Actor Charlie Sheen questions official story of 9/11

[editor]

e2a reply to trashy: but very little of it is opinion, it's the same thing that editor always posts on 911 threads except with a bit of character assassination thrown in this time, because the blokes famous

Err, seeing as his opinion is deemed worthy of an entire thread purely and solely because he is famous, it's fair cop to look at the character and scientific credentials of the fella.

And, frankly, he's as qualified as Hilda Ogden.

To be fair it's a bit of overkill from editor here.

If I could be arsed, I could probably point to threads where you are a major poster. So fucking what? We all have some subjects that get a response.

It's either I argue the toss on these threads or I ban them completely because I'm not having their shit going unchallenged and the site being used to propagate their nonsense.

You decide which you'd like it to be.

 

[trashpony]

Surely, if the thread is disliked so much it could have been binned and a PM could have been sent detailing the reasons?

Nooooooooo - binning the thread would be the ultimate stoking of the conspiraloon fire. T'would be carnage

And in response to your last bit (which I can't be arsed to c+p, soz), isn't the editor allowed to have an opinion? This is a subject he clearly feels pretty strongly about.

I don't see where this whole idea that he needs to be an objective arbiter in arguments comes from - it seems bizarrely prevalent on Urban. I've never understood it

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

You could start with the one that it wasn't Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon.

Same here.

My question is this:

Why, after all this time is Sheen / CNN highlighting the doubts regarding the official story of 9/11 - and choosing this particular 'aspect' over others?

Of all the 'aspects' regarding 9/11, the 'no plane hit the pentagon' stikes me as one of the most contentious and easy to disprove (by simply releasing some of the seized video footage).

There are many other 'aspects' of the 9/11 narrative that warrant further investigation, for instance the put options and irregular trading that took place as the towers burned.

Surely, a rigourous and thorough investigation of these 'aspects' would produce 'hard evidence' of insider knowledge or wrongdoing if that is what occured?

But no. We have CNN giving airtime and a seemingly unbiased interview to a Hollywood actor who concentrates on the 'no plane' story. He doesn't say he believes it one way or another. He says 'Show us'.

I'm sure most people will see this as a 'conspiracy theory too far', but I really won't be surprised if, once Mr Sheen has caused a big enough stir, some video footage will suddenly appear which blows the whole 'no plane' thing out of the water.

When it sinks, it will take every other question regarding 9/11 down with it.

Perception management 101.

 

[nino_savatte]

Once again you limeys have gotten off at the wrong stop. As every American knows, the only thing that trumps a Sheen is a Baldwin.

Is that Mike Baldwin?

 

[Azrael23]

There are many other 'aspects' of the 9/11 narrative that warrant further investigation, for instance the put options and irregular trading that took place as the towers burned.

Surely, a rigourous and thorough investigation of these 'aspects' would produce 'hard evidence' of insider knowledge or wrongdoing if that is what occured?.

The put options went back to a company headed by Buzzy Krongard, the then deputy director of the CIA.

But thats probably a coincidence right? The american govt wouldn`t hurt its own people....right?

 

[Jazzz]

I don't see where this whole idea that he needs to be an objective arbiter in arguments comes from - it seems bizarrely prevalent on Urban. I've never understood it

Indeed trashpony, editor cannot be expected to be an independent arbiter of threads where he is actively posting. Nor could anyone. This is exactly why the 'posting hat' and the 'moderating hat' should be kept separate.

 

[trashpony]

Indeed trashpony, editor cannot be expected to be an independent arbiter of threads where he is actively posting. Nor could anyone. This is exactly why the 'posting hat' and the 'moderating hat' should be kept separate.

Err ... no. I think he can tell the difference when people are being shit-stirring argumentative buggers no matter what the subject. And iirc, conspiraloon stuff is against the FAQs. He's remarkably tolerant imo and not remotely draconian in the way he applies the rules - if my finger were on the ban button, this board would have about 20 posters left!

 

[Balbi]

I guess it's watching editor really lose it over conspiraloons that kind of makes me a bit unnerved. It's like someone swatting flies with a cruise missile.

 

[editor]

Indeed trashpony, editor cannot be expected to be an independent arbiter of threads where he is actively posting. Nor could anyone. This is exactly why the 'posting hat' and the 'moderating hat' should be kept separate.

FFS. What is this bullshit?

Where have I "moderated" on this thread?
Where you stopped from posting up your drivel?
Where any of your posts removed?
Have I edited any of your posts?

Or have I simply argued against the barking Jazzz methodology that places the mumblings of a Hollywood actor above that of peer-reviewed research, academic studies and credible analysis?

However, after what felt like the ten zillioneth thread on the same subject, the mods decided sometime ago that conspiracy threads merely regurgitating the same arguments again and again and again without any new, credible evidence would be likely candidates for the bin.

I don't really see the utterings of Charlie fucking Sheen adding up to much in the hard evidence stakes, so I may well don my moderating hat later and dump this in the bin.

That's what we do with threads that endlessly repeat themselves you see.

 

[Jazzz]

Err ... no. I think he can tell the difference when people are being shit-stirring argumentative buggers no matter what the subject. And iirc, conspiraloon stuff is against the FAQs. He's remarkably tolerant imo and not remotely draconian in the way he applies the rules - if my finger were on the ban button, this board would have about 20 posters left!

You aren't making sense trashpony, first of all you say editor can't be expected to be an independent arbiter of threads, now you say he is. Make your mind up!

There is no censorship of 9/11 here on urban IIRC. It would also be plainly ridiculous to refuse to discuss topics that are mainstream news which this is.

If you are saying that editor is more sensible than you are, I confess I agree.

 

[editor]

I guess it's watching editor really lose it over conspiraloons that kind of makes me a bit unnerved. It's like someone swatting flies with a cruise missile.

Far from 'losing it', this thread has provided me with some minor amusement, but with snidey personal comments like yours now appearing, it's rather losing its appeal.

 

[Jazzz]

oh dear, it's toys out of the pram time!

 

[trashpony]

You aren't making sense trashpony, first of all you say editor can't be expected to be an independent arbiter of threads, now you say he is. Make your mind up!

There's a big difference between him having an opinion about something and him applying the rules fairly. You're implying he can't do both but that's bollocks.

 

[kakuma]

it TTG all over again

 

[Balbi]

I was not intending to be snidey or make anything major out of this thread. I've got no agenda towards you or U75 editor and hope never to have.

I'm leaving the thread to its own devices now.

 

[editor]

I think iiiiiiiit's nearly:

 

[trashpony]

Ooh, can I be last in?????

 

[editor]

Far from 'losing it', this thread has provided me with some minor amusement, but with snidey personal comments like yours now appearing, it's rather losing its appeal.

So, you believe in God, heaven, hell, the devil and miracles and all that stuff, because the Americans voted for that too?

If not, why not?

 

[Kid_Eternity]

These conspiraloon cunts really fuck me off; they come on here with their fact free paranoid delusions and when sane folk call em on it they're accused of trying to gag people or shut down "debate". Its fucking bullshit.

 

[Jazzz]

There's a big difference between him having an opinion about something and him applying the rules fairly. You're implying he can't do both but that's bollocks.

You were the one that said you couldn't understand the need for him to be an objective arbiter, so don't blame me for the fact you are contradicting yourself.

What I have stated is just an established judicial principle, it's why judges can't try cases where they know the defendant, it's why the judiciary is independent from politicians. Etc.

anyway, last in, as editor tries to hide from reality...

 

[trashpony]

You were the one that said you couldn't understand the need for him to be an objective arbiter, so don't blame me for the fact you are contradicting yourself.

What I have stated is just an established judicial principle, it's why judges can't try cases where they know the defendant, it's why the judiciary is independent from politicians. Etc.

anyway, last in, as editor tries to hide from reality...

I'm not contradicting myself - I don't think there's any contradiction in him having opinions and expressing them and being able to be a fair mod.

Judicial principle?! FFS - it's a bloody bulletin board, not Judge Judy!

I don't see the world through your conspiracy theory glasses so I don't really get where you're coming from.

Anyway - last in

 

[kakuma]

lets make a big fuss about how it is nothing

nothing to see here folks

 

[trashpony]

lets make a big fuss about how it is nothing

nothing to see here folks

Don't pretend you're not playing

 

[Jazzz]

I'm not contradicting myself - I don't think there's any contradiction in him having opinions and expressing them and being able to be a fair mod.

So you are saying you believe he IS an objective arbiter, yet your earlier comment implied that he wasn't. That's contradicting yourself, silly!

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Jazzz, you wouldn't know what "objective" was if you got a box of chocolates for defining it. You wouldn't recognise it when you saw it.

 

[laptop]

It's like someone swatting flies with a cruise missile.

That's the shortest spelling of "holographic" I have ever seen.

 

[trashpony]

So you are saying you believe he IS an objective arbiter, yet your earlier comment implied that he wasn't. That's contradicting yourself, silly!

No, you're failing to understand what I'm saying. It is possible for ed to arbitrate over modding decisions. And yet he has his own opinions and expresses them. In those cases, he's not acting in an arbitrary capacity. I've never found it difficult to understand when he (or any of the other mods for that matter) are coming from a modding perspective or from a personal one.

I can't understand why some people find it so difficult to get their heads around.

 

[laptop]

I can't understand why some people find it so difficult to get their heads around.

It's the tinfoil. It messes up the "vibrations" and confuses the voices. It's a CIA plot...

 

[editor]

It's growing closer...

 

[trashpony]

I've got to be last in. I've worked so hard for it