Actor Charlie Sheen Questions Official 9/11 Story

[K1052]

Originally posted by: CptFarlow

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: CptFarlow

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: CptFarlow

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
CptFarlow,

One of the videos/papers posted showed that different floors fell at different speeds. The first floor collapsed slowly, and then they progressivly collapsed faster as it fell apart.

And do you really believe that fire did all of that?

Intertia and basic physics says.


Yes.

Then explain to me how these are the only three steel-reinforced buildings in history to fall from fire. The fires in both towers had gone out well before they collapsed. When you see black smoke you know that a fire is either going out or starving for oxygen. I cannot stress it enough. The jet fuel burnt off within the first few seconds, and the rest within the first ten minutes. Are you telling me that furniture, carpeting, and office supplies was hot enough to melt steel? Steel doesn't melt until it is heated well above 2800 degrees Celsius.

What about the tapes of the firefighters radio transmissions. At one point, a firefighter found "two isolated pockets of fire," and that he "should be able to knock it down with two lines." If the fires were hot enough to melt steel and collapse a 110-story building, why was he certain he could put it out?

Remember, there was 200,000 TONS of steel in each of those building. I just don't get how somebody can really believe that fires could melt any of it.

Think about this. Who was in charge of cleaning up after the disaster? Controlled Demolition. What happened to all of the debris? By May 2002 it was shipped off to other countries and destroyed. That was ILLEGAL! In essense, they cleaned up a crime scene and destroyed ALL OF THE EVIDENCE.

Lastly, why were none of the black boxes found? They are made out of the most resilient materials know to man, yet they weren't recovered. (Despite one firefighter saying otherwise.) While the black boxes were "destroyed in the disaster," the passport of the "hijacker" was found. Do you really believe that a PAPER passport could survive that?

I coud go on and on...

I'm sure you could.


You don't have to liquify all the steel in a skyscraper to make it collapse. Long before it liquifies it becomes brittle. When it is brittle, it loses most of its strength.

Explain to me any other examples of fully fueled airliners crashing into the sides of 60+ floor buildings. These are unique events.

As for objects being destroyed, did you see any of the info on the vaults within the buildings? These were high security VAULTS. All the fragile contents were destroyed. Now, depending on where the passport was, it could have survived. Paper is really only vulnerable to fire. You can drop 100 tons on a stack of paper and it would be fine. Do the same to a black box and it probably won't.

Yes steel obviously loses strength when it is heated. But again, the fires couldn't have gotten hot enough to do that. Those fires were out long before the towers collapsed. Yes, it's in the movie, but it is the perfect example.

How do you explain the damage to the lobby? The marble walls were cracked and windows were broken. There were bodies of dead and injured people. Did the plane do that? No. Did a fireball come down the elevator shaft and blow out the door? No. They are airtight. Even if they were punctured, I highly doubt a fireball could retain enough oxygen to fall over 80 floors and blow the windows off the lobby below. Why can you hear distinct explosions in countless eyewitness videos. Why are there explosions coming out well below the destruction wave. Why did it all collapse at once? Why was every other building being told to evacuate when people in the South tower were told that there was a fire in the North tower, and that they could go back to their desks or go home? Why did one WTC employee hear two distinct blasts, from two distinct directions? These are vital questions that need to be answered.

As far as the passport...hold on. You need to hear what you are saying. You are telling me that a paper passport survived that massive fireball explosion and just happened to land on the streets of New York so that we could identify who did this? Well how nice of him! He even fire-proofed it and everything!:roll:

Somebody mentioned that I speak a lot of Loose Change. Yes, that was what I first saw when I began doing this research. I didn't believe it either. But when you look at all the evidence, it gets a point where I just can't deny it. This is the only explanation that makes sense.

Why would they do this? It's simple. If you had bothered to watch Loose Change, or do any research for yourself, you would have come across Operation Northwoods. Approved by JFK, it was a campaign to destroy planes over Cuba, sink ships, attack marines, and incite riots, among other things. This is just like Hitler, burning the Reichstag building and blaming it on the communists. It has been proven that FDR knew about the attacks on Pearl Harbor. He used that to gain support for his war with Hitler.

You know that it has been done throughout history, but are you going to notice it when it happens again? To sum up motive: oil. To be a bit more complex, Problem Reaction Solution

It works out perfectly...they blow up some buildings, we demand an action, they reaction with their "solution" of reduced liberties in exchange for protection from "terrorism." Which in reality is better well put as "scarism." What has 9/11 done? It has given this administration the chance to invade Iraq. While that specific leader isn't somebody I would want to have as my neighbor, we went their for false reasons, for a false attack on the American people. The Patriot Act, which Congress was not allowed to read, is another example of the noose tightening around the American people.

Did you know that many of the hijackers turned out to be alive.

And ya know...it's funny to note that Flight 93 and Flight 175 were just cancelled as of 09/28/2005.

That should be enough. Look, I don't really have anything to gain from believing this or any other side. I didn't even lose direct friends or family in the events of 9/11, but I care enough about those who died from that and the resulting war in Iraq to fight to find the truth.

The fire was certainly not out by the time of the collapse. You might remember all the smoke still coming out of the building.

As has been pointed out umpteen times in this very thread, the construction of WTC1 and WTC2 was far different than the conventional steel girder box that was used in almost every other sky scraper. Long, relatively light, trusses gave support to the floor and were conntected to the exterior wall and interior core. The result was a massive open space that was more attractive to potential renters. The Madird fire cannot be used to compare the effect of fire on buildings with completely different designs, also that building was structurally intact at the time of the fire anyway. It is not correct to say the collapse happened all at once. Certainly some parts of the structure (certain trussed depending on proximity to the fire and heating) gave out before others, but the stucture was able to take the additional loads due to the saftey margin engineered into the building. Eventually, the additional stresses added up and the exterior columns in the compromised area buckled away from the building and snapped.

The crash breached utility risers along with some of the elevator shafts and stairwells. Burning fuel got into some of these and fell to lower floors (even the basement) starting fires.


I would argue that you have little interest in "finding the truth" since you mind appears to be made up you have little interest in even hearing the arguments against your position (evidenced by not reading the thread). I agree that there are still some questions that need answering, but I think I trust real accredited engineers more than a bunch of paranoid people on the intraweb.

 

[BrokenVisage]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: CptFarlow

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: CptFarlow

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: CptFarlow

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
CptFarlow,

One of the videos/papers posted showed that different floors fell at different speeds. The first floor collapsed slowly, and then they progressivly collapsed faster as it fell apart.

And do you really believe that fire did all of that?

Intertia and basic physics says.


Yes.

Then explain to me how these are the only three steel-reinforced buildings in history to fall from fire. The fires in both towers had gone out well before they collapsed. When you see black smoke you know that a fire is either going out or starving for oxygen. I cannot stress it enough. The jet fuel burnt off within the first few seconds, and the rest within the first ten minutes. Are you telling me that furniture, carpeting, and office supplies was hot enough to melt steel? Steel doesn't melt until it is heated well above 2800 degrees Celsius.

What about the tapes of the firefighters radio transmissions. At one point, a firefighter found "two isolated pockets of fire," and that he "should be able to knock it down with two lines." If the fires were hot enough to melt steel and collapse a 110-story building, why was he certain he could put it out?

Remember, there was 200,000 TONS of steel in each of those building. I just don't get how somebody can really believe that fires could melt any of it.

Think about this. Who was in charge of cleaning up after the disaster? Controlled Demolition. What happened to all of the debris? By May 2002 it was shipped off to other countries and destroyed. That was ILLEGAL! In essense, they cleaned up a crime scene and destroyed ALL OF THE EVIDENCE.

Lastly, why were none of the black boxes found? They are made out of the most resilient materials know to man, yet they weren't recovered. (Despite one firefighter saying otherwise.) While the black boxes were "destroyed in the disaster," the passport of the "hijacker" was found. Do you really believe that a PAPER passport could survive that?

I coud go on and on...

I'm sure you could.


You don't have to liquify all the steel in a skyscraper to make it collapse. Long before it liquifies it becomes brittle. When it is brittle, it loses most of its strength.

Explain to me any other examples of fully fueled airliners crashing into the sides of 60+ floor buildings. These are unique events.

As for objects being destroyed, did you see any of the info on the vaults within the buildings? These were high security VAULTS. All the fragile contents were destroyed. Now, depending on where the passport was, it could have survived. Paper is really only vulnerable to fire. You can drop 100 tons on a stack of paper and it would be fine. Do the same to a black box and it probably won't.

Yes steel obviously loses strength when it is heated. But again, the fires couldn't have gotten hot enough to do that. Those fires were out long before the towers collapsed. Yes, it's in the movie, but it is the perfect example.

How do you explain the damage to the lobby? The marble walls were cracked and windows were broken. There were bodies of dead and injured people. Did the plane do that? No. Did a fireball come down the elevator shaft and blow out the door? No. They are airtight. Even if they were punctured, I highly doubt a fireball could retain enough oxygen to fall over 80 floors and blow the windows off the lobby below. Why can you hear distinct explosions in countless eyewitness videos. Why are there explosions coming out well below the destruction wave. Why did it all collapse at once? Why was every other building being told to evacuate when people in the South tower were told that there was a fire in the North tower, and that they could go back to their desks or go home? Why did one WTC employee hear two distinct blasts, from two distinct directions? These are vital questions that need to be answered.

As far as the passport...hold on. You need to hear what you are saying. You are telling me that a paper passport survived that massive fireball explosion and just happened to land on the streets of New York so that we could identify who did this? Well how nice of him! He even fire-proofed it and everything!:roll:

Somebody mentioned that I speak a lot of Loose Change. Yes, that was what I first saw when I began doing this research. I didn't believe it either. But when you look at all the evidence, it gets a point where I just can't deny it. This is the only explanation that makes sense.

Why would they do this? It's simple. If you had bothered to watch Loose Change, or do any research for yourself, you would have come across Operation Northwoods. Approved by JFK, it was a campaign to destroy planes over Cuba, sink ships, attack marines, and incite riots, among other things. This is just like Hitler, burning the Reichstag building and blaming it on the communists. It has been proven that FDR knew about the attacks on Pearl Harbor. He used that to gain support for his war with Hitler.

You know that it has been done throughout history, but are you going to notice it when it happens again? To sum up motive: oil. To be a bit more complex, Problem Reaction Solution

It works out perfectly...they blow up some buildings, we demand an action, they reaction with their "solution" of reduced liberties in exchange for protection from "terrorism." Which in reality is better well put as "scarism." What has 9/11 done? It has given this administration the chance to invade Iraq. While that specific leader isn't somebody I would want to have as my neighbor, we went their for false reasons, for a false attack on the American people. The Patriot Act, which Congress was not allowed to read, is another example of the noose tightening around the American people.

Did you know that many of the hijackers turned out to be alive.

And ya know...it's funny to note that Flight 93 and Flight 175 were just cancelled as of 09/28/2005.

That should be enough. Look, I don't really have anything to gain from believing this or any other side. I didn't even lose direct friends or family in the events of 9/11, but I care enough about those who died from that and the resulting war in Iraq to fight to find the truth.

The fire was certainly not out by the time of the collapse. You might remember all the smoke still coming out of the building.

As has been pointed out umpteen times in this very thread, the construction of WTC1 and WTC2 was far different than the conventional steel girder box that was used in almost every other sky scraper. Long, relatively light, trusses gave support to the floor and were conntected to the exterior wall and interior core. The result was a massive open space that was more attractive to potential renters. The Madird fire cannot be used to compare the effect of fire on buildings with completely different designs, also that building was structurally intact at the time of the fire anyway. It is not correct to say the collapse happened all at once. Certainly some parts of the structure (certain trussed depending on proximity to the fire and heating) gave out before others, but the stucture was able to take the additional loads due to the saftey margin engineered into the building. Eventually, the additional stresses added up and the exterior columns in the compromised area buckled away from the building and snapped.

The crash breached utility risers along with some of the elevator shafts and stairwells. Burning fuel got into some of these and fell to lower floors (even the basement) starting fires.


I would argue that you have little interest in "finding the truth" since you mind appears to be made up you have little interest in even hearing the arguments against your position (evidenced by not reading the thread). I agree that there are still some questions that need answering, but I think I trust real accredited engineers more than a bunch of paranoid people on the intraweb.

The fire is irrelevent here, it's simply impossible for fire to cause all 3 of the WTC buildings to collapse on themselves. First of all, a large portion of the jet fuel sprayed out of the planes and away from the building on impact, so whatever fuel remained couldn't have been enough to cause a crippling fire.

You're right about the Madrid tower fire incident though, you can't conclusively compare two buildings that weren't constructed the same way. The WTC buildings were built in the 60's though and were made with steel support beams to prevent it from collapsing in the event of a plane crashing into it. I realize these are huge planes going at incredible speeds into one of the tallest man-made structures there were, but if the towers didn't go down initially they shouldn't have gone down at all. Not enough fuel burning, not burning hot enough, and both buildings came down the same exact way, the only deviation was the time in which they came down.

I'm not a Bush basher and I'm not just looking for a reason to root against the Republician party. I voted for him in 2000 when I just turned 18 because I thought he could do a better job than Gore. But now think the Bush family is too scary, manipulative, and powerful to hold office as many times as they did. W's Dad was totally interested in the Middle East obviously, and now his son is following suit. I don't know how involved they were in these attacks, but too many things are adding up to suggest they had no part in it at all, and that my friends is reason enough to not trust them if you ask me.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: CptFarlow

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CptFarlow
I haven't been able to read the entire thread...but has anybody actually looked at how long it took the towers to fall? They each took about 10 seconds to fall. Let's assume that the official "pancake theory" actually happened. That means that one floor fell onto the next, causing a chain reaction. If that were the case, then there would be a delay between each floor being hit, and the energy being transfered to the next. That is not the case on 9/11. The towers fell at about 30 floors per second. That is nearly freefall speed!

Your assumption is inaccurate. The floors were not independent. Each was connected to each other. The force of each floor falling would create stresses that would radiate through to every floor below it. Imagine a house of cards.

You are right...they were all connected, but the fact remains that they fell at nearly freefall speed. Steel and concrete cannot fall through other steel and concrete without slowing down. If one of the people in the window dropped a steel beam out of the window, it would hit the ground in about the same amount of time that the tower fell.

Do yourself a favor and look up "pyroclastic flow."

Take a cardboard box. Jump on it. Did it crumple at freefall speeds? Yes, of course it did. When you have a HUGE weight on top of something that can't support it, it will collapse very rapidly. Skyscrapers are designed in a way that they will stay together up to a point and then collapse. They don't normally "partially" collapse, expecially in the case of the larger ones.

Your anology does not take into account gravity nor mass (carboard weighs what compared to you even if you are only 90lbs soaking wet?).

In other words. Bullsh!t.

Do you come up with these or is there someone writing it down for you?

Basic law of inertia, stand on the corners of a cardboard box, it might hold you up, jump just 3 inches into the air and land in the same spot, does it crumple slow or fast?

Its not a tough principle to grasp.

Now take a stack of 100 of those boxes and see how they pancake, at freefall or a number slower than freefall?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: K1052


The fire was certainly not out by the time of the collapse. You might remember all the smoke still coming out of the building.

As has been pointed out umpteen times in this very thread, the construction of WTC1 and WTC2 was far different than the conventional steel girder box that was used in almost every other sky scraper. Long, relatively light, trusses gave support to the floor and were conntected to the exterior wall and interior core. The result was a massive open space that was more attractive to potential renters. The Madird fire cannot be used to compare the effect of fire on buildings with completely different designs, also that building was structurally intact at the time of the fire anyway. It is not correct to say the collapse happened all at once. Certainly some parts of the structure (certain trussed depending on proximity to the fire and heating) gave out before others, but the stucture was able to take the additional loads due to the saftey margin engineered into the building. Eventually, the additional stresses added up and the exterior columns in the compromised area buckled away from the building and snapped.

The crash breached utility risers along with some of the elevator shafts and stairwells. Burning fuel got into some of these and fell to lower floors (even the basement) starting fires.


I would argue that you have little interest in "finding the truth" since you mind appears to be made up you have little interest in even hearing the arguments against your position (evidenced by not reading the thread). I agree that there are still some questions that need answering, but I think I trust real accredited engineers more than a bunch of paranoid people on the intraweb.

The fire is irrelevent here, it's simply impossible for fire to cause all 3 of the WTC buildings to collapse on themselves. First of all, a large portion of the jet fuel sprayed out of the planes and away from the building on impact, so whatever fuel remained couldn't have been enough to cause a crippling fire.

You're right about the Madrid tower fire incident though, you can't conclusively compare two buildings that weren't constructed the same way. The WTC buildings were built in the 60's though and were made with steel support beams to prevent it from collapsing in the event of a plane crashing into it. I realize these are huge planes going at incredible speeds into one of the tallest man-made structures there were, but if the towers didn't go down initially they shouldn't have gone down at all. Not enough fuel burning, not burning hot enough, and both buildings came down the same exact way, the only deviation was the time in which they came down.

I'm not a Bush basher and I'm not just looking for a reason to root against the Republician party. I voted for him in 2000 when I just turned 18 because I thought he could do a better job than Gore. But now think the Bush family is too scary, manipulative, and powerful to hold office as many times as they did. W's Dad was totally interested in the Middle East obviously, and now his son is following suit. I don't know how involved they were in these attacks, but too many things are adding up to suggest they had no part in it at all, and that my friends is reason enough to not trust them if you ask me.

*snip to avoid too much nesting*

The jet fuel mainly acted as an accelerant (burned off in the first few minutes) for multiple floors of office contents. The fire did not have to reach hot enough to melt the steel, just hot enough to weaken it and combined with the temperature variations in the truss structure (steel warps and deforms under uneven heating adding additional stress) to break the connections with the outer wall.

The 757 was much larger and had a greater fuel load than the standard 707 at the time of construction, meaning more damage and more fire spread over a larger area. One of the things not anticipated in the original design was the relative fragility of the fire insulation applied to the steel. Much of it was likely damaged or removed near the area of impact. Also, the crash had the practical effect of destroying the sprinkler system so the fire was allowed to burn unhindered.

 

[CptFarlow]

Those fires were most certainly out.

When you make a fire and let it burn, when the fire goes out, does the smoke just stop coming up, too? No. It continues to smolder. But it doesn't matter. If you won't bother to do the research yourself, than there is no point in even talking to you. I've looked at both sides. I've believed the lies our Governement has told us for years, and I won't anymore. There are waaayyyy too many unanswered questions, even more about the Pentagon and Shanksville. If the governement has nothing to hide, why has there been so much coverup?

As far as the fire going down the elevator shaft, it is highly unlikely that any fuel made it to the shaft. Most of it was burnt up on impact. Second, you never explained why there were different explosions heard from different people. Even the firefighters describe everything as a controlled demolition.

I am searching for the truth. What else would I want? Maybe I can't make a big difference, maybe the people that did this will never be found, but I know that it wasn't Bin Laden's idea.

If you really care, you will do your own research. While videos are important and helpful at compiling evidence in a single dose, linking it together logically, researching sources and finding your own information is the best thing to do. In the past week I have sat in front of my computer with my jaw wide open, astounded at what I was looking at.

Just like me, there are countless others, more everyday, who want questions answered. We are trying to protect our Bill of Rights, our Constitution. Oh, wait...defending the Constitution makes me a terrorist.

The noose is tightening around us ever so slowly America, when are we gonna wake up and realize it?

 

[JASANITY]

there was no conspiracy here, only ignorance and stupidity...unless its all an act =)

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: CptFarlow
Those fires were most certainly out.

When you make a fire and let it burn, when the fire goes out, does the smoke just stop coming up, too? No. It continues to smolder. But it doesn't matter. If you won't bother to do the research yourself, than there is no point in even talking to you. I've looked at both sides. I've believed the lies our Governement has told us for years, and I won't anymore. There are waaayyyy too many unanswered questions, even more about the Pentagon and Shanksville. If the governement has nothing to hide, why has there been so much coverup?

As far as the fire going down the elevator shaft, it is highly unlikely that any fuel made it to the shaft. Most of it was burnt up on impact. Second, you never explained why there were different explosions heard from different people. Even the firefighters describe everything as a controlled demolition.

I am searching for the truth. What else would I want? Maybe I can't make a big difference, maybe the people that did this will never be found, but I know that it wasn't Bin Laden's idea.

If you really care, you will do your own research. While videos are important and helpful at compiling evidence in a single dose, linking it together logically, researching sources and finding your own information is the best thing to do. In the past week I have sat in front of my computer with my jaw wide open, astounded at what I was looking at.

Just like me, there are countless others, more everyday, who want questions answered. We are trying to protect our Bill of Rights, our Constitution. Oh, wait...defending the Constitution makes me a terrorist.

The noose is tightening around us ever so slowly America, when are we gonna wake up and realize it?

There are pictures that show the clear glow of interior fires at WTC1 and 2 on multiple floors (most likely even more obscured by the smoke). The site you picked has zoomed out shots taken in bright daylight so of course it isn't going to show up well.

Text

The NIST report on the fire and collapse claims that utility and elevator shafts were indeed breached allowing burning fuel to reach a couple of the sky lobbys and the basement. Go ahead an read their report if you don't belive me.

The sound of "explosions" could have been nearly anything from parts of the structure collapsing to the fires reaching certain combustable materials.

Just because I doubt the validity of a conspiracy theory (espcially one that shifts so much when important points are refuted) doesn't somehow translate into not supporting the Constitution. The fact that you used a RTKBA website as some sort of an argument against me is truely hillarious. I'm about as pro-2nd amendment as you can get.

 

[Slick50]

too funny.

Carlos Esteves won't accomplish 1 thing by his generalized ignorant statement.He changed his name from carlos to Charlie ROFL.

Only positive thing he ever did was get Ginger lynn

 

[Starbuck1975]

And Charlie Sheen is qualified to speak with expertise on the official 9/11 because???

 

[CptFarlow]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
And Charlie Sheen is qualified to speak with expertise on the official 9/11 because???

It's assholes like you that Charlie talked against after his statements were on the air. All everybody is doing is attacking him personally. Nobody wants to actually discuss facts.

As far as the fires from the picture above...if you really believe that those fires like that could bring down two 100-story buildings the same exact way, then you are beyond help. If you do happen to get over your denial...watch this.

You guys aren't even worth it...live in denial all you want...it won't change a thing...

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: CptFarlow

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
And Charlie Sheen is qualified to speak with expertise on the official 9/11 because???

It's assholes like you that Charlie talked against after his statements were on the air. All everybody is doing is attacking him personally. Nobody wants to actually discuss facts.

As far as the fires from the picture above...if you really believe that those fires like that could bring down two 100-story buildings the same exact way, then you are beyond help. If you do happen to get over your denial...watch this.

You guys aren't even worth it...live in denial all you want...it won't change a thing...

The photo I posted showed fire on at least six consecutive floors. Sorry if it refutes your claim that there was no serious fire.

While I can't watch an almost two hour video at work, I'll likely take a look when I get home.

Since the buildings suffered similar damage it is not irrational that they would fail in at least somewhat similar ways. Though, it may appear that the failures were identical the order and speed of component failures was different (you can see that just from the collapse videos) even though they had the same cause.

 

[Starbuck1975]

It's assholes like you that Charlie talked against after his statements were on the air. All everybody is doing is attacking him personally. Nobody wants to actually discuss facts.

Far flung conspiracy theories, advocated by self-righteous Hollywood celebrities with an elevated and inflated sense of self-importance, are not worth discussing.

You guys aren't even worth it...live in denial all you want...it won't change a thing...

To review alleged facts and dismiss them for the crap that they are...that is not denial...it's called an informed opinion.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: bradley

Originally posted by: smut
im not sure if this has been said as I am not reading every post in this huge thread but this guy is taking every comment from the movie loose change verbatim. I thought I was watching the movie again reading the OP on what Charlie said. Go watch loose change, its very interesting and its where Charlie got his shyt from. I love how he didnt even mention the movie after taking every theory they use.

Which probably begs the question: has Charlie Sheen, or any one of the mentioned 'theorists,' ever supplied a motive? It seems a fairly elaborate hoax to precipitate: all of those planes, three separate locations (a fair distance apart,) the major destruction of a premier grouping of real estate, the major destruction of city infrastructure, billions of dollars of devastation in (pretty much) the financial capitol of the world.

Again whom are we indicting of this premeditated act... if not Al Qaeda trained terrorists? Silverstein, Bush, Giuliani, Pataki, the MTA... all of the above?

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event ? like a new Pearl Harbor."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, etc, etc.

Oh, and also the most obvious answer, oil.

Oh of course, we destroyed an international symbol of power for oil, to date we havent got crap of iraq in the way of oil. Hell the majority of our oil doesnt even come from the ME.

You seem to have a problem with grasping simple concepts. Did you even bother reading about PNAC? Rebuilding America's Defenses.

Of course oil is important. It's always been about the oil. It's why the North African campaigns took place during WWII. Secure the oil routes. It's why we had Desert Shield / Storm. Secure the oil. Why do you think we're in Iraq? "WMD's"? "Terrorism"? haha. Saddam didn't order 9/11.

It doesn't matter if most of our oil comes from our side of the hemisphere. By controlling the oil, you control the world / power... along with having the potential to influence the industrial capabilites of most countries under carbon lock-in. You think we'd give a damn about Iran if it wasn't heavily involved in oil? Funny, N. Korea has threatened us with nukes, yet we don't care.

Lmao, N korea has one of the largest standing armies in the world and is heavily backed by china. Thats why we arent over there.

You just missed the entire point. Funny how you won't address PNAC

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
And Charlie Sheen is qualified to speak with expertise on the official 9/11 because???

Because WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition.

 

[CptFarlow]

I wasn't planning on posting anything more at all, but I came upon this and figured you guys might want to have something else to ignore...

But seriously, read it and decide for yourself. He does bring up valid points that need to be looked into. There is no denying that...

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: bradley

Originally posted by: smut
im not sure if this has been said as I am not reading every post in this huge thread but this guy is taking every comment from the movie loose change verbatim. I thought I was watching the movie again reading the OP on what Charlie said. Go watch loose change, its very interesting and its where Charlie got his shyt from. I love how he didnt even mention the movie after taking every theory they use.

Which probably begs the question: has Charlie Sheen, or any one of the mentioned 'theorists,' ever supplied a motive? It seems a fairly elaborate hoax to precipitate: all of those planes, three separate locations (a fair distance apart,) the major destruction of a premier grouping of real estate, the major destruction of city infrastructure, billions of dollars of devastation in (pretty much) the financial capitol of the world.

Again whom are we indicting of this premeditated act... if not Al Qaeda trained terrorists? Silverstein, Bush, Giuliani, Pataki, the MTA... all of the above?

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event ? like a new Pearl Harbor."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, etc, etc.

Oh, and also the most obvious answer, oil.

Oh of course, we destroyed an international symbol of power for oil, to date we havent got crap of iraq in the way of oil. Hell the majority of our oil doesnt even come from the ME.

You seem to have a problem with grasping simple concepts. Did you even bother reading about PNAC? Rebuilding America's Defenses.

Of course oil is important. It's always been about the oil. It's why the North African campaigns took place during WWII. Secure the oil routes. It's why we had Desert Shield / Storm. Secure the oil. Why do you think we're in Iraq? "WMD's"? "Terrorism"? haha. Saddam didn't order 9/11.

It doesn't matter if most of our oil comes from our side of the hemisphere. By controlling the oil, you control the world / power... along with having the potential to influence the industrial capabilites of most countries under carbon lock-in. You think we'd give a damn about Iran if it wasn't heavily involved in oil? Funny, N. Korea has threatened us with nukes, yet we don't care.

Lmao, N korea has one of the largest standing armies in the world and is heavily backed by china. Thats why we arent over there.

You just missed the entire point. Funny how you won't address PNAC

Im not addressing PNAC because everything you are saying just goes in circles, if i address PNAC youll back to molten steel, then planted charges, then "show me precedence of where some specific thing happened the last time a skyscraper was hit by a transatlantic flight". :roll:

You keep thinking your little tinfoil hat story, youve been beat to death in this thread by about 4 dozen people and persist that youre correct, even though youve had to change your tune about 8 times.

 

[MIDIman]

Has everyone forgotten that one of the hijackers was caught and is on trial right now?

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: MIDIman
Has everyone forgotten that one of the hijackers was caught and is on trial right now?

He's a Cheney plant, obviously.

 

[BrokenVisage]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious
You just missed the entire point. Funny how you won't address PNAC

Im not addressing PNAC because everything you are saying just goes in circles, if i address PNAC youll back to molten steel, then planted charges, then "show me precedence of where some specific thing happened the last time a skyscraper was hit by a transatlantic flight". :roll:

You keep thinking your little tinfoil hat story, youve been beat to death in this thread by about 4 dozen people and persist that youre correct, even though youve had to change your tune about 8 times.

He?s not the only one, you must have no idea how big this ?conspiracy theory? is. Boy would I love to live the picket fence life complete with 2-car garage you must live. Where everything must make sense and you can attribute any out-of-the-ordinary situation as an act of God.

Tell me what is so wrong with questioning authority? What is the problem with questioning what we are told when faced with evidence on the contrary? Why can?t you just appreciate the fact that there are people out there who aren?t satisfied with being spoon fed the news from people behind the scenes who want to look good and keep making money? Stop living in the Matrix and start thinking outside the box Acanthus, the world is an imperfect place and tyranny has been a constant throughout history.

Sure, back in 1776 a group of brilliant pioneering minds decided to start a land free of control and over-taxation by drafting the Declaration of Independence. Times have changed and different people run the country now, the Patriot Act all but takes away the freedoms we cherished for 200+ years and there?s only one thing that could have prompted such a defacement to our Bill of Rights: 9/11. Think about it, how many times have you heard someone ask ?How is this guy our President?? when referring to Bush? Both times he won were under much controversy, ever wonder how he even got to the top to earn his party?s support? Political pressure, help from Daddy-dearest, doesn?t it feel like the Bush?s are being grown to rule the country? Three terms as President and six attempts at office between him and his father with Jeb Bush just waiting to pounce in Florida, suddenly ?The Manchurian Candidate? makes a lot more sense.

Look, I?ll level with you and try to see eye-to-eye with your opinion on the matter by asking broad questions about this conspiracy and you tell me if I?m right. Does it sound far fetched to the average American? Yes. Does it seem a little too elaborate that the government sponsored and trained terrorists to do this to our country? Yes. But try to put yourself in the shoes of Bush and look at it like this, he?s under a lot of pressure by some very powerful people, his second-in-command included. If they start whispering in his ear about war and oil, are you going to go along with it, or start vetoing their bills like JFK did and end up like him? The Presidency is a scary position to be in, one none of us could even begin to comprehend, but you have to take the good with the bad and realize that when you command that much power and are ensured of an easy life after office, you can do anything.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Because WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition.

Um...no it wasn't.

There have been no reports of demolition explosions at the base of the WTC towers, or throughout the entire structure, to support this theory.

Let's assume for a moment that the controlled demolitions exploded in vicinity to the floors hit by the hijacked planes. The impact of the planes would severe or destroy the wiring and blasting caps required to set off the explosives, so the explosions would have had to have occurred simultaneous to the plane impact...it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the timing and precision of such a plan leaves far too much room for error.

These conspiracy theories of demolitions have been debunked by civil engineers and demolition experts several times over now.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Because WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition.

Um...no it wasn't.

There have been no reports of demolition explosions at the base of the WTC towers, or throughout the entire structure, to support this theory.

Let's assume for a moment that the controlled demolitions exploded in vicinity to the floors hit by the hijacked planes. The impact of the planes would severe or destroy the wiring and blasting caps required to set off the explosives, so the explosions would have had to have occurred simultaneous to the plane impact...it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the timing and precision of such a plan leaves far too much room for error.

These conspiracy theories of demolitions have been debunked by civil engineers and demolition experts several times over now.

No, no, no. You are missing the point. Not only did they have explosives around the impact points (and knew precisely which floors would be hit), but they placed more explosives all around the building. Then, to make sure it looked really suspicious, they detonated explosives over a long period of time to bring each building down.

 

[0roo0roo]

lol, from the atot thread. goddamned nutters

Originally posted by: noto12ious
Another great video:

The Road to Tyranny

Clinton helped to cover up multiple bombs being found at Oklahoma City.

FBI involvement in '93 WTC bombing.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Because WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition.

Um...no it wasn't.

There have been no reports of demolition explosions at the base of the WTC towers, or throughout the entire structure, to support this theory.

Let's assume for a moment that the controlled demolitions exploded in vicinity to the floors hit by the hijacked planes. The impact of the planes would severe or destroy the wiring and blasting caps required to set off the explosives, so the explosions would have had to have occurred simultaneous to the plane impact...it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the timing and precision of such a plan leaves far too much room for error.

These conspiracy theories of demolitions have been debunked by civil engineers and demolition experts several times over now.

plus common sense. why blow up buildings that don'thave planes flying itno them. it makes no sense. no explosives were required anywhere near ground level to take down the towers anyways. conspiracy theorists require on conspirators being so dumb as to be absurd, yet all the while all knowing and all powerful

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
lol, from the atot thread. goddamned nutters

Originally posted by: noto12ious
Another great video:

The Road to Tyranny

Clinton helped to cover up multiple bombs being found at Oklahoma City.

FBI involvement in '93 WTC bombing.

Yet, you're unable to dispute any of the information because it's all true

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Because WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition.

Um...no it wasn't.

There have been no reports of demolition explosions at the base of the WTC towers, or throughout the entire structure, to support this theory.

Let's assume for a moment that the controlled demolitions exploded in vicinity to the floors hit by the hijacked planes. The impact of the planes would severe or destroy the wiring and blasting caps required to set off the explosives, so the explosions would have had to have occurred simultaneous to the plane impact...it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the timing and precision of such a plan leaves far too much room for error.

These conspiracy theories of demolitions have been debunked by civil engineers and demolition experts several times over now.

plus common sense. why blow up buildings that don'thave planes flying itno them. it makes no sense. no explosives were required anywhere near ground level to take down the towers anyways. conspiracy theorists require on conspirators being so dumb as to be absurd, yet all the while all knowing and all powerful

WTC#7 automatically destroys any argument you have against controlled demolition.
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/video%20archive/wtc-7_collapse.mpa

Where's WTC#7 in the 911 Commission Report? Oops, it's not there.