cool skill said:
Irrelevant? In a thread entitled "actor Charlie Sheen questions '9/11' " ?
You miss the point of the thread, surely.
actor Charlie Sheen questions '9/11'
- Thread starter duendy
- Start date
- Status
Irrelevant? In a thread entitled "actor Charlie Sheen questions '9/11' " ?
You miss the point of the thread, surely.
Get real, I already explained how and what the point of the thread was, and what the situation was, and how it was irrelevant. All you can do is restate your pathetic position that it was not irrelevant. This is probably one of your so called "debate tactics". Keep repeating yourself, and it will probably make you believe you have won some debate that in reality does not even exist.phlogistician said:
In order for a debate to exist, you have to define the debate, if parties take opposing positions, you can dicuss whatever you find debatable.
We already moved past that moron.
I have stated that those particular rants of yours are irrelevant, and I have commented on how and why any discussion of Charlie Sheen would be irrelevant unless you establish certain premises' which I have already pointed out.
Learn how to fucking read, or keep restating position that your rants were in any way relevant as if it would make it so. It's all you know how to do considering you have not acknowledged any of the points I presented, are possibly unaware that I posted anything. Fuck off.
ASSHOLE!!!!
Last edited:
Blah blah Blah.
The thread is entitled 'actor Charlie Sheen questions 9/11', so it is impossible for you, however highly you value your debating prowess, to make Charlie Sheen irrelevant. Are you really that stupid, or self obsessed to think you can? What am I saying, you are of course guilty of both!
The thread is entitled 'actor Charlie Sheen questions 9/11', so it is impossible for you, however highly you value your debating prowess, to make Charlie Sheen irrelevant. Are you really that stupid, or self obsessed to think you can? What am I saying, you are of course guilty of both!
see latest update regarding Charlie Sheen's questioning....
"As the Charlie Sheen Story ends its second week and with cookie-cutter establisment hit pieces continuing to be churned out, the attack dogs are facing an intensifying backlash from a clear majority of educated American citizens who are sick and tired of the sneering elitism
of mainstream media." www.propagandamatrix.com
also see link titled 'Brave Charlie 9/11'
"As the Charlie Sheen Story ends its second week and with cookie-cutter establisment hit pieces continuing to be churned out, the attack dogs are facing an intensifying backlash from a clear majority of educated American citizens who are sick and tired of the sneering elitism
of mainstream media." www.propagandamatrix.com
also see link titled 'Brave Charlie 9/11'
DISCLAIMER: duendy has requested that i post the following page
i do not agree or disagree with the following
Charlie Sheen Reinvigorates 9/11 Truth Movement
Average Americans defend Charlie Sheen while establishment attack dogs whimper, falter, retract
Responses to hit pieces routinely show massive support for Sheen
Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | April 1 2006
As the Charlie Sheen story ends its second week and with cookie-cutter establishment hit pieces continuing to be churned out, the attack dogs are facing an intensifying backlash from a clear majority of educated American citizens who are sick and tired of the sneering elitism of the mainstream media.
The most recent high profile attack came courtesy of government apologist and former White House media relations mouthpiece Betsy Hart, whose columns are syndicated to over 350 US newspapers.
After this website issued a rebuttal to her ridiculous assertion that people have serious doubts about 9/11because they "fear Islamic terrorism," a sweeping conspiracy theory that fails to address any of the evidence, her blog has been inundated with responses from educated individuals politely reminding her to get her facts straight before commenting on such a broad subject.
"Which is scarier? A rogue group of maniac terrorists on the other side of the globe that are willing to kill American citizens to achieve a political end or a powerful, secretive and utterly corrupt government right here at home
that is willing to do the same," asked one respondent.
Another addresses Hart's inability to comprehend that the government would stage events for political gain in citing the recent Bush Blair memo on Iraq that discussed painting a US spy plane in UN colors and goading Saddam to shoot it down to create a pretext for war.
Hart's article was immediately subject to one retraction after she claimed the Alex Jones Show had referred to her as a whore in trying to book her as a guest. This was libelous and wholly untrue, leading Scripps Howard to edit the piece hours after it had gone online. Are we to trust Hart with her research skills if she doesn't even know how to check the 'from' box in her Outlook Express?
At time of press Hart's (pictured above) blog comments section has over a hundred replies to her story and you'd be hard pushed to find one that backs her up. Obviously, we encouraged people to give her their thoughts but even before we did so the comments were still running about 90% against and a similar figure can be observed in response to the rest of the hit pieces.
An entire website, Bravo Charlie 9/11, has been created to act as a clearing house for the deluge of thanks, appreciation and support evoked for Sheen. The site already has 400 posts commending Sheen for his courageous stance.
Last Friday's article in which Charlie Sheen invited his detractors to challenge him on the facts was deliberately ignored by the sneering media elite blowhards as they continue to put forth all manner of trivial nothingness in a doomed attempt to retain their spot on the esteemed Neo-Con peanut gallery.
Junior high sophomoric meanderings about Charlie Sheen losing interest in his car and associations with Michael Jackson's ramblings about Jews ruining his life do not answer Sheen's challenge.
Put up or shut up.
Something celeb hack Marina Hyde failed to do in a piece slated for Saturday morning's London Guardian.
Hyde (pictured above) rebuts her slew of opposing e mails after her first Sheen hit piece, by pulling the bed sheets over her eyes and squealing that it was "only a bit of fun" as she again subtly equates Charlie Sheen with drug addiction by mentioning a character he played in a 20 year old movie.
Hyde tries to back-peddle by minimizing the importance of her article and yet her other pieces prove that she has written on serious topics before and her articles are viewed by a readership of hundreds of thousands in what many consider to be Britain's most respected newspaper.
Former MI5 agent David Shayler, another vocal proponent of the 9/11 truth movement, slammed Hyde (e mail) for joking about the subject in an attempt to trivialize Sheen's argument.
"Respectfully, we might be laughing at the column if it were actually funny," said Shayler.
"Your defence that it is all a bit of fun was one practised in the 80s in defence of racist, homophobic, sexist and anti-Irish jokes by a variety of bigots and psychopaths masquerading as legitimate columnists."
The tactics of the attack dogs betray total hypocrisy. They undermine Sheen on the grounds that he is not qualified to speak about 9/11, and yet when we produce Physics Professors, former White House advisors and CIA analysts, the father of Reaganomics, German Defense Ministers and Bush's former Secretary of the Treasury, highlighting the exact same evidence, they are uniformly ignored.
It took a personality of Charlie Sheen's prominence to break the dam and the floodgates have truly opened. The mainstream wriggles and squirms as every hit piece is met with a precise volley of intelligent retaliation on the part of an educated and informed majority.
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/april2006/010406charliesheen.htm
i do not agree or disagree with the following
Charlie Sheen Reinvigorates 9/11 Truth Movement
Average Americans defend Charlie Sheen while establishment attack dogs whimper, falter, retract
Responses to hit pieces routinely show massive support for Sheen
Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | April 1 2006
As the Charlie Sheen story ends its second week and with cookie-cutter establishment hit pieces continuing to be churned out, the attack dogs are facing an intensifying backlash from a clear majority of educated American citizens who are sick and tired of the sneering elitism of the mainstream media.
The most recent high profile attack came courtesy of government apologist and former White House media relations mouthpiece Betsy Hart, whose columns are syndicated to over 350 US newspapers.
After this website issued a rebuttal to her ridiculous assertion that people have serious doubts about 9/11because they "fear Islamic terrorism," a sweeping conspiracy theory that fails to address any of the evidence, her blog has been inundated with responses from educated individuals politely reminding her to get her facts straight before commenting on such a broad subject.
"Which is scarier? A rogue group of maniac terrorists on the other side of the globe that are willing to kill American citizens to achieve a political end or a powerful, secretive and utterly corrupt government right here at home
that is willing to do the same," asked one respondent.
Another addresses Hart's inability to comprehend that the government would stage events for political gain in citing the recent Bush Blair memo on Iraq that discussed painting a US spy plane in UN colors and goading Saddam to shoot it down to create a pretext for war.
Hart's article was immediately subject to one retraction after she claimed the Alex Jones Show had referred to her as a whore in trying to book her as a guest. This was libelous and wholly untrue, leading Scripps Howard to edit the piece hours after it had gone online. Are we to trust Hart with her research skills if she doesn't even know how to check the 'from' box in her Outlook Express?
At time of press Hart's (pictured above) blog comments section has over a hundred replies to her story and you'd be hard pushed to find one that backs her up. Obviously, we encouraged people to give her their thoughts but even before we did so the comments were still running about 90% against and a similar figure can be observed in response to the rest of the hit pieces.
An entire website, Bravo Charlie 9/11, has been created to act as a clearing house for the deluge of thanks, appreciation and support evoked for Sheen. The site already has 400 posts commending Sheen for his courageous stance.
Last Friday's article in which Charlie Sheen invited his detractors to challenge him on the facts was deliberately ignored by the sneering media elite blowhards as they continue to put forth all manner of trivial nothingness in a doomed attempt to retain their spot on the esteemed Neo-Con peanut gallery.
Junior high sophomoric meanderings about Charlie Sheen losing interest in his car and associations with Michael Jackson's ramblings about Jews ruining his life do not answer Sheen's challenge.
Put up or shut up.
Something celeb hack Marina Hyde failed to do in a piece slated for Saturday morning's London Guardian.
Hyde (pictured above) rebuts her slew of opposing e mails after her first Sheen hit piece, by pulling the bed sheets over her eyes and squealing that it was "only a bit of fun" as she again subtly equates Charlie Sheen with drug addiction by mentioning a character he played in a 20 year old movie.
Hyde tries to back-peddle by minimizing the importance of her article and yet her other pieces prove that she has written on serious topics before and her articles are viewed by a readership of hundreds of thousands in what many consider to be Britain's most respected newspaper.
Former MI5 agent David Shayler, another vocal proponent of the 9/11 truth movement, slammed Hyde (e mail) for joking about the subject in an attempt to trivialize Sheen's argument.
"Respectfully, we might be laughing at the column if it were actually funny," said Shayler.
"Your defence that it is all a bit of fun was one practised in the 80s in defence of racist, homophobic, sexist and anti-Irish jokes by a variety of bigots and psychopaths masquerading as legitimate columnists."
The tactics of the attack dogs betray total hypocrisy. They undermine Sheen on the grounds that he is not qualified to speak about 9/11, and yet when we produce Physics Professors, former White House advisors and CIA analysts, the father of Reaganomics, German Defense Ministers and Bush's former Secretary of the Treasury, highlighting the exact same evidence, they are uniformly ignored.
It took a personality of Charlie Sheen's prominence to break the dam and the floodgates have truly opened. The mainstream wriggles and squirms as every hit piece is met with a precise volley of intelligent retaliation on the part of an educated and informed majority.
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/april2006/010406charliesheen.htm
Some people are just too brainless, and continue to rant about debating prowess and debating tactics like a juvenile. Anybody so focused on "debating tactics" is only interested in one thing. Bickering.phlogistician said:
Continue bickering. I see you restated your moronic irrelevant assertion that the thread is entitled "Charlie Sheen".
You obviously are completely unaware of what I said in any of my posts because you are too ignorant to see other people's ideas.
You are a pile of shit with nothing but shit to responses.
Blah blah blah. Continue restating about Charlie Sheen being the title of the thread. It still makes you irrelevant considering you have no position, and you do not even know what this thread is about. Go debate elswhere.
sorry, i am nuthin like happeh. ddn't he go on n don about some ridiculous theory of the danger of wanking....?QuarkMoon said:
you are trying to equate that with deep concern about political corruption, and possibly staged terrorism etc..?!!
apart from laufghing at nonsensical similarities, why dont you say something constructive?
see these links:
"[Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police Officer, Paul Issac Jr] explained to me that "many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they're afraid for their jobs to admit it because the "higher ups" forbid discussion of this fact." www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/march2006/310306fearofmuslims.htm
"William Rodriguez - last man to be pulled from the WTC rubble - told Commission he'd heard BOMBS, but his testimony was ommitted.
Both he and Jimmy Walter ...are educating top Venezualian officials on the evidence that 9/11 was a self-inflicted wound carried out by the military-industrial-complex...
Rodriguez and Walter offered their full support for Charlie Sheen's recent public stance on 9/11 and say they are heartened by his efforts" www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/march2006/310306launchaninvestigation.htm
"[Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police Officer, Paul Issac Jr] explained to me that "many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they're afraid for their jobs to admit it because the "higher ups" forbid discussion of this fact." www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/march2006/310306fearofmuslims.htm
"William Rodriguez - last man to be pulled from the WTC rubble - told Commission he'd heard BOMBS, but his testimony was ommitted.
Both he and Jimmy Walter ...are educating top Venezualian officials on the evidence that 9/11 was a self-inflicted wound carried out by the military-industrial-complex...
Rodriguez and Walter offered their full support for Charlie Sheen's recent public stance on 9/11 and say they are heartened by his efforts" www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/march2006/310306launchaninvestigation.htm
Duendy, none of those people can state they heard BOMBS. They may have heard BANGS or EXPLOSIONS, but to state they heard BOMBS is loaded and misleading.
You'd expect to building like the WTC to make some noise before it collapsed, and explosions would be expected, as pressurised containers, FIRE EXTINGUISHERS pop in the heat.
It's pretty obvious, when you think about it. Well, if you don't automatically jump to stupid conclusions, and you have some real life experience.
You'd expect to building like the WTC to make some noise before it collapsed, and explosions would be expected, as pressurised containers, FIRE EXTINGUISHERS pop in the heat.
It's pretty obvious, when you think about it. Well, if you don't automatically jump to stupid conclusions, and you have some real life experience.
you mean like you as being a LIEUTENANT of a NYC fire-department.phlogistician said:
hah...you are turnin into a joke dude. seriously!
Like i say. we have all this mounting evidence IN THE FACE tat it was bombs thathelped bring down down the WTCV 'neatly'----we have professor Jones givin us the dynamics of how it happened, we have various wtinesses who reported bombs going off, we have threats reported tat would make sure tis information wasn't in the offical reports, we have people claimin that te EFFECT of BOMBS going off is evidenct. how air is suked away, etc......etc. yet STILL you cling like fuk to your pathetic excuses....for WHO? is it for you? is it cause you cannot entertain for one second that your precious government may be as corrupt as fuck and complicitin this that is makin you willingly blind. YOU who harp on and on and on about EVIDENCE........? here it is in abundance andyet still wanna livein some ....yip. kid, woo woo world. for real
Duendy, for one, I have not heared testimony that a fireman said BOMBS, I've just heard YOU claim that. Do I expect a fireman to know the difference between exploding fire extinguishers and bombs? No. Because it was IMPOSSIBLE for them to tell the difference, only hearing a BANG!
As for people being knocked down, due to these 'bombs', that is pure baloney! Just who the fuck was standing close enough to feel the percussion? NOBODY BECAUSE IT'S LIES! The area was thick with dust and smoke long before the collapse, and NO SHOCKWAVE was filmed in that smoke and dust prior to the collapse. So, if there had been a bomb, there would be film evidence, and there is ZERO chance of anyone actually being near enough to feel the shockwave, because they wouldn't have been able to breathe.
As for people being knocked down, due to these 'bombs', that is pure baloney! Just who the fuck was standing close enough to feel the percussion? NOBODY BECAUSE IT'S LIES! The area was thick with dust and smoke long before the collapse, and NO SHOCKWAVE was filmed in that smoke and dust prior to the collapse. So, if there had been a bomb, there would be film evidence, and there is ZERO chance of anyone actually being near enough to feel the shockwave, because they wouldn't have been able to breathe.
there IS fikin film evidence. but you just come here wit empty words. no sources to back up ya shit. you wont even LOK at links, ad just think yu know it all. you are a complete waste of space regarding this serious issue.phlogistician said:
how can anyone deal wit someone who wont even LOOK AT the evidence, hey, mr evidence man.....?
professors of physics lie,experiences firemen ;lie, people dragged from the rubble lie, EVERY one but YOU and your BS lies. in your woo woo world that is
makes me wonder. who you workin for felah?
HOW can it be disrespectful??jax0509 said:
Do you not know the disrespect SHOWN to the families of lost ones BY theoffical fukers?not allowing them an INVESTIGATIOn ...proper INQUIRY into the evnts?!
and you like therestof thedupes just IGNOREavailable evidence, testimony, mathematical calulation, scientific demonstration-----all of which is THEbiggest fukin insult, not ONLY to people who have lost loved ones in tose terrible events, but to ALL people
what i find so fukin sad is....look at me. at thisso-caled science forum, many of whom are constantly berating people for evidence to jutisfy their being here, and yet tese same ones who do, cannot be even ARSED to really even LOOK at evidence in serious MANNER, AND ABSORB IT IF THEY DO.....AND THE FACT IT SEEMS REALLY TO BE ONLY ME SPEAKING OUT AGAINST THIS IN PERSON HERE, WHILST REST IS APTHathy and one or two like you comin outta the woodwork wit insubstantial crap and accusation, which i find offensive too
i feel very fukin strongly about this, so dont imply i have no respect for victims of 9/11. OK?
- Status