MARTIN SHEEN questions 9/11

**stephanie** · 10-30-2007, 03:21 AM

***jimnyc*** · 10-30-2007, 07:44 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, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by jimnyc

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:

[youtube]58h0LjdMry0[/youtube]

Source, english version: http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modu...p?storyid=1795

***jimnyc*** · 10-30-2007, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by Sertes

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 Marie*** · 10-30-2007, 03:06 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.

**Sertes** · 10-31-2007, 01:27 AM

Originally Posted by jimnyc

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, 05:24 AM

Originally Posted by Sertes

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

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

"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

"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

"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.

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. 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

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".

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

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

And now for the best video evidence to date from our friends at 911myths... 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 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
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.
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_
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.
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, 06:44 AM

Originally Posted by jimnyc

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, 07:17 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, 07:31 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, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by jimnyc

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)

[youtube]58h0LjdMry0[/youtube]

**dan** · 10-31-2007, 07:56 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, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by dan

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, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by Sertes

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, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by manu1959

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?

Thread: MARTIN SHEEN questions 9/11

Thread Tools

Display

MARTIN SHEEN questions 9/11

Posting Permissions