B
Borderfox
Guest
Charlie Sheen is a mindless puppet and his "views" on 9 11 are little more than disinformation of the vaguest kind.To hell with Charlie Sheen
Charlie Sheen joins 911 Truth Movement!
- Thread starter Mr. Premise
- Start date
Mr. Premise
The Living Force
Can you give us some evidence and analysis to support this?
Borderfox said:
Ruth
The Living Force
I'd like to know if anyone has gone to the source (Mr Sheen himself) and asked him what the 'questions' he had are all about. I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't allowed to talk frankly in front of the camera or on air.DonaldJHunt said:
It would be my guess that anything he could come up with would not be given much air time. Has anyone actually asked him or is he difficult to 'reach' and everything has to be done through an agent/handlers/bodyguards ect. It would be good if a person could just ring these people up and ask, but I suppose its not that simple.... They tend to be separated from the rest of the population.
The impression I got is that the "source" himself went to Alex Jones. His questions boiled down to:Ruth said:
1) Pentagon videos
2) Building 7
Didn't seem like his "handlers" had anything to do with it to me.
B
Borderfox
Guest
He aired his "views" on CNN ,or as I like to call it disinformation a Time Warner company.Did you see the footage? Do you really think CNN would let him air his "views" if it didnt suit their agenda or more to the point the agenda of the puppet masters that pull CNNs strings.CNN is a Time Warner company as i said,Charlie Sheen has done movies for Warner Bros.Do you think he would bite the hand that feeds him?I dont.Also its worth noteing CNN is on a 20 second time delay when its "live" and most of its non newsdesk content is prerecorded.Work it out!DonaldJHunt said:
Mr. Premise
The Living Force
I don't mean evidence that Time Warner has an disinfo agenda, that's obvious, just evidence that Sheen is a "mindless puppet." People with minds who can think can also be used by the media for other purposes. What specifically about his views on 911 do you disagree with and why? Name-calling will get us nowhere.
Borderfox said:
Ruth
The Living Force
Except for Murphy's law. I think of a number of problems:Laura said:
Too messy, too expensivie, the PTB doing EVERYTHING within their ability to 'stick a spanner in the works' ect. And once the experiment's done, then they can always turn around and say: "well this isn't right and thats not accurate.... do it again!" Can you imagine?!!
Easier to do a truly top rate computer simulation which can be run over and over again and programmed information may be changed when necessary. All known factors can be programmed in and then.... 'let 'er rip'.
Can this not be a virtual simulation? Why isn't the virtual as good? I'm sure there was some sort of a simulation kicking around on the internet at some stage. I'm not sure which scientists did it though. Maybe a conversation with them would be fruitful.
John Chang
Jedi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_element_analysis
There are several open source FEA packages out there. I bet you don't even need to simulate the 757 flying - just place the plane where "they" say it was, right before it hit the Pentagon. You can estimate what velocity it was traveling at, and while Boeing might not part with a structural schematic of the 757, if you make friends with a line mechanic of one of the many airlines that use this plane, I betcha he or she would have the schematics. Best if you do it with an airline mechanic that doesn't fly on U.S. soil.
Reconstructing the pentagon from actual data would probably be a bit harder. I don't think it wise to ask the officials about such things. But if you could get a civil engineer and an architect together, they could come up with something similar given the rough dimensions.
Then the rest is just number crunching.
There are several open source FEA packages out there. I bet you don't even need to simulate the 757 flying - just place the plane where "they" say it was, right before it hit the Pentagon. You can estimate what velocity it was traveling at, and while Boeing might not part with a structural schematic of the 757, if you make friends with a line mechanic of one of the many airlines that use this plane, I betcha he or she would have the schematics. Best if you do it with an airline mechanic that doesn't fly on U.S. soil.
Reconstructing the pentagon from actual data would probably be a bit harder. I don't think it wise to ask the officials about such things. But if you could get a civil engineer and an architect together, they could come up with something similar given the rough dimensions.
Then the rest is just number crunching.
John Chang
Jedi
http://impact.sourceforge.net/
I think this is probably the most appropriate of the FEA modelers. Planes are like really big, really fast, really round cars, if you look at them the right way :)
I think this is probably the most appropriate of the FEA modelers. Planes are like really big, really fast, really round cars, if you look at them the right way :)
D
Darren
Guest
There would need to careful preparation, but I don't see any reason why an experiment like this couldn't work. The official story is well documented now, so they couldn't wriggle out of that.Ruth said:
Problem with a computer simulation is,Ruth said:
And "they" will always find something to take issue with if there is room for doubt. Also, using a computer simulation as "proof" will require most people not directly involved in the experiment to rely on the word of those conducting the experiment that the physics and parameters being used are accurate. It is not something most people would be able to verify.
At least with a real life event, there can be no doubt.
I agree. And if such an experiment was carried out with witnesses and filmed from dozens of angles, broadcast over the world, the visual would be so stunning that even if they try to weasel out of it, it would not be so easy with it branded in people's minds.Darren said:
Ruth said:
Ark raised the same objections, pointing out that there would be endless hair splitting and fault finding with any demonstration. He's right, of course. But I still think that the visual effect of doing it would be worth the few million it would cost to do it.Darren said:
So, if anybody is REALLY interested in putting those jokers out of office and in prison where they belong, this is the way to do it.
Isn't there some place that does "crash tests" of all kinds?
G
Guest
Guest
One thing about any experiment that makes its results believable is reproducibility. Such a real-time dramatization would no doubt go a long way to make a point. But I think it would be subject to the same disinfo to which any proof/evidence regarding 9-11 has been subjected. And many would automatically cry that not one but many such independent demonstrations are needed for anyone to take them seriously, and of course all the blocks would be put forth for this, impractical and costly as it is to keep reproducing.Laura said:
Although a computer simulation would be even more contested, at least it is easily reproducible by independant groups. Of course, again you would have disinfo and a bunch of bogus results with false parameters. The fact would remain, however, that if such software was available, those independent groups could convince themselves and any others who had guarantees that parameters were the right ones.
This could then accumulate support for a real-time demonstration because the need for it would be obvious to those who have simulation proof (because they controlled the conditions instead of simply being shown the results). I think both directions are needed to whittle down doubt as well as reveal sources of disinfo trying to undermine the simulation aspect. I don't think one event will convince anyone who is not convinced already. And such a project, no matter how it is undertaken would be an arduous uphill battle against the forces pitted against it.
If done in parallel by independent groups in terms of simulation first, more support can be gained as all these groups converge and unite for the purpose of a real-life demonstration.
Ruth
The Living Force
As there is with ALL efforts to reveal the truth, I should imagine. The more 'they' don't want you to know something, the more opposition you'd find to getting things done.Laura said:
Call me cynical, but real perpertraitors will always find someone else whom they can pay off sufficiently to 'take the blame' for them, or be their patsys. If they have the time, on the other hand, they can easily 'set someone else up' to take the blame for them and throw this person in jail.Laura said:
Things may very well catch up with the administration anyway. I have a nasty feeling that revolution is brewing and they're going to be the target of some serious popular hatred. Beside, if you get rid on one set of psychopaths (presuming they're not patsys to begin with), another set just crops up. Imo, the whole administration is rotten to the core and its tenticles spread far and wide and even off planet. Not worth the money to destroy something that is only going to destroy itself (look what happened to Hitler and if this is worse, well you can be their problems are going to be a lot worse too).
Better off giving the resources to Jean Pierre Petit, so he can round up a bunch of scientists and find lots of ideas on clean energy. This would be an example of creation rather than destruction, besides, those animals running the country will probably not need any help with their own destruction. Its inevitable.