9/11 Building 7 - Press Release

[marndin]

Press Release

On the 3rd September 2007 Martin Noakes releases his latest song that challenges the official account of 9/11.

This song is an attempt to get a 9/11 Truth song into the charts (during the week of the 11th), and raise awareness of many of the unanswered questions surrounding the events of 9/11.

To hear the song and watch the video visit here: www.911building7.co.uk

Any profit generated by the sale of this recording will be used to fund the 9/11 truth movement and related topics.

This song is currently receiving airplay in America and Canada, and is featured in at least two 9/11 documentaries, including the latest documentary by Dave VonKleist and William Lewis “9/11 Ripple Effect”.

It will be a download ONLY release and will be available from the following stores and in the following countries from the 3rd September 2007 (all sales will count towards a chart position).

iTunes - iTunes U.S. iTunes Australia/N.Z. iTunes Canada
iTunes UK/European Union iTunes Japan
Other Stores - Rhapsody MusicNet Napster eMusic Sony Connect

Contact - martin@911building7.co.uk

Martin Noakes

[albie]

Here's me destroying the Silverstein angle.

Proving that his statement wasn't about demolition and that there WERE fire fighters in the building at the time the command to "pull" was given and that it could mean to empty the building.

http://illusionsforum.jconserv.net/viewtopic.php?t=2387&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

[tinmenace]

Here's me destroying the Silverstein angle.

This is hardly destroying it. It's more like stubborn desperation.

Proving that his statement wasn't about demolition and that there WERE fire fighters in the building at the time the command to "pull" was given and that it could mean to empty the building.

...And then the building miraculously crashed down in a controlled demolition...

http://illusionsforum.jconserv.net/viewtopic.php?t=2387&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=


Wow, you really get along with everyone on that forum too, eh? :)

[albie]

The evidence shows that his statement could have been about emptying the building.

The main evidence about it being to demolish is the notion that there was nobody in the building when he said it. Witness statements by fire men smash that argument.

Hence no evidence at all.

And all you have is the way the building fell.

Not much at all then.

[albie]

And no, people don't like me.

because i tell the truth. And I can spot the flaw in their arguments very easily.

Nobody likes to be shown up as a fool.

So they don't like me.

[tinmenace]

Why empty the building? It wasn't unstable, was it?

[sensimillia]

whatever silverstein meant, is not important. that building was demolished. how? that´s anybodys guess....

[informationx]

Here's me destroying the Silverstein angle.

Proving that his statement wasn't about demolition and that there WERE fire fighters in the building at the time the command to "pull" was given and that it could mean to empty the building.

http://illusionsforum.jconserv.net/viewtopic.php?t=2387&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

I agree with you on Silverstein's comments. Ive always thought the comments were of little consequence.

Whats important is how the building was demolished, and not silly old larrys pull it comment.

[albie]

Unless you can prove that a building couldn't fall like that without it being demolition, there's no debate.

[sensimillia]

Unless you can prove that a building couldn't fall like that without it being demolition, there's no debate.

to have all the interior columns to fail at the same time, and the building to fall in on itself, and a total collapse in 6 seconds, let´s just say it has a very low propability of occuring without explosives. here´s what architects and engineers, some top european controlled demolitions experts and firefighters has to say about it.i know you won´t accept it as proof, albie, but at least it offers the best explanations so far....:)

http://www.ae911truth.org/

[tinmenace]

Unless you can prove that a building couldn't fall like that without it being demolition, there's no debate.

Your reality is your reality and you can reinforce it in any way you choose. :)

[infinitetruth]

He didn't say 'pull' he said 'pull it'. If you were talking about firefighters you would have said 'pull them' not 'pull it'. He was talking about the building plain and simple.

[infinitetruth]

Prove that a building CAN fall like that without being a demolition, Without using 9/11 as an example.

[wwu777]

Did you guys see Martin Noakes 9/11 Building 7 video? It's on YouTube now. I've been sharing it with everyone. It's a beautiful song - well composed and rhymes well too.

9/11 Building 7 - Martin Noakes - YouTube

Also, here's a new video by AE911Truth.org, narrated by Ed Asner, former president of the Screen Actors Guild, featuring experts and engineers about why WTC7 could not have collapsed from fire. It's an airtight case.

Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 - AE911Truth.org - YouTube

[majestic1]

He didn't say 'pull' he said 'pull it'. If you were talking about firefighters you would have said 'pull them' not 'pull it'. He was talking about the building plain and simple.

Exactly, you dont refer to a group of people as "it", 'it" is a term for an inanimate object like a building not a group of humans.

So this is what he meant is it "There were a dozen firefighters still in the building so i decided to pull it out" makes no fucking sense at all.

He WAS referring to tower 7 when he said "Pull it"

[dontdrinkurmilk]

The evidence shows that his statement could have been about emptying the building.

The main evidence about it being to demolish is the notion that there was nobody in the building when he said it. Witness statements by fire men smash that argument.

Hence no evidence at all.

And all you have is the way the building fell.

Not much at all then.

The way the building fell is the most compelling evidence we have to support the cotrolled demo theory, also testimony from firemen and police who claim they were told the building was coming down and to get out of there.

[wispy]

whatever silverstein meant, is not important. that building was demolished. how? that´s anybodys guess....

So you're just guessing then?

[wispy]

The way the building fell is the most compelling evidence we have to support the cotrolled demo theory, also testimony from firemen and police who claim they were told the building was coming down and to get out of there.

And it's compelling because you're reasoning that it is compelling is based on what? Your expertise and your sifting of all the forensics and analyses?

And maybe the firefighters were told to get out because they and others could see the structure was compromised.

[dontdrinkurmilk]

And it's compelling because you're reasoning that it is compelling is based on what? Your expertise and your sifting of all the forensics and analyses?

And maybe the firefighters were told to get out because they and others could see the structure was compromised.

Yes maybe your right maybe the building was comprimised, by fire, but comprimised in such a way it would fall? i dont think so from the research that was done by many engineers, they have come to a conclusion this structure was demolished, i see this research as credible. you may not, see the 9/11 architects and engineers for truth research for yourself if you have not already.

[wispy]

Yes maybe your right maybe the building was comprimised, by fire, but comprimised in such a way it would fall? i dont think so from the research that was done by many engineers, they have come to a conclusion this structure was demolished, i see this research as credible. you may not, see the 9/11 architects and engineers for truth research for yourself if you have not already.

And have you read the evidence from the NIST and other sources explaining how the buildings were compromised by fire.

And you've made your judgement based on upon reasoning through both sets of arguments.

As far as I am aware the overwhelming majority is of engineers and experts in fire that accept official explanation and report although many may quibble over detail.

Please note that unless qualified in it, the vast majority of architects are not experts in structures or their behaviour in fire. They have a good working knowledge of it so they are able to conceive building shapes and integrate it into their designs. The detail structural design and also designing the fire controls both passive and active is down to the experts.

And this is even more the case when it comes to the forensic analyses of collpase and the behaviours of structures in a fire.

[dontdrinkurmilk]

And have you read the evidence from the NIST and other sources explaining how the buildings were compromised by fire.

And you've made your judgement based on upon reasoning through both sets of arguments.

As far as I am aware the overwhelming majority is of engineers and experts in fire that accept official explanation and report although many may quibble over detail.

Please note that unless qualified in it, the vast majority of architects are not experts in structures or their behaviour in fire. They have a good working knowledge of it so they are able to conceive building shapes and integrate it into their designs. The detail structural design and also designing the fire controls both passive and active is down to the experts.

And this is even more the case when it comes to the forensic analyses of collpase and the behaviours of structures in a fire.

I have seen that FEMA and NIST reports, this website is one source i have looked at which i think articlulates my feelings well, please see http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/ it challenges some of the NIST reports theories.

[wispy]

I have seen that FEMA and NIST reports, this website is one source i have looked at which i think articlulates my feelings well, please see http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/ it challenges some of the NIST reports theories.

It seems Jim Hoffman is a website engineer according to Wiki.

Is this person expert enough to comment on and 'peer review' the NIST report in detail?

There are sources for other information here

http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18

Not all of them are from experts and so should be read with that in mind but I find them more 'compelling'.

You've probably seen this already but as an antidote to the Icke Forum level of debate, try this one:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=212725

[dontdrinkurmilk]

It seems Jim Hoffman is a website engineer according to Wiki.

Is this person expert enough to comment on and 'peer review' the NIST report in detail?

There are sources for other information here

http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18

Not all of them are from experts and so should be read with that in mind but I find them more 'compelling'.

You've probably seen this already but as an antidote to the Icke Forum level of debate, try this one:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=212725


No worries, thanks will have a look, I will only deal with facts, if someone whether they are an expert or not, points out a flaw with a supposed fact i will look at that claim. From the numerous engineers in the A AND E for 9/11 truth there are many who are experts in the field required to scrutinise the NIST AND FEMA reports and they have done just that.

[wispy]

No worries, thanks will have a look, I will only deal with facts, if someone whether they are an expert or not, points out a flaw with a supposed fact i will look at that claim. From the numerous engineers in the A AND E for 9/11 truth there are many who are experts in the field required to scrutinise the NIST AND FEMA reports and they have done just that.

Just out of interest. Would you happen to know whether the A&E for 911 truth are a majority or minority opinion about 911 as a proportion A&Es who've looked at this?

[gizmocrystal]

No worries, thanks will have a look, I will only deal with facts, if someone whether they are an expert or not, points out a flaw with a supposed fact i will look at that claim. From the numerous engineers in the A AND E for 9/11 truth there are many who are experts in the field required to scrutinise the NIST AND FEMA reports and they have done just that.

Just watched it on youtube, excellent video, they have experts in all fields!!

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Just watched it on youtube, excellent video, they have experts in all fields!!

Hi glad you founf it of interest.

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Just out of interest. Would you happen to know whether the A&E for 911 truth are a majority or minority opinion about 911 as a proportion A&Es who've looked at this?

Looked at what? U mean the links you have provided?