Charlie Sheen's Message for President Obama

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Gregus wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Gregus wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Gregus wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Gregus wrote:
No no, explain how that building fell at free fall speed into it’s own footprint?

There is a phenomenon in which curved space-time results in directly-downwards acceleration of unsupported objects, rather than sideways or upwards. Spooky stuff.

Honestly your attempt at witty humor falls short. Stick to what you know best. Steroids.

Yet in days to come,you will be telling him “EXACTLY!” if it benefits your discussion on anything.

If someone is along the lines of my thinking then i see no problem with agreeing. I don’t see your point to be honest.

I really didn’t expect you to.

That’s fine.

You may not know but the security agency that was in charge of the towers and ensured it’s safety, and monitored who had access where and when was and is owned by…none other then…The Bush family. Amazing coincidence. [/quote]

It isn’t owned by the Bush family…but they are tied to it. They’re also tied in with Houston,TX insurance company that was the insurance carrier for WTC as well. Take what you want out of that.

62

Well im not gonna argue every detail as it detracts from the overall direction. But how many companies made short bets on the market before the attack? How many billions were generated with that scene?

63

[quote]Gregus wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Petedacook wrote:

Gregus wrote:
No no, explain how that building fell at free fall speed into it’s own footprint?

Above is the question I assume Sloth is answering. I have to “assume” because Sloth doesn’t really add any thought of his own. He simply quotes the government’s story.

Sloth quoted the following:

Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

I won’t bother to address the obvious bias of siting NIST analysis of the collapse, or refute the article by countering with unbiased analysis; but I will simply ask how does what you have quoted, and I paraphrased, answer the question above posted by Gregus? Your NIST article seems to reinforce the need to ask the question in the first place.

Unbelievable. The collapse didn’t happen at FREE FALL speed. It states right in the quote that it took 40% longer to collapse than at free fall speed. Only a portion happened at free fall . Like, you know, between stage 1 where the exterior columns are buckling, into stage 2 where they’ve given out completely, and before stage three, where the collapse is slowed back down as the upper mass comes crashing down through the lower mass.

"The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time�??�??�?�¢??compared to the 3.9 second free fall time�??�??�?�¢??was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below."

http://www.nist.gov/…_qa_082108.html

Oh boy. You took the bait. Hook like and all. There are countless accounts of emergency workers saying they saw steel flow like water. They compared it to a foundry. Liquefied metal flowing like water. They all saw it. When NIST was asked about it they denied it. Look there is too much to go into. Look for yourself and open your mind. Noting to fear but fear itself. [/quote]

Eye witnesses are notoriously inaccurate. We create patterns and produce meaning from what we sense, whether it has any connection to reality or not.

64

[quote]Sloth wrote:

"The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time�??�??�?�¢??compared to the 3.9 second free fall time�??�??�?�¢??was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below."

http://www.nist.gov/…_qa_082108.html [/quote]

What is the cause of the collapse of WTC VII according to the “Official Story” and what is the source of that information?

why did buildings WTC V and WTC VI not collapse? Their location was closer to the WTC North tower and WTC North tower actually caused more damage to both of these buildings AND each were also on fire long past WTC VII dropped.
And since WTC VII was the first and only steel structure to ever, EVER fall due to fire alone according to the NASA investigation, one might expect more scientific evidence to how this structure was so vulnerable. How was the construction of this building different than either buildings beside WTC VII, that also took heavy damage, but didn’t fall to vibrations and loosened bedrock and foundations.

I would like to point out that it is the totality of questionable events after questionable events & occurrences that make it necessary to question the government’s theory, and cry out for a complete and thorough investigation.

Building 7 alone does make the case, every questionable event after questionable event makes it down right morally necessary to demand an investigation, and question the government’s theory.

The fact that there was no investigation into the crime scenes alone screams guilt, the need for an investigations, and everyone to be held accountable.

I have heard people say “the government can’t do anything right, how could they pull this off without getting caught?” The answer to that is that they have been caught, and theyv trust that the people are too stupid to question it.

My time is limited, so I will provide a short example:

Condoleeza: “no one ever imagined they would fly jets into buildings.”

When Cheney was asked why fighter jets wer enot scrambled from Andrews to defend the pentagon and intercept any air craft with their transponders turned off he responded: “the fighters were doing a simulation where planes were hijacked and being flown into buildings”

Gveronment’s response to the confliting stories: “oh, we made a mistake.”

Then it comes out that Bush was told by the CIA “Obama to hijack planes”

Government’s response: “whoops, a mistake”

Then, Bush and Cheney attack the whistle blowers at the CIA & FBI that were leaking the previous knowledge about the potential that terrorists might hijack planes and fly them into the trade towers. Cheney called it : “unpatriotic” & said “if there is investigations into the information on 9/11 it will open us up to another terrorist attack.”

They government was caught, and you buy their excuses and their conspiracy theory. In fact, if you believe the government’s conspiracy, you are in the minority. The last time I checked only 14% of Americans believe the government’s theory.

65

[quote]Petedacook wrote:
A whole lot about about every conspiracy angle he could brainstorm, without rhyme or reason.

[/quote]

See? You show them they got something wrong, and they start flinging poo in every direction, hoping something will stick.

Anyways, for those interested, this is good site.
http://www.911myths.com/

66

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
A whole lot about about every conspiracy angle he could brainstorm, without rhyme or reason.

See? You show them they got something wrong, and they start flinging poo in every direction, hoping something will stick.

Anyways, for those interested, this is good site.
http://www.911myths.com/ [/quote]

What exactly did I get wrong? The fact that building 7 was NOT an unsupported object was my original premise which you quoted. Are you saying it is unsupported?

I never said building 7 fell at free fall speed. The other guy said that, and I question Mr.Roberts saying it was an unsupported structure.

There is no poo…it was logic and reason you obviously cannot deal with. This is typical of feeble minds. I am on my way out and do not have time to dissect your minutia, and contrived nonsense postulated by NIST about building 7.

The fact is, you have no answers to valid questions. Even the NIST article you quoted building 7 fell at free fall speed until it hit it’s footprint…which I assume you were responding to since you never stated what you were responding to.

I really don’t know what your argument is since you never actually stated it. I think I made mine clear.

67

[quote]Petedacook wrote:
Even the NIST article you quoted building 7 fell at free fall speed until it hit it’s footprint…which I assume you were responding to since you never stated what you were responding to.
[/quote]

You can’t even get this right (the NIST does not claim it fell at free fall until it “hit it’s footprint”), yet you think I’m going to cover the hundreds–if not thousands–of insane ideas that have come out of the “truth” brigades?

68

[quote]Gregus wrote:
Here is an architect[/quote]

Here is someone who has been independently studying steel, and has a poor grasp of how steel reinforcing works. For someone to work as an Architect for 20 years and not understand how steel failure works is astoundingly scary. Steel is not timber, it doesn’t bend and warp, it FAILS when the load placed on it is beyond it’s original design specifications.

This thermite crap falls far short of the mark too, thermite needs more than a few microseconds to set to work on steel.

"NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires.

Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."

This stuff is so old and has been debunked so many times over.

69

Im agnostic concerning this matter.

I don’t really think the gov. could pull off something this huge without getting caught. They can’t even manage getting away with the easy stuff… so if they did it, we will know eventually.

70

[quote]conorh wrote:
Gregus wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Petedacook wrote:

Gregus wrote:
No no, explain how that building fell at free fall speed into it’s own footprint?

Above is the question I assume Sloth is answering. I have to “assume” because Sloth doesn’t really add any thought of his own. He simply quotes the government’s story.

Sloth quoted the following:

Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

I won’t bother to address the obvious bias of siting NIST analysis of the collapse, or refute the article by countering with unbiased analysis; but I will simply ask how does what you have quoted, and I paraphrased, answer the question above posted by Gregus? Your NIST article seems to reinforce the need to ask the question in the first place.

Unbelievable. The collapse didn’t happen at FREE FALL speed. It states right in the quote that it took 40% longer to collapse than at free fall speed. Only a portion happened at free fall .

Like, you know, between stage 1 where the exterior columns are buckling, into stage 2 where they’ve given out completely, and before stage three, where the collapse is slowed back down as the upper mass comes crashing down through the lower mass.

"The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time�??�??�??�?�¢??compared to the 3.9 second free fall time�??�??�??�?�¢??was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below.

This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below."

http://www.nist.gov/…_qa_082108.html

Oh boy. You took the bait. Hook like and all. There are countless accounts of emergency workers saying they saw steel flow like water. They compared it to a foundry. Liquefied metal flowing like water. They all saw it. When NIST was asked about it they denied it. Look there is too much to go into. Look for yourself and open your mind. Noting to fear but fear itself.

Eye witnesses are notoriously inaccurate. We create patterns and produce meaning from what we sense, whether it has any connection to reality or not.[/quote]

Really? Even multiple, as in dozens upon dozen unrelated people all saying the same thing. Even Cops. But it you really believe what you say, which BTW is true, but in THIS case, if still feel that all the testimonies are false. Well then lets throw out our entire legal system, as we all know it relies mostly on eye witness testimonies.

71

I’ve forgotten what aluminum joinery is made of, someone remind me?

72

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Gregus wrote:
Here is an architect

Here is someone who has been independently studying steel, and has a poor grasp of how steel reinforcing works. For someone to work as an Architect for 20 years and not understand how steel failure works is astoundingly scary. Steel is not timber, it doesn’t bend and warp, it FAILS when the load placed on it is beyond it’s original design specifications.

This thermite crap falls far short of the mark too, thermite needs more than a few microseconds to set to work on steel.

"NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires.

Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."

This stuff is so old and has been debunked so many times over.[/quote]

Oh yes, duuh. How silly of me to not get that. Do you realize how stupid you sound? Ofcourse not. If you did you wouldn’t be making sounds.

73

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
Even the NIST article you quoted building 7 fell at free fall speed until it hit it’s footprint…which I assume you were responding to since you never stated what you were responding to.

You can’t even get this right (the NIST does not claim it fell at free fall until it “hit it’s footprint”), yet blah blahI’m going to cover the hundreds–if not thousands–of insane ideas that have come out of the “truth” brigades? [/quote]

So far I am leaning toward not debating with you, because you seem to be a bobble head. I will continue for now, but If you do not respond to this with a fact based, intelligent, logical argument; and instead choose the route of insults or not adding any thought, I will not debate with you any further. I am not here for games.

That said, here we go.

I find it intriguing that you cannot understand that “falling at free fall speed” = “NIST Article: Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)”

According to what you quoted, the NIST analyzed the video to the following simplified 3 divisions of speed;

  1. The building begins falling at less than free fall speed.
  2. building accelerates and falls at free fall speed.
  3. building slows and falls slower than free fall speed.

I assume you posted that in response to this:

From Gregus’ request we get one question; “how,” which is based on two premises:

  1. Did the building fall at free fall speed?
    Answer: YES - Read number 2 above. Try and understand why the answer is yes.

  2. Did it land in it’s own foot print?
    Answer:your quote does not mention the foot print, or explain how the building fell in it’s “footprint,” or straight down. However you wish to phrase it.

You then attacked me for this premise:

[quote]
Petedacook wrote:
Your NIST article seems to reinforce the need to ask the question in the first place.[/quote]

You responded:

[quote]
Sloth wrote:
Unbelievable. The collapse didn’t happen at FREE FALL speed. [/quote]

I tried to explain it again, and you missed it again.

And now I ask: does the below simplification make it easier?

If the building fell at “free fall” speed during any portion of the fall, then the building fell at free fall speed.

If I drive my car 120 MPH going down the highway one day, then I drove the car 120 MPH down the highway one day.

Did the building fall at free fall speed during the entire fall? NO, but that was not postulated by Gregus in his premise.

Did I drive my car at 120 MPH all the time and on every single section of the highway? NO, but again that was not postulated by the analogy.

Your NIST article does not explain what Gregus asked to be explained. The article proves the premise that the building fell at free fall speed.

I tried to make it as easy as possible for you, and include an analogy to help you get this right. It seems tough for you.---------> Returning your appreciated sarcasm here

Now since you wish to discuss building 7 using the NIST article, and you have reinforced Gregus’ premise for “how,” while simultaneously dismissing the “how;” I have two questions for you in regards to your NIST article. This is quoted directly from the article:

[quote]
Why didn’t the investigators look at actual steel samples from WTC 7?

Steel samples were removed from the site before the NIST investigation began. In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, debris was removed rapidly from the site to aid in recovery efforts and facilitate emergency responders�??�??�??�??�??�??�??�?�¢?? efforts to work around the site. Once it was removed from the scene, the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified.[/quote]
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html

Here are the questions based on that quote:

  1. Is it standard practice to whip up and destroy evidence at a crime scene without a complete and thorough investigation?

(remember: steel building has never fallen by fire alone before, and certainly never REACHED free fall speed by fire alone)

  1. Is it not reasonable to question why an investigation did not occur at a crime scene where several thousand deaths, and the first ever failure of a steel structure occurred?

Like I said…there are many, many reasons to question the government’s conspiracy theory of 911. You chose to focus on building 7. There are many other reasons to question and demand answers.

Can you tell me your position on the government’s 911 conspiracy theory?

74

[quote]conorh wrote:

Eye witnesses are notoriously inaccurate. We create patterns and produce meaning from what we sense, whether it has any connection to reality or not.[/quote]

Then why order them silenced? Why not allow them to broadcast what they heard and saw? Why slap them with gag orders, and confiscate tapes?

75

If the US government was willing to let 3,000 people die in those towers in a controlled explosion, they would have killed the nut job who created “Loose Change”.

76

[quote]Sloth wrote:
You can’t even get this right (the NIST does not claim it fell at free fall until it “hit it’s footprint”), yet you think I’m going to cover the hundreds–if not thousands–of insane ideas that have come out of the “truth” brigades? [/quote]

I’m not entirely sure these people are all that bright. There are a shit ton of videos and photos showing the columns and other supports far out pacing the building in the journey to the ground.

77

By far the most comical part of all of this is that Sheen and the other nut jobs actually think that the government can keep a secret this large. It would have taken a massive undertaking to pull something like this off with hundreds of people being in the loop. Since It’s impossible that we have not heard from at least one of the conspirators over the past 8 years.

How many more threads on this stuff?

When I read things like this I immediately think of the low intelligence level of those who buy into such a theory.

Sheesh.

78

[quote]ZEB wrote:
By far the most comical part of all of this is that Sheen and the other nut jobs actually think that the government can keep a secret this large. It would have taken a massive undertaking to pull something like this off with hundreds of people being in the loop. Since It’s impossible that we have not heard from at least one of the conspirators over the past 8 years.

How many more threads on this stuff?

When I read things like this I immediately think of the low intelligence level of those who buy into such a theory.

Sheesh.[/quote]

How many people would it take to slow government down just long enough so that something like that could take place?

79

[quote]ZEB wrote:
By far the most comical part of all of this is that Sheen and the other nut jobs actually think that the government can keep a secret this large. It would have taken a massive undertaking to pull something like this off with hundreds of people being in the loop. Since It’s impossible that we have not heard from at least one of the conspirators over the past 8 years.

How many more threads on this stuff?

When I read things like this I immediately think of the low intelligence level of those who buy into such a theory.

Sheesh.[/quote]

Yep. Government conspiracy? no way! Government ineptness? You bet’cha!

80

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
The secret truth, finally revealed, is that the Bush crime family had sleeper agents fly the planes into the WTC and Pentagon, while the old crew they’d used for the Kennedy assassination planted charges just to make extra-sure. The purpose? Because their hand-picked successor Obama’s long-form birth certificate was stored in a vault in the WTC and this was the only to destroy the evidence that could have ruined his candidacy.

And why the Pentagon bombing / plane crash? Because the DOD had taken Obama’s passport records on loan, and they had to be destroyed also. Just as the Terminator said in T2 regarding his computer chip.

Plus, the Bush crime family had sold short on stock and made billions that day, as did their Texas oil cronies.[/quote]

BRILLIANT!