Charlie Sheen: US Govt. committed 9/11...

[Predicto]

Why would the government go out of their way to ensure the buildings collapsed, with additional explosives, as opposed to just letting the planes do partial damage ? What did they have to gain, by completely annihilating the building, as opposed to partially ??

Especially when it greatly increased the chance that the conspiracy would be revealed.

[Predicto]

You been spending too much time in the Castro District again Predicto?

Hey buddy, I live in the Castro. My kids go to school one blok from Market and Castro!!!! :mad:

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to change my scuba diver...

[The Evil Genius]

Hey buddy, I live in the Castro. My kids go to school one blok from Market and Castro!!!! :mad:

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to change my scuba diver...

:laugh: :notworthy

J/k with ya' man. At least you don't have to worry about someone stealing your wife there.

Well, unless she is in to that type of stuff :doh:

[Predicto]

:laugh: :notworthy

J/k with ya' man. At least you don't have to worry about someone stealing your wife there.

Well, unless she is in to that type of stuff :doh:

hehe no offense taken.

Actually, it's a great neighborhood to live in. Well located, good food, stuff to do, good weather, clean, safe....

well, a good neighborhood if you aren't so insecure about your own masculinity that you are scared you will "catch" teh gay.

[Baculus]

I like how any relevant posted details are always by those "witty" response. It is easy to simply avoid what you cannot really discuss, right? Why do I even bother to respond to these posts? For example, I have asked previously, why doesn't the FBI simply release the tapes that were seized of the video footage from the 757 that struck the Pentagon? No response. What about that odd Bin Laden video, with that somewhat pudgy Bin Laden? No response.

BTW, these are just a couple I threw out at random.

It is easy to respond when you're on firm ground. It is even easier to respond with mockery - I can easily do that. But to me, that does nothing - it is far easier to flip someone the bird then to debate a point, so it's a challenge.

[elkabong82]

Oh for god's sake. Do you have any idea how much the top half of the tallest skyscrapers in the world weigh? They can't just "fall off" the side of the building. That weight wants to go down, not sideways.

This discussion is madness.

I wasn't clear enough. For that i apologize. What I was trying to say about the building falling was that at the point of impact, the building was at it's weakest. Meaning all the stress from the building, all the pressure, would focus, and the building would collapse starting at that point. This means, the upper portion would fall towards the point of least resisitance, the point of impact. It would not have taken down the entire building. If you watch the collapse, you can see the top of either one of the buildings (especially the one that was hit higher up) starts falling to the side, and then falls into the rest of the building as it collapses. The collapses look to me like the top parts were giving way at their impact points, and then fell back into plave as the rest of the building collapsed. maybe that's why controlled demolitons were used. "whoever" knew that a plane alone would not take out the building, but knew the risk of a partial collapse, and how much more it would destroy.

You are right though, the discussion is madness. Some people will belive it, some people won't. It's as simple as that. All I can ask is that people research it for themselves, instead of dismissing people as wackos. Half of New York City, per the Zogby poll, believe the government let 9/11 happen.

To throw a little more on the fire: The pentagon has surveillance videos all around, yet they won't rellease any videos of the plane hitting the pentagon. Why? There is a nearby gas station and a nearby hotel whose mounted security cameras were at a direct angle which they caught the flight of the plane. Minutes after the attack, government personnell went to these places, took the videos, and refuse to release those as well. Why?

[Westbrook36]

Money well spent for that engineering degree. :laugh:

[ashburnskinsfan]

I like how any relevant posted details are always by those "witty" response. It is easy to simply avoid what you cannot really discuss, right? Why do I even bother to respond to these posts? For example, I have asked previously, why doesn't the FBI simply release the tapes that were seized of the video footage from the 757 that struck the Pentagon? No response. What about that odd Bin Laden video, with that somewhat pudgy Bin Laden? No response.

BTW, these are just a couple I threw out at random.

It is easy to respond when you're on firm ground. It is even easier to respond with mockery - I can easily do that. But to me, that does nothing - it is far easier to flip someone the bird then to debate a point, so it's a challenge.

I don't work for the FBI so I don't know the status of those tapes. But what you should consider as essential to your case is published, peer-reviewed arguments from professional engineers or material scientists that support your theory that the WTC collapse could not have been casued by a large airliner loaded with fuel. Until you produce that you have no case.

[Baculus]

If I were arguing that the Holocaust did not happen, do you think you should have to provide proof it did?

If I were arguing that we didn't land on the moon, do you think you should have to provide proof that we did?

The main difference is that there are records that can prove both the Holocaust and the Moon Landing. Sure, there are some details that are argued, but luckily (or unluckily), careful German record keeping can show the extent of the final solution, especially in Poland. And physical evidence from the moon landing and the Apollo mission can also demonstrate the validity of the moon landing. There is REAMS of data for both programs - I have investigated both hoax theories in the past and discounted them due to the amount of acummulated data. And there are few reasonable experts that subscribe to these theories.

This is a little different with the 9-11 theories. In fact, if I saw the same "reams" of data produce from the government and its investigation, I probably wouldn't even be posting on this thread. I am asking for this same physical evidence, in the sense of "Here is engine xxxx from the flight that struck the Pentagon. Note the serial numbers which the mechanics at xxxx airport have verified that, yes indeed, this is the correct aircraft." That is what I am talking about.

It's no quite what you are attempting to spell out, but internet arguments do have a way of becoming "link wars."

[ashburnskinsfan]

I wasn't clear enough. For that i apologize. What I was trying to say about the building falling was that at the point of impact, the building was at it's weakest. Meaning all the stress from the building, all the pressure, would focus, and the building would collapse starting at that point. This means, the upper portion would fall towards the point of least resisitance, the point of impact. It would not have taken down the entire building. If you watch the collapse, you can see the top of either one of the buildings (especially the one that was hit higher up) starts falling to the side, and then falls into the rest of the building as it collapses. The collapses look to me like the top parts were giving way at their impact points, and then fell back into plave as the rest of the building collapsed. maybe that's why controlled demolitons were used. "whoever" knew that a plane alone would not take out the building, but knew the risk of a partial collapse, and how much more it would destroy.

You are right though, the discussion is madness. Some people will belive it, some people won't. It's as simple as that. All I can ask is that people research it for themselves, instead of dismissing people as wackos. Half of New York City, per the Zogby poll, believe the government let 9/11 happen.

To throw a little more on the fire: The pentagon has surveillance videos all around, yet they won't rellease any videos of the plane hitting the pentagon. Why? There is a nearby gas station and a nearby hotel whose mounted security cameras were at a direct angle which they caught the flight of the plane. Minutes after the attack, government personnell went to these places, took the videos, and refuse to release those as well. Why?

I provided earlier in this discussion links to two articles in professional engineering and material science journals that addresses the question of why the buildings collapsed in the ways they did.

[dreamingwolf]

I provided earlier in this discussion links to two articles in professional engineering and material science journals that addresses the question of why the buildings collapsed in the ways they did.

Hes not saying people should go out and reseach the rational and sane explanations, hes saying they should research the wacky ones to see if they can be convinced or not.

[elkabong82]

I like how any relevant posted details are always by those "witty" response. It is easy to simply avoid what you cannot really discuss, right? Why do I even bother to respond to these posts? For example, I have asked previously, why doesn't the FBI simply release the tapes that were seized of the video footage from the 757 that struck the Pentagon? No response. What about that odd Bin Laden video, with that somewhat pudgy Bin Laden? No response.

BTW, these are just a couple I threw out at random.

It is easy to respond when you're on firm ground. It is even easier to respond with mockery - I can easily do that. But to me, that does nothing - it is far easier to flip someone the bird then to debate a point, so it's a challenge.

I posted earlier about how the pilots couldn't have even known exactly where they were when they took the planes. They would have to rely, as all pilots usually do, on the instrument panels, to which no of the hijackers were familiar with. Nobody responded to that either. The biggest problem is there is so much that is in question that it is hard to establish a starting point. It is hard to talk about it b/c people won't listen or, if they think just one little part of what you are saying is wrong, they completely tune you out. I wish they would look at the official story of 9/11 and do the same thing, b/c it is easy to find at least one little thing wrong. I have argued this till blue in the face. Some believe some don't. The fact that it's being talked about publicly is at least a good start.

[Mad Mike]

I like how any relevant posted details are always by those "witty" response. It is easy to simply avoid what you cannot really discuss, right? Why do I even bother to respond to these posts? For example, I have asked previously, why doesn't the FBI simply release the tapes that were seized of the video footage from the 757 that struck the Pentagon? No response. What about that odd Bin Laden video, with that somewhat pudgy Bin Laden? No response.

BTW, these are just a couple I threw out at random.

It is easy to respond when you're on firm ground. It is even easier to respond with mockery - I can easily do that. But to me, that does nothing - it is far easier to flip someone the bird then to debate a point, so it's a challenge.

Dude. We may not agree on a lot of things but you usually are pretty rational. This time however you are in tin foil hat land. Now if you want to wear a tin foil hat, that's your choice. But I think it is a bit much to expect others not to laugh. :laugh:

[Baculus]

Oddly enough, my first 9-11 theory had nothng to do with the government, but with communists. I remember reading transcripts of one of the cell phone calls from one of the flights. The person on the phone had said that the hijackers had on red bandanas. To me, this struck me as odd. I always remember muslim terrorists or jihadists as usually wearing black or green and sometimes white, but red? That seemed much rarer and out of place.

So I conducted some research and discovered that sometimes socialist or communist terrorists wear red headbands. Aha! I thought I stumbled upon a key point. My theory was that the terrorists were not, in fact, from the Middle East, but were possibly North Koreans or Chinese, or some other communist group.

Well, my theory was rejected and shouted down on here, so I ended up discarding that theory.

[Baculus]

Hey Mike, I can't help it if others laugh - I DO look funny in a tin foil hat. ;-)

Sure, I know some of these theories sound outlandish. What's funny is that, the day after 9-11, a friend and I were lifting, and he says, "I BET the government did it." (This is the same guy that for four years straight said "THIS YEAR, the Ravens are going to win the Superbowl." Well, he was eventually right.)

What was my response? I laughed and said, "Yeah...RIGHT." So, I don't think the response is unnatural - I mean, who wants to believe their govenment would do that, right?

[Mad Mike]

I posted earlier about how the pilots couldn't have even known exactly where they were when they took the planes. They would have to rely, as all pilots usually do, on the instrument panels, to which no of the hijackers were familiar with. Nobody responded to that either. The biggest problem is there is so much that is in question that it is hard to establish a starting point. It is hard to talk about it b/c people won't listen or, if they think just one little part of what you are saying is wrong, they completely tune you out. I wish they would look at the official story of 9/11 and do the same thing, b/c it is easy to find at least one little thing wrong. I have argued this till blue in the face. Some believe some don't. The fact that it's being talked about publicly is at least a good start.

A little education goes a long way. The pilots had plenty of practice using simulators and it is no big trick to find one of the largest citys in the world, locate the two tallest buildings and take a long smooth approach directly into them. Give me the same training we KNOW they had and I could do it while drinking a fifth of Quervo.

People don't listen to these loony toon theorys because these theorys are created by morons. It's just that simple.

Here's an idea. Try reading the 9/11 report. You don't even have to buy it.

download it for free...

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

[Baculus]

I don't work for the FBI so I don't know the status of those tapes. But what you should consider as essential to your case is published, peer-reviewed arguments from professional engineers or material scientists that support your theory that the WTC collapse could not have been casued by a large airliner loaded with fuel. Until you produce that you have no case.

I am about to go home from work, but I will see if I can find anything more interesting later.

Thanks for a day of debates.

[Mad Mike]

Hey Mike, I can't help it if others laugh - I DO look funny in a tin foil hat. ;-)

Sure, I know some of these theories sound outlandish. What's funny is that, the day after 9-11, a friend and I were lifting, and he says, "I BET the government did it." (This is the same guy that for four years straight said "THIS YEAR, the Ravens are going to win the Superbowl." Well, he was eventually right.)

What was my response? I laughed and said, "Yeah...RIGHT." So, I don't think the response is unnatural - I mean, who wants to believe their govenment would do that, right?

I'm glad we can agree on that much. :laugh:

But the facts are still on the side of the accepted understanding that it went down just as the 9/11 report says.

Frankly, I just cant inderstand why people think the buildings should have toppled over when ther was no force pushing them from the side. In simple terms, heres what happened...

The fires where the planes hit weakend the metal on several floors and when it gave way, all of the tonnage from the floors above came directly down like a giant hammer on the rest of the structure and it just couldn't handle it. Poof. It collapsed straight down because there was no force driving it from the side. It wasn't even a windy day.

Simple.

I wached it happen live and I understood right then what had happened.

BTW My cousin was in the second tower and on his way down when the second plane hit. Thankfully he made it out alive.

[elkabong82]

A little education goes a long way. The pilots had plenty of practice using simulators and it is no big trick to find one of the largest citys in the world, locate the two tallest buildings and take a long smooth approach directly into them. Give me the same training we KNOW they had and I could do it while drinking a fifth of Quervo.

People don't listen to these loony toon theorys because these theorys are created by morons. It's just that simple.

Here's an idea. Try reading the 9/11 report. You don't even have to buy it.

download it for free...

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

Simulators don't do the real thing any justice, otherwise you could log some hours on it, and then proceed to fly a real plane. I have several family members that are pilots who will say the same thing. in fact, it is their questioning of the hijackers flying abilities and abilities to perform in an unknown ****pit w/ zero point of reference, that led me to start investigating and asking questions about 9/11. In the real world, it takes a while to become certified. You have to fly alongside a pro, and you have to watch what they do. Even when you first start, you are not allowed to go away from the landing strip.

It is a big trick to find a large city when you are not near enough to see it, and the planes were no where near enough the cities to see them. When you are flying in the sky that high up, the ground isn't even a reference poitn. the pilots, who's instructors at flight school said they couldn't even manage little Cessna's, had to rely solely on instrument panels that they were not familiar with. Experienced pilots have crashed before b/c their panels failed them. I've read the Commission report, and neglects a lot of things. Like I said, I've argued this so many times, if you are not going to believe, then don't. However, cating soemone of as loony for having a different view isn't very fair. Nobody here is saying UFO's were involved, or Bigfoot was the real hijacker, just providing questions that remain unanswered, or were poorly answered.

[smashmowf]

I havnt read all 20,000 pages of the thread, but one thing I'd like people to be aware of is - didn't bin Laden essentially CONFESS to masterminding the attack in one of his video tapes, shortly after 9/11 ?

yes we know he "essentially" confessed because it was essentially translated through an interpreter.......essentially.

[Rumrunner6900]

This discussion is madness.

Best thing said in this whole thread!

[Rumrunner6900]

Oh for the luvva pete.

When I fart in the bathtub, you will see "bubbles" that appear similar to the bubbles released by scuba divers. There clearly is a scuba diver up my ass.

Ok...I didnt read far enough...best post in this thread!

[Rumrunner6900]

But to me, that does nothing - it is far easier to flip someone the bird then to debate a point, so it's a challenge.

The reason for this whole argument perhaps?? Hmmmm....debating for the sake of debating???

[chomerics]

Charlie Sheen is a no-talent hack who's daddy got him where he is today. The highlight of his career was his three-line performance in Ferris Bueller's Day Off.

Come on Henry, have you watched 2 & 1/2 men? He's an effin riot in that show, one of the best sit coms out there now.

With that, I don't know what's funnier, Charlie Sheen thinking this, or Kilmer agreeing with him :laugh: I can only assume he was posting yes to play devils advocate, but it was funny none the less. I mean I expected to see Bac up ther, but Kilmer. . .I almost spit out my beer

[HokieJ]

Here is where conspiracy theories always fall apart.

Do you have any idea how many people would have to be involved with this? And NONE would be a whistle blower? Come on that doesn't pass the smell test.

Even if the President had that idea, you're going to tell me that nobody in his Cabinet would disagree and go to the media about it? You're crazy if you think that has any ability to be true.