‘Rescue Me’ star Daniel Sunjata headlines 9/11 protest march

By Stephen C. Webster
Monday, September 28th, 2009 -- 2:45 pm
Share on Facebook Stumble This!

UPDATE (at bottom): City's law department tells RAW STORY that a new 9/11 investigation is 'not a proper subject to be placed before the voters' ...

danielsunjatanyccan Rescue Me star Daniel Sunjata headlines 9/11 protest marchA lead actor from the popular FX television show "Rescue Me" joined a large group of 9/11 activists and survivors on Sunday in a march from New York City's Battery Park to city hall.

During an afternoon rally in the park, Daniel Sunjata, who plays the role of Franco Rivera in the firefighter drama featuring actor Dennis Leary, took the stage with an impassioned call for a new investigation.

The march was held to support the NYC CAN coalition, which is currently engaged in a court battle with city hall over the legality of their ballot measure calling for a new 9/11 investigation.

The group has gathered over 80,000 signatures from New Yorkers in support of its ballot initiative, and even won a recent legal skirmish over a challenge to the validity if its petition's signatures. The city's challenge to the initiative's legality continues, however, with a court referee recently advising the judge to find for the city.

Story continues below...

An NYC CAN media advisory, which refers to the 9/11 Commission Report as a "disgrace," notes that the group's lawyers were to file a motion for reconsideration on Monday, Sept. 28.

"We have received, for our efforts, a slap in the face and a kick in the mouth," said Sunjata, speaking at the NYC CAN rally on Sunday. "Although 80,000 New Yorkers have voice their desire, in writing, to include on November's mayoral ballot the referendum for a new and actual investigation into 9/11, New York City has responded by taking the position that it has no jurisdiction in that matter."

"No jurisdiction?!" he shouted. "No jurisdiction into the murder of 3,000 of its own citizens? No jurisdiction or the intent of seeking such jurisdiction. Bloomberg."

A ruling on the city’s motion for summary judgment on the initiative’s legality was expected today, although the group's new motion would appear to delay that for at least a little longer. The group says it expects a decision one way or another later this week.

"A favorable ruling would likely be appealed by the City pushing the issue to the Appellate Court," an NYC CAN advisory predicted. "If the Petition overcomes all legal challenges, goes to November ballot and the referendum passes, it would lead to the creation of a local, independent commission with subpoena power that would be tasked with comprehensively reinvestigating the attacks."

"While the specter of 9/11 is raised repeatedly, ghoulishly, dangled before us to justify the dismemberment of our Constitution, the trampling of our civil liberties," said Sunjata. "Questioning 9/11 itself? Oh, that is strictly prohibited. Do you hear that, New York? Do you hear that, family members? Cops? Firefighters? First responders? Your government has just told you, again, again, that you are good enough to die for them, but that asking questions about the inciting event is un-American, unpatriotic and just quite simply out of bounds."

Sunjata's support for a fresh investigation into the attacks is well known to regular "Rescue Me" viewers. Earlier this year, a "Rescue Me" subplot even incorporated his belief that the attacks were an "inside job."

Other speakers at Sunday's rally included "9/11 family members Bob McIlvaine and Manny Badillo, New York University's Professor of Media Studies [and] Mark Crispin Miller," noted NYC CAN.

Kate O'Brien Ahlers, New York City's law department communications director, commented to RAW STORY: "As the legal referee recommended -- and the City agrees -- the focus of this referendum is not a proper subject to be placed before the voters under applicable law."

In an initial response, Ahlers attributed the city's position to the court's supposed ruling, not the legal referee. It was later corrected in an e-mail. The court has not yet ruled on the ballot initiative.

A majority of the NYC CAN presentation, which includes Sunjata's speech (from 18:38 to 23:57), is available here.

This video is from YouTube, broadcast Sept. 27, 2009.

This story was updated from a previous version to reflect the city's position on the NYC CAN ballot initiative.

Share this article:
  • Print
  • email
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Story comments are below...

  • me77
    There are no 'truthers', there are simply normal sentient people, and sociopaths. Sociopaths are prepared to believe and accept anything so long as they can keep their boring rut life, and dont have to think or act, while normal sentient people realise that the only thing that matters is the truth. The label 'truther' is just a means to lump all those questioning sentient intelligent people into a category for demonisation, to allow all the sociopaths the luxury of not having to think for themselves, or not having to do something different or honourable or moral for a change.

    The manhattan project which designed the nuclear bomb ran for years and had thousands of people involved and none of the details of that ever leaked out to the media or the people at large, until the authorities decided to do so.

    Ignoring the truth just causes mental illness.
  • jonizonit
    FINALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • sleepyjohn
    Over the years I've read hundreds of these forums and there's always someone who is clearly a plant shilling for the OCT - however this creature 'RedBird' is a queer one in that he has moved the position to LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose).
  • RedBird
    Wow, you guys just have to call everyone who disagrees with you a "Shill" or "Plant". Can't debate on fact so you must lash out with ad hominem. Good job, you've just fulfilled your own stereotype.

    Unlike a lot of debunkers I'm actually not resorting to name calling. I'm trying to argue physics, probability, science, and common sense. I guess that makes me a Shill for reason.
  • @RedBird Last I checked, we're asking questions not spreading theories. How do you counter argue a question?
  • RedBird
    Last I checked, I was answering your questions. Then I got called a Shill, an MFer, and a CIA agent.
  • paulisaac
    As much as I support an investigation into 911 there is a flaw with it.
    The NYC Council cannot grant power to investigate a federal jurisdictional
    criminal incident.

    WTC was on Port Authority NY-NJ property which was built outside the construction
    and fire regulations of NYC. The Federal government conducted (farce) the 911 commission.

    It would be like the local traffic cop investigating a plane crash
    or supperseeding the FBI in a multi-state terrorist investigation
  • dirtworshipper
    RedBird quoted from aerospaceweb.org concerning the 102 story Empire State Building the following:

    "Furthermore, the Empire State Building is a REINFORCED MASONRY STRUCTURE... "
    ------
    However, according to the Reinforced Masonry Engineering Handbook: "Currently, the tallest reinforced masonry structure is the 28 story Excalibur Hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada." (link below)

    I believe the Excalibur Hotel was built after the Empire State Building, but perhaps RedBird will correct me. The 102 story Empire State Building is a rigid steel frame building with a curtain wall limestone facade, not a reinforced masonry structure regardless of what aerospace.org and RedBird may conveniently claim.


    http://books.google.com/books?id=GGbAWZ4Z0voC&p...
  • RedBird
    Honestly, it does not matter much. The empire state is steel framed, but the steel is encased in Masonry. You're really arguing sematnics when the physics of the problem blow your comparison out of the water.

    As I outlined before, A B-25 will deliver 1/20th the momentum as a 767 and will deliver 1/26th the fuel.

    It's not a valid comparison whatsoever unless you're going to claim the Empire State Building is made of matchsticks, or the B-25 was loaded with bombs.
  • friendofbonobo
    Hello Redbird,
    Please see my rebuttals below in blue:

    On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Disqus <notifications-PV22X76UMH@disqus.net> wrote:

    RedBird wrote, in response to friendofbonobo:


    Easy.


    1. "A gravity driven collapse can throw pieces of steel weighing 30 tons laterally 200 yards"
    There was more than enough potential energy in the collapse to force steel beams 200 yards laterally. The beams were linked vertically so they peeled off like a banana on all 4 sides. 200 yards laterally is nothing to a structure almost 400 yards tall.

    What do base you claim about potential energy on? The potential energy you speak of would be oriented in the vertical axis, and this could be converted into laterally oriented energy only by collisions between pieces of debris during the collapse. Intuitively, such collisions would need to be between objects of similar size in order to impart the laterally oriented energy to throw things out that far. We do not observe collisions between objects on the order of multi-tens-of-tons objects. (again I direct you to http://doujibar.ganriki.net/english/e-02a-wtc1h... for some more details). You also mention the "banana peel" like peeling off of external wall units. Do you realize that this is inconsistent with the NIST report that the collapse was initiated as result of the sagging of the trusses and lateral beams which cause the mass of the outer structure of the building to collapse INWARD. If NIST were to revise this to be consistent with observed "banana peeling", what mass would then be avaiable to pulverize alll the steel and concrete of the lower (even more massive) structure to dust??? You can't have it both ways. In addition to the "banana peeling" of the outer wall steel units, huge amount of pulverized concrete (in the form of pyroclastic clouds) are also accelerated laterally almost immediately upon initiation of the collapse. If the outer panels and massive amounts of concrete were both ejected laterally, what mass then crushed the rest of the building in your gravity driven collapse scenario???


    2. "Jet fuel fires can produce molten steel/iron and fires that burn for THREE MONTHS"
    This is simple metallurgy. First, it wasn't "Three months", it was 6 weeks. Second, Steel burns. It's called "Exothermic Oxidation". When iron hits a high temperature it burns in the air around it, basically rusting at high temperature. The oxidation process also produces heat, keeping the fire alive. Also, Hot iron can react with water, which releases hydrogen, which burns with water, which creates another heat/fuel cycle that could easily perpetuate for weeks on end. That is not made up science, that is fact backed up by metallurgists who investigated the claims of "truthers".

    CBS News reported on 12/19/2001 that FDNY (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/19/archi...) had finally extinguished most of the fires. What temperature are you suggesting steel "burns" at? How was this temperature achieved and sustained for weeks in pile of dust and debris (i.e. an oxygen starved environment)? Please send a reference to the analysis of the metallurgists that you cite. This truly does appear to to be "made up" and non-scientific. If water and "hot" iron (again need to specify temperatures involved) can really create the kind "fuel cycle" you posit, should firefighters be forbidden from pouring water on any fire in a steel structure? I think other chemicals (in addition to water) need to be involved in the kind of exothermic reaction you are attempting to suggest here. Even if there were some kind of non-thermite related exothermic reaction, can you really demonstrate it would have been aggressive enough to explain the presence of molten iron/steel as was observed?



    3. "Three buildings that collapse at near free-fall acceleration through the path of GREATEST structural resistance"
    They did not fall at "near free fall" speed. Free fall speed from the top of the towers was roughly 9 seconds. The towers fell in about 12 seconds. That is a conservative estimate based on multiple videos I've personally timed. NIST did not actually release an official fall time because it's difficult to determine exactly, they just give the time when the first panels hit the ground, which were ones blown out and did not go through the path of least resistance. About 9.5 seconds.

    12 seconds IS very near freefall for a 1368 ft. tall structure. Basic physics tells you that you cannot have this near freefall acceleration of collapse, and still have the energy to do the work of crushing the rest of the building to dust. Also, your statement, "...they just give the time when the first panels hit the ground, which were ones blown out and did not go through the path of least resistance " does not make any sense. The panels that were blown out DID go through the path of least resistance (i.e. just air and through the structure of the whole buildings below the plane damaged zones).
    In the case of the Twin Towers, welded and bolted steel connections were separated, the concrete floors along with their corrugated floor pans and web truss supports were pulverized, and a large fraction of the mass of each level of the building was flung outside the building's footprint while the destruction occurred. Simple conservation of momentum computer simulations that do not even take into account the energy required for all of this destruction, but instead merely take into account the momentum required to accelerate each floor, indicate that if as little as 6% of the mass is ejected at each level, "a natural" collapse would have taken longer than the observed time.
    Jim Hoffman, "Simulations: Modeling Aspects of the Twin Towers' Collapse": http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/models/index.html
    Stephen Keeling, "An Interactive Simulation Comparing Models of the Fall of the World Trade Center Towers". http://math.uni-graz.at/keeling/wtc.html. Keeling is at the Institute for Mathematics and Scientific Computing, Karl-Franzens University of Graz, Austria. http://math.uni-graz.at/keeling/wtc.nlogo provides Keeling's commented source code.
    4. "UNREACTED thermitic material could be found in four separate samples of WTC dust without some human introducing it into the scene"
    Um. No. First, the samples you speak of did not prove there was thermite, merely there was a reactive chemical. Second, the chain of evidence between the sample and the chemical lab in the Netherlands is suspect. Third, even Steven Jones acknowledged the chemical was not reactive enough to to the damage that nano thermite was theoretically supposed to do, and then stated it might have been used as a detonator for conventional explosives. http://www.de-fact-o.com/fact_read.php?id=8

    Anyone can argue about the chain of custody, but Jones et. al. are only motivated to bring out the truth and they document the chain of custody for all samples. The conclusion of the paper (Harrit et. al., The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31) concludes "we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material".
    Also, the page cited at de-fact-0.com contains nothing to the effect that Jones "acknowledged the chemical was not reactive enough to to the damage that nano thermite was theoretically supposed to do". Did you perhaps paste the wrong webpage address?
    So in fact, these items are not "Impossible" to explain. The explanations are more than reasonable.

    Redbird, it appears that you have pre-drawn conclusions, and you are working VERY hard to find a way to ignore evidence of controlled demolition. I hope that some of the points above will resonate with you and you will take a more open minded look at the evidence. However, if you persist in denial at all cost to preserve your view, further debate will probably be meaningless.
    I wish you well and peace to you and yours.
  • RedBird
    Sorry about the delay. I didn't realize people were still posting until I checked my Spam box.

    Anyways, I don't have any predrawn conclusions. I watched loose change and was quite interested in the content. So I did research. But you see, I researched both sides of the argument. I do honestly believe our governement is capable of hurting its own citizens so I owed it to myself to discover the truth. And the truth is this: To me the 9/11 movement is taken by many truthers in the same context as a religion.

    Imagine if I were to walk into a Christian church with a bible and point out all the known contradictions and flaws in it. Would anyone in the congregation care? Well yeah, they would get pretty upset. They would label me a heretic or a Liar and throw me out. Now nothing I would have said would be logically untrue, but every faithful christian will believe what they want to believe no matter what proof or reason I bring to the table.

    Truthers are no different. You want so desperately to believe that there was a conspiracy that you will believe any shred of questionable evidence that will support your claim, yet reject sound science in the face of your belief system.

    Now, to answer your questions above:

    1. In terms of the 200 yards of lateral movement. Remember, the twin towers had a steel exoskeleton. Part of it's "Tube in tube" design. As the central core collapsed, the exoskeleton flew outward as the force of the collapse moved downward. That's the "banana peel" effect I was referring too. The mass of the building fell downward, yet much of the debris fell outward due to the energy created in the compression. So the core of the building did collapse inward, it's the exterior columns I was referring to.

    Oh and please do not use the term "Pyroclasitc" anymore. A Pyroclastic cloud is a super heated cloud of volcanic ash that moves at 200mph. The debris cloud from 9/11 obviously was not super heated as people survived just fine in them (sans breathing issues of course).

    2. I would suggest reading the link below. As I stated before, I did research both sides of the argument. I suggest you do too. It's not hard to find scientifically sound answers to the questions you are asking. This one specifically deals with everything you need to know about Iron burning.:

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

    3. 12 seconds is NOT very near freefall. Three seconds is a lifetime when you are talking about the acceleration of gravity. And that is a conservative estimate anyway.

    I did mistype on my earlier post, what I meant by "not through the past of least resistance" was a typo, I meant "through the path of least resistance". Those panels did hit at 9.5 seconds, and remember, those panels also were not at the top of the towers. The first ones to hit fell from the impact sites.

    Also, In terms of the program Keeling wrote, I've seen another program that calculates the fall of the buildings and it works to about 12 seconds. I don't put too much stock in yours or the one I saw because programs are only as effective as the information put into them. If you miss one small variable, your program is worthless.

    Funny how everyone in the truther movement is an expert in physics, yet there are only 800 or so architects/engineers on the ae911truth.org site.

    4. "but Jones et. al. are only motivated to bring out the truth and they document the chain of custody for all samples"

    See now, you just proved my religion example above. You are making an assumption that Jones is either 1. Honest or 2. Unbiased. Remember, Jones, Gage, et al have their reputations on the line, and I do suspect they are making a comfortable living doing what they do.

    Let me provide you with a link I want you to read:

    http://forthardknox.com/2009/07/20/april-09-the...

    The chain of custody is suspect because even the sample used came from a self-described "Truther", the sample sat for 9 days, and it came from a guy who is a welder.

    On top of that, the results were not properly peer-reviewed, and the editor in chief of the Open Chemical Physics Journal was an expert in nano chemestry and she was bypassed completely during the review process.

    In terms of Jones's admission that the nanothermite was probably used as a detonator:

    http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermi...

    It was stated in an email exchange between Jones and Dr. Frank Greening. Reading through that thread I've come to the conclusion that nobody, even Jones, can prove the samples provided were nanothermite, nor can anyone conclusively prove that it wasn't. But the absence of proof is not proof itself.

    What's funny is that Jones bases his entire argument that 9/11 was a "False flag" operation because of WTC7, however I've already explained and proved that firefighters evacuated WTC7 due to bulging and structural weakening and knew it was gong to collapse. They also stated on the record there was a 20 story high hole on the front of the building and the fires were uncontained. Again the FIREFIGHTERS knew the building was going to fail due to their own observations. That is all the information I need to know to verify it was NOT a Controlled Demolition.

    That and the largest demo on record was a 26 story building and it took 12 days to prep. Even the security hole truthers bring up was only 5 days. Yeah it's Plausible men in dark coats snuck in at night to wire a building for demo. Even though there are a finite amount of people on this planet with the knowlege and skill to perform a job that big.

    But Plausible does not prove anything.

    Only evidence does. And there is no "Smoking Gun", no tangible proof, no primary eye witnesses. Just a string of chopped up quotes, some flimsy evidence pointing to some mystery compound, and a rube-goldberg type plot that would make Tom Clancy blush.

    So to conclude, I have looked at the evidence with an open mind. I side with real experts, I side with common sense, and I side with truth. There was no CD on 9/11. Just planes. And a white house that ignored a terror warning.
  • scarborrough
    Redbird wrote- "How about this, bring forth some material experts. I mean actual material experts.."

    I think we are getting somewhere. What you are suggesting is a perfectly logical first step. Of course, whatever they find would have to accommodate any information that was unknown or overlooked at the time. For example, if there really was nanothermite in the dust then it should be quite easy to identify its manufacturer and determined who obtained it. If there was not, then the FBI should investigate Jones and his crew to find out where theirs came from. In fact, why haven't they done that already? Surely it can't be that easy to obtain such materials in the wake of 9/11.
  • RedBird
    I appreciate your balanced response. Of course those dust samples were already taken overseas to the Netherlands and since the chain of custody is now tainted, I doubt that testing those samples will make anything conclusive.
  • malikk
    ay redbird did you and markos moulitsis daily kos attend CIA training together come man you can tell me i am your friend i wont tell any one promise
  • malikk
    ay how much is the CIA and banksters paying you ay let me by you a drink i am near langley
  • RedBird
    You write like you've had too many drinks already. But for your information I live in Phoenix, not DC. Maybe next time I'm out there on business I'll look you up!
  • dirtworshipper
    RedBird wrote:
    "The empire state building is a masonry structure, not a steel structure."

    The Empire State Building is in FACT a steel frame building. Read the history of its construction at below link. RedBird, in order to maintain plausible condescension, you might want to check your FACTs a little better.


    http://www.constructioncompany.com/historic-con...
  • RedBird
    Looks like my estimates were a little conservative. Read up on this:

    http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0...

    I especially like the line:

    "Furthermore, the Empire State Building is a REINFORCED MASONRY STRUCTURE in which the structural steel beams are encased within limestone walls or slabs of concrete 8 inches (20 cm) thick. This heavy mass provides exceptional fire protection that insulates the steel within from excessive heating. "
  • RedBird
    Steel framed, yes, but Masonry makes up a bulk of the building and covers the facade.

    What about the argument of momentum?
    B-25 Max load = 41k lbs
    B-25 Max fuel = 900 gallons
    B-25 Max speed = 275mph

    767 Max Weight = 450k lbs (10x greater)
    767 Max fuel = 23,980 gallons (26x greater)
    767 Cruise speed = 580mph (2x Greater)

    The law of momentum is p=mv or Momentum = mass times velocity

    B-25 is 11.275m
    767 is 261m or over 23x greater

    SO, the 767 hit with 23x greater momentum than the B25 and delivered 26x more fuel to the impact zone.

    You are comparing a Condor with a Mosquito here. A b-25 could not do near the damage as a 767.
  • malikk
    redbird you must be CIA you have answers for everything what did there do write you a computer program , anyway i am glad you are on here that means we have your masters worried there asses may be arrested
  • RedBird
    Sorry math is hard for you to comprehend. I have answers for most things because there ARE logical answers to most things presented by truthers.

    Oh and I'm not CIA, but thanks again for fulfilling the stereotype of a truther. Long on wind, long on ad hominem, short on facts.
  • scarborrough
    RedBird wrote: "That's a lie. We knew at least a year ahead they were investigating WTC7."

    Not a lie. We were told that there was an investigation at least three years previous. In the absence of solid evidence we could not know for sure if that was true until the final report came out. My point was that technical investigations tend, by nature, to be out of public view and would run little risk of opening old wounds.
  • RedBird
    Actually they gave us a release date quite some time before it came out. Also, I believe you said you wanted technical investigations to be IN public view, correct? At least most truthers would want that. But that also invites every cockamamie explanation and what if scenario known to truthers to come out of the woodwork and would never produce anything of real substance. Honestly, it would be nothing short of a circus.

    How about this, bring forth some material experts. I mean actual material experts, not a cold fusion scientist, or a guy who built high school gymnasiums, I'm talking about true metallurgists, true demolition experts, true structural engineers and have them ask the questions, look at the evidence, and come to a firm concolusion about whether the NIST investigation is flawed.

    And I'm talking about real peer-reviewed by an accredited U.S. authority type of private investigation, vet these guys so we know they aren't government workers or affiliated with the truther movement, and see what conclusions they come to.

    It won't cost the government 80m to do.
  • steria
    If the Earth was created in 6 days, then two airplanes brought down the towers. The people who believe this are the same ones who don't understand gravity.

    Life is too hard for some people.
  • malikk
    will everyone please ignore this motherfucker redbird please
  • RedBird
    Why, because my questions make you feel uncomfortable? Are you so afraid of being proven wrong you'd rather converse with those who agree with you rather than those who dissent from your ranks?

    And I love the additional ad hominem. That will keep the masses listening, I assure you.
  • scarborrough
    RedBird wrote-
    "The reason for the collapses have been investigated."

    That is the point of contention.

    "Those results have been peer-reviewed."

    By whom?

    "We've already wasted millions of our money and 8 years on this."

    Only if the answers were predetermined.

    "Reopening that investigation will just serve to keep the wounds open and nothing more."

    All the technical investigations to date were conducted entirely out of public view. We were not even sure NIST was carrying out its investigation into building 7 until they published their report.

    "Investigate the real unanswered questions: Why did our government ignore the warnings."

    These are the kinds of question, involving public testimony, that would be likely to open old wounds. But ultimately, a thorough report may heal more wounds than it opens. The only thing that we can hope is that if there is culpability that is identified and properly judged within the lifetimes of those involved the chances of such a disaster happening again will be greatly reduced. That is why I am interested in this.
  • RedBird
    ""The reason for the collapses have been investigated."

    That is the point of contention."

    Not in my eyes. The NIST wasn't formed to rebuke the Truther movement, it had the task of explaining how and why the towers fell. They were not tasked with looking for thermite specifically but what the most likely explanation for total failure was. I believe with the body of scientific evidence in favor of the NIST investigation, their explanation of "How" is sufficient.

    ""We've already wasted millions of our money and 8 years on this."

    Only if the answers were predetermined."

    If the answers were predetermined, then why do truthers ascertain the official story has changed over the years (even though there has only been one "Official" story)
  • RedBird
    "We were not even sure NIST was carrying out its investigation into building 7 until they published their report."

    That's a lie. We knew at least a year ahead they were investigating WTC7.
  • scarborrough
    RedBird wrote: "You want to launch an investigation? Ok. Find out why Bush ignored the 9/11 warnings. Find out why the FBI was told to stop investigating flight schools."

    You have evaded my question. You give perfectly reasonable reasons why there should be an investigation. So what if it goes down a lot of false paths in the process? That is what thorough investigations do. If a lot of silly notions help to bring about an investigation isn't that ultimately a good thing?

    Why do you want there NOT to be an investigation?
  • RedBird
    scarborrough, you seem like one of the more reasonable people on this site, but read some of the fanaticism here. It's religion to some of these people. The reason for the collapses have been investigated. Those results have been peer-reviewed. We've already wasted millions of our money and 8 years on this.

    Those that want to believe the events of 9/11 were initiated by our government will never go away. They cannot be reasoned with. Watching Jones and Gage try to avoid direct evidence a few weeks ago was proof enough that those who want this conspiracy to be true will stop at nothing to perpetuate the myth.

    Reopening that investigation will just serve to keep the wounds open and nothing more. It will serve no additional purpose.

    Investigate the real unanswered questions: Why did our government ignore the warnings.
  • jones321
    also hitting the web is the ruskies don't have hitlers remains......the dna doesn't match......flip a coin to where he was....North or South America. by the looks of the ruthless cartel i'd say he's here.
  • CadGuy
    Anyone who believe that b.s. about 19 cavedwellers with box-cutters is a non-thinking Dittohead.

    Oops - that means that half this country are non-thinking Dittoheads.

    Ever wonder how that last airliner flew around for two hours after the first plane hit? Still hit the Pentagon despite Andrews Air Force Base Being only 10 minutes away BY CAR?

    911 & Anthrax Attacks = Inside Job
  • RedBird
    I could say the same thing about anyone who believes that two buildings three times the mass of the largest building ever demoed could be brought down with "Military precision" even though an airplane impact and raging fires could have destroyed the very systems intended to fire off the demo charges.
  • scarborrough
    RedBird wrote: "Ok, you just made a major contradiction. First you are claiming there was a script. And now the script said that the reporter mentioned it was a demo???"

    No contradiction. I was talking hypothetically. The example given presumes that not everyone was in the loop for reasons of trust, not to mention foul-ups and oversights. Whatever those who were not in the loop might say would be taken care of on follow-up. A lot of very important events and observations were broadcast on the first day then never mentioned again. Everyone was in a fog the first day. It the was the analysis in the MSM in the days and weeks that followed that formulated public perception. Once that had cured even Sunjata's fictional outpouring could be tolerated, if necessary.

    You obviously want there NOT to be an investigation. Why?
  • RedBird
    "You obviously want there NOT to be an investigation. Why?"

    Again, people stating something is obvious when in reality it is not.

    You want to launch an investigation? Ok. Find out why Bush ignored the 9/11 warnings. Find out why the FBI was told to stop investigating flight schools.

    Stop wasting your time on this rube-goldberg type plot.

    And your rebuttal to the "Script" ultimately proves nothing. I've offered accounts from firemen and video of firemen who knew building 7 was going to collapse due to structural failure over an hour before it collapsed. Pretty easy for the BBC to mess that up because they didn't know WTC7 from WTC6 or WTC5, they just got flooded with all sorts of information.

    But it was clear from those on the ground that WTC7 was buckling, there was a 20 story gash on the front, and its collapse was imminent, which is why they "Pulled" their men out of the area.
  • NEO
    REDBIRD IS LITTERING THE SITE WITH STRAWMEN AND BECAUSE OF HIS MADE UP 'NEW' PHYSICAL LAW THEORY, HE WILL GO along WITH THE UNITED STATES, THE WAY OF THE DO DO BIRD. Protect the US . Stand up for the constitution which the banksters have thrown away, and investigate 911, before the US becomes a fascist dictatorship. Hitler staged the Reichstagg Fire to invade Poland. Johnson staged the Gulf of Tonkin to go to war. It happens all too often, and 911 was staged to manipulate public opinion for endless war and US hegemony around the world. If you aren't getting it, start paying attention before it's too late. FALSE FLAG ATTACKS ARE NOT NEW. And yes Red Bird you can be grown up and admit it's true. THEY LIED again, and again....how many more times before you get it???
  • RedBird
    "FALSE FLAG ATTACKS ARE NOT NEW. And yes Red Bird you can be grown up and admit it's true."

    Neo, I want to introduce something to you. It's called Reading.

    I've already stated MULTIPLE times on here I do believe the U.S. government has initiated or planned false flag attacks in the past. Even as far back as the U.S.S. Maine. 100% agree. I even think it's possible Bush just ignored the Memo and allowed the attack to happen.

    That does NOT prove that the government launched the attack.
  • donofcali
    New York politicians to New York citizens: "We choose to deny you your democratic right to initiative on this subject".

    The Plutocracy is a bit sensitive to this topic.
  • NEO
    REDBIRD HAS TAKEN OVER THIS THREAD WITH NOTHING BUT STRAW MEN EVERYWHERE. Wake up People. 911 was an inside job.

    Redbird speaks of Nanothermite. BS to the comment that there is a chain of custody in the Nanothermite testing. People from 4 locations gathered dust to give them to researchers. End of story. NIST has yet to test their own dust? Why won't they? Because they're afraid to.

    Redbird's other statements are only those he thinks he has arguments for and his arguments ARE PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. You only need grade 7 physics to see that buildings can't fall in 9 seconds or 12 seconds. It should have taken a lot of time for the buildings to fall if each floor was in the way of the ones above it as they fell. You only need to remember THE GAME JENGA to know that buildings don't fall through the PATH OF MOST RESISTANT. So these buildings were clearly exploding all the way down. REDBIRD can't handle that idea so his cognitive dissonance kicks in and comes up with all sorts of excuses to make his 'world view' match up with what he thinks he is seeing.

    So where are the pancaked floors at the bottom? How did the concrete turn to dust? Where did all that explosive energy come from? And the pools of lava in the basement were real enough and how did the fires get hot enough to melt steel in the first place? You need oxygen to burn things so where did it come from? Water he says....yeah right. Now when you spray water on a fire it gets hotter. Damn those stupid FIREMEN!!

    And what about Building 3, 5 and 6 which were heavily damaged but never collapses. THINK YOU IDIOTS. REDBIRD IS THROWING OUT GARBAGE AND MAKING IT SOUND PLAUSIBLE. He's making up a whole new law of physics just like Bush. LOL. And you people are falling for it.

    911 NEEDS TO BE INVESTIGATED NOW.
blog comments powered by Disqus