Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Any chance of a poll of structural engineers on Charlie Sheen?
CNN Charlie Sheen poll result
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
- Status
Bonfirelight
Crocodile
Donna Ferentes said:
and the circle is complete
Bonfirelight said:
You posted this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Presidential Advisor Charlie Sheen
"It seems to me that upon the revelation of that news that the secret service would grab the President as if he was on fire and remove him from that room," said Sheen.
You missed the bit he said before that, which i quote now, you know, in the interests of posters seeing the context of those comments:
"Once Andy Card had whispered to Bush that America was under attack why didn't the secret service immediately whisk Bush away to a secret location?
By remaining at a location where it was publicly known the President would be before 9/11, he was not only putting his own life in danger, but the lives of hundreds of schoolchildren. That is unless the government knew for sure what the targets were beforehand and that President Bush wasn't one of them.
"It seems to me that upon the revelation of that news that the secret service would grab the President as if he was on fire and remove him from that room," said Sheen.
One might certainly expect the president to be swiftly removed from his known location. But no, he was allowed to remain there for quite some time. Seems sheen has a very fair point to me.
You also posted this, thereby again decontextualising his comments:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Video Footage analysist Charlie Sheen
What about all these shots that had this thing perfectly documented? Instead they put out five frames that they claim not to have authorized, it's really suspicious,"
To help contextualise those comments for the forum, here is the rest of sheen's words:
We have not been able to confirm that a large commercial airliner hit the Pentagon because the government has seized and refused to release any footage that would show the impact.
"I understand in the interest of national security that maybe not release the Pentagon cameras but what about the Sheraton, what about the gas station, what about the Department of Transportation freeway cam? What about all these shots that had this thing perfectly documented? Instead they put out five frames that they claim not to have authorized, it's really suspicious," said Sheen.
Sheen then goes onto requesting that the authorities prove there is nothing to hide by reiterating that they release such footage. Absolutely valid requests and good points to make in questioning the official version given us by the USG.
Bonfirelight, you have seletively pulled out comments by sheen, in the process decontextualising them, to portray him in the negative light you want him to be seen in by posters on their forum
Poor play indeed. Do you have an agenda, or can you not see any problem with what is disingeneousness on your part?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Video Footage analysist Charlie Sheen
What about all these shots that had this thing perfectly documented? Instead they put out five frames that they claim not to have authorized, it's really suspicious,"
To help contextualise those comments for the forum, here is the rest of sheen's words:
We have not been able to confirm that a large commercial airliner hit the Pentagon because the government has seized and refused to release any footage that would show the impact.
"I understand in the interest of national security that maybe not release the Pentagon cameras but what about the Sheraton, what about the gas station, what about the Department of Transportation freeway cam? What about all these shots that had this thing perfectly documented? Instead they put out five frames that they claim not to have authorized, it's really suspicious," said Sheen.
Sheen then goes onto requesting that the authorities prove there is nothing to hide by reiterating that they release such footage. Absolutely valid requests and good points to make in questioning the official version given us by the USG.
Bonfirelight, you have seletively pulled out comments by sheen, in the process decontextualising them, to portray him in the negative light you want him to be seen in by posters on their forum
Poor play indeed. Do you have an agenda, or can you not see any problem with what is disingeneousness on your part?
HarrisonSlade
say NO to the vaccine
Right, let me get this straight. Charlie Sheen gives his opinion of what may have happened and CNN does a poll on it. 
Now that is either So tacky or those guys at CNN must have a heck of a lot of time on their hands.
Oh yeah - and you use it as evidence? CHARLIE SHEEN?
Now that is either So tacky or those guys at CNN must have a heck of a lot of time on their hands.Oh yeah - and you use it as evidence?
CHARLIE SHEEN? Hey, they got 54,000 people to play along and view whatever ads popped up while they were voting. Sounds like "mission accomplished" to me.HarrisonSlade said:Right, let me get this straight. Charlie Sheen gives his opinion of what may have happened and CNN does a poll on it.
Bonfirelight
Crocodile
fela fan said:
lol. i didn't quote him entirely no, its not really the point as far as i'm concerned in this case.
The point is, as the wider quote still demonstrates, that Sheen is making assumptions and giving his opinion on matters of Presidential protocol and video evidence, on what he thinks 'should have happened' and what 'seems odd'.
Charlie Sheen doesn't know anything about these fields. He has read some articles, probably the same ones you and i and everyone here has read, and has come to his conclusions.
As these conclusions seem to be made on not much more than his opinion of these articles, they have no more weight when he makes them, as when you make them, and are certainly no more newsworthy.
editor
hiraethified
His opinions have as much weight and as much relevance and importance to the events of 9/11 as the wafflings of a drunken bum.Bonfirelight said:
Sadly, some people think that when a woefully unqualified celebrity speaks, it's somehow more important than anyone else's equally unqualified opinions.
Not only that, but the mumblings of a Hollywood richkid are somehow seen as being of more worth than the peer-reviewed opinions of structural engineers, architects, fire chiefs and a whole host of eminently qualified experts in related fields.
editor said:
Not really. He is a member of a type of aristocracy. Regardless of his history or attempts to smear him, his name carries a lot of weight.
If you're going to look at it through the most rose-tinted of glasses, you could say that he's the first of that particular aristocracy to stick his head above the parapets and say "well actually, something stinks here".
Rosier-tinted than I'd be prepared to wear myself, but I haven't completely closed my mind on this one. Regardless of expert testimony, I still feel a deep sense of unease about all of this.
editor
hiraethified
Only amongst eejits who are impressed by celebrity.nick1181 said:
Spoilt Hollywood stars have a long history of spouting shite over the years, so I fail to see any reason what anyone who is looking for the 'truth' about 9/11 should pay the slightest attention to the woefully unqualified ramblings of someone like Sheen.
If you want the truth, talk to structural engineers, accident investigators, architects etc etc - y'know, people who actually know what they're talking about.
editor said:
Errr well actually I think you`ll find the Fire Service Engineers and the Structural Engineers/Architects who built the towers both agree that fire did not bring those buildings down. Whether your ignoring what they`ve said or your just ignorant i`m not sure.
Don`t make it out that its somehow charlie sheen Vs everyone else because a lot of people who know what they`re talking about agree with him.
Would you care to explain to me why the commission claimed that WTC had no structural columns when they had 37 of the biggest in the world? They were the buildings most advanced feature and ensure a collapse like we witnessed could never happen. IT WAS DONE WITH EXPLOSIVES, people who continue to deny that just haven`t consulted the sources.
You could always try listening to the firemen who were there, they say it was brought down by demo charges....But I guess they are just conspiracy whackos right? The US govt wouldn`t kill its own people right?
You would do well to listen to the families of those who died and the firemen who lost so many of their comrades that day. They have the personal stake, they`ve done the research and the majority agree with me...who do you think makes up a large % of the 9/11 truth movement?
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
A source, sir, please!Azrael23 said:
Donna Ferentes said:
Of course.
Im used to having the burden of proof now. God forbid that editor and the ilk provide some sources to suggest office fires bring down buildings perfectly upon their own footprint......even when they haven`t been hit by a plane like WTC7.
Larry Silverstein the insurance holder for WTC7 admitted live on TV "We made the decision to pull it....."
For those who have eyes to see I guess.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
That's neither a source nor does it say what you claimed it would.Azrael23 said:
editor
hiraethified
I've already done that many, many times and I'll be fucked if I'm going to post them up all over again.Azrael23 said:
But they were proper links and everything! With properly qualified authors using peer reviewed research!
You've got any of that or are we stuck celebrity endorsements?
WouldBe
Dislicksick
Azrael23 said:Thats not a source, its a tidbit of information thats pretty bloody important. I`m getting the source for you now, although if your going to be so rude I may not bother.
So the documentary with the architect of WTC1 & 2 where he explained how it could happen is irrelevant then.
editor said:
You`ve got a penchant for repeating yourself. So maybe you could address some points?
Why did the commission tell us that WTCs 37 massive support columns didn`t exist?
What is your response to the owner of WTC7 admitting they used demo charges to bring it down? Why did they lie about this at the commission, they say it was brought down by fire on 3 floors.
The USG would bring down the towers for Psychological Effect. The two falling towers is also very symbolic and is found in tarot, mythology etc. Its not necessary but then neither was Vietnam.
BTW Heres an analysis from JOM, a trade journal in the Mineral and Metal industry.
JOM
Don`t worry thats not my source its just the beginning. Muhahaha
Interview with Dr Thomas Eagar, Professor of Engineering at MIT
editor
hiraethified
Here's who was involved in the study of the WTC7's collapse.Azrael23 said:
The Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY).
Have any of them mentioned hidden explosives being responsible yet?
Looking forward to reading your sources for the claim that the "Fire Service Engineers and the Structural Engineers/Architects who built the towers both agree that fire did not bring those buildings down."
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Azrael23 said:
This appears to say: "The ensuing fire was clearly the principal cause of the collapse".
Well if federal agencies say it wasn`t explosives!
Its against the laws of physics. I`m not bothered what the mouthpieces say. I trust the people who designed the building in the first place over a bunch of sycophants who prefer cheques to the truth.
Heres what some firefighters WHO WERE THERE (unlike you) had to say,
FF Discuss
BTW Soz for the last link should have explained that this guy is one of the Peer-reviewed asses editor was talking about.
Its against the laws of physics. I`m not bothered what the mouthpieces say. I trust the people who designed the building in the first place over a bunch of sycophants who prefer cheques to the truth.
Heres what some firefighters WHO WERE THERE (unlike you) had to say,
FF Discuss
BTW Soz for the last link should have explained that this guy is one of the Peer-reviewed asses editor was talking about.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
