MARTIN SHEEN questions 9/11

[darin]

Sertes - holy shit dude...after your debate with Jim, you STILL believe that tripe?

[manu1959]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.
[youtube]zhauHfDJ4b4[/youtube]

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...5&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]

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.
[youtube]zhauHfDJ4b4[/youtube]


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...5&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]

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...5&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

---

See some nice dodging during the debate:
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost...6&postcount=18

[emmett]

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...5&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

---

See some nice dodging during the debate:
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost...6&postcount=18

Hilarious!

[Kathianne]

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 Marie]

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]

he's just after a part in the next wtc movie
the conspiracy directed by

[manu1959]

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...5&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

---

See some nice dodging during the debate:
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost...6&postcount=18

[Sertes]

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]

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...08&postcount=7
and here:
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost...3&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.

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.

..... 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.

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


And a hole on 7% of the side of the building (photo submitted by Jimnyc during the debate)


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:


and even after the pentagon face fell:

(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.