MARTIN SHEEN questions 9/11

[Hobbit]

Here we go again



Well, since you can go over scientific refutations piece by piece, can you please provide me the explanation of only this three issues, I can't get a straight answer here:

1) Where was Dick Cheney at 9:30 on 9/11 ?

2) Which part of AA77 caused the 12-foot round punch-out hole in the third ring of the pentagon ?

3) Why construction workers found pools of molten steel in the basement of the three buildings collapsed on 9/11 as much as 40 days after ?

Else: choose one. You have time for one, right? Feel free to use either science or popular mechanics material.

(BTW no one is blaming the U.S. gov for 9/11, in fact the highest leak came from Norman Mineta, U.S. Minister of Transportation, who is a member of the government, right?)

No, I'm not playing this game. You're the one with the wacko theory. You tell me where the passengers of the four planes went. You tell me WHY the buildings were torn down. Why did Osama bin Laden take credit? Is he in on it? How did the government get virtually every firefighter, police officer, and civilian on the scene to say pretty much the same thing without sounding rehearsed? A few loud sounds that occurred during the collapse of a massive building in the middle of a metropolitan area played in slow motion with scary music doesn't prove anything.

And what's with the Dick Cheney question? Was he supposedly controlling the whole thing? I'm more interested in knowing how Democrat senators can claim that they would have gotten up and left in the middle of elementary story time (which would probably scare the children half to death) when they admittedly sat in a meeting in stunned silence for about 45 minutes between the plane hitting the second tower and the one hitting the Pentagon.

If you want a point-by-point refutation, just click the link to Popular Mechanics. It debunks everything. There's even a recorded radio broadcast with reputed physicists and architects.

[Sertes]

These have nothing to do with the other countries I asked about when you provided this. Furthermore, the government officials or leaders that question things, are questioning versions of the 9/11 Commission report. Now, can you show me these very same officials claiming that 9/11 was an inside job?

Right now, just a couple. But that won't change anything, right? I provided a name of an attorney who made a lawsuit against Bush and Cheney and this is what you wrote:

Scary! An attorney with an AOL address! LOL Thanks for quoting another kook.

So, if I provide a name of a couple of high ranked governative officials that in foreign nations support the 9/11 inside job version, would you hear it with an open mind, or that's just the latest form of insult you came up with, "asking & denigrating" ?

Neither Paul or Kucinich believe 9/11 was an inside job, nice try! Why do you try and spin this stuff to support your retarded theory? Them wanting more answers or thinking there was incompetency involved DOES NOT mean they think it was an inside job.

See what I'm saying?

You can't accept it, instead try to make us believe you can look inside their head and see what they believe! Nice.

So out of 80+ nations losing citizens, all we have is a bunch of kooks on the internet going forward with your version of events. Not a single nation is going forward with 9/11 being an inside job. I guess whomever was responsible also somehow is getting the entire world to back down and just accept things rather than question?

Yes, that was GWB, the hijacked president, in his speech "we won't allow outrageous conspiracy theories to emerge" and "you're either with us or against us".

That's pretty scary, yes.

[Sertes]

No, I'm not playing this game. You're the one with the wacko theory.

If you're not going to answer even one of my questions why should I spend my time answering yours?

Let's try this: I answer all your question, you tell me where was Dick Cheney at 9:30 (Popular Mechanics doesn't tell)

Deal?

[jimnyc]

Right now, just a couple. But that won't change anything, right? I provided a name of an attorney who made a lawsuit against Bush and Cheney and this is what you wrote:

So, if I provide a name of a couple of high ranked governative officials that in foreign nations support the 9/11 inside job version, would you hear it with an open mind, or that's just the latest form of insult you came up with, "asking & denigrating" ?

Let me read what they have to say, and whether what they are saying is merely their own opinions or part of an government investigation.

See what I'm saying?

You can't accept it, instead try to make us believe you can look inside their head and see what they believe! Nice.

No, they both clearly stated what they were questioning, and both clearly have stated THEY DO NOT think 9/11 was an inside job. I'm sorry you referred to these men to further your evidence only to have it blow up in your face, but don't blame me for not "accepting" it. I accept that they have questions, now YOU have to accept they DON'T think it was an inside job.

Yes, that was GWB, the hijacked president, in his speech "we won't allow outrageous conspiracy theories to emerge" and "you're either with us or against us".

That's pretty scary, yes.

So every nation and every government official in the US can defame our president and come up with all kinds of outlandish claims and reasons for hating him, but they just can't question this one thing?

I'm done with you. You bore me and are a repetitive dolt. I've wasted too much time already dealing with a shithead who lives and breathes utter conspiracy garbage. Maybe someone else will come along and want to play with you, but I'll retire now with my perfect record debate against you, since your only vote came from yourself!

[Hobbit]

If you're not going to answer even one of my questions why should I spend my time answering yours?

Let's try this: I answer all your question, you tell me where was Dick Cheney at 9:30 (Popular Mechanics doesn't tell)

Deal?

The premise of your question is fallacious. A quick google search (which you can do yourself) turned up itineraries showing where Dick Cheney was all day, but as soon as I post that, in comes the "Oh, that's just where he SAID he was. Do you have any proof he's not lying."

Look, you're the one with the theory that flies in the face of reason and evidence. The burden of proof is on you. That's why YOU need to prove your case before I even begin to take you seriously.

[Hobbit]

If you're not going to answer even one of my questions why should I spend my time answering yours?

Let's try this: I answer all your question, you tell me where was Dick Cheney at 9:30 (Popular Mechanics doesn't tell)

Deal?

Oh, and also

[Sertes]

I'm done with you. You bore me and are a repetitive dolt. I've wasted too much time already dealing with a shithead who lives and breathes utter conspiracy garbage. Maybe someone else will come along and want to play with you, but I'll retire now with my perfect record debate against you, since your only vote came from yourself!

Farewell and thanks for your time.

I'm sorry for being repetitive, I was merely repeating all the questions you didn't answer to, and pointing out again all the issues we settled that you failed to recognize as such, you can find plenty even in this thread.

[Sitarro]

Why, the fact the official version cannot answer them is not enough?!

Ok, here we go again:

The 9/11 commission has a version, he was at the white house unaware of what's happening. Norman Mineta testimony under oath before the 9/11 commission (later not reported in the 9/11 commission report) places him in command, aware of the pentagon plane position, bearing, altitude, and there was the possibility for a shotdown order.

It's covered in much detail here, including a portion of 9/11 commission report, video of the deposition and photo maps of the pentagon area
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost...5&postcount=48

It's the single most important issue in 9/11.


A controlled demolition, as explained by 206 engineers and architects: ae911truth.org, right column


An explosive directional shockwave from an aircraft similar to either a tomahawk cruise missile or a global hawk drone painted to appear as a miniature 747-200.
That's the only possibility that doesn't contradict the 12-foot round punch out hole (explosive shockwave), the single engine found at the pentagon, the 12-foot punch-in hole, the lack of the damage from the alleged hit of the rear tail wing of the 747 that is missing in first responders photo, the lack of the damage from the alleged hit of the two 4 tons engines of the 747 that is missing in first responders photo at the sides of the punch-in hole, the high manuvrability experienced from control towers that followed the "pentagon plane" hit, it's consistent with phone calls that could be routed trough it from where the real AA77 was, it's consistent to the fact you won't leave any single human pilot to screw it up a thing so big as 9/11.

Real size CGI plane added over the actual photo of the damage on the pentagon face by first responders, before the pentagon face crumbled

---

See some nice dodging during the debate:
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost...6&postcount=18

747??????? It was a Boeing 757, huge difference.

[Pale Rider]

What I find hard to believe, is that there are people that actually believe Bldg7 was blown up by our own government. I find that harder to believe than the conspiracy theory itself. How can anyone be so fucking clueless and impressionable? You have to be a complete whack job.

[Sir Evil]

Check www.patriotsquestion911.com for the complete list of professionals that questions 9/11 official truth

Check www.psychiatrist.com for a complete list of professionals, you need it.

The check http://www.web-pub.com/aa/ for more info on Assholes Anonymous, thats a must for any idiot that continually pushes such a retarted agenda.

[Sertes]

The premise of your question is fallacious. A quick google search (which you can do yourself) turned up itineraries showing where Dick Cheney was all day, but as soon as I post that, in comes the "Oh, that's just where he SAID he was. Do you have any proof he's not lying."

Look, you're the one with the theory that flies in the face of reason and evidence. The burden of proof is on you. That's why YOU need to prove your case before I even begin to take you seriously.

First of all please don't make up by yourself my eventual comments, I can write them myself and you'll see they would be quite different. In fact it seems to me you don't even know what are the real issues on 9/11: for example I'm not interested in convincing people of my personal little weird conspiracy theory, I'm just showing how, where and why the official version is false.

That's why you dismiss so easily the question on Cheney, you don't even know that THAT is the central issue on 9/11.

The second are the collapses (not the start of the collapses)

The third is the presence of AA77 or of a smaller plane / cruise missile at the pentagon

Now we cleared that out, I was asking: you boasted you can go over scientific refutations piece by piece, if I answer your questions into the side issues and straw-man arguments of 9/11 you proposed, would you respond with similar detail to ONE of the three main issues of 9/11 ?
Because I answer directly, I don't use links or other, and I have no time to waste on people who shows no commitment whatsoever to a serious debate.

[Pale Rider]

I'm just showing how, where and why the official version is false.

I've been holding back a lot of my rather colorful speach... but I just can't hold it here... you, are simply full of SHIT!

[Sertes]

I've been holding back a lot of my rather colorful speach... but I just can't hold it here... you, are simply full of SHIT!

No problem in starting again to tell people where the the official version is false on purpose.

...but only if you're here for debating rather than for insulting, that is.

[jimnyc]

Farewell and thanks for your time.

I'm sorry for being repetitive, I was merely repeating all the questions you didn't answer to, and pointing out again all the issues we settled that you failed to recognize as such, you can find plenty even in this thread.

You know what, Sertes, I do in fact give you kudos for remaining civil while I gave you some cheap shots here and there, and for standing true to your beliefs. But I'm sorry, I just can't go along with something that has zero proof and relies simply on nothing more than theories. Sure, there are lots of questions and things don't make sense, but I personally wouldn't expect them fully to after such an unprecedented attack. I think the government can be more forthcoming with certain things but also understand that for national security reasons they will withhold certain data. I also believe there was some things that could have been done better that day, but who in the world could have been fully prepared for what transpired.

I'll leave on a good note rather than a sour one, we'll just agree to disagree.

[Pale Rider]

No problem in starting again to tell people where the the official version is false on purpose.

...but only if you're here for debating rather than for insulting, that is.

No one blew up bldg 7... OK? No one. It fell because it had extensive structural damage, and it was also weakened by the intense heat. It fell.

Why are you so oblivious to that? If you believe bldg 7 was blown up by our own government, then you must believe outrageous things about everything. That really tells me you're not fully in touch with reality.

Sorry I insulted you.