You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
actor Charlie Sheen questions '9/11'
- Thread starter duendy
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
apparently he has given demonstrations and has evidence via his physics' experience calculations. show us your crit-sources. put ya money where yer mouuurrrf is!phlogistician said:I asked you a question about something you said you did. You couldn't remember making that claim. 'Liars have to have good memories' I was always told. If you forget so easily, did you really call a newspaper? That was what I was trying to establish, your credibility.
me))))if i SAY i did i DID cynic
I studied Physics and IT at University. It's simple, it's called getting an education. Since, I have worked in Physics departments, and IT departments. Got it?
me))arrogant sod!
What is wrong with this dude is that his conclusions are not shared by his colleagues with expertise in structural engineering. They have seen the same 'evidence' as he has, but reached different conclusions, all of them. That's peer review in action, his peers think his conclusions are erroneous, so why don't you?
me)))))onl got yo word forit haven't we. whereszeeevidence?
No, he jumped to a conclusion without any evidence, that's the ENTIRE problem with his theory!
I wasn't laughing at myself (in this instance), "Cool Skill". You know that.
I was laughing at you.
At those "points" you continually tell yourself you're making.
At your mulish stupidity, at your undeserved self-aggrandisement, at your nick, at your constant references to yourself in the third person, at your... oh never mind.
Go away. Put me on your ignore list, you piece of distended pygmy rectum. You're not fun now. You're simply disgusting. Game over.
I was laughing at you.
At those "points" you continually tell yourself you're making.
At your mulish stupidity, at your undeserved self-aggrandisement, at your nick, at your constant references to yourself in the third person, at your... oh never mind.
Go away. Put me on your ignore list, you piece of distended pygmy rectum. You're not fun now. You're simply disgusting. Game over.
Nice set of flames, troll.Harlequin said:Go away. Put me on your ignore list, you piece of distended pygmy rectum. You're not fun now. You're simply disgusting. Game over.
You have done nothing in this discussion, but cry and flame.
Continue laughing at yourself, crying, flaming, or whatever it is you do best.
You obviously have no point other than to heckle and troll.
duendy said:you say you did physics? at what level?
I mentioned University, and you study for degrees at University, duendy.
duendy said:me))))if i SAY i did i DID cynic
Local or National? Jesus, your attention span is tiny.
apparently he has given demonstrations and has evidence via his physics' experience calculations. show us your crit-sources. put ya money where yer mouuurrrf is!
All theoretical, without any physical evidence to back up his theoretical physics, sadly.
And his structural engineering colleagues do not agree with his conclusions. He is outnumbered, and not agreed upon by his peers. He is swimming against the tide of opinion. This is statistics in action, duendy, no matter what the prevailing odds, the pressure, or the facts of the matter, you'll often get an exception. You've found one, well done. It's the majority view that counts, however.
Why don't you think that 9/11 was the way it was, duendy? Al Qaeda tried previously to blow up the WTC using vans full of explosives in the basement car park. If you are aware of the case of Samual Byck, you'll know a nearly successful attempt to hijack a plane to be flown into the White House took place back in 1974 (see the film 'The Assasination of Richard Nixon' for the dramatised account). So why can't you accept that Al Qaeda tried the same thing a quarter of a century later? How come it took a terrorist organisation so long to try it, is my only question!
cool skill said:I never claimed that Charlie has a reputation,
Oh yes you did;
cool skill said:a famous person risking their reputation
Go away, noob.
look, its you who are questioning a professor of physics. and you mentioned ytou had DONE physics. so i of course ask at what level. why are you being evasive about this?phlogistician said:I mentioned University, and you study for degrees at University, duendy.
Because of lots and lots of tings phlo.phlogistician said:Local or National? Jesus, your attention span is tiny.
me))the fukin daily mirror! what has tis got to do with anything. hey, i ca remember th concersation i had with newsdesk. he siad thatthey had had a lot of people contacting going on about Charlie Sheen's views.
All theoretical, without any physical evidence to back up his theoretical physics, sadly.
me))well a lot of tis has to be theoretical dont it considering your favourite people got quickly rid of te fukin evidence....?
And his structural engineering colleagues do not agree with his conclusions. He is outnumbered, and not agreed upon by his peers. He is swimming against the tide of opinion. This is statistics in action, duendy, no matter what the prevailing odds, the pressure, or the facts of the matter, you'll often get an exception. You've found one, well done. It's the majority view that counts, however.
me)))so errr whose got a short attention span hey fellah. do you remember me asking fo your sources about this assertion---i., about Jnes' collegues apparently not agreeing with his teory? I have read different and it is in a link i forewarded in tis thread--tat his peers DO agree with him. so where's yours? lets see if YOU remember, hey?thisis a bit mo important than some phonecall to a paper, the relevance of which still escapes me...?
Why don't you think that 9/11 was the way it was, duendy? Al Qaeda tried previously to blow up the WTC using vans full of explosives in the basement car park. If you are aware of the case of Samual Byck, you'll know a nearly successful attempt to hijack a plane to be flown into the White House took place back in 1974 (see the film 'The Assasination of Richard Nixon' for the dramatised account). So why can't you accept that Al Qaeda tried the same thing a quarter of a century later? How come it took a terrorist organisation so long to try it, is my only question!
Inconsistencies in the offical storie(S); the quick disappearance of evidence (i will create a better list later, regarding your question); the barring of a public inquiry by the powers that be; the OCCULT symbolism all ofer '9/11'; the SPECTACLEof it--perfect for propaganda; that i smell a RAT; tht i am verysavvy how in past 'enimies' are created for particular strateegic purposes for te military inductrial complex to feed its war industry machine; that is see who it BENEFITS and it aint US, its the powers that be who lied about going to war s a RESULT of 9/11 and have invested interests in all of what is going on in Midddle East.
You are very naive Phlo, even toug you tink yourself sophistiacted. you must imagine tat the oppressors give two shits for te lives of 3.000 people to further teir cause?? when they can sen thousands of their own soldiers in the horrors of wars, and also not warn them about depleted uranium---that it is a killer just to breathe in---but of course you dont even believe that do you...?!
Ypu fail to see that your 'trustoworthy' leaders thinknothing of killing and maiming thousands and tousands of people, many civilians after having brought them toteir knees in te many years of te 'sanctions' where over one million children and babies died. all that forgotten hey? and you oooo a rrrrrr about how teses ever so niiice people wouldn't couln't DREAM of pulling off staged terrorism...?
But as i say. regardless of that, i feel i am investigating still. maybe your dfault is 'no they didn't' and mine is 'yes they did'---but where we differ is that you will not want to investigate bout it, asyou dont see point and dont think they did it anyhow. whilst i am wanting to PROVE it and kick them out. like surely one would want to do with any tyrant...? and oppressor. dont you want them out out out?
they are poisoning Nature!!! This shit is UNpecedented and urgently serious.
duendy, have you bothered to get in touch with the Zacarias Moussaoui defence team to advise them of your superior insight?
--- RH.
--- RH.
i am in communications right now....see the news tonight!perplexity said:duendy, have you bothered to get in touch with the Zacarias Moussaoui defence team to advise them of your superior insight?
--- RH.
please see ---Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics www.public-action.com/911/mcmichael.html
No I didn't. Quote me if I did. Otherwise, stop clouding peopl's statements.phlogistician said:Oh yes you did;
WTF. Go away? I presented a clear explaination of my interpretation, and you come back with moronic remarks, and continue to avoid the issue while arguing about something that is not the issue at all. I suggest you go away.phlogistician said:Go away, noob.
duendy said:look, its you who are questioning a professor of physics. and you mentioned ytou had DONE physics. so i of course ask at what level. why are you being evasive about this?
No, I mentioned that a physicist's claims over the demolition of a building were not agreed upon by a bunch structural engineers who were more qualified in the field. Are you being dense or something? We don't study concrete in physics. We don't study cantilever arches, RSJ's, floating floors, or any of the things that structural engineers do, so leaping to conclusions about ways a building may have collapsed, when it's not his forte, and he has no evidence, is not scientific, so his credentials are rather inapplicable.
me))the fukin daily mirror! what has tis got to do with anything. hey, i ca remember th concersation i had with newsdesk. he siad thatthey had had a lot of people contacting going on about Charlie Sheen's views.
Yet, they haven't been bothered. I bet they get a lot of crank callers duendy!
me))well a lot of tis has to be theoretical dont it considering your favourite people got quickly rid of te fukin evidence....?
Did they? What evidence did they get rid off? They magicked away the Aluminium Oxide, did they? What with, a mind ray?
me)))so errr whose got a short attention span hey fellah. do you remember me asking fo your sources about this assertion---i., about Jnes' collegues apparently not agreeing with his teory? I have read different and it is in a link i forewarded in tis thread--tat his peers DO agree with him. so where's yours? lets see if YOU remember, hey?thisis a bit mo important than some phonecall to a paper, the relevance of which still escapes me...?
You read wrong, a few other loons agree with him, but his views have been disavowed by the Dept of Structural Engineering from his own University. If you do a web search on his name, you'll find his paper, and various discussions of it, and he is pretty much out on his own. Do you own research if YOU are making the claim, woowoo.
Inconsistencies in the offical storie(S);
There aren't any. There are spurious eyewitness reports, giving misleading info, but those aren't 'official', justr because some crackpot publication featured them!
the quick disappearance of evidence
How do you know there was evidence if it disappeared?
the OCCULT symbolism all ofer '9/11';
Loon.
the SPECTACLEof it--perfect for propaganda;
No more spectacular than it would have been if Al Quaeda had succeeded in their attempt in 1993.
that i smell a RAT;
Living in Manchester, so what?
tht i am verysavvy how in past 'enimies' are created for particular strateegic purposes for te military inductrial complex to feed its war industry machine; that is see who it BENEFITS and it aint US, its the powers that be who lied about going to war s a RESULT of 9/11 and have invested interests in all of what is going on in Midddle East.
I think you are convolving a few issues there. One at a time, please/
You are very naive Phlo, even toug you tink yourself sophistiacted. you must imagine tat the oppressors give two shits for te lives of 3.000 people to further teir cause?? when they can sen thousands of their own soldiers in the horrors of wars, and also not warn them about depleted uranium---that it is a killer just to breathe in---but of course you dont even believe that do you...?!
Nope, I'm not naive enough to believe something without evidence, as you are.
Anyway, please feel free to add some more weight to the claim about the Thermite reaction countering my rebuttal of it.
cool skill said:No I didn't. Quote me if I did. Otherwise, stop clouding peopl's statements.
I quoted you already! Jesus, are you that dim that you can't go back through your posts and see where the bit I quoted you as saying came from? YOU mentioned Sheen's (in context) reputation.
WTF. Go away? I presented a clear explaination of my interpretation, and you come back with moronic remarks, and continue to avoid the issue while arguing about something that is not the issue at all. I suggest you go away.
You can't even remember what you wrote.
hah! so a Professor of physics' claims are not scientific now....? oh myyy gawwwwd. whacha gonna cum out wid next, hahaphlogistician said:No, I mentioned that a physicist's claims over the demolition of a building were not agreed upon by a bunch structural engineers who were more qualified in the field. Are you being dense or something? We don't study concrete in physics. We don't study cantilever arches, RSJ's, floating floors, or any of the things that structural engineers do, so leaping to conclusions about ways a building may have collapsed, when it's not his forte, and he has no evidence, is not scientific, so his credentials are rather inapplicable.
and who , pray, are these structural engineers you keep goin on about. i believe they must be a figment of your imagination. why? well i deduce this cause you NEVER provide any sources to back up what yo say. so full of yourself, you pronounce...!
phlogistician said:.... so leaping to conclusions about ways a building may have collapsed, when it's not his forte, and he has no evidence, is not scientific, so his credentials are rather inapplicable.
The crucial issue is instability, stresses caused by the inability to cope with inherent low frequency vibration.
With tall structures a good deal of design work goes into this and a large hole in the side of building does then tend to have an effect.
--- RH.
look at that new link i gave. what you think huh?.....ahhhhhhhhhphlogistician said:Yet, they haven't been bothered. I bet they get a lot of crank callers duendy!
me))what ya mean crank callers. now, rght...now we've not being called 'woo woo' right cause tis is different ...err genre. now anyone who questions what YOU believe in regarding THIS issue is 'crank'.....a term i aint heard you use is sodoforums. tho you've used nearly every OTHERput-down term fo sho!
Did they? What evidence did they get rid off? They magicked away the Aluminium Oxide, did they? What with, a mind ray?
me))tis Alumininium Oxide thang is really the main key fo your defence of the neo-cons ever-so-sweet doings i take it?
have yo seen latest link i've given 'Muslim terrorstis defy laws of physics'? that author too is sarcastic like you, but i feel in a more insightful way.....tho i could be wrong. I, actually, am investgating this.
You read wrong, a few other loons agree with him, but his views have been disavowed by the Dept of Structural Engineering from his own University. If you do a web search on his name, you'll find his paper, and various discussions of it, and he is pretty much out on his own. Do you own research if YOU are making the claim, woowoo.
me))))aahhhh here we are people, his other terms to put dissenters down's creepin in, 'loons' 'woowoos'. knew wouldn't have to wait fo long. yu never dissapoint my predictable phlo
There aren't any. There are spurious eyewitness reports, giving misleading info, but those aren't 'official', justr because some crackpot publication featured them!
me)))no phlo. THe only surefire abslutely non-subjective objectivit sanest people on planet earth andmaybe EVEn the unknown universe are your FRIENDS who you claim witnessed the 911 events and hey....agree wit YOU. hey!
How do you know there was evidence if it disappeared?
me))))oooooooo, smart move mr defence attorny for the neo cons. errrrm. CAUSEit disappeared in a fokin hurry?
Loon.
me)))))wonder if you know where tat term originated from. bechadont...? yu USE it enuf, ya should....
No more spectacular than it would have been if Al Quaeda had succeeded in their attempt in 1993.
me))not so dramatic then, pre box-cutters tho ...was it?
Living in Manchester, so what?
me)))))whats that supposed to mean? that i haveto be tented in Ground Zero to smeall a rat.....already?
I think you are convolving a few issues there. One at a time, please/
me)))oh we aint got time for one-at-a-time. MOSt of us are seeing the bigger picture. your draggin behind!
Nope, I'm not naive enough to believe something without evidence, as you are.
me))))))you are as sweet as you are....ahhhhhhhhh
Anyway, please feel free to add some more weight to the claim about the Thermite reaction countering my rebuttal of it.
perplexity said:The crucial issue is instability, stresses caused by the inability to cope with inherent low frequency vibration.
With tall structures a good deal of design work goes into this and a large hole in the side of building does then tend to have an effect.
--- RH.
*Sarcasm* "Really?" *end sarcasm*
Now, have you anything of any relavance to say, or just more BS?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.