actor Charlie Sheen questions '9/11'

the questions were really meant for anyone with the answers

why haven't i contacted 911 scholarsfor truth?
do you really beleive that i would get a reply?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

don't forget to crash a 767 into it at 500 mph first

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't see why anybody is arguing with this idiot. He's clearly of moronic descent.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How do ya know lessen you TRY. yu know now it is the easiest. do you remember when it aws just snail mail....?
just try and i am sure if your repsctful then you will. when yo do foreward it here.

 

i click on this link but it said server not found

ah, i see what happened you forgot the http://

i'll add it then click on that link
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org
ok the above link works

edit
okay duendy i sent an email to scholars for truth regarding the questions i have
i will post the answers in this thread when and if i get any

 

If the trade towers were made enetirely of concrete, I could understand how they appear to disintegrate all the way down, and possibly collapse in this manner from the damage done.
But they're not.
We are talking about huge steel structures that appear to disintegrate, not melt, disintegrate, from the top down in 20 seconds.

Lets just forget about the Twin towers for a moment and focus on the 3rd building....PLEASE some one explain this to me....more fire and structural damage?...watch as yet another building disintegrates.
I want you to F@#king tell me, that fire took that building down the way it did.
3:10 minutes in...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2433573566121849993&q=9/11&pl=true

I know there may not be anything we can do now about it, but there is just something not right about allowing this to pass with out first acknowledgement, or at least have an eyebrow raised.

Peace

Divided we fall...

 

There IS someting we can do about it, and a LOT more than a raised eyebrow. BY keeping this investigation alive and not being stamped down by the forces who that would be convenient for. Sure, you'll be told you are this that and teoter, but IF you feel ther's something wrong then that keeps your curiousity going...doesn't it? How can anything so fukin awful, including its aftermath, and what's happening now, including horrors in Iraq, and our freedms going going gone, just be brushed away to the back of the mind. you have to be fukin DEAD to to that!

 

And neither are any other stuctures that are demolished using very small charges at the base. When large buildings are demolished, only the bottom few floors are wired for detonation, and once the collpase starts, the momentum causes the impacting floors to collapse.

In the case of the WTC, the upper floors crashed down, starting off the collapse, and a domino effect. What is so different?

 

Blah blah blah.

 

See what I mean? We all already know that this retard is so distorted in the head, he cannot have a proper conversation. Logic just doesn't work with these walking dimwits.

 

Thats an awesome point Pholg.
The only way for these large structures to appear as though they are disintegrating in this fashion is if the bottom/base of the structure is taken out.
This explains why many in the subway tunnels reported explosions.
2minutes, 10 seconds in.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2433573566121849993&q=9/11&pl=true

Although I'm not sure what you mean by your question as to "whats different?" besides the fact that as you have just pointed out, that when buildings are demolished with explosives, they are planted at the base of the structure, not in the upper quarter of the building or upper 1/6th of the building.

If your serious about that question I would have to say that, in one instance, the explosives/ damage is done at the base of a building, and in the other, the damage is done on the upper quarter of one building and the upper 1/6th of the other building.
And not only that, but on the upper1/6th *corner*of the building, which if anything should have had that part of the building fall over.

Scientific American, 2001 stated, "They just dont make them as tough as the World Trade Center"

Do you know the amount of planning and strategic measures that have to go into making a building collapse straight downward?

If anything, the rate at which the building fell should have been slowed by each floor, instead, it fell at the rate of gravity, a free fall if you will.


Anyways, I am very interested to hear your opinion Phlog on the collapse of the 3rd building, again I agree with you, I think there must have been explosive damage done to the base of this building to have it collapse the way it did.
Again, falling in a free fall fashion.
3 minutes 20 seconds in
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2433573566121849993&q=9/11&pl=true

Please review the collapse of the 3rd building.
Thanks


edit:I am posting this link for easy reference for my self.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2794250058695002691&pl=true

 

errr am i deeereaming. isphlo NOW claiming the WTC WAS pulled...??

 

I'm not sure if thats what Pholg is claiming, but the man who owned the lease of the trade towers, Larry Silverstein admits live on CNN, this footage was only shown ONCE.

Is it normal to have a building pre-set to be demolished when in use everyday for business, meaning that there are charges set all over the building while in use and steady operation, with people inside the building conducting business as normal?!
Could there ahve been explosions in the trade towers, or any where that day?
Impossible right?

Well lets listen to Larry Silverstein admit on camera that the 3rd building was in fact ..."Pulled".

Incredible. 33 minutes in....
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2794250058695002691&pl=true

 

well maybe you can answer my question
why did both wtc1 and wtc2 start their collapse at the impact point?

i have asked duendy the same question
duendy refuses to answer it

dont forget momentum these buildings had fireproofing sprayed on the underside of the floors. that could have given the appearance of "disintegration"

 

Hey leopold.
Exactly, because the collapse appeared to start at the point of impact, on the upper 1/6th of the building on the outside corner, there is no way that there was enough momentum to begin the rate at which the building collapsed from the top down.

Because the damage was done near the top of the building, each floor should have successively slowed the rate at which the building collapsed.....instead of the free fall fashion.

Leopold, what is your opinion of the the collapse of the 3rd building, and why it was purposely detonanted?
Thanks.

 

forget the twin towers just for a moment. What about building 7?

 

Just wondering... any engineer or an architect participating in this discussion?

 

Hey leopold.
Exactly, because the collapse appeared to start at the point of impact, on the upper 1/6th of the building on the outside corner, there is no way that there was enough momentum to begin the rate at which the building collapsed from the top down at the rate it did.

Because the damage was done near the top of the building, each floor should have successively slowed the rate at which the building collapsed.....instead of the free fall fashion.

Leopold, what is your opinion of the the collapse of the 3rd building, and why it was purposely detonated?
And if indeed the 3rd building was pre wired for detonation, is it not also possible that wtc 1 and 2 could have been as well?
Thanks.

 

Avatar, what is your opinion of the 3rd building colapse?
Did you know that it was detonated?

 

I don't know, didn't watch the movie, don't care,
and any my opinion on this would be unqualified and most likely incorrect, because I study social sciences, not physics and engineering.
I asked the question to know to whom to listen more.