conspiracy there is, from the 'missile' that hit the pentagon to the 'controlled demolitions' that took down the WTC.

If the government is so amoral that it's willing to kill over 3000 of its own citizens in a terror attack and thousands more in the ensuing conflicts as well as competent enough to pull this thing off while destroying all credible evidence and silencing the hundreds, if not thousands, that would have to be in on it and erasing all evidence of the passengers on 4 planes, then why didn't they shut down his site and 'disappear' him within seconds of it going live? They'd be more than capable and one more body would be a meaningless statistic. For whatever motive the government had for killing thousands of people, it must have been important...too important to let some pencil-neck, limp-dick college douchebag with an iMac and too much time on his hands wreck the whole thing.

The other bit of proof lies in the fact that the same government that can't seem to tell its own ass from a hole in the ground somehow pulled this off. You're telling me the guys who run the Post Office, government education, the Department of Motor Vehicles, and Social Security managed a massive attack and cover-up with such precision that it easily fooled almost the entire world? They can't even spell my name right, and it's only 4 letters.

Sertes
11-07-2007, 12:50 PM
80+ countries lost citizens on 9/11. You claim you have proved that the official story for the 9/11 investigation is fake. Are you telling me that out of ALL of these nations, not a single one is going forth with similar proof as you have provided? Why don't these countries want to do the right thing after their citizens were killed? I'm confident leaders of foreign nations can get an international ear a bit easier than one citizen from Italy.
Check www.patriotsquestion911.com for the complete list of professionals that questions 9/11 official truth



I'm completely dumbfounded that not a single one of them is willing to step forward an take action against this proven false investigation.


http://www.911forthetruth.com/pages/PR_01042007.htm


[...]Where are our countries elected officials and please link me to their new investigations so that I can get on board with them.

Well, ask them! I already answered some are following different paths because the truth on 9/11 is so hidden by traditional media that is uncoincevable they support it. Some make internet movies. Some participate in 9/11 truth movement marches. Some like Ron Paul state they're willing to look into it again. Some like Dennis Kucinich prefer to point to smaller issues that are easier to prove.
You can ask your own presidential candidate of choiche, if you want. The latest who tried to do so got tasered or taken away by security. Maybe you'll get luckyer.

Sertes
11-07-2007, 01:05 PM
Here we go again


I could go over scientific refutations piece by piece, but Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html) already did that. [...]

Well, since you can go over scientific refutations piece by piece, can you please provide me the explanation of only this three issues, I can't get a straight answer here:

1) Where was Dick Cheney at 9:30 on 9/11 ?

2) Which part of AA77 caused the 12-foot round punch-out hole in the third ring of the pentagon ?

3) Why construction workers found pools of molten steel in the basement of the three buildings collapsed on 9/11 as much as 40 days after ?

Else: choose one. You have time for one, right? Feel free to use either science or popular mechanics material.

(BTW no one is blaming the U.S. gov for 9/11, in fact the highest leak came from Norman Mineta, U.S. Minister of Transportation, who is a member of the government, right?)

jimnyc
11-07-2007, 01:07 PM
Check www.patriotsquestion911.com (http://www.patriotsquestion911.com) for the complete list of professionals that questions 9/11 official truth

These have nothing to do with the other countries I asked about when you provided this. Furthermore, the government officials or leaders that question things, are questioning versions of the 9/11 Commission report. Now, can you show me these very same officials claiming that 9/11 was an inside job?


http://www.911forthetruth.com/pages/PR_01042007.htm (http://www.911forthetruth.com/pages/PR_01042007.htm)

Scary! An attorney with an AOL address! LOL Thanks for quoting another kook.


Well, ask them! I already answered some are following different paths because the truth on 9/11 is so hidden by traditional media that is uncoincevable they support it. Some make internet movies. Some participate in 9/11 truth movement marches. Some like Ron Paul state they're willing to look into it again. Some like Dennis Kucinich prefer to point to smaller issues that are easier to prove.
You can ask your own presidential candidate of choiche, if you want. The latest who tried to do so got tasered or taken away by security. Maybe you'll get luckyer.

Neither Paul or Kucinich believe 9/11 was an inside job, nice try! Why do you try and spin this stuff to support your retarded theory? Them wanting more answers or thinking there was incompetency involved DOES NOT mean they think it was an inside job.

So out of 80+ nations losing citizens, all we have is a bunch of kooks on the internet going forward with your version of events. Not a single nation is going forward with 9/11 being an inside job. I guess whomever was responsible also somehow is getting the entire world to back down and just accept things rather than question?

I'll be back in a while, I'm going to Stop & Shop to get me some tinfoil.

Hobbit
11-07-2007, 01:13 PM
Here we go again



Well, since you can go over scientific refutations piece by piece, can you please provide me the explanation of only this three issues, I can't get a straight answer here:

1) Where was Dick Cheney at 9:30 on 9/11 ?

2) Which part of AA77 caused the 12-foot round punch-out hole in the third ring of the pentagon ?

3) Why construction workers found pools of molten steel in the basement of the three buildings collapsed on 9/11 as much as 40 days after ?

Else: choose one. You have time for one, right? Feel free to use either science or popular mechanics material.

(BTW no one is blaming the U.S. gov for 9/11, in fact the highest leak came from Norman Mineta, U.S. Minister of Transportation, who is a member of the government, right?)

No, I'm not playing this game. You're the one with the wacko theory. You tell me where the passengers of the four planes went. You tell me WHY the buildings were torn down. Why did Osama bin Laden take credit? Is he in on it? How did the government get virtually every firefighter, police officer, and civilian on the scene to say pretty much the same thing without sounding rehearsed? A few loud sounds that occurred during the collapse of a massive building in the middle of a metropolitan area played in slow motion with scary music doesn't prove anything.

And what's with the Dick Cheney question? Was he supposedly controlling the whole thing? I'm more interested in knowing how Democrat senators can claim that they would have gotten up and left in the middle of elementary story time (which would probably scare the children half to death) when they admittedly sat in a meeting in stunned silence for about 45 minutes between the plane hitting the second tower and the one hitting the Pentagon.

If you want a point-by-point refutation, just click the link to Popular Mechanics. It debunks everything. There's even a recorded radio broadcast with reputed physicists and architects.

Sertes
11-07-2007, 01:26 PM
These have nothing to do with the other countries I asked about when you provided this. Furthermore, the government officials or leaders that question things, are questioning versions of the 9/11 Commission report. Now, can you show me these very same officials claiming that 9/11 was an inside job?

Right now, just a couple. But that won't change anything, right? I provided a name of an attorney who made a lawsuit against Bush and Cheney and this is what you wrote:


Scary! An attorney with an AOL address! LOL Thanks for quoting another kook.

So, if I provide a name of a couple of high ranked governative officials that in foreign nations support the 9/11 inside job version, would you hear it with an open mind, or that's just the latest form of insult you came up with, "asking & denigrating" ?


Neither Paul or Kucinich believe 9/11 was an inside job, nice try! Why do you try and spin this stuff to support your retarded theory? Them wanting more answers or thinking there was incompetency involved DOES NOT mean they think it was an inside job.

See what I'm saying?

You can't accept it, instead try to make us believe you can look inside their head and see what they believe! Nice.



So out of 80+ nations losing citizens, all we have is a bunch of kooks on the internet going forward with your version of events. Not a single nation is going forward with 9/11 being an inside job. I guess whomever was responsible also somehow is getting the entire world to back down and just accept things rather than question?

Yes, that was GWB, the hijacked president, in his speech "we won't allow outrageous conspiracy theories to emerge" and "you're either with us or against us".

That's pretty scary, yes.

Sertes
11-07-2007, 01:30 PM
No, I'm not playing this game. You're the one with the wacko theory.

If you're not going to answer even one of my questions why should I spend my time answering yours?

Let's try this: I answer all your question, you tell me where was Dick Cheney at 9:30 (Popular Mechanics doesn't tell)

Deal?

jimnyc
11-07-2007, 01:35 PM
Right now, just a couple. But that won't change anything, right? I provided a name of an attorney who made a lawsuit against Bush and Cheney and this is what you wrote:

So, if I provide a name of a couple of high ranked governative officials that in foreign nations support the 9/11 inside job version, would you hear it with an open mind, or that's just the latest form of insult you came up with, "asking & denigrating" ?

Let me read what they have to say, and whether what they are saying is merely their own opinions or part of an government investigation.

See what I'm saying?

You can't accept it, instead try to make us believe you can look inside their head and see what they believe! Nice.

No, they both clearly stated what they were questioning, and both clearly have stated THEY DO NOT think 9/11 was an inside job. I'm sorry you referred to these men to further your evidence only to have it blow up in your face, but don't blame me for not "accepting" it. I accept that they have questions, now YOU have to accept they DON'T think it was an inside job.


Yes, that was GWB, the hijacked president, in his speech "we won't allow outrageous conspiracy theories to emerge" and "you're either with us or against us".

That's pretty scary, yes.

So every nation and every government official in the US can defame our president and come up with all kinds of outlandish claims and reasons for hating him, but they just can't question this one thing?

I'm done with you. You bore me and are a repetitive dolt. I've wasted too much time already dealing with a shithead who lives and breathes utter conspiracy garbage. Maybe someone else will come along and want to play with you, but I'll retire now with my perfect record debate against you, since your only vote came from yourself!

Hobbit
11-07-2007, 02:36 PM
If you're not going to answer even one of my questions why should I spend my time answering yours?

Let's try this: I answer all your question, you tell me where was Dick Cheney at 9:30 (Popular Mechanics doesn't tell)

Deal?

The premise of your question is fallacious. A quick google search (which you can do yourself) turned up itineraries showing where Dick Cheney was all day, but as soon as I post that, in comes the "Oh, that's just where he SAID he was. Do you have any proof he's not lying."

Look, you're the one with the theory that flies in the face of reason and evidence. The burden of proof is on you. That's why YOU need to prove your case before I even begin to take you seriously.

Hobbit
11-07-2007, 06:35 PM
If you're not going to answer even one of my questions why should I spend my time answering yours?

Let's try this: I answer all your question, you tell me where was Dick Cheney at 9:30 (Popular Mechanics doesn't tell)

Deal?

Oh, and also

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=696&stc=1&d=1194478533

Sertes
11-08-2007, 06:04 AM
I'm done with you. You bore me and are a repetitive dolt. I've wasted too much time already dealing with a shithead who lives and breathes utter conspiracy garbage. Maybe someone else will come along and want to play with you, but I'll retire now with my perfect record debate against you, since your only vote came from yourself!

Farewell and thanks for your time.

I'm sorry for being repetitive, I was merely repeating all the questions you didn't answer to, and pointing out again all the issues we settled that you failed to recognize as such, you can find plenty even in this thread.

Sitarro
11-08-2007, 07:57 AM
Why, the fact the official version cannot answer them is not enough?!

Ok, here we go again:

The 9/11 commission has a version, he was at the white house unaware of what's happening. Norman Mineta testimony under oath before the 9/11 commission (later not reported in the 9/11 commission report) places him in command, aware of the pentagon plane position, bearing, altitude, and there was the possibility for a shotdown order.

It's covered in much detail here, including a portion of 9/11 commission report, video of the deposition and photo maps of the pentagon area
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=142415&postcount=48

It's the single most important issue in 9/11.


A controlled demolition, as explained by 206 engineers and architects: ae911truth.org, right column


An explosive directional shockwave from an aircraft similar to either a tomahawk cruise missile or a global hawk drone painted to appear as a miniature 747-200.
That's the only possibility that doesn't contradict the 12-foot round punch out hole (explosive shockwave), the single engine found at the pentagon, the 12-foot punch-in hole, the lack of the damage from the alleged hit of the rear tail wing of the 747 that is missing in first responders photo, the lack of the damage from the alleged hit of the two 4 tons engines of the 747 that is missing in first responders photo at the sides of the punch-in hole, the high manuvrability experienced from control towers that followed the "pentagon plane" hit, it's consistent with phone calls that could be routed trough it from where the real AA77 was, it's consistent to the fact you won't leave any single human pilot to screw it up a thing so big as 9/11.

Real size CGI plane added over the actual photo of the damage on the pentagon face by first responders, before the pentagon face crumbled
http://newguards.us/brent/jpg/Penta_Plane_3dsbd.jpg
---

See some nice dodging during the debate:
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=136996&postcount=18

747??????? It was a Boeing 757, huge difference.

Pale Rider
11-08-2007, 08:58 AM
What I find hard to believe, is that there are people that actually believe Bldg7 was blown up by our own government. I find that harder to believe than the conspiracy theory itself. How can anyone be so fucking clueless and impressionable? You have to be a complete whack job.

Sir Evil
11-08-2007, 09:06 AM
Check www.patriotsquestion911.com for the complete list of professionals that questions 9/11 official truth



Check www.psychiatrist.com for a complete list of professionals, you need it.

The check http://www.web-pub.com/aa/ for more info on Assholes Anonymous, thats a must for any idiot that continually pushes such a retarted agenda.

Sertes
11-08-2007, 09:06 AM
The premise of your question is fallacious. A quick google search (which you can do yourself) turned up itineraries showing where Dick Cheney was all day, but as soon as I post that, in comes the "Oh, that's just where he SAID he was. Do you have any proof he's not lying."

Look, you're the one with the theory that flies in the face of reason and evidence. The burden of proof is on you. That's why YOU need to prove your case before I even begin to take you seriously.

First of all please don't make up by yourself my eventual comments, I can write them myself and you'll see they would be quite different. In fact it seems to me you don't even know what are the real issues on 9/11: for example I'm not interested in convincing people of my personal little weird conspiracy theory, I'm just showing how, where and why the official version is false.

That's why you dismiss so easily the question on Cheney, you don't even know that THAT is the central issue on 9/11.

The second are the collapses (not the start of the collapses)

The third is the presence of AA77 or of a smaller plane / cruise missile at the pentagon

Now we cleared that out, I was asking: you boasted you can go over scientific refutations piece by piece, if I answer your questions into the side issues and straw-man arguments of 9/11 you proposed, would you respond with similar detail to ONE of the three main issues of 9/11 ?
Because I answer directly, I don't use links or other, and I have no time to waste on people who shows no commitment whatsoever to a serious debate.

Pale Rider
11-08-2007, 09:14 AM
I'm just showing how, where and why the official version is false.

I've been holding back a lot of my rather colorful speach... but I just can't hold it here... you, are simply full of SHIT!

Sertes
11-08-2007, 09:20 AM
I've been holding back a lot of my rather colorful speach... but I just can't hold it here... you, are simply full of SHIT!

No problem in starting again to tell people where the the official version is false on purpose.

...but only if you're here for debating rather than for insulting, that is.

jimnyc
11-08-2007, 09:33 AM
Farewell and thanks for your time.

I'm sorry for being repetitive, I was merely repeating all the questions you didn't answer to, and pointing out again all the issues we settled that you failed to recognize as such, you can find plenty even in this thread.

You know what, Sertes, I do in fact give you kudos for remaining civil while I gave you some cheap shots here and there, and for standing true to your beliefs. But I'm sorry, I just can't go along with something that has zero proof and relies simply on nothing more than theories. Sure, there are lots of questions and things don't make sense, but I personally wouldn't expect them fully to after such an unprecedented attack. I think the government can be more forthcoming with certain things but also understand that for national security reasons they will withhold certain data. I also believe there was some things that could have been done better that day, but who in the world could have been fully prepared for what transpired.

I'll leave on a good note rather than a sour one, we'll just agree to disagree.

Pale Rider
11-08-2007, 09:57 AM
No problem in starting again to tell people where the the official version is false on purpose.

...but only if you're here for debating rather than for insulting, that is.

No one blew up bldg 7... OK? No one. It fell because it had extensive structural damage, and it was also weakened by the intense heat. It fell.

Why are you so oblivious to that? If you believe bldg 7 was blown up by our own government, then you must believe outrageous things about everything. That really tells me you're not fully in touch with reality.

Sorry I insulted you.

Sertes
11-08-2007, 01:04 PM
No one blew up bldg 7... OK? No one. It fell because it had extensive structural damage, and it was also weakened by the intense heat. It fell.
Why are you so oblivious to that? If you believe bldg 7 was blown up by our own government, then you must believe outrageous things about everything. That really tells me you're not fully in touch with reality.
Sorry I insulted you.

The "start" of the collapse is a common straw-man argument, that is a side argument so easy to prove (or an argument so difficult to prove otherwise) that when resolved hopefully solves the entire bigger issue.

Let's say we agree WTC7 fell because it had extensive structural damage (even if unreported by video/photo evidence) and it was also weakened by the intense heat (even if unreported by video/photo evidence, too).

So where is the real issue?

The building fell at almost free fall speed through the path of most resistance, leaving pools of molten steel in the basement that were found as much as 40 days later by worker crews.

Of all the three official studies concerning 9/11, Fema report never mentions WTC7, 9/11 commission report never mentions WTC7, and finally NIST report mentions the existence and the collapse of WTC7, but they are unable to provide an explanation on why or how it fell. The promised study by NIST is long overdue.

So you won't find shelter in the official version, as there's none. Someone want to keep WTC7 hidden, that's why you keep seeing the planes flying into the twin towers, and the tower collapses but NEVER saw WTC7 collapse on tv (nor the pentagon plane, either)

This is a real issue, the collapse itself, not the start of it, where any word is good because no one was there registering temperatures.

Nine seconds video of the collapse:

LD06SAf0p9A

PS: If you want to add something more to the side issues, you're welcome to find photo/video evidence of bigger fires and worse damage than those two:

Worse fire
http://www.rense.com/general65/WTC7firesnorthface.jpg

7% damage on a side
http://www.debatepolicy.com/wtc7damage.jpg

Pale Rider
11-08-2007, 05:02 PM
The "start" of the collapse is a common straw-man argument, that is a side argument so easy to prove (or an argument so difficult to prove otherwise) that when resolved hopefully solves the entire bigger issue.

Let's say we agree WTC7 fell because it had extensive structural damage (even if unreported by video/photo evidence) and it was also weakened by the intense heat (even if unreported by video/photo evidence, too).

So where is the real issue?

The building fell at almost free fall speed through the path of most resistance, leaving pools of molten steel in the basement that were found as much as 40 days later by worker crews.

Of all the three official studies concerning 9/11, Fema report never mentions WTC7, 9/11 commission report never mentions WTC7, and finally NIST report mentions the existence and the collapse of WTC7, but they are unable to provide an explanation on why or how it fell. The promised study by NIST is long overdue.

So you won't find shelter in the official version, as there's none. Someone want to keep WTC7 hidden, that's why you keep seeing the planes flying into the twin towers, and the tower collapses but NEVER saw WTC7 collapse on tv (nor the pentagon plane, either)

This is a real issue, the collapse itself, not the start of it, where any word is good because no one was there registering temperatures.

Nine seconds video of the collapse:

Sertes... really... never in a million years would you ever convince me that bldg 7 was blown up. As conspiracy theories go, that's right up there at the top of the list as the most outrageously absurd. You have to be really, really into twisted thinking to even question it was.

Yurt
11-08-2007, 05:54 PM
Sertes:

Even the left's hero says:

http://jcnot4me.com/images/Bill-Maher.jpg


Uh, you're wrong

Sertes
11-09-2007, 02:51 AM
Sertes:

Even the left's hero says:

http://jcnot4me.com/images/Bill-Maher.jpg


Uh, you're wrong

So what? I'm no part of your fake dualism, I go to the sources and check them, without waiting for "political heros" to tell me what is right or what is wrong, what is true and what is false.

Can you address the facts?

Sertes
11-09-2007, 03:03 AM
Sertes... really... never in a million years would you ever convince me that bldg 7 was blown up. As conspiracy theories go, that's right up there at the top of the list as the most outrageously absurd. You have to be really, really into twisted thinking to even question it was.

No problem whatsoever.

It's you maybe that can explain me how WTC7 fell ant how those pools of molten metal can form after a gravitational collapse.

Sir Evil
11-09-2007, 11:32 AM
Sertes, how many times are you going to post the same bullshit? Nobody buys into your dillusional theory, and yet you are posting the same damn thing from the first day you were here as if someone actually gives a shit. What, are you maybe anti-american because we waxed a few whops over in Iraq by accident, or just have a need to hold onto something that makes you feel a little better in your pathetic little life? Really, is this as good as life gets for you, chasing down conspiracies?

Sertes
11-09-2007, 12:32 PM
Sertes, how many times are you going to post the same bullshit? Nobody buys into your dillusional theory, and yet you are posting the same damn thing from the first day you were here as if someone actually gives a shit. What, are you maybe anti-american because we waxed a few whops over in Iraq by accident, or just have a need to hold onto something that makes you feel a little better in your pathetic little life? Really, is this as good as life gets for you, chasing down conspiracies?

Bwhahaha, I'm starting to feel happy about the issue, here. You know, this issue is so sad, so nasty, instead it's a refreshing sight to watch how many times people like you can hide behind an insult, dismiss the message and blame the messenger!

You don't buy this shit? FINE, GO AWAY.

Who needs you in the conspiracy theories section of a discussion board, if the only thing you can do is insulting?

But don't you dare question my motives, as you know nothing of me, or who I lost on 9/11. America is its constitution and its people, not its wars or its corrupted politicians, try to keep it in mind the next time you call someone anti-american.

However if you change your mind and want to discuss the issue on topic, WTC7 collapse and 9/11, I'm here waiting for you.

Sir Evil
11-09-2007, 12:52 PM
But don't you dare question my motives, as you know nothing of me, or who I lost on 9/11. America is its constitution and its people, not its wars or its corrupted politicians, try to keep it in mind the next time you call someone anti-american.


Such the paradox, our constitution, our wars, and our corrupted politicans as if Italy epitomizes the reflection of proper political ideal. And I could give a damn who you lost on 911 as the next thing you know you'll be back here trying to convince some that the lost of 911 were truly abducted by aliens for trasnplants so they could eventaully take over the world.

:laugh2:
Hiding behind insults? what exactly would I be hiding from? I've said what I said because that is my opinion, and I won't apologize for it either. Sorry, I just think you're a flaming asshole. :fu:

Sertes
11-09-2007, 01:15 PM
Such the paradox, our constitution, our wars, and our corrupted politicans as if Italy epitomizes the reflection of proper political ideal.


No, sorry, two wrongs don't make one right, it's a saying we have.
Italy is corrupt? Yes
9/11 was an inside job? Yes, too.
I'm not here to defend italian politicians, so try again pal



And I could give a damn who you lost on 911 as the next thing you know you'll be back here trying to convince some that the lost of 911 were truly abducted by aliens for trasnplants so they could eventaully take over the world.


Nice, dancing over graves. :clap:

Please come back when your alien-plot becomes my claim. As for now I'm asking, not pushing a claim, I'm asking someone to explain WTC7 collapse.



:laugh2:
Hiding behind insults? what exactly would I be hiding from?

From TRUTH.
From facts you now know but cannot explain, and that you're scared to acknowledge.

http://www.ae911truth.org/images/gallery/11rfa911.jpg

Gaffer
11-09-2007, 02:29 PM
No, sorry, two wrongs don't make one right, it's a saying we have.
Italy is corrupt? Yes
9/11 was an inside job? Yes, too.
I'm not here to defend italian politicians, so try again pal



Nice, dancing over graves. :clap:

Please come back when your alien-plot becomes my claim. As for now I'm asking, not pushing a claim, I'm asking someone to explain WTC7 collapse.



From TRUTH.
From facts you now know but cannot explain, and that you're scared to acknowledge.

http://www.ae911truth.org/images/gallery/11rfa911.jpg

Nothing to explain. Two big buildings collapsed next to it. The lower frame work was weakened by these collapses and the weight of the building brought it down.

You really need to consider the alien theory. Your silliness ranks right up there with it.

Yurt
11-09-2007, 07:14 PM
So what? I'm no part of your fake dualism, I go to the sources and check them, without waiting for "political heros" to tell me what is right or what is wrong, what is true and what is false.

Can you address the facts?

So Maher is wrong? Why don't you go on his show and tell him big guy. I double dare you.

Sertes
11-10-2007, 05:54 AM
Nothing to explain. Two big buildings collapsed next to it. The lower frame work was weakened by these collapses and the weight of the building brought it down.

Buildings can collapse by gravity because their frame has weakened or they can collapse due to a controlled demolition.

So why WTC7 "collapse" exhibits all the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives...:

1. Rapid onset of “collapse”
2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse (heard by hundreds of firemen and media reporters)
3. Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at nearly free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance
4. Squibs, or “mistimed” explosions, at the upper 7 floors seen in the network videos
5. “Collapses” into its own footprint – with the steel skeleton broken up for shipment
6. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
7. Tons of molten Metal found by CDI (Demolition Contractor) in basement (no other possible source than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)
8. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
9. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
10. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional
11. Fore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY

... and exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.

Sir Evil
11-11-2007, 08:22 AM
Nice, dancing over graves. :clap:


:dance:
R.I.P
Sertes

:fu:

Sertes
11-13-2007, 06:36 AM
So days passes and no one still has come up to a reasonable explanation of WTC7 collapse, yet.

No one can explain how a gravitational collapse can proceed at free fall speed throught the path of most resistance

No one can explain the pools of molten metal found in the basement have formed in a gravitational collapse

Yet the only theory that explain it all is dismissed because it's scary. So here they come the insults, denial, straw-man arguments, no one addressing the FACTS.

jimnyc
11-13-2007, 06:39 AM
The FACT is, no one gives a flying shit about your retarded theories and we all know what happened on that day.

:fu:

Sir Evil
11-13-2007, 07:38 AM
So days passes and no one still has come up to a reasonable explanation of WTC7 collapse, yet.

No one can explain how a gravitational collapse can proceed at free fall speed throught the path of most resistance

No one can explain the pools of molten metal found in the basement have formed in a gravitational collapse

Yet the only theory that explain it all is dismissed because it's scary. So here they come the insults, denial, straw-man arguments, no one addressing the FACTS.

Must be all the interest you have generated with this theory since coming aboard. :rolleyes:

Really, nobody buys into this assinine theory so why keep pushing it? Just enjoy sounding like pathetic whop whino with nothing better to do?

Sertes
11-13-2007, 08:07 AM
The FACT is, no one gives a flying shit about your retarded theories and we all know what happened on that day.

:fu:

Reality is more complex than your all-solving one-liners. If you have the answer on why WTC7 collapsed, and how the facts we saw are possibile with a gravitational collapse only, then share them with us and with NIST: they're still cannot explain the collapses!

Since you addressed so many side issues, and even solved a couple of them, then maybe you can now start addressing even one of the 3 real issues you're dodging from post 1 of the debate. The sooner you address the facts the sooner we can go back to our respective hobbies, like watching naked ladies on the internet for me, or to discussing the gender of angels for you (aka "are the democrats better of worse than republicans?", or "should we kill all the muslims or should we torture them first, then kill them later?")

jimnyc
11-13-2007, 08:19 AM
I addressed each and every issue you brought up, you just don't like my answers. You don't like them? Go suck on a monkey's testicle.

Sertes
11-13-2007, 08:39 AM
Must be all the interest you have generated with this theory since coming aboard. :rolleyes:

Really, nobody buys into this assinine theory so why keep pushing it? Just enjoy sounding like pathetic whop whino with nothing better to do?

Which theory, Sir Evil? We're not discussing my personal theory, forget it.

I'm telling you there's no official explanation of why WTC7 fell. That's the point.

Sir Evil
11-13-2007, 05:44 PM
Which theory, Sir Evil? We're not discussing my personal theory, forget it.

I'm telling you there's no official explanation of why WTC7 fell. That's the point.

The entire theory that anyone other than terrorists took out the world trade centers on 911. I live here, I witnessed quite a bit of what took place that day, and to tell me that somehow 2 jets clearly visible took out the trade centers in some kind of conspiracy is comepletely ludicrous. Remote control jets I guess? all those aboard those jets were made up persons? Terrorism happened that day, nothing more.

Sertes
11-14-2007, 02:59 AM
The entire theory that anyone other than terrorists took out the world trade centers on 911. I live here, I witnessed quite a bit of what took place that day, and to tell me that somehow 2 jets clearly visible took out the trade centers in some kind of conspiracy is comepletely ludicrous. Remote control jets I guess? all those aboard those jets were made up persons? Terrorism happened that day, nothing more.

We're not discussing the jets that hit the Twin Towers, WTC #1 and #2.
We're discussing the collapse of World Trade Center Building #7, also known as Solomon Building, a 47 floors steel framed high-rise building.
It wasn't hit by any plane.
It fell late that afternoon, and its collapse is not mentioned in the FEMA report nor in the 9/11 commission report.
NIST report acknowlegde the existence and the collapse of WTC7, but fails to provide any explanation on why or how it fell. It fails to explain how the collapse was able to proceed at free fall speed through the path of most resistance. It fails to explain why the "gravitational collapse" left pools of molten metal and molten steel in the basement.
The promised study by NIST is long overdue.

Deal with it, or prove me wrong.

Sir Evil
11-14-2007, 07:47 AM
We're not discussing the jets that hit the Twin Towers, WTC #1 and #2.
We're discussing the collapse of World Trade Center Building #7, also known as Solomon Building, a 47 floors steel framed high-rise building.
It wasn't hit by any plane.
It fell late that afternoon, and its collapse is not mentioned in the FEMA report nor in the 9/11 commission report.
NIST report acknowlegde the existence and the collapse of WTC7, but fails to provide any explanation on why or how it fell. It fails to explain how the collapse was able to proceed at free fall speed through the path of most resistance. It fails to explain why the "gravitational collapse" left pools of molten metal and molten steel in the basement.
The promised study by NIST is long overdue.

Deal with it, or prove me wrong.


Deal with what, a retarded conspiracy? So now it's just the one building in question, and not the others? This has to be the most rediculous topic ever discussed. Really if there was even a shred of factual evidence to any of this the press would be all over it, what you have is purely fiction based on some inane theories. This stuff is not even intelligent at it's best points, simply reading material created by the insipid douchebags looking to make a buck or a bit of notoriety off a tragedy.

Sertes
11-14-2007, 11:39 AM
Deal with what, a retarded conspiracy?

No, deal with the fact there's no official explanation for the collapse of WTC7.


So now it's just the one building in question, and not the others?

Oh, sorry if I address the strongest points too (Mineta testimony, WTC7 collapse, Punchout hole)! It's easy to dismiss side issues, even Jimnyc did it in the debate. He answered almost all the side issues, so it seems that he solved it all, but as you can see the main issues have still to be answered. No one in the world did it yet, maybe it's you or him that will explain WTC7 collapse to the world (and to NIST!)


This has to be the most rediculous topic ever discussed. Really if there was even a shred of factual evidence to any of this the press would be all over it, what you have is purely fiction based on some inane theories. This stuff is not even intelligent at it's best points, simply reading material created by the insipid douchebags looking to make a buck or a bit of notoriety off a tragedy.

The press? When was the last time you open a paper, Sir? You only know what the biased television networks tell you, they keep showing the hit on WTC1, the hit on WTC2, the collapse of WTC1, the collapse of WTC2... and you assume to see cause and effect.

Why you never saw the collapse of WTC7 on TV? Because then you would question it!
And why you never saw the pentagon plane on TV? There's a video of it, right?
And why you never saw Norman Mineta testimony on TV?

If you really used traditional press, maybe you would notice articles like this one (I post this as an answer to you and to one question raised by Jimnyc about Ron Paul & 9/11):

http://www.republicmagazine.com/templates/rhuk_solarflare_ii/images/header_short.jpg

http://www.wearechange.org/uploaded_images/WACarticleRM-748565.jpg

jimnyc
11-14-2007, 03:00 PM
No, deal with the fact there's no official explanation for the collapse of WTC7.

If you really used traditional press, maybe you would notice articles like this one (I post this as an answer to you and to one question raised by Jimnyc about Ron Paul & 9/11)

Maybe this is why you get ridiculed instead of real debate. I already told you, and I'll tell you again, Ron Paul stated emphatically already that he does not believe 9/11 was an inside job! Would you like to hear it in his own voice?

http://www.911researchers.com/node/904

As for your crap about WTC7 and NIST not having an official explanation: They are still researching certain issues but released a report in 2004! Read starting on page 17:

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/chapter1.pdf

And appendix L:

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

Sertes
11-14-2007, 03:57 PM
Maybe this is why you get ridiculed instead of real debate. I already told you, and I'll tell you again, Ron Paul stated emphatically already that he does not believe 9/11 was an inside job! Would you like to hear it in his own voice?

http://www.911researchers.com/node/904
No, we cleared it out before, he desn't support the Inside Job version, he's only supporting another investigation. I'm just showing you that a magazine with him in the cover can afford to post WeAreChange as the activist of the month, a group dedicated to "groundbreaking methods of raising awareness for the plygth of the sick and dying of the 9/11 World Trade Center false flag attack".



As for your crap about WTC7 and NIST not having an official explanation: They are still researching certain issues but released a report in 2004! Read starting on page 17:

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/chapter1.pdf

And appendix L:

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

Nice! Let's see page 17:



1.3 COLLAPSE OF THE 47-STORY WTC 7 BUILDING
Working Hypothesis
A working hypothesis has been developed around four phases of the collapse of WTC 7 that were observed in photographic and videographic records: an initiating event, a vertical progression at the east side of the building, a subsequent horizontal progression from the east to the west side of the building, and global collapse. The working hypothesis will be revised and updated as results of ongoing, more comprehensive analyses become available.

Well, let's see Appendix L, the second link:



L.3.5 Summary of Working Collapse Hypothesis
The working collapse hypothesis has been developed around four phases of the collapse that were observed in photographic and videographic records: the initiating event, a vertical progression at the east side of the building, and a horizontal progression from the east to west side of the building, leading to
global collapse.

Tell me, I'm Italian and maybe I'm not translating correctly: what is a "working hypothesis"?

Because to me is not an explanation.

Don't tell me they're working on it since 2004 and still cannot explain the free-fall speed through the path of most resistance!! How so? Because maybe a gravitational collapse has only kinetic energy and if you spend it achieving free-fall speed it cannot break through the path of most resistance, and vice versa if part of the kinetic energy is spent on crushing the columns in the path of most resistance then the fall cannot achieve free-fall speed!

But you're no phisics, so I'm not asking you to solve the mystery that baffles NIST since 2004. I will settle for finding out how a gravitational collapse can form pools of molten steel in the basement of the building.

jimnyc
11-14-2007, 04:42 PM
No, we cleared it out before, he desn't support the Inside Job version, he's only supporting another investigation. I'm just showing you that a magazine with him in the cover can afford to post WeAreChange as the activist of the month, a group dedicated to "groundbreaking methods of raising awareness for the plygth of the sick and dying of the 9/11 World Trade Center false flag attack".

Then it's dishonest of you to use Ron Paul as part of your argument that 9/11 was an inside job, when even he does not believe your argument. You're trying to use someone of influence to give the appearance of being on your side, when the truth of the matter is the exact opposite.


Tell me, I'm Italian and maybe I'm not translating correctly: what is a "working hypothesis"?

Can you explain "idiot" to me and what is a "conspiracy theory".

Their "hypothesis" is more credible and supported by more facts than your conspiracies.

As for your molten steel, I have read stories about this regarding WTC1 & 2 and posted explanations, can you give me links to support evidence of molten steel found at WTC7?