Is Charlie Sheen a Disinfo Agent?

Originally posted by sp00n1
reply to post by SEEWHATUDO

 

If they can kill a president, they can kill anybody.

But they can not kill everybody.

edit
Excluding global nuklear war, enviromental distruction, release of deadly bioweapons
oh nevermind sigh

[edit on 29-9-2007 by Redge777]

Great OP, Spoon. I totally agree on approach - and I find taking ot to MIHOP, except as a mentioned possibility, in itself is usually not necessary. I do feel that just mentioning anything truthy shouldn;t be cause for immediate celebration. That's my opinion, but as for Sheen, I'd have to wonder - there's a lot of noise for all the physical evidence theories - which trouble me in that they're often unfounded or illogical - people saying these are the smoking guns, the proof. It's likely he just took that as true, without a lot of broader thought on public approach. A sincere but duped lemming.

Or he's smarter than that, which is troubling.

There's a lot of psychology involved. This is big stuff, and celebrities may not get to stay alive long dealing with big stuff the right way. He may be playing dumb while hatching brilliant plans.

I hope he's reading this.

Originally posted by Redge777

Originally posted by sp00n1
reply to post by SEEWHATUDO

 

If they can kill a president, they can kill anybody.

But they can not kill everybody.

Sad to say, but I think some of them would be very happy to kill as many of us as possible. The fewer of us there are the easier it is to control the survivors.

[edit on 29/9/07 by Pellevoisin]

reply to post by Pellevoisin


I agree they seem to totally not understand that people get upset when friends get hurt. I personally think AbuGrabi was the jump the shark moment for the Iraq war. How can we possibly convince a nation we are good when friends and relatives come back with stories of torture.

Same thing happens with round ups and purges, once you turn to that tactic you must maintain the fear always, it is a downward spiral.

Hardly any Hollywood celebrities have even approached 9/11. Most talk about Darfur, rwanda, global warming some even still talk about tibet.

The ones that you think are smart and informed end up just talking about the war in Iraq and how there were no wmds. The mere fact that Charlie even talked about 9/11 AND helped organize a symposium which to this day is still the best one is a testament that he is definitely not cookie cutter.

I don't know if he is starting to shy away from the topic these days or not but man when he came out about his views last year and was on talk shows talking about it and entertainment shows he woke up so many people.

Even now i ask people when they first saw lose change and when they first started de-programming themselves. Most always say a year ago and so many remember the charlie sheen story as being the first gliimpse of the "inside job".

When i first heard Charlie Sheen he talked about building 7. Even today some 9/11 truthers acually have debates without mentioning building 7 and that is the biggest smoking gun. Props to Charlie even if he is a little scared now with his wife going crazy and trying to take his kids. I bet he just doesn't want more ammo against him. Damn living in hollywood is messed up.

reply to post by Beefcake


When did his wife start to go crazy?

reply to post by sp00n1


You present no evidence that sheen is a Dis Info Agent. All you have done is stated that he doesn't talk about it like you want him to. That doesn't mean anything. You state "prove you wrong". You haven't proven anything in the first place. Personally I think Sheen should be comended for self informing himself and spreading a growing truth to the public. You ... on the other hand have posted a thread with 0 intelligence, for though or facts. I'm guessing thats why people don't listen to you.

reply to post by Osyris



I'm not attempting to prove anything. I'm merely raising a question that deserves scrutiny.

reply to post by Beefcake


Indeed, the argument can be made that he has done good things for 'the movement'. It took some serious balls to come out and talk about it. I sincerely hope that he is sincere.

If he is sincere, i'd like to see him alter his message a little.

I was convinced by Steven Jone's paper on the collapse of the WTCs. So, I would argue that it's not such a bad way to introduce people to the concept as long as it's done the right way. LIHOP is perhaps the way that would be effective for most people, but I just don't believe it at all so I'm not going to convert people to it.

reply to post by AmethystSD

as long as it's done the right way

Steven Jones, who has multiple advanced degrees, actually cited scientific evidence. He explained it in a peer-reviewed paper. That's not quite the same effect as charlie sheen going out on a limb just to be derided in the MSM for a week for all of his past adventures that raise serious questions about his judgement and credibility.

I think LIHOP to MIHOP a natural logical progression. Get people to look at the evidence that they let it happen, then lead that into the evidence that they made it happen.

If MIHOP is true, then empirically via induction LIHOP is true too!



[edit on 9/29/2007 by sp00n1]

to summarize my feelings, they are this;

If Charlie Sheen was able to attract some good attention to the unanswered questions surrounding 911, then that is great.

But if he attracted the wrong type of attention, or portrayed "truthers" in the wrong light, whether it was intentional or unintentional, then that is bad.