Geraldo Rivera discuss the THIRD collapse of 9/11 on FOX!

[Sertes]

Geraldo Rivera (Geraldo at large, fox news) interviews Bob McIlvaine (who lost his son on 9/11) and mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti about the "Building What" Ad campaign which points the lights to the third high-rise collapsed on 9/11:

[YOUTUBE]kP0Hs-v-uJ0[/YOUTUBE]

Note n.1 : Mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti makes a reference to "free-fall" collapse of WTC7, which is not a conspiracy theory, but it is a well documented fact written in the Official Version, the document NIST NCSTAR1A:


(http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf)

Note n.2 : Geraldo Rivera is well known for being the first one to show Zapruder Film on television, back in 1975:
[YOUTUBE]4DwKK4rkeEM[/YOUTUBE]

[revelarts]

interesting Sertes.

thanks for posting.
I didn't know the NIST report said 7 fell at free fall speed too.

What the heck is going on here?
Siliversten the owner in the early in the report says "Pull it" a demolition term.
"MAybe the smartest thing to do is pull it"
"They made the decision to pull it."
"ANd we watched it collapse"

He says he was talking about Pulling the firemen. But many say the firemen where out of the building much earlier in the day.

[jimnyc]

interesting Sertes.

thanks for posting.
I didn't know the NIST report said 7 fell at free fall speed too.

What the heck is going on here?
Siliversten the owner in the early in the report says "Pull it" a demolition term.
"MAybe the smartest thing to do is pull it"
"They made the decision to pull it."
"ANd we watched it collapse"

He says he was talking about Pulling the firemen. But many say the firemen where out of the building much earlier in the day.

The firemen were not out of the building earlier. If you took the time to do the research, and read what I posted here many times, there are actual reports of firemen who received the "pull" command and why - in their actual words. They were outright told to "pull" their men from the building as the gauges they had there showed the entire building was slowly shifting and was in severe danger of collapsing.

I bolded where you say "but many say" - who are these many? And did you actually read the reports from the firemen in charge that day or are you running with a few Youtube clips again?

[jimnyc]

Start here:

http://www.debunking911.com/quotes.htm

[jimnyc]

And here:

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

[revelarts]

glad you found something here you think you can refute. Go talk to the Engineer and the the Father.

[jimnyc]

glad you found something here you think you can refute. Go talk to the Engineer and the the Father.

I don't need to "refute" anything, the firemen and their words are already entered as evidence. If there were anything at all to this "pull" bullshit it would be all over congress and those involved in the 9/11 investigation. Again, there are people who would give their limbs to have any direct evidence at all of an inside job - and yet this "pull" shit with Silverstein was put to rest years ago.

Sure, "someone" pulled of perhaps the largest secret undertaking in the nations history, but one guy slipped and just happened to talk about it on TV. The only people left taking any of this shit seriously are the loons.

[jimnyc]

glad you found something here you think you can refute. Go talk to the Engineer and the the Father.

BTW, I noticed you refuted absolutely nothing of what the actual firemen there on the scene and in the building stated about that day and the pull command. - Nor have you listed who these people are you refer to who all say that the firemen were out earlier in the day.

[Sertes]

@Revelarts:
what we learnt in the last two years is this: pay attention to burden of proof.
If you decide to make an assumption on what 'pull it' acually means, you're assuming the burden of proof upon yourself, and others can doubt until and unless you can demonstrate 100% he meant 'demolish'. And you cannot 100%. I can agree that for the common man the phrase is 90% sure to have ONE meaning, because contrary to what Jim told us, there were no firemans in the building at the time of the phone call Silverstein is recalling. But that's not the point. The point is not be dragged into debating side issues while assuming the burden of proof.

If you stop at showing the Official Version is false, and why, and put up the actual page 48 of NIST NCSTAR1A, Jim cannot pretend it's your invention. And when he checks debunking911 he will find nothing, because debunking911 closed down because they had no answer to that!

You may say it's a side issue, but NIST NCSTAR1A is the Official Version of the collapse. When it was released many "debunking" websites just closed down, because they built up in the years their own version on why WTC7 collapsed (i.e.: the building collapsed because of the damage from debris... WRONG! NIST NCSTAR EXCLUDES THAT TOO)

Ok, i dragged it too much, point is when you keep showing the Official Version is false, where, and why, you have higher ground.

[jimnyc]

And neither of you beanheads can refute what the actual firemen on the scene state, both about being in the building and the pull command. You'd both rather enjoy conspiracies. Sertes, you say "the common man the phrase is 90% sure to have ONE meaning" - do you just make this shit up? Speak to a demolition crew and you'll get one answer - speak to the men that were actually in and out of the building all day long on the scene and you'll get another.

Do you fools actually believe a conspiracy of the existence of time was pulled off, but one of those involved just happened to forget he was involved and decided to discuss it on TV?

But don't let me tread on your good times here! I see you conspiracy nuts are picking up traction after nearly 100 years! LOL Call on me again when you have any proof. Poor little conspiracy theorists, 9+ years and not one single shred of hard proof to prove anything at all.

[jimnyc]

If you stop at showing the Official Version is false, and why, and put up the actual page 48 of NIST NCSTAR1A, Jim cannot pretend it's your invention. And when he checks debunking911 he will find nothing, because debunking911 closed down because they had no answer to that!

They "closed down" because they couldn't answer that? Can you provide proof of that?

Anyway, this doesn't "prove" jack shit other than scientific details into the fall of the building. Thousands of inspectors on the ground and again, not a shred of proof to show it fell for any other reason than explained. NOT ONE PIECE OF PROOF FOUND. Why haven't they found anything, not even one wire or blasting cap or ANYTHING AT ALL? Unless you'll get even wackier and claim of course that all the inspectors were involved.

You know what, don't even bother answering. I don't have time to get into a debate with loons right now. You guys believe what you will. Nothing I say will change the mind of a loon, and I'm the type of person that actually likes proof before I start to believe in fairy tales. Have fun, gentlemen!

[Sertes]

And neither of you beanheads can refute what the actual firemen on the scene state, both about being in the building and the pull command. You'd both rather enjoy conspiracies. Sertes, you say "the common man the phrase is 90% sure to have ONE meaning" - do you just make this shit up? Speak to a demolition crew and you'll get one answer - speak to the men that were actually in and out of the building all day long on the scene and you'll get another.

Do you fools actually believe a conspiracy of the existence of time was pulled off, but one of those involved just happened to forget he was involved and decided to discuss it on TV?

But don't let me tread on your good times here! I see you conspiracy nuts are picking up traction after nearly 100 years! LOL Call on me again when you have any proof. Poor little conspiracy theorists, 9+ years and not one single shred of hard proof to prove anything at all.

You're boring sometimes. That was a comment on debate tactics, not on the issue itself.

If you are so eager to debate 9/11, explain the 2.25 seconds. It's the front issue now, not the 'pull it'. I was explaining just that to Revelarts.

[Sertes]

Btw Jim, what's your catch on JFK? And did you feel that the Zapruder film changed people perception of that event? (I am not asking if changed yours, if you believe that showing "back and to the left" on tv changed people thoughts about JFK assassination, for right or wrongs, that's it.)

[jimnyc]

You're boring sometimes. That was a comment on debate tactics, not on the issue itself.

If you are so eager to debate 9/11, explain the 2.25 seconds. It's the front issue now, not the 'pull it'. I was explaining just that to Revelarts.

Ok, you convinced me! We certainly have a breakthrough here! Who doe we bring this newest revelation to? Surely there has to be someone other than Geraldo interested. Can we run to the 9/11 commission? Can we run to congress? I'm sure these people never saw the endless videos before and it's doubtful anyone in the government has read the nist.GOV reports.

Shit, maybe all of congress is complicit in this and that's why they won't properly investigate? What do we do to get people to finally listen to us? Why won't they take our stories seriously?

[jimnyc]

Btw Jim, what's your catch on JFK? And did you feel that the Zapruder film changed people perception of that event? (I am not asking if changed yours, if you believe that showing "back and to the left" on tv changed people thoughts about JFK assassination, for right or wrongs, that's it.)

Dude, that was over a 1/4 century ago. We have cold hard evidence now of a much newer conspiracy and we need to be heard by leaders aroudn the world. We have all the evidence in hand which you have shown to us many times over. Why won't anyone in any official capacities listen to us? Maybe we should chain ourselves to the White House fence like the homosexuals until Obama takes action?