Actor Charlie Sheen Questions Official 9/11 Story

Page 17 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CptFarlow

Senior member
Apr 8, 2005
381
0
0
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."
 

CptFarlow

Senior member
Apr 8, 2005
381
0
0
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?
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
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.
 

SarcasticDwarf

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2001
9,574
2
76
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.
 

CptFarlow

Senior member
Apr 8, 2005
381
0
0
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...
 

CptFarlow

Senior member
Apr 8, 2005
381
0
0
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.

Yes, but that doesn't give me a good reason why the building collapsed. It is impossible that fires did it. So what did?
 

CptFarlow

Senior member
Apr 8, 2005
381
0
0
I'd love to stay and chat, and I respect all of your opinions, but I have to go for now.

Don't believe what I say, do the research yourself.

Loose Change 2nd Edition

911 Eyewitness (He uses complete physics to disprove the official explanation)

Alex Jones' 9/11: Road to Tyranny

These videos are just a good place to get started. Look it up yourself. Check out the forums at www.loosechange911.com.

Trust me, two weeks ago I believed the same thing you did. I don't wanna believe it, but I know for a fact that those towers were brought down by explosives...that is the only explanation that makes sense.
 

SarcasticDwarf

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2001
9,574
2
76
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.
 

Stonejaw

Member
Oct 24, 2005
38
0
0
Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
Explain to me any other examples of fully fueled airliners crashing into the sides of 60+ floor buildings. These are unique events.

July 28 1945 US Army B-25 crashed into the 79th floor of the EMPIRE STATE BUILDING! No collapse... obviously.
 

smut

Golden Member
Dec 4, 2005
1,269
0
71
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.
 

noto12ious

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2001
1,131
0
0
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.

You realize Loose Change is a copy + paste job of information all across the web, right?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: Stonejaw
Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
Explain to me any other examples of fully fueled airliners crashing into the sides of 60+ floor buildings. These are unique events.

July 28 1945 US Army B-25 crashed into the 79th floor of the EMPIRE STATE BUILDING! No collapse... obviously.

Surely you jest. This would be like saying that a firecracker is the same as a nuclear bomb.
 

SarcasticDwarf

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2001
9,574
2
76
Originally posted by: Stonejaw
Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
Explain to me any other examples of fully fueled airliners crashing into the sides of 60+ floor buildings. These are unique events.

July 28 1945 US Army B-25 crashed into the 79th floor of the EMPIRE STATE BUILDING! No collapse... obviously.

A B25? Yeah, BULLSHIT.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
Originally posted by: Stonejaw
Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
Explain to me any other examples of fully fueled airliners crashing into the sides of 60+ floor buildings. These are unique events.

July 28 1945 US Army B-25 crashed into the 79th floor of the EMPIRE STATE BUILDING! No collapse... obviously.

A B25? Yeah, BULLSHIT.


Put a nice sized hole in the floor..1 2

Granted a b-25 is not all that huge
 

imported_Aelius

Golden Member
Apr 25, 2004
1,988
0
0
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?
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
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.
 

bradley

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2000
3,671
2
81
Originally posted by: Stonejaw
Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
Explain to me any other examples of fully fueled airliners crashing into the sides of 60+ floor buildings. These are unique events.

July 28 1945 US Army B-25 crashed into the 79th floor of the EMPIRE STATE BUILDING! No collapse... obviously.

You probably can't compare a mostly concrete and stone structure supported by steel, or the Empire State Building, to a mostly steel and glass structure reinforced by concrete. Although, by the 1970's, building costs had escalated enough to warrant a sparser more efficient structure, including some lightweight tubular steel (instead of solid steel,) and *far* less concrete.
 

bradley

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2000
3,671
2
81
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?

 

noto12ious

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2001
1,131
0
0
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.
 

bradley

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2000
3,671
2
81
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.

You probably could do better than something so surreptitious. Or at least, there a far more direct ways to reach that objective. Yet, I believe this guy takes a far more entertaining whack at creating the perfect 9/11 conspiracy theory, including an amusing title. :)

Why Larry Silverstein can't get it up

Although, it still seems like a theory looking for a problem to me.
 

CptFarlow

Senior member
Apr 8, 2005
381
0
0
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.
 

CptFarlow

Senior member
Apr 8, 2005
381
0
0
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?


Money. Did you know that there is over $2.5 million waiting to be claimed from people who just happened to put a record number of put options onto American Airlines' stock, 11 times it's daily average.
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
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.
 

noto12ious

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2001
1,131
0
0
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.
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
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.