‘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...

  • k
    We will tell you what the PROPER subjects to speak of are. You will shut up and know your place. Do NOT speak about 9/11. Citizens are given the correct curriculum for the voting booth. We do not think answering your questions about the deaths of 3,000 in New York is appropriate. Go back to your designated zones and vote Democrat or Republican.

    --- New York's Elite
  • the large kahoona
    Red Bird you have to be a Gov. shill. No one with a shred of common sense can believe the governments fantastic story. Do you have any idea the statistical probability of these ' coincidences' and events happening in one day with a pre fabricated bogeyman? Are you really gullible enough to believe the multi billion dollar most technologically advanced airforce operating in the most protected airspace on earth let passenger jets fly around without one shot fired for nearly 2 hours?
    That passports can survive fireballs? That M Atta can be in 2 places at once, that an investigation at the Pentagram of nearly 2.3 trillion dollars goes up in smoke? Accountants, evidence? Thats ' coincidence'? That close to 200 Israeli agents are busted around this time, the put options, the wars, oh my God my poor sap, don't you have a clue as to whom runs the world? Start doing some critical thinking and get out of that denial you are locked into. A child could figure this out. get past the psych block. We aren't going to make it because people are so easily taken in by things that just don't make sense.
  • RedBird
    How come you can't believe that our president simply ignored a CIA memo warning of an impending attack? Would a "Schill" still promote the fact that there COULD still be a conspiracy? The statistical probablility of the government pulling of a job this big with zero primary witnesses yet the "Truther" leaders are allowed to live? Zero.
  • Redbird: why isn't the corporate media covering the Sibel Edmonds testimony?
  • RedBird
    Dunno, go ask them. I'm not here to argue small points. I know our government is corrupt and I hate George Bush even though I voted for the turd.

    What I am saying is the science behind the theory is a steaming, corn fed pile of cow dung.
  • ignatzfattis
    Boy -I hope New Yorkers are as pissed off as I am about that statement -I guess the city and the court don't believe "we the people" should have so much of a say in our own affairs.
  • TheseThreadsAreRetarded
    Now you are starting to get it.
  • Always question why someone thinks it's their job to go under 9/11 stories to "poo poo" them.
  • jimtoday
    I agree with their ideals, simply to find the truth. I used to think it was all tin hattery, but as a New Yorker here on 9/11, I now believe the real story is way larger than anyone has discussed. Yay Daniel Sunjata, I didn't know you had it in you!
  • texanarch
    Don't respond to the OCT shills. Fuck them. They don't matter. They are a waste of energy.
  • RedBird
    Yeah, ignore the counter arguments. Only discuss the conspiracy theory with those who agree with you. Don't ever look at the other side or else you'll be questioning your own dogma.
  • What is really fascinating is the fact that people like you and Robert can NEVER address any question and answer it. There are over 500 questions unaddressed,and a plethora omitted and/or distorted by the 9-11 Commission. Fools like yourselves seem to think that those in government can do no wrong despite the fact many have gained immensely by the 9-11 debacle.

    First rule of Evidence ALWAYS (except in the case of Oklahoma and 9-11) is WHO GAINED? Who gained is plain to see, unless you're a "two-dimensional" thinker who lacks logic and rational thought processes.

    Here is an easy question for you all:

    If you were standing atop the antenna on the WTC prior to the collapse and there was an airless vacuum tube beside you. No resistance placed upon any object you dropped into it. When the tower began to collapse you dropped a bowling ball into the tube. When all was said and done your feet hit the ground in 9.5 seconds (official collapse time reported by NIST and FEMA) yet the bowling ball hit the ground in 9.1 seconds. How do you account for that given the fact that you had to travel through a billion pounds of concrete and steel and resistance was a physical fact?

    I'm betting you won't be back to respond to this.
  • RedBird
    WRONGO!!!

    I'm BACK!!! Gotta love email.

    Anyhoo, this one is too easy, the NIST did NOT establish an official collapse time. They did establish a time where the first external panels hit the ground. That would be loose debris that DID actually free fall and would expect to hit the ground in 9.5 seconds.

    Watching many collapse videos myself, the actual fall time was between 10 and 12 seconds.

    Now I have a question for you. How does the U.S. military demolish three buildings, all of them larger than the largest building EVER demoed in recorded history, two of them at least three times the mass, set up thousands of pounds of explosives, miles of det cord and wiring completely undetected. And THEN allow those buildings to burn for hours and figure COUNT ON those fires not destroying said det cord and wiring or prematurely set off those explosives?

    See, that's where you lose critical thinkers. The plan is convoluted and unrealistic.

    Why is it truthers cannot just accept that Bush may have just ignored the warning. Why this plan? Why not a simple shred of a memo and know that your just cause for war will be delivered in a matter of months? That's a theory I will buy.

    BTW, I love that your post was copied word for word from a conspiracy theory site.
  • Hologram5
    Well, listen to this, I have done some research and found that the security company that was tasked to secure the towers is owned by an Isreali company. I am sure you have heard about the 5 moussad agents caught downtown manhatten filming this AS IT HAPPENED. How did they know? They had emptyied the towers two weeks prior to the falling for "who knows what" and there were witnesses to this. The Isreali Gov told all their people NOT TO FLY that day. Why? Again, google Richard Gage, he is a professional that does architechture for a living. Why did the building in Bejing that was of the same design burn for 5 days and still stands as skeleton building. Yes I know that jets hit the towers but they hit way up top.
  • RedBird
    "Why did the building in Bejing that was of the same design burn for 5 days and still stands as skeleton building."

    Different design, and it did not suffer massive catastrophic damage. You swept the Jet damage under the rug but that was a significant contributor to the collapse.

    In terms of Israelis, 130 israeli nationals died on 9/11.

    I know about Richard Gage. He was on a 9/11 special recently on I believe the History channel. He tried to debunk a demo of a mock aircraft hitting a mock Pentagon by asking "Did you scale down the speed too?". Um, you don't scale down speed on a scaled down mockup. NASA doesn't scale down wind tunnel airspeed do they? No. Gage is NOT qualified to make any forensic determination whatsoever on the collapse of the world trade center.

    This is the same garbage that Moon Hoaxers use. They throw bits of evidence around that to the layperson makes plausible sense. Yet in the face of scientific fact and true experts, it withers away.

    In terms of the Israeli connection, I really don't care. The forensics of the collapse say enough to me, and all the circumstantial evidence you can find do not add up to an inside job. At least not the way you think it happened.
  • olaffer
    RedBird: "Um, you don't scale down speed on a scaled down mockup. NASA doesn't scale down wind tunnel airspeed do they?"

    What???

    And it is here YOU lose all rational thinkers!

    Build a model and start playing around with feet per second.

    Wanna reconsider your blatant statement?
  • RedBird
    No, I don't wish to reconsider. I'm talking Impact tests, not the aerodynamics of model airplanes. Let me refer you to this 1999 report testing airplane impacts at concrete barriers designed to protect nuclear reactors:

    http://www.iasmirt.org/SMiRT15/J04-2

    The model airplane was 1/7.5 scale, yet they used an impact velocity of 150m/s, or about 330 MPH for the test.

    Unless you believe they were assuming a full size model impact of about 2,500mph (Mach 3.2), I'm quite certain they did not scale down the speed of the impact.
  • RedBird
    No, I don't wish to reconsider it. I'm talking about scaling down impact, not the flight characteristics of a model airplane.

    Read up on the following which is a 1/7.5 scale down crash of a mock airplane into a concrete reinforced structure that is designed to protect nuclear reactors:

    http://www.iasmirt.org/SMiRT15/J04-2

    They used a speed of 150m/s which is roughly 330MPH. Quite a reasonable speed to test an airplane impact at. I know the planes impacted the towers at a higher rate and probably set a new standard for impact tests but this one was conducted in 1999.

    Now to clarify, I personally felt the NatGeo demonstration of the pentagon impact proved nothing either way, but Gage's immediate dismissal of the test based on speed alone is an example of how the so-called "Experts" in the truther movement use public perception of science to dismiss actual science to keep their argument afloat.
  • RedBird
    Anyways, Follow this link:
    http://www.iasmirt.org/SMiRT15/J04-2

    It's describes an impact test of a 1/7.5 scale model aircraft on a concrete structure designed to protect nuclear reactors. The test was conducted in 1999.

    Anyways, they impacted the mock plane at 150m/s, which is roughly 330mph. Doesn't sound like they scaled down the speed, does it?

    Yes, when you are talking about model airplanes, then you need less speed to create lift. But we're talking impact dynamics, so the impact speed needs to be the same so long as the model scaling is consistent.

    BTW, I didn't feel like Nat Geo's pentagon impact test was conclusive of anything. I'm just pointing out that Gage's and Jones' quick kneejerk reactions to find a way to refute evidence is comical. They won't even consider any alternate evidence unless it fits into their hard wired CD scenario.

    These people want to open a new investigation to "Answer Questions". Yet when asked what they thought happened it's. "Oh it's definitely CD under a false flag operation". WTF???? You have a questionable pile of circumstantial evidence and as a scientist have concluded it's a "False flag op"????? You want to investigate questions yet already have a predetermined answer???? That is not science.
  • RedBird
    Must be some kind of truther conspiracy but every time I reply to your post it gets deleted even though I post no profanity. Must be the link or something.

    Anyways I did link a report from the International Association for Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology. They did a test in 1999 where they wanted to predict airplane crashes into walls designed to protect reactors.

    The plane they used was scaled 1/7.5, yet they used a speed of 150m/s, or roughly 330mph.

    Meaning? They did NOT scale speed on an Impact test. There is a HUGE difference in measuring flight characteristics of a model airplane (of course it'll take off slower than a larger plane).

    Of course after Gage's ridiculous cardboard box demonstration, he's the last person on the planet that should point out scaling errors.
blog comments powered by Disqus