MARTIN SHEEN questions 9/11

[Sir Evil]

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.

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]

The FACT is, no one gives a flying shit about your retarded theories and we all know what happened on that day.

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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):

[jimnyc]

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_.../appendixl.pdf

[Sertes]

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_.../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]

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?