MARTIN SHEEN questions 9/11

[Sertes]

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:

[youtube]LD06SAf0p9A[/youtube]

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


7% damage on a side