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
Borderfox said: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
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:Can you give us some evidence and analysis to support this?
Borderfox said: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
The impression I got is that the "source" himself went to Alex Jones. His questions boiled down to:Ruth said: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.
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:Can you give us some evidence and analysis to support this?
Borderfox said: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:Can you give us some evidence and analysis to support this?
Except for Murphy's law. I think of a number of problems:Laura said:So, once he said it, once he described it, well... it just made perfect sense. You don't need to build the whole Pentagon, just a section of it. It doesn't have to be wired or furnished or anything, just the basic structure using the same building specs as the real thing... reinforced concrete, limestone facade, etc. You don't need a new 757 either. Get one that's ready to be mothballed... Get some bodies, luggage, etc, load 'er up and let 'er rip.
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:Except for Murphy's law. I think of a number of problems:
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?!!
Problem with a computer simulation is,Ruth said: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.
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.once the experiment's done, then they can always turn around and say: "well this isn't right and thats not accurate....
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: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:Except for Murphy's law. I think of a number of problems:
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?!!
Ruth said: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.
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:Problem with a computer simulation is,
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.once the experiment's done, then they can always turn around and say: "well this isn't right and thats not accurate....
At least with a real life event, there can be no doubt.
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: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.
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: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.
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: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.