Actor Charlie Sheen Questions Official 9/11 Story

[FoBoT]

Explosions do not produce vacuums, they increase pressure.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
I doubt it because you attempt to make up evidence. I started watching the first video that you provide as proof. The second segment (about 20 seconds in) has a History Channel clip about the building's ability to withstand aircraft. Now, if this was not a FUD campaign they would have shown that the video shown goes on to say that it is smaller airliners he was refering to. A larger aircraft creates a much larger problem. Most of the strength of the buildings was in the outside skin. Because it was a very large aircraft that hit, it destroyes a large percentage of the superstructure all on one side. Gee, I wonder if that caused any problems. Let's go the the next part. A reporter is talking about a "suspicious device" that police found. I lived just outside NYC at the time. That entire day there were reports of everything conceivable happening. There were reports that the Washington Mall was burning. I suppose that was covered up too. Next segment, interviews of people saying they felt an explosion. Again, there's little to indicate that it was anything NOT caused by the building collapse.

You consistently say that explosions people were talking about were caused by explosives. In addition to that, you completely ignore the fact that detonating explosives over a thirty minute time period makes zero sense. Why would you slowly detonate small charges over a long period? There's no point in doing so.

Making up evidence? There's no need to make up evidence when there are corroborating eyewitness accounts of explosions going off many minutes before any "collapse" started.

Secondary devices? It wasn't just one department or person reporting secondary devices behind found. NYPD, NYFD, FBI all reported devices beind found...so what happened to the followup investigation? Oh that's right, the investigation dissappeared, and we've never heard a thing about it since 9/11... not one word from any investigative government agency. NIST + The 9/11 Commission won't even admit the explosions into their records. It seems everyone on the ground knew:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4574366633014832928&q=9%2F11+bomb


"Why would you slowly detonate small charges over a long period?"

If you can't figure it out, then that's even more of a reason to repopen the investigation. Personally, I think they detonated explosives over a long period of time to systematically knock out various core columns, especially in the basement... this would eventually weaken carrying capabilities of the 47 core columns... just an opinion. So, it's time for NIST and the Commission to admit these explosions into their records, and actually factor them into the collapse of the buildings. Don't tell me explosions had nothing to do with the collapse. Again, multiple explosions are heard seconds before WTC1's collapse (also WTC2, and WTC7).

Again, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=911+eyewitness
(Time frame 52:50 - 55:10)

Let's find out what those explosions were, since you still have questions about it They've got nothing hide, right?

Oh yeah, let's find out more about the lower level, orange + reddish colored flashes seconds before collapse, too:

Captain Karin Deshore, Batallion 46:

"Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, both going up and down and then all around the building.

I went inside and I told everybody that the other building or there was an explosion occurring up there and I said I think we have another major explosion...

So here these explosions are getting bigger and louder and bigger and louder and I told everybody if this building totally explodes, still unaware that the other tower had collapsed, I'm going in the water."

source: http://www.sfgate.com/gate/pictures/2005/09/10/ga_karin_deshore.pdf

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: skyking
Molten steel, it cracks me up to think this is some sort of damning evidence.

So, go find the official government explanation for the molten steel.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: skyking
Molten steel, it cracks me up to think this is some sort of damning evidence.

So, go find the official government explanation for the molten steel.

Ok, you dont seem to get this.

Enormous fire = metal melting.

Can it get any simpler?

 

[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

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: skyking
Molten steel, it cracks me up to think this is some sort of damning evidence.

So, go find the official government explanation for the molten steel.

Ok, you dont seem to get this.

Enormous fire = metal melting.

Can it get any simpler?

You are incorrect. Fires alone never reached temperatures to melt steel, as even admitted by NIST.

 

[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

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: skyking
Molten steel, it cracks me up to think this is some sort of damning evidence.

So, go find the official government explanation for the molten steel.

Ok, you dont seem to get this.

Enormous fire = metal melting.

Can it get any simpler?

You are incorrect. Fires alone never reached temperatures to melt steel, as even admitted by NIST.

Well appearently it did, because the steel melted. :roll:

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: skyking
Molten steel, it cracks me up to think this is some sort of damning evidence.

So, go find the official government explanation for the molten steel.

Ok, you dont seem to get this.

Enormous fire = metal melting.

Can it get any simpler?

You are incorrect. Fires alone never reached temperatures to melt steel, as even admitted by NIST.

Well appearently it did, because the steel melted. :roll:

Not from fires, as admitted by NIST

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Again, why would they detonate over a long period of time? It does not make any sense. It would have been much easier to do them all at once. There's no logical reason to not detonate them all at once. The only reason they would NOT have detonated them all at once is if they had people running around in the building setting different explosives in order to bring it down. That again is flawed because a whole lot of people would have noticed people running around with explosives.

Once again, explosions seconds prior to collapse are expected. If the building made no noise as it collapsed I would be wondering what happened.

Amazingly, with the hundreds of cameras pointed in the direction, not a single one captured any major explosions.

Any by the way, yes, that video was making up evidence.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
Again, why would they detonate over a long period of time? It does not make any sense. It would have been much easier to do them all at once. There's no logical reason to not detonate them all at once. The only reason they would NOT have detonated them all at once is if they had people running around in the building setting different explosives in order to bring it down. That again is flawed because a whole lot of people would have noticed people running around with explosives.

Once again, explosions seconds prior to collapse are expected. If the building made no noise as it collapsed I would be wondering what happened.

Amazingly, with the hundreds of cameras pointed in the direction, not a single one captured any major explosions.

Any by the way, yes, that video was making up evidence.

Are you going to address Karin Deshore's account? There are a lot of testimonies which corrborate his account of flashes

In your opinion, it seems unreasonable the explosions didn't occur at once. Not for me, however. So, let's have the Commission reopen 911...better yet, let's have an independent investigation where there are no conflicts of interest between the commission and administration.

If you have a problem with the video, send your complaints to the ones who made it. Fact remains many explosions occured minutes before the towers collapsed....explosions that government of the United States of America refuse to acknowledge.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

I am not going to address any accounts as there are too many issues with them. I can't say "no, you did not see/hear that". I can say that they completely misinterpreted something, but that is about it.

Let's say that they do reopen the investigation. Will you accept the results, no matter what they are? Even if they state that the original report was accurate? The fact is, many people WANT there to be a huge conspiracy.

Wait, so you accept that the video might be a bit innaccurate and leave it as that. Why would you not do the same for the report?

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: skyking
Molten steel, it cracks me up to think this is some sort of damning evidence.

So, go find the official government explanation for the molten steel.

Ok, you dont seem to get this.

Enormous fire = metal melting.

Can it get any simpler?

not really, and it doesnt have to melt. it just has to get tot a temperature where it is greatly weakened, its already under huge stress being in a massive building, not to mention the additional stress from taking over the load for all the wall sections that were lost.

If you can't figure it out, then that's even more of a reason to repopen the investigation. Personally, I think they detonated explosives over a long period of time to systematically knock out various core columns, especially in the basement... this would eventually weaken carrying capabilities of the 47 core columns... just an opinion.

the weight bearing structure of the wtc were the walls, not the center columns. its an unusual design that allowed for open floor space and very large tall windows.

is this the second guy to start a massive conspiracy thread? or is it the same guy under two accounts.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
I am not going to address any accounts as there are too many issues with them. I can't say "no, you did not see/hear that". I can say that they completely misinterpreted something, but that is about it.

Haha, too many issues with them? The witnesses saw orange / red bright flashes on the lower levels before the towers began "collapsing"...along with explosion sounds resulting from those flashes... but if you don't want to address them, ok.

Let's say that they do reopen the investigation. Will you accept the results, no matter what they are? Even if they state that the original report was accurate? The fact is, many people WANT there to be a huge conspiracy.

Sure, I'd accept the results if a new, formal investigation were to take place where all of the facts / leads were investigated. That's what should've happened in the first place...I mean, we only lost 3,000 Americans. The results of an independent investigation will be ugly, though...make no mistake about it (ie, CIA money trail, Norman Mineta's testimony, debris field of flight 93 stretching 8+ miles, WTC7).

Wait, so you accept that the video might be a bit innaccurate and leave it as that. Why would you not do the same for the report?

Are you kidding? One is a small video, the other is a report covering up the government's actions / intentional omiting testimonies of explosions.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

I can't really comment on the witnesses because 1) I was not there (and neither do I think was anyone else present here) and (2) It is impossible to make a judgement on someone's testimony like that where you have zero background on the person and have no opportunity to contact them. If you were to tell me that you saw the Batmobile driving down the road, I could not say anything about it. Sure, you could be lying, you could be telling the truth, or you might have just seen a black semi driving by. There's no way of knowing.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

not really, and it doesnt have to melt. it just has to get tot a temperature where it is greatly weakened, its already under huge stress being in a massive building, not to mention the additional stress from taking over the load for all the wall sections that were lost.

You're missing the point. Nobody is saying the steel wasn't weakened. Molten steel was found at ground zero. So, how did the molten steel get there? NIST admitted the jetfuel fires never reached temperatures to melt the steel.

the weight bearing structure of the wtc were the walls, not the center columns. its an unusual design that allowed for open floor space and very large tall windows.

is this the second guy to start a massive conspiracy thread? or is it the same guy under two accounts.

You really haven't done your homework if you think the 47 central core columns weren't the weight bearing structures.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
I can't really comment on the witnesses because 1) I was not there (and neither do I think was anyone else present here) and (2) It is impossible to make a judgement on someone's testimony like that where you have zero background on the person and have no opportunity to contact them. If you were to tell me that you saw the Batmobile driving down the road, I could not say anything about it. Sure, you could be lying, you could be telling the truth, or you might have just seen a black semi driving by. There's no way of knowing.

Sure there is...it's called corroboration

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: skyking
Molten steel, it cracks me up to think this is some sort of damning evidence.

So, go find the official government explanation for the molten steel.

Ok, you dont seem to get this.

Enormous fire = metal melting.

Can it get any simpler?

not really, and it doesnt have to melt. it just has to get tot a temperature where it is greatly weakened, its already under huge stress being in a massive building, not to mention the additional stress from taking over the load for all the wall sections that were lost.

If you can't figure it out, then that's even more of a reason to repopen the investigation. Personally, I think they detonated explosives over a long period of time to systematically knock out various core columns, especially in the basement... this would eventually weaken carrying capabilities of the 47 core columns... just an opinion.

the weight bearing structure of the wtc were the walls, not the center columns. its an unusual design that allowed for open floor space and very large tall windows.

is this the second guy to start a massive conspiracy thread? or is it the same guy under two accounts.

youre on a different subject i think, he said "explain the molten steel among the rubble" and im saying, the rubble burned for weeks... the heat could easily melt the steel after the collapse.

Edit: Layoff the jetfuel already, its basic thermodynamics that the heat would build up.

AN OPEN FLAME of jet fuel burns at the temp you listed TRAPPED HEAT builds up.

Regardless of all that, there were tons of other things inside the building that could burn, not to mention all of the rubble after the fact.

 

[skyking]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

not really, and it doesnt have to melt. it just has to get tot a temperature where it is greatly weakened, its already under huge stress being in a massive building, not to mention the additional stress from taking over the load for all the wall sections that were lost.

You're missing the point. Nobody is saying the steel wasn't weakened. Molten steel was found at ground zero. So, how did the molten steel get there? NIST admitted the jetfuel fires never reached temperatures to melt the steel.

the weight bearing structure of the wtc were the walls, not the center columns. its an unusual design that allowed for open floor space and very large tall windows.

is this the second guy to start a massive conspiracy thread? or is it the same guy under two accounts.

You really haven't done your homework if you think the 47 central core columns weren't the weight bearing structures.

They split the load with the perimeter. The beams spanned 60ft from that perimeter to the core, so half the floor load was on the outside skin. This was a really elegant design that eliminated columns in the office spaces.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

not really, and it doesnt have to melt. it just has to get tot a temperature where it is greatly weakened, its already under huge stress being in a massive building, not to mention the additional stress from taking over the load for all the wall sections that were lost.

You're missing the point. Nobody is saying the steel wasn't weakened. Molten steel was found at ground zero. So, how did the molten steel get there? NIST admitted the jetfuel fires never reached temperatures to melt the steel.

the weight bearing structure of the wtc were the walls, not the center columns. its an unusual design that allowed for open floor space and very large tall windows.

is this the second guy to start a massive conspiracy thread? or is it the same guy under two accounts.

You really haven't done your homework if you think the 47 central core columns weren't the weight bearing structures.

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

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

not really, and it doesnt have to melt. it just has to get tot a temperature where it is greatly weakened, its already under huge stress being in a massive building, not to mention the additional stress from taking over the load for all the wall sections that were lost.

You're missing the point. Nobody is saying the steel wasn't weakened. Molten steel was found at ground zero. So, how did the molten steel get there? NIST admitted the jetfuel fires never reached temperatures to melt the steel.

the weight bearing structure of the wtc were the walls, not the center columns. its an unusual design that allowed for open floor space and very large tall windows.

is this the second guy to start a massive conspiracy thread? or is it the same guy under two accounts.

You really haven't done your homework if you think the 47 central core columns weren't the weight bearing structures.

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

 

[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.

 

[musicman87]

when will hollywood understand that we don't give a fvck what they think?

 

[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?

 

[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...