American facing extradition from Argentina for murder

[orwellian]

A new murder charge is filed. Interpol arrests Sonnenfeld, but Argentina's government refuses to extradite him, citing fears he could be sentenced to death. He receives refugee status, based on his claims that the U.S. government is out to get him because he has proof that top government officials knew in advance of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13811770

Wow. Is that really true that he was granted refugee status because of being a 9/11 whistle blower?

 

[ghost]

Wow. Is that really true that he was granted refugee status because of being a 9/11 whistle blower?

Maybe because the guy is clever,chrismatic,smart and he married very, very well.
His 911 work is not really earth shattering. However, that being said, many of the links to his leaked footage are dead links.

 

[gouchobob]

Another theory is the whole thing is made up by him in attempt to avoid prosecution for a crime he committed. Sounds like the most plausible explanation to me.

As to the JFK assassination conspiracy. Oswald used an old Italian bolt action rifle which you could buy at the time for less than ten dollars, about the cheapest weapon on the market. If it was a vast conspiracy then apparently it was a very poorly funded one. Again the most plausible explanation is that the assassination was carried out by this one guy acting alone.

 

[cabrera]

Another theory is the whole thing is made up by him in attempt to avoid prosecution for a crime he committed. Sounds like the most plausible explanation to me.

As to the JFK assassination conspiracy. Oswald used an old Italian bolt action rifle which you could buy at the time for less than ten dollars, about the cheapest weapon on the market. If it was a vast conspiracy then apparently it was a very poorly funded one. Again the most plausible explanation is that the assassination was carried out by this one guy acting alone.

Are you for real or are you really so gullible to believe all that is written ? Tell me Mr Bob how did Building 7 collapse? It was not touched by a plane and collapsed in 30 minutes? We await your response

 

[esllou]

Are you for real or are you really so gullible to believe all that is written ? Tell me Mr Bob how did Building 7 collapse? It was not touched by a plane and collapsed in 30 minutes? We await your response

you know the planes that are seen from 714 different angles flying into the buildings on that day...did they just HAPPEN to fly into the buildings on the same day the "CIA rigged the whole thing with explosives" or do you buy into the slightly wackier "they were holograms" theory? Or even the "planes were missiles disguised as planes" theory?

 

[orwellian]

As to the JFK assassination conspiracy. [...] Again the most plausible explanation is that the assassination was carried out by this one guy acting alone.

Well if you account for the Zapruder film it's not very plausible. I mean being shot from behind your head should propel forward, not backwards towards where the shot came from. If you somehow think this is still possible, I seriously pity you.

you know the planes that are seen from 714 different angles flying into the buildings on that day...did they just HAPPEN to fly into the buildings on the same day the "CIA rigged the whole thing with explosives" or do you buy into the slightly wackier "they were holograms" theory? Or even the "planes were missiles disguised as planes" theory?

I believe he is referring to WTC7. It was never hit by an airplane. It has nothing to do with the so called "no plane" theory.

 

[citygirl]

Cabrera - 7 WTC collapsed hours after the WTC was hit, not 30 minutes. Quite late in the afternoon/early evening IIRC. It was also heavily damaged during the collapse of 1 & 2 and fires broke out all through the building. The decision was made by mid day to abandon the building because it was unsafe.

So yes, there is a very logical explanation as to the collapse. Burning debris, damaged structure, 10 hours of fires - not exactly hard to figure how how/why it collapsed. Many of the surrounding buildings to the site wound up being condemned and demolished due to damage.

 

[esllou]

I believe he is referring to WTC7. It was never hit by an airplane. It has nothing to do with the so called "no plane" theory.

no, I want to know what he thinks caused 9-11 in general. Or perhaps he believes the twin towers were indeed brought down by the planes we saw...but that WTC7 was its own little conspiracy and was dynamited to oblivion.

 

[orwellian]

So yes, there is a very logical explanation as to the collapse. Burning debris, damaged structure, 10 hours of fires - not exactly hard to figure how how/why it collapsed.

Well not very logical because:

A. There is no precedent of this happening before. There have been numerous high rise buildings, like WTC7, on fire before without collapsing. In fact, the fires in WTC7 was very small compared to The Windsor Building Fire that burnt for over 24 hours, and it still didn't collapse.
B. The building came down in almost free fall speed, which you would only expect to happen with controlled demolition.
C. We have the lease owner on tape admitting that they demolished it.

This pretty much sums it up and why WTC7 is so important:

It doesn't matter how much damage was done to WTC7 by debris or by fire. The fact remains that it fell with the full acceleration of gravity, leaving no gravitational potential energy left to supply any multi-stage collapse; therefore, ALL structural elements, supporting the visible face of the building, still intact just prior to collapse had to fail in unison at initiation, for which the only explanation is controlled demolition. As the following video shows, the law of conservation of energy provides an irrefutable argument that stands on its own. This is why debunkers focus on the amount of damage, which is in fact not a necessary element of this argument. This is why WTC7 is the smoking gun.

 

[esllou]

Well not very logical because:

A. There is no precedent of this happening before. There have been numerous high rise buildings, like WTC7, on fire before without collapsing. In fact, the fires in WTC7 was very small compared to The Windsor Building Fire that burnt for over 24 hours, and it still didn't collapse.
B. The building came down in almost free fall speed, which you would only expect to happen with controlled demolition.
C. We have the lease owner on tape admitting that they demolished it.

I don't want to get into the whole wtc7 thing, but a couple of observations. The building blazed without firefighters for the whole day....that doesn't happen in normal circumstances. At least...I'm led to believe that's what happened.

plus, yes, I think there's a chance they pulled the building as it was becoming unsafe. That doesn't mean Sept 11th dawned with WTC7 filled to the gills with explosives which some crackpots would have you believe.