Hollywood to Challenge Official Version of 9/11: Sheen, Asner and Harrelson to Star in Film.

Originally posted by karen61057
reply to post by InfiniteConsciousness

 

Underground under the world trade center? Underground is nothing but subways and subways and oh yeah, subways. They left from there to go all over the city and to NJ via PATH ( Passage across the Hudson) Then theres the parking garages and the basements and well just no real "ground" to sink any bombs into. After the subways you're at bedrock. Manhattan does not have much ground to start with. The soil is thin and the city is built on bed rock.

You might want to watch the interview of Dimitri Khalezov. These nukes were 77 meters beneath the towers. All of them were kept in secure location prior to demolition under WTC 7 and delivered via some sort of delivery (i.e. small railcar tunnel) method on 9-11. Have you ever asked yourself why the last tower struck was the first to fall? The reason, if the nuke story is true, is because if WTC 1 was brought down first, it would have destroyed the delivery tunnel to WTC 2. WTC 7 was destroyed last for no other reason than to destroy evidence. Plus Silverstein gets a pretty penny, we get all the justification we need for ME warmongering and rally the people behind it, whatever the case is.

Originally posted by InfiniteConsciousness
These nukes were 77 meters beneath the towers.

So a nuclear bomb going off 77 metres under the WTC, does not destroy the bathtub, but causes the buildings to collapse from where they are hit by planes..

Have you stopped to actually think about how stupid that claim actually is? Apparently not.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by CoolStoryMan
it still amazes me how people think they can tie the fall of building 7 to the planes when nothing touched it, if these guys really honestly believe the official story is bunk(which I do in some regards) they better fact check everything and back it up because just one mistake, will bring out all those that condemn those of us that don't buy what the government is telling us about this

the idea of 9/11 actually sounds goofy on paper, so arab terrorists, who can barely fly small planes, will hijack huge jets, gain control of them, and somehow be able to co-ordinate them into flying into 2 buildings, all the while avoiding hitting other planes in the air and not having a single F16 on their asses. then a building that doesn't get touched is going to fall to the ground, all this with no outside help

edit on 20-10-2012 by CoolStoryMan because: (no reason given)

I have said from day one that the belief in these conspiracy theories has a direct correlation with being generally uninformed about what actually happened on 9/11 and this post only confirms is. Anyone can do a 30 second Google search to find out thousands of tons of wreckage from the collapsing north tower smashed up building 7 (as well as most of the buildings), not to mention, find out that interceptors were scrambld from bases in Virginia amd Massachussets, and yet you're posting these things which aren't even remotely credible.

You certainly aren't stupid. You're just getting all your information from those damned fool conspiracy web sites and they're intentionally withholding said information from you. May I ask which one of those web sites you got that "nothing touched building 7" from, becuase that sounds a whole lot like the baloney Richard Gage is pushing out.

Relatively speaking, Building 7 was hardly damaged. Look at buildings 3, 4, 5 and 6. They were practically leveled by the falling debris. Yet, they remained standing. They were practically skeletal remains after the two towers fell on them. Why didn't they collapse? To say that incongruous office fires (not even close to the temps needed to comprimise the steel columns in WTC 7's core) and superficial damage caused a 47 story skyscraper's insides to turn to dust is the height of willful ignorance. The only logical and reasonable explanation is that the towers and 7 were products of controlled demo. Every other explanation is fantasy or outright lies.

Originally posted by Screwed

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by Screwed

 

Indeed it's much more comforting to provide a tidy narrative that suggests they did, and that the boogeymen are a small group of naughty white guys, than believe that the whole system is screwed. And a bunch of people hate you.

Really?
You honestly think it is more comforting to think that our own government did this to its own citizens than it is to believe that some terrorists from a foriegn land did it??

I find it MUCH more disturbing to think that my own government did it.
But, I also have the ability to look disturbing and uncomfortable truths right in the eye and deal with them on the level they need to be dealt with. It is hard for sure. It causes lots of sleepless nights and alot of stress sometimes.
It is the furthest thing from conforting that I can imagine.

No one in their right minds WANTS this to be true.
No more than a kid WANTS to believe that his mommy and daddy are secretly trying to kill him for the insurance money. But the sooner we come to terms with it the better chance we will have to get to safety before it is too late.

You WILL come to terms with this very uncomforting fact.
This much I can promise you.
You can choose to do it now
or be FORCED to come to terms with it later when you no longer have the luxury of denying it.
The facts WILL come out.
You can deal with it now or then, either way makes no difference to me but, I can tell you for the sake of your Psyche, it would be better to start easing into it now rather than be F****KN blindsided by it later.
Either way, you WILL be forced to deal with this.

edit on 19-10-2012 by Screwed because: (no reason given)

I think it's way more comforting to think that the world is organised in some way, as opposed to frightening and chaotic. I think most Truthers love the idea that the USA is a wonderful impregnable fortress that could only be breached by some nasty (white) plutocrats deciding that it ought to be. And that one day - as your post even shows - the bad guys will be brought to justice.

Ain't going to happen. That's the really scary thing.

In support of this I'd cite Jungian theories of the comforting nature of narrative closure (which conspiracy theories provide) and my own belief that people are happy thinking that one day a small group of bad guys who are ruining everything will be defeated (which conspiracy theories imply). Your post seems to suggest you have signed up for both notions. With a side order of allowing you to consider yourself in some way special and brave.

If you want an alternative topic movie to be taken seriously, you don't book Sheen or Aston in it.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I think most Truthers love the idea that the USA is a wonderful impregnable fortress that could only be breached by some nasty (white) plutocrats deciding that it ought to be. And that one day - as your post even shows - the bad guys will be brought to justice.

Most truthers love? Well, let's look at Pearl Harbor, we pretty much knew it was going to happen and the president let it happen. The Gulf of Tonkin incident never really took place, it's something that brought us to war. 9/11 happened and everything was completely skewed to shift us into war with Iraq. So how can you talk about truthers loving this idea when (white) plurocrats are in fact the ones dragging us into wars? False flag or "let it happen", these people have their agendas and will either create an incident or let an incident happen to satisfy their plans. Are you really going to deny that?

Vietnam War Intelligence 'Deliberately Skewed,' Secret Study Says
WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 - The National Security Agency has released hundreds of pages of long-secret documents on the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, which played a critical role in significantly expanding the American commitment to the Vietnam War.

The material, posted on the Internet overnight Wednesday, included one of the largest collections of secret intercepted communications ever made available. The most provocative document is a 2001 article in which an agency historian argued that the agency's intelligence officers "deliberately skewed" the evidence passed on to policy makers and the public to falsely suggest that North Vietnamese ships had attacked American destroyers on Aug. 4, 1964.

Originally posted by InfiniteConsciousness
Relatively speaking, Building 7 was hardly damaged. Look at buildings 3, 4, 5 and 6. They were practically leveled by the falling debris. Yet, they remained standing. They were practically skeletal remains after the two towers fell on them. Why didn't they collapse?

You cannot compare why building A should have collapse vs why building B should not have collapsed any more that you can compare why Mike Tyson can take a punch to the jaw fom Paris Hilton but not the other way around. Different buildings have different designs so they will react differently to different patterns of damage.

To say that incongruous office fires (not even close to the temps needed to comprimise the steel columns in WTC 7's core) and superficial damage caused a 47 story skyscraper's insides to turn to dust is the height of willful ignorance. The only logical and reasonable explanation is that the towers and 7 were products of controlled demo. Every other explanation is fantasy or outright lies.

I'm sure you're are by now of firefighters like Deputy chief Peter Hayden reporting the fires were burnign out of control in WTC 7 and were causing massive deformations in the structure, which at least gives the NIST report some credibility. If you wish to promote these spooky-scary conspiracy stories, that's one thing, but for you to willfully ignore the historical record and play-pretend all this evidence isn't even there only damages your own credibility, not mine or anyone else's.

One of my favorite quotes from Sheen:

“However, there have been so many revelations that now I have my doubts, and chief among them is Building 7 – how did they rig that building so that it came down on the evening of the day?”

Ignorance must be bliss. Unfortunately, Hollywood is about as ignorant as can be. And also, a good percentage of actors/actresses are no smarter than a 5th grader. This is just proof.

Also, if this is going to be an AE9/11T rehash, I think I am going to

Also, one thing that in these past 11 years, the 9/11 truth movement has NOT been able to give a basic workable idea of just how they could have rigged the WTC. I have not heard ONE plausible idea of just how demolitions would have worked or been used on the WTC buildings. Not a single one. What have Richard Gage, Dr. Griffin, or Steven Jones done, to make it believable? Nothing. Not a damn thing. Im hearing the same garbage that has been debunked so many times, it amazes me it still survives. Nothing new.

This movie, is going to be a comedy right? Comedy fiction? Are we going to be treated to hush-a-booms, nanu nanu superthermites being painted on beams, death beams and micro nukes in basements?

reply to post by homervb


I'm not sure what your point is. I'm discussing why people find conspiracy theories comforting - especially those that surround 9/11. This IMO goes some way to explaining their prevalence amongst a segment of the population that is frightened by the chaotic nature of the world. I'm not interested in discussing Pearl Harbour or other incidents here as it has nothing to do with this.

There's nothing wrong with looking for answers. But if you're doing it to provide some sort of closure for yourself then that - and your bias - will become pretty obvious pretty quickly.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by InfiniteConsciousness
Relatively speaking, Building 7 was hardly damaged. Look at buildings 3, 4, 5 and 6. They were practically leveled by the falling debris. Yet, they remained standing. They were practically skeletal remains after the two towers fell on them. Why didn't they collapse?

You cannot compare why building A should have collapse vs why building B should not have collapsed any more that you can compare why Mike Tyson can take a punch to the jaw fom Paris Hilton but not the other way around. Different buildings have different designs so they will react differently to different patterns of damage.

To say that incongruous office fires (not even close to the temps needed to comprimise the steel columns in WTC 7's core) and superficial damage caused a 47 story skyscraper's insides to turn to dust is the height of willful ignorance. The only logical and reasonable explanation is that the towers and 7 were products of controlled demo. Every other explanation is fantasy or outright lies.

I'm sure you're are by now of firefighters like Deputy chief Peter Hayden reporting the fires were burnign out of control in WTC 7 and were causing massive deformations in the structure, which at least gives the NIST report some credibility. If you wish to promote these spooky-scary conspiracy stories, that's one thing, but for you to willfully ignore the historical record and play-pretend all this evidence isn't even there only damages your own credibility, not mine or anyone else's.

Oh wow! What a convincing argument you make. Deformations in the building, eh? Then we should have seen evidence of those deformations in the way the building fell, shouldn't we Sherlock? I don't have time for your childish antics. Go take a nap, child.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by homervb

 

I'm not sure what your point is. I'm discussing why people find conspiracy theories comforting - especially those that surround 9/11. This IMO goes some way to explaining their prevalence amongst a segment of the population that is frightened by the chaotic nature of the world. I'm not interested in discussing Pearl Harbour or other incidents here as it has nothing to do with this.

There's nothing wrong with looking for answers. But if you're doing it to provide some sort of closure for yourself then that - and your bias - will become pretty obvious pretty quickly.

You think we take comfort in conspiracy theories? What kind of ass backwards psychology are you studying? Wow. Unreal.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Also, one thing that in these past 11 years, the 9/11 truth movement has NOT been able to give a basic workable idea of just how they could have rigged the WTC. I have not heard ONE plausible idea of just how demolitions would have worked or been used on the WTC buildings. Not a single one. What have Richard Gage, Dr. Griffin, or Steven Jones done, to make it believable? Nothing. Not a damn thing. Im hearing the same garbage that has been debunked so many times, it amazes me it still survives. Nothing new.

This movie, is going to be a comedy right? Comedy fiction? Are we going to be treated to hush-a-booms, nanu nanu superthermites being painted on beams, death beams and micro nukes in basements?

Yeah you've got the truth all wrapped up in a neat little package there General Radek. ROFL You must know more than the 911 commission itself, right? Because they didn't even address building 7 in the official book report. General Radek the all knowing, all seeing eye in the sky. Yeah, ok, buddy.

reply to post by GenRadek

This movie, is going to be a comedy right? Comedy fiction? Are we going to be treated to hush-a-booms, nanu nanu superthermites being painted on beams, death beams and micro nukes in basements?

A comedy ?
If it makes for a new investigation, it`ll be a success.

If it is a comedy. It can`t be as funny as the official theory.
Now that`s a classic !

Originally posted by InfiniteConsciousness

Oh wow! What a convincing argument you make. Deformations in the building, eh? Then we should have seen evidence of those deformations in the way the building fell, shouldn't we Sherlock?

There is. The full video of the collapse..and when I say the full video I mean what the video shows before that con artist Richard Gage hacked it up to his liking...is that the penthouse toppled over into the interior of the structure six second before the exterior did. NIST theorizes this was because the south side- the section of building hit by falling debris and the section on the opposite side of the building away from the camera- folded inward rather than straight down. Either that, or your secret agents rigged the building so it would be demolished from the inside out, which is a pretty retarded and self defeating way of doing it.

don't have time for your childish antics. Go take a nap, child.

I'm already learned my lesson from the ATS moderators what happens when I lower myself down to the same level of rudeness such as yours, so I will merely point out that the conspiracy movement have gotten literaly nowhere with suckering the general population with this "the gov't is plotting to murder us all" abject paranoia in the last ten years, so history is already showing who has the last laugh.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

When was sheen approached about this movie?
Was it before or after the tiger blood/warlock stage in his career?

Originally posted by ThePeopleParty
When was sheen approached about this movie?
Was it before or after the tiger blood/warlock stage in his career?

Martin Sheen, not Charley.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I will merely point out that the conspiracy movement have gotten literally nowhere with suckering the general population with this "the gov't is plotting to murder us all" abject paranoia in the last ten years, so history is already showing who has the last laugh.

Do you really believe if an independent investigation was done, the results would be the same as what is published in the 9/11 Commission Report?

Originally posted by ThePeopleParty
When was sheen approached about this movie?
Was it before or after the tiger blood/warlock stage in his career?

FYI: Martin Sheen is not Charlie Sheen.

Try to keep up here, sir.