Posted on 03/25/2006 1:23:05 PM PST by RWR8189
Pay attention, civilians. Actor Charlie Sheen has been focusing his mind on the official explanation for 9/11. And you know what? He's not buying it. "It just didn't look like any commercial jetliner I've flown on any time in my life," the Hotshots Part Deux star told a US radio station this week, "and then when the buildings came down later on that day, I said to my brother 'call me insane', but did it sorta look like those buildings came down in a controlled demolition?"
You're insane. Next. "It seems to me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75% of their targets, that feels like a conspiracy theory."
But it is George Bush's assertion that he saw the first plane hit the north tower of the World Trade Centre before any footage of it had been released that tells Charlie he's on to something. "I guess one of the perks of being president is that you get access to TV channels that don't exist in the known universe," he continued in a manner which in no way suggests he once had a monstrous coke problem. "It might lead you to believe that he'd seen similar images in some type of rehearsal as it were, I don't know."
Mmm. For many celebrities, conspiracy theories are the VIP rooms of history. Sure, you'll have your Earl Warrens and your senate investigations patrolling the velvet rope, but if you know the right people, and have access to enormous quantities of self-regard, you can get through to the inner sanctum where they tell you It's All A Big Lie.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
"It seems to me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75% of their targets, that feels like a conspiracy theory."
|
|
Well, uh, gee, Charlie, here's some late-breaking news: that "conspiracy theory" actually was a conspiracy, and it worked. |
He would play the part of some CT that no one takes seriously. (Like his Father)
The tatics of attacking the person and not their point is exactly what Bill Clinton did. Has anyone looked at what he Sheen said?
I have and if half of the stuff is true we are in lots of trouble.
We may find out what it felt to back NIXON just before watergate broke.
Why can't the government just tell the truth?
Although if his last name is "Sheen" I really can't argue the point ...
Charlie
;-)
Termite
Thanks for your post
I read the thread regarding Steven E Jones and I found that noone discussed any of the scientific content of his paper - perhaps they has read the paper but declined to comment - or perhaps it was over their heads
What I did find was a load of name calling and biggotry
As a proud conservative I was somewhat shocked
But mainly surprised that not one person had attempted to say WHY he is wrong
I say because the science adds up - I have tried to find faults but cannot - if he is wrong, which I do not contest, then it should be easy to explain in scientific terms why
Any comments which do not directly address the scientific problems at hand will be ignored
Thank you
guess there's no constructive replies then
Hey mods...ever notice how many trolls use that "proud conservative" phrase? Seems to be a hallmark of the breed.
Hey WestHill...what about the firefighters? There are about 50,000 guys on the FDNY alone who would know that the WTC couldn't have come down from the planes. In fact, if Jones' claims were valid, virtually every firefighter, architect, engineer and metallurgist would be able to blow the whistle.
What's keeping them from doing that? Karl Rove's mind control machine?
If you'd done any research on the subject you'd know that many firefighters, architects and engineers have all come out and either criticised the official account or supported Jones' paper.
I'd be interested to find sources for firefighters, architects and engineers who have arguments which support the official line.
You have to remember that the official account doesn't even try to provide an account of the actual collapse, only how 'conditions for collapse' could be obtained under the circumstances.
Yet again, it's all very well for you make off the cuff speculations, but unless you actually tackle the specific claims in the paper your comments have no merit.
Thanks for your contribution.
Once again no constructive replies.
^ Yes but since we listen to Bush, who also has a history of cocaine abuse, our standards are lowered.
Regardless of how merited any of the attacks on Sheen's character are, they are irrelevant as the views purported are not actually Sheen's but various professors and academics who he is supporting.
I see mostly cowards here, too afraid to ask hard questions. Debate the destruction of world trade center building 7 logically & see if the straws you are all still grasping continue to hold.
Actually, I'd be surprised if more than 15% of you are even aware of WTC 7.
I'd be interested to find sources for firefighters, architects and engineers who have arguments which support the official line.
Try these:
Wikipedia's 9/11 Conspiracy page (numerous debunking cites)
I'd like to note that the Popular Mechanics article quotes multiple engineers or architects every time they discuss a collapse issue, and that on the issue of melted steel (on this page) they quote retired FDNY Deputy Chief Vincent Dunn. What's so important about Dunn? He literally wrote the book on building collapses due to fire. It's called "The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety." In the next paragraph, a senior engineer for the American Institute of Steel Construction estimates that steel girders would lose about 50% of their strength at 1,100 degrees and 90% at 1,800 degrees.
That's check and mate, tinfoil boy.
Memo To Charlie Sheen:
Click the Pic
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
