actor Charlie Sheen questions '9/11'

OK, before i take you up on your challenge to the professor of physics. what are YOUR qualifications in physics?

what exactle did your friends see?
are we talking 2, 3, 4, friends seeing tis atrocity from different angles?in same place?

annnd, wht are your toughts about building 7 when it as actually described as being 'pulled' a techical buidling term fr planned demolition

you dont HAVE to rush this, buti am expecting meticulousness. espesh from you mr phlo

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sorry duendy, it's you making wild claims, so you have to back up your assertions. My friends who were eye witnesses back up the official story, that jet planes flew into the WTC and the Petagon.

I don't give a toss about building 7.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

:bugeye:

This may come as shock to duendy and others but some very well qualified people were involved with the NIST research into the subject.

It is amusingly quaint to proceed as if to imagine that a thread on sciforums would serve better to establish the truth of this sort of thing, as if all you have to do to convince is to bleat "sheeple", but ......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

---- RH

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

haha....might a fukin known.
very disappointin response mr phlo, and oh so typical
as per usual, you lot sit on yer fat arses saying:no it aint wheres ytour evidence, yet wont make ANYfukin effory ourSELVES hiding behind your namntra ofits the onus on person makin 'wild claim'

so why did you even borth coming to tis thread. you ca see the claims, not just from me but from Sheen, and professor of physics and if you have EVEn--which i bet money yo aint--take time to look at links would see that high-rankin ote individuals ALSO question te 9/11 event

but all yous do is come wid your empty propaganda. well itis as empty as your inight dsude. go away and try harder. otherwise stop contributing useless comebacks which say precisely nothing

 

jesus fuck. Could you for once run your posts through a spell check. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously if you constantly post unreadable posts.

 

heh, then i willl summarize sos you can understand:
phlo----you havfe NOTHING to say but 'crap' and that will not do.

you will not even make any effort to contribute anything. i already have provided links and efen this very thread.

IF you HAVE anything worthwhile to say then i will take you more seriously. till then i wont. you just come across as a lazy propaganderist!

 

It's rather amusing that an actor is presumed to lend weight to a certain argument.

Scientists studying a theory or intelligence officers with actual knowledge of the events prior are obviously completely unqualified to do so.

One wonders how an individual with the literacy level of a ten year old, citing an actors dedication to a cause as some form of proof, is given any creedence at all.

 

One being an actor is irrelevant. An assertion is either true or false. The source (the individual making the assertion) is irrelevant.

It could have been made by an actor, a doctor, a taxi driver, it matters not. Focusing on the source of the assertion has no bearing on the validity of the assertion. Focusing on the assertion itself has full bearing.


Consider these conclusions:
An actor made this assertion, therefore it is false.
An actor made this assertion, therefore it is true.

Do either of these have any bearing on logic? How is your post relevant?


Here are the possibilities:
1. The US government did not intentionally allow them to destroy the WTC.

2. The US government intentionally allowed them to destroy the WTC.

3. The US government intentionally commissioned then to destroy the WTC.

4. The aliens were behind it the destruction of the WTC all along. They framed Al-Qaeda, and got away on their space craft clean.

Choose a position, and support it with points.

 

In this case, it is relevant.

This discussion has been underway in various forms on this forum for quite a while. In very few cases are credible posters on the side of the conspiracy theorists, and rarely has anyone who might be considered an authority on the subject been represented on their "side".

The discussion has been started yet again, and this time there has been little more added in the way of "points" other than that an actor has been presented as some form of verification. Without that, there still isn't anything more to be discussed.
Dismissal based on this particular piece of "evidence" is therefore entirely justified, and your attack is not.

It was noted that you yourself did not.

 

i heard on the radio this morning ( 6 am ) that 83% of the people believe sheen

 

Further justification for me being a disgusted individual, then. Yes?

 

mattmar has started a thread in the computer forum saying they pulled it off with holograms
there were no planes at all is what he alludes to.

 

looks like he done a runner--ie., theres been no sight of him. maybe HEis a hologram.....? seriously tho. i believe to even SEE a hologram you have to be in a prticularposition, and/or the imagewavers, loses solidity, may morph and so on.
Such ideas as tose are surely thework of pro debunkers trying to defame conspiracy theories....?
Sheen hasopenly asked the dude--owner? of building 7 who was recorded SAYING they had 'pulled' it--ie in building-spheak meaing 'planned demoolition' to contact him personally!
tis dude Sheen, he has lots of guts doing this. speaking out about this. i really admire him!

 

indeed

 

Nobody said I did.
I I have no interest in attempting to prove a point based on what you would consider relevant:
An actor made this assertion, therefore the assetion true.
An actor made this assertion, therefore the assertion is false.

 

Hmm. Sounds a little like some kid sticking his fingers in his ears and repeating over and over " I can't heeeaarrr you, I can't heeeaaarrrr you....".

Heh. Twit.

 

Cool Skill, you don't seem to grasp the angle here. This is only being reported by duendy, because Sheen is an actor. Sheen is only getting heard, because he's an actor. That he is an actor, is irrelevant, he's just another misguided fool, and so, as credible as duendy.

It's analogous of religious nutters quoting Einstein saying 'God doesn't play dice', as if Einstein using the word 'God' makes God more credible.

Maybe you've heard of it, it's a fallacious debating technique called 'appeal to authority'. Not that I think Sheen is authorative, but duendy perhaps does, as she brought it up.

 

ohhh he's popped up agin. mr lazy propaganda face with nuthin to S A Y

 

I'm not saying it was an inside job, but there seems to be some chance that it was, even if the chance is very small - I think we need someone to watch big brother, while big brother watches (and listens to) us.

 

duendy, you are such a worm. I asked you a question in the very first response to this thread, was your phone call to a local or national newspaper, yet you did not respond to me.

I debunked the thermite theory, but you failed to respond to that. Do you remember the thermite reaction from school, duendy? You take Aluminium powder, and Iron Oxide, and mix them together. You initiate the reaction with a Magnesium ribbon fuse, and the Aluminium being more reactive, reduces the Iron Oxide to Iron, and oxidises itself. So the by products are Aluminium Oxide, and pig Iron. Now, the WTC wreckage would have been covered with Aluminium Oxide if the thermite reaction had taken place. Nobody has claimed that, so the thermite theory is dubious. As thermite is an incendiary, and no fires were seen to non-adjacent or significantly lower floors from the impact, what extra could thermite have added? How could they have known exactly which floors the planes were going to hit? Why did nobody notice barrels of thermite mixture all over the place before hand?

Next time duendy, spend a little time examining a claim before repeating it, because regurgitating everything woowoo makes you look stupid.