Actor Charlie Sheen Questions Official 9/11 Story

[msparish]

I watched one of those google videos earlier in the thread (the one where it was said to start watching in the 50 minutes somewhere)...at any rate, psuedo-science at best, magic hand-waving at worst. For example, comparing the near free fall of a building weighing tons and tons to a small piece of iron. Of course the building will fall faster, because it did does not mean the building was falling in a vacuum. Then they completely neglected air resistance in the video of one of the towers to state that pieces from the middle must have had an upwards trajectory. It goes on and on. Someone wasted a lot of time putting that together.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: hondaf17

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: hondaf17

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: moshquerade
how bored are people to think up these conspiracy theories?

hey, the moon is made of cheese. they lied to us all this time. :Q

Actually, the information is overwhelming of a conspiracy. It's why these people have been speaking out for years (There are thousands more):

Former head of Star Wars and air force colonel, Bob Bowman
BYU physicist Steve Jones and Clemson engineering professor Judy Wood
Former high-level Reagan appointee and prominent conservative, Paul Craig Roberts
Former U.S. congressman Dan Hamburg
Former chief labor economist under George W. Bush, Morgan Reynolds
Former high-level intelligence analysts, Ray McGovern and Wayne Madsen (who briefed presidents and vice-presidents)
Former German defense minister Andreas von Buelow,
Former MI5 officer David Shayler
Former Blair cabinet member Michael Meacher

The stupidity of people is laughable. Look at your list above, you claim these people as credible? They are somewhat famous, yes, but credible? Credible in this situation would mean someone knowledgeable about real-world explosives, national security, and building engineers. Reagan Appointee, Congressman, Labor Economists and Blair Cabinet members are clearly not "credible" in this situation. The other ones I would say have a chance of that title.

Anyway, conspiracy theories are not to be unexpected with something like this. To stifle your curiousity, I suggest you read the official 9/11 commission report. Link

It lays out everything so specifically detailed it is amazing. It left no doubt in my mind - I believe they did a fair and unbiased job. Also, someone in this thread posted a link to the google video - half of the quotes are taken out of context. Without the context of the quote there is no validity. I reccomend renting and watching Ladder 49, which disputes everything films like that video and Michael Moore's say about the attacks. Ladder 49 has the actual people with the full interviews and shows you were Moore takes quotes out of context to warp them to say what he wants to say. but I digress, read the commission report, then discuss conspiracy theories.

You linked the 9/11 Commission Report? LMAO.

You do realize that's where all the contradictions arise, right? You realize that book you pointed out is basically the subject of this entire thread, right?

You do realize that report fails to mention WTC7, or numerous explosions which fire fighters have testified to, right? You do realize that reports fails to mention:
Norman Mineta's Testimony was intentionally omitted from all records

You do realize the Commission was formed reluctantly, and its members were specifically chosen by the administration (conflicts of interest) right? The list goes on and on...yet you cite the 9/11 Commission Report as your source? That report has already been ripped to shreds and contradicted on so many levels... there will be much more outrage from the public in the future once more people are exposed to the facts of 9/11/01.

Nice try though...good laughs all around. The list I pointed out isn't credible? Why? Because they've actually looked at the facts that contradict the official story?

"It lays out everything so specifically detailed it is amazing."

Sorry, from someone who's only been studying 9/11 since January of 2006, I'll have to laugh at you for making that statement. So you're saying the Commission report was so specifically detailed, that it forgot to mention the 47 massive central steel columns of both twin towers? or the money trail that led back to CIA companies?

Who has only been studying since January of 2006? Also, I didn't use the report as my "source." The only "source" I had in my entire post (if you want to even call it a source) was my own common sense, in picking out 3 or 4 of those people you listed as "credible" as being anything but.

And yes, I thought the report was extremely well-detailed and it erased any doubt in my mind - that's my own opinion - and I admitted it's the part of my post where I digressed. I merely linked to it and suggested people read it because it contains a wealth of information. I didn't quote it, state facts from it, or do anything besides say I thought it was detailed.

The point of my post was to point out the flaws of your "credible" people, which I see you didn't even bother to refute...

The 9/11 Commission Report well detailed? Haha.
Yeah, I'm the one who's only been looking into 9/11 since January 2006, yet I've already found huge holes in that report. It just shows you haven't done much research on the subject.

The list wasn't credible? Ok, whatever helps you sleep better at night.
Also add Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney to the list.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: K1052

1. Plane hits building
2. Fuel from plane ignites office contents
3. Resulting fire further weakens already compromised structure to the point of failure
4. Building (fire and all) falls down
5. Contents from the rest of the building burn and are insulated by the other rubble
6. Temperatures eventually reach high enough to melt some of the steel

Exactly

Both of you have solved the molten steel mystery that the government hasn't addressed. You need to forward your findings to NIST, FEMA, and the 9/11 Commission.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: K1052

1. Plane hits building
2. Fuel from plane ignites office contents
3. Resulting fire further weakens already compromised structure to the point of failure
4. Building (fire and all) falls down
5. Contents from the rest of the building burn and are insulated by the other rubble
6. Temperatures eventually reach high enough to melt some of the steel

Exactly

Both of you have solved the molten steel mystery that the government hasn't addressed. You need to forward your findings to NIST, FEMA, and the 9/11 Commission.

LMAO. Good one. :thumbsup:

 

[hemiram]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus
There are some parts that can be flat out refuted by common sense in loose change.

A big one, the cell phones dont work at cruise height blah blah blah...

The planes werent flying at cruise height, they were flying under radar.

Since when did this become about Loose Change?
Cell phones? Who knows, the Commission sure didn't investigate.

------------------------------

The molten steel...

The rubble burned for days and couldve easily reached temperatures in the thousands of degrees.
------------------------------

Incorrect. Do your homework... many reports of molten steel. Make that "rivers" of molten steel. Also, it wasn't just days. It was months Jetfuel fires aren't capable of doing that to steel... even NIST admits that.

The "explosions" ahead of the buildings collapse as it fell...

The internal structure couldve failed before the outer structure.
------------------------------

4 large explosions were heard 12 seconds before WTC1 fell...it was even recorded across the Hudson river. The explosions were also big enough to shake a tripod that was filming WTC1. You're also forgetting to factor in many eyewitness accounts of demolition flashes on the lower levels seconds before the "collapse" started at the tops of the buildings. Oh yeah, you're also forgetting secondary devices beind found by police, fire fighters.... and the numerous other explosions that occurred many minutes before the towers fell (explosions powerful enough to "turn" cars, and other explosions which pushed people in the basements "upwards"). Don't forget WTC7, which had all of its central columns knocked out which forced the building to kink inwards, then fell straight down ... explosions can also be heard before WTC7's "collapse". Don't forget the pyroclastic dust clouds from all three buildings.

The towers falling straight down...

Common sense.
-----------------------------

Yeah, that's what usually happens in a controlled demoltion.

Jet fuel only burns at xxxx degrees not hte xxxx degrees it takes to melt steel.

the steel didnt have to melt, it only had to weaken to fail.

Who said the steel didn't weaken? Nobody said that. The point is, jetfuel isn't capable of melting steel, so why were "rivers" of molten steel found at ground zero? Gotcha.

Gotcha?? You got nothing!

There weren't any pools of "molten steel"! This is one of those nonsense things that isn't really possible. Name me one heat source, ONE, that could keep steel molten for any length of time, that doesn't involve invisible rays, or phasers from the enterprise heating it. There wasn't any nuke stuff involved, since there was no radiation. Thermite burns FAST, and it's pretty obvious when it's being used, so that's out, besides that, it would take truckloads of it just to bring the place down in the first place.

No, you aint got nothin', just a bunch ok conspiracy crap posted on kookpages and swallowed by you guys who slept through science class and common sense 101.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: hemiram
Gotcha?? You got nothing!

There weren't any pools of "molten steel"! This is one of those nonsense things that isn't really possible. Name me one heat source, ONE, that could keep steel molten for any length of time, that doesn't involve invisible rays, or phasers from the enterprise heating it. There wasn't any nuke stuff involved, since there was no radiation. Thermite burns FAST, and it's pretty obvious when it's being used, so that's out, besides that, it would take truckloads of it just to bring the place down in the first place.

No, you aint got nothin', just a bunch ok conspiracy crap posted on kookpages and swallowed by you guys who slept through science class and common sense 101.

So basically, you're saying all of the fire fighters + cleanup crews at ground zero....are liars. Smooth!
Fact: Rivers of molten steel were found at ground zero.


Here's more for you to think about:

Explosions occured in the basement levels BEFORE the planes hit:
Video: http://www.911proof.com/resources/innrodriguesisdnsept05snow.wmv

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: hemiram
Gotcha?? You got nothing!

There weren't any pools of "molten steel"! This is one of those nonsense things that isn't really possible. Name me one heat source, ONE, that could keep steel molten for any length of time, that doesn't involve invisible rays, or phasers from the enterprise heating it. There wasn't any nuke stuff involved, since there was no radiation. Thermite burns FAST, and it's pretty obvious when it's being used, so that's out, besides that, it would take truckloads of it just to bring the place down in the first place.

No, you aint got nothin', just a bunch ok conspiracy crap posted on kookpages and swallowed by you guys who slept through science class and common sense 101.

So basically, you're saying all of the fire fighters + cleanup crews at ground zero....are liars. Smooth!
Fact: Rivers of molten steel were found at ground zero.


Here's more for you to think about:

Explosions occured in the basement levels BEFORE the planes hit:
Video: http://www.911proof.com/resources/innrodriguesisdnsept05snow.wmv

They arent intentionally spreading misinformation, they didnt know what they were looking at.

Theres a difference between an inacurrate eyewintess and a fraudulent one.

I am, however, saying that they are wrong.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: hemiram
Gotcha?? You got nothing!

There weren't any pools of "molten steel"! This is one of those nonsense things that isn't really possible. Name me one heat source, ONE, that could keep steel molten for any length of time, that doesn't involve invisible rays, or phasers from the enterprise heating it. There wasn't any nuke stuff involved, since there was no radiation. Thermite burns FAST, and it's pretty obvious when it's being used, so that's out, besides that, it would take truckloads of it just to bring the place down in the first place.

No, you aint got nothin', just a bunch ok conspiracy crap posted on kookpages and swallowed by you guys who slept through science class and common sense 101.

So basically, you're saying all of the fire fighters + cleanup crews at ground zero....are liars. Smooth!
Fact: Rivers of molten steel were found at ground zero.


Here's more for you to think about:

Explosions occured in the basement levels BEFORE the planes hit:
Video: http://www.911proof.com/resources/innrodriguesisdnsept05snow.wmv

They arent intentionally spreading misinformation, they didnt know what they were looking at.

Theres a difference between an inacurrate eyewintess and a fraudulent one.

I am, however, saying that they are wrong.

That's convenient, isn't it? According to you, all of the witnesses who contradict the official story (which would be hundreds at least), are wrong! :roll:

So, are you calling William Rodriguez a liar too? How do explain the explosions underneath him before the planes struck? You realize he has already filed a RICO lawsuit against he government, right?

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: hemiram
Gotcha?? You got nothing!

There weren't any pools of "molten steel"! This is one of those nonsense things that isn't really possible. Name me one heat source, ONE, that could keep steel molten for any length of time, that doesn't involve invisible rays, or phasers from the enterprise heating it. There wasn't any nuke stuff involved, since there was no radiation. Thermite burns FAST, and it's pretty obvious when it's being used, so that's out, besides that, it would take truckloads of it just to bring the place down in the first place.

No, you aint got nothin', just a bunch ok conspiracy crap posted on kookpages and swallowed by you guys who slept through science class and common sense 101.

So basically, you're saying all of the fire fighters + cleanup crews at ground zero....are liars. Smooth!
Fact: Rivers of molten steel were found at ground zero.


Here's more for you to think about:

Explosions occured in the basement levels BEFORE the planes hit:
Video: http://www.911proof.com/resources/innrodriguesisdnsept05snow.wmv

They arent intentionally spreading misinformation, they didnt know what they were looking at.

Theres a difference between an inacurrate eyewintess and a fraudulent one.

I am, however, saying that they are wrong.

That's convenient, isn't it? According to you, all of the witnesses who contradict the official story (which would be hundreds at least), are wrong! :roll:

So, are you calling William Rodriguez a liar too? How do explain the explosions underneath him before the planes struck? You realize he has already filed a RICO lawsuit against he government, right?

Thats ok, everything about your story just happens to fit your little envelope too. Oh, and conveniently, william rodriguez wants you to buy a DVD. :roll:

edit: oh and a book too! :roll:

 

[BrokenVisage]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
They arent intentionally spreading misinformation, they didnt know what they were looking at.

Theres a difference between an inacurrate eyewintess and a fraudulent one.

I am, however, saying that they are wrong.

Big surprise :roll:

They were the ones who went into those buildings and tried to save lives at the risk of losing their own, who are you to say they never saw molten steel before?? Half of them were firefighters and I'd be willing to bet at least a quater of those half have seen molten steel sometime in their life. I mean why else would they ship it OVERSEA's to be melted down unless they had something to hide. The WTC buildings were made in the 60's, there should be support steel beams STILL standing unless the buildings were knocked onto their side or bombs were fastened to the beams. This is a coverup, and you would see that if you'd stop covering up your damn eyes.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: hemiram
Gotcha?? You got nothing!

There weren't any pools of "molten steel"! This is one of those nonsense things that isn't really possible. Name me one heat source, ONE, that could keep steel molten for any length of time, that doesn't involve invisible rays, or phasers from the enterprise heating it. There wasn't any nuke stuff involved, since there was no radiation. Thermite burns FAST, and it's pretty obvious when it's being used, so that's out, besides that, it would take truckloads of it just to bring the place down in the first place.

No, you aint got nothin', just a bunch ok conspiracy crap posted on kookpages and swallowed by you guys who slept through science class and common sense 101.

So basically, you're saying all of the fire fighters + cleanup crews at ground zero....are liars. Smooth!
Fact: Rivers of molten steel were found at ground zero.


Here's more for you to think about:

Explosions occured in the basement levels BEFORE the planes hit:
Video: http://www.911proof.com/resources/innrodriguesisdnsept05snow.wmv

They arent intentionally spreading misinformation, they didnt know what they were looking at.

Theres a difference between an inacurrate eyewintess and a fraudulent one.

I am, however, saying that they are wrong.

That's convenient, isn't it? According to you, all of the witnesses who contradict the official story (which would be hundreds at least), are wrong! :roll:

So, are you calling William Rodriguez a liar too? How do explain the explosions underneath him before the planes struck? You realize he has already filed a RICO lawsuit against he government, right?

Thats ok, everything about your story just happens to fit your little envelope too. Oh, and conveniently, william rodriguez wants you to buy a DVD. :roll:

edit: oh and a book too! :roll:

You're in denial Every single piece of corroborating testimony regarding explosions was omitted by the Warren, er, 9/11 Commission.

I suppose the paramedics are spreading "disinformation" too, right? Paramedic KEVIN DARNOWSKI:

At that time I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/p...egion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110202.PDF

 

[DaShen]

It is very possible that the government directed this attack so that they could have a reason to get political and economic power in the Middle East. Who knows... There are a lot of questions left unanswered.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: noto12ious
They arent intentionally spreading misinformation, they didnt know what they were looking at.

Theres a difference between an inacurrate eyewintess and a fraudulent one.

I am, however, saying that they are wrong.

Big surprise :roll:

They were the ones who went into those buildings and tried to save lives at the risk of losing their own, who are you to say they never saw molten steel before?? Half of them were firefighters and I'd be willing to bet at least a quater of those half have seen molten steel sometime in their life. I mean why else would they ship it OVERSEA's to be melted down unless they had something to hide. The WTC buildings were made in the 60's, there should be support steel beams STILL standing unless the buildings were knocked onto their side or bombs were fastened to the beams. This is a coverup, and you would see that if you'd stop covering up your damn eyes.

Now youre just mixing it all together, no one saw liquid steel while the towers were standing.

Edit: watch loose change, steel melted in skyscrapers when there wasnt even friggin jetfuel involved.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: noto12ious
The 9/11 Commission Report well detailed? Haha.
Yeah, I'm the one who's only been looking into 9/11 since January 2006, yet I've already found huge holes in that report. It just shows you haven't done much research on the subject.

The list wasn't credible? Ok, whatever helps you sleep better at night.
Also add Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney to the list.

OH SNAP!! Not Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney! Not the woman that asked the Saudi Prince who preached anti-Americanism for money when New York refused it. Not the woman whose father spelled out to a reporter why his daughter lost an election by spelling out J-E-W-S on camera! Not the woman who campaign donation list reads like a whose who of Middle Eastern terrorist sympathizers! Not the woman who regularly spouts of insane conspiracy theories! Not the woman who show up hours before the State of the Union address just so she can get an aisle seat to shake the President's hand on camera!

Why, with Charlie Sheen AND Cynthia McKinney on board, your cause is so credible that even I may start turning to your cause.

on the other hand...


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: hemiram
Gotcha?? You got nothing!

There weren't any pools of "molten steel"! This is one of those nonsense things that isn't really possible. Name me one heat source, ONE, that could keep steel molten for any length of time, that doesn't involve invisible rays, or phasers from the enterprise heating it. There wasn't any nuke stuff involved, since there was no radiation. Thermite burns FAST, and it's pretty obvious when it's being used, so that's out, besides that, it would take truckloads of it just to bring the place down in the first place.

No, you aint got nothin', just a bunch ok conspiracy crap posted on kookpages and swallowed by you guys who slept through science class and common sense 101.

So basically, you're saying all of the fire fighters + cleanup crews at ground zero....are liars. Smooth!
Fact: Rivers of molten steel were found at ground zero.


Here's more for you to think about:

Explosions occured in the basement levels BEFORE the planes hit:
Video: http://www.911proof.com/resources/innrodriguesisdnsept05snow.wmv

They arent intentionally spreading misinformation, they didnt know what they were looking at.

Theres a difference between an inacurrate eyewintess and a fraudulent one.

I am, however, saying that they are wrong.

That's convenient, isn't it? According to you, all of the witnesses who contradict the official story (which would be hundreds at least), are wrong! :roll:

So, are you calling William Rodriguez a liar too? How do explain the explosions underneath him before the planes struck? You realize he has already filed a RICO lawsuit against he government, right?

Thats ok, everything about your story just happens to fit your little envelope too. Oh, and conveniently, william rodriguez wants you to buy a DVD. :roll:

edit: oh and a book too! :roll:

You're in denial Every single piece of corroborating testimony regarding explosions was omitted by the Warren, er, 9/11 Commission.

I suppose the paramedics are spreading "disinformation" too, right? Paramedic KEVIN DARNOWSKI:

At that time I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/p...egion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110202.PDF

Again, for the 5th time in this thread, the internal supporting structure of the building likely failed before the outer superstructure, the "explosions" were the floors collapsing.

 

[BrokenVisage]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Again, for the 5th time in this thread, the internal supporting structure of the building likely failed before the outer superstructure, the "explosions" were the floors collapsing.

There were over 100 floors though, wouldn't we hear more than a couple explosions if they were really floors collapsing on themselves? Not to mention we would see the floors collapsing at an angle depending on the side where the plane crashed into each building.

 

[noto12ious]

Do you agree with Charlie Sheen that the U.S. government covered up the real events of the 9/11 attacks?

Yes 84% 43431 votes

No 16% 8350 votes

Total: 51781 votes

 

[skace]

I will add only one thing to this thread. Conspiracy theories exist due to lack of information. There are ones that you cannot rectify because the information is so lacking, like UFOs. But there is no excuse for ones on a recent event such as 9/11. A lack of information in this case is truely a travesty in and of itself.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Again, for the 5th time in this thread, the internal supporting structure of the building likely failed before the outer superstructure, the "explosions" were the floors collapsing.

There were over 100 floors though, wouldn't we hear more than a couple explosions if they were really floors collapsing on themselves? Not to mention we would see the floors collapsing at an angle depending on the side where the plane crashed into each building.

basic physics, no you wouldnt.

You think the towers fell silently? lmao

the 3 distinct "explosions" would be the chain reaction beginning. One floor falls onto the next and stops, then another fails, and another... quickly though momentum and weight is built up to the point where the floors offer nearly no support at all to stop the inertia of the failing floors.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: noto12ious
Do you agree with Charlie Sheen that the U.S. government covered up the real events of the 9/11 attacks?

Yes 84% 43431 votes

No 16% 8350 votes

Total: 51781 votes

Those polls are never, ever, accurate.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious
Do you agree with Charlie Sheen that the U.S. government covered up the real events of the 9/11 attacks?

Yes 84% 43431 votes

No 16% 8350 votes

Total: 51781 votes

Those polls are never, ever, accurate.

Really? You don't say. Still funny...landslide

This QuickVote is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those Internet users who have chosen to participate. The results cannot be assumed to represent the opinions of Internet users in general, nor the public as a whole. The QuickVote sponsor is not responsible for content, functionality or the opinions expressed therein.

 

[EXman]

This is the guy who buys hookers riiiiiiiiight?

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Again, for the 5th time in this thread, the internal supporting structure of the building likely failed before the outer superstructure, the "explosions" were the floors collapsing.

There were over 100 floors though, wouldn't we hear more than a couple explosions if they were really floors collapsing on themselves? Not to mention we would see the floors collapsing at an angle depending on the side where the plane crashed into each building.

basic physics, no you wouldnt.

You think the towers fell silently? lmao

the 3 distinct "explosions" would be the chain reaction beginning. One floor falls onto the next and stops, then another fails, and another... quickly though momentum and weight is built up to the point where the floors offer nearly no support at all to stop the inertia of the failing floors.

interesting...so according to you, "structural failure" caused those explosion sounds...yet they're never mentioned by the Commission. oops!

other explosions were powerful enough to cause earthquake type rumbles and "turn" cars... according to you, it was all due to structural failure. LOL.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Actor Charlie Sheen has joined a growing army of other highly credible public figures...

I guess being a drug/sex addict makes you credible.

Worked for both Bush and Clinton. Point?

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Queasy