CHARLIE SHEEN speaks

[Bronx33]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/200306charliesheen.htm

Actor Charlie Sheen Questions Official 9/11 Story
Calls for truly independent investigation, joins growing ranks of prominent credible whistleblowers

Alex Jones & Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | March 20 2006

Actor Charlie Sheen has joined a growing army of other highly credible public figures in questioning the official story of 9/11 and calling for a new independent investigation of the attack and the circumstances surrounding it.

Over the past two years, scores of highly regarded individuals have gone public to express their serious doubts about 9/11. These include former presidential advisor and CIA analyst Ray McGovern, the father of Reaganomics and former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury Paul Craig Roberts, BYU physics Professor Steven Jones, former German defense minister Andreas von Buelow, former MI5 officer David Shayler, former Blair cabinet member Michael Meacher, former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds and many more.

Speaking to The Alex Jones Show on the GCN Radio Network, the star of current hit comedy show Two and a Half Men and dozens of movies including Platoon and Young Guns, Sheen elaborated on why he had problems believing the government's version of events.

Sheen agreed that the biggest conspiracy theory was put out by the government itself and prefaced his argument by quoting Theodore Roosevelt in stating, "That we are to stand by the President right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

"We're not the conspiracy theorists on this particular issue," said Sheen.

"It seems to me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75% of their targets, that feels like a conspiracy theory. It raises a lot of questions."

Sheen described the climate of acceptance for serious discussion about 9/11 as being far more fertile than it was a couple of years ago.

"It feels like from the people I talk to in and around my circles, it seems like the worm is turning."

Suspicious collapse of buildings

Sheen described his immediate skepticism regarding the official reason for the collapse of the twin towers and building 7 on the day of 9/11.

"I was up early and we were gonna do a pre-shoot on Spin City, the show I used to do, I was watching the news and the north tower was burning. I saw the south tower hit live, that famous wide shot where it disappears behind the building and then we see the tremendous fireball."

"There was a feeling, it just didn't look any commercial jetliner I've flown on any time in my life and then when the buildings came down later on that day I said to my brother 'call me insane, but did it sorta look like those buildings came down in a controlled demolition'?"

Sheen said that most people's gut instinct, that the buildings had been deliberately imploded, was washed away by the incessant flood of the official version of events from day one.

Sheen questioned the plausibility of a fireballs traveling 1100 feet down an elevator shaft and causing damage to the lobbies of the towers as seen in video footage, especially when contrasted with eyewitness accounts of bombs and explosions in the basement levels of the buildings.

Regarding building 7, which wasn't hit by a plane, Sheen highlighted the use of the term "pull," a demolition industry term for pulling the outer walls of the building towards the center in an implosion, as was used by Larry Silverstein in a September 2002 PBS documentary when he said that the decision to "pull" building 7 was made before its collapse. This technique ensures the building collapses in its own footprint and can clearly be seen during the collapse of building 7 with the classic 'crimp' being visible.

The highly suspicious collapse of building 7 and the twin towers has previously been put under the spotlight by physics Professor Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories, the company that certified the steel components used in the construction of the World Trade Center towers.

"The term 'pull' is as common to the demolition world as 'action and 'cut' are to the movie world," said Sheen.

Sheen referenced firefighters in the buildings who were eyewitnesses to demolition style implosions and bombs.

"This is not you or I watching the videos and speculating on what we saw, these are gentlemen inside the buildings at the very point of collapse."

"If there's a problem with building 7 then there's a problem with the whole thing," said Sheen.

Bush's behavior on 9/11

Sheen then questioned President Bush's actions on 9/11 and his location at the Booker Elementary School in Florida. Once Andy Card had whispered to Bush that America was under attack why didn't the secret service immediately whisk Bush away to a secret location?

By remaining at a location where it was publicly known the President would be before 9/11, he was not only putting his own life in danger, but the lives of hundreds of schoolchildren. That is unless the government knew for sure what the targets were beforehand and that President Bush wasn't one of them.

"It seems to me that upon the revelation of that news that the secret service would grab the President as if he was on fire and remove him from that room," said Sheen.

The question of how Bush saw the first plane hit the north tower, when no live footage of that incident was carried, an assertion that Bush repeated twice, was also put under the spotlight.

"I guess one of the perks of being President is that you get access to TV channels that don't exist in the known universe," said Sheen.

"It might lead you to believe that he'd seen similar images in some type of rehearsal as it were, I don't know."

The Pentagon incident

Sheen outlined his disbelief that the official story of what happened at the Pentagon matched the physical evidence.

"Show us this incredible maneuvering, just show it to us. Just show us how this particular plane pulled off these maneuvers. 270 degree turn at 500 miles and hour descending 7,000 feet in two and a half minutes, skimming across treetops the last 500 meters."

We have not been able to confirm that a large commercial airliner hit the Pentagon because the government has seized and refused to release any footage that would show the impact.

"I understand in the interest of national security that maybe not release the Pentagon cameras but what about the Sheraton, what about the gas station, what about the Department of Transportation freeway cam? What about all these shots that had this thing perfectly documented? Instead they put out five frames that they claim not to have authorized, it's really suspicious," said Sheen.

Sheen also questioned how the plane basically disappeared into the Pentagon with next to no wreckage and no indication of what happened to the wing sections.

Concerning how the Bush administration had finalized Afghanistan war plans two days before 9/11 with the massing of 44,000 US troops and 18,000 British troops in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, and in addition the call for "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor," as outlined in the PNAC documents, Sheen stated, "you don't really put those strategies together overnight do you for a major invasion? Those are really well calculated and really well planned."

"Coincidence? We think not," said Sheen and he called the PNAC quotes "emblematic of the arrogance of this administration."

A real investigation

Sheen joined others in calling for a revised and truly independent investigation of 9/11.

Sheen said that "September 11 wasn't the Zapruder film, it was the Zapruder film festival," and that the inquiry had to be, "headed, if this is possible, by some neutral investigative committee. What if we used retired political foreign nationals? What if we used experts that don't have any ties whatsoever to this administration?"

"It is up to us to reveal the truth. It is up to us because we owe it to the families, we owe it to the victims. We owe it to everybody's life who was drastically altered, horrifically that day and forever. We owe it to them to uncover what happened."

Charlie Sheen joins the rest of his great family and notably his father Martin Sheen, who has lambasted for opposing the Iraq war before it had begun yet has now been proven right in triplicate, in using his prominent public platform to stand for truth and justice and we applaud and salute his brave efforts, remembering Mark Twain's quote.

"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."


Now watch charlie
http://www.dumpalink.com/media/1111398451/F4_Phantom_Jet_Hits_Concrete_Wall_at_500_MPH

[Rohirrim]

I like Charlie Sheen, but I wouldn't put him on a list of "highly credible" and "highly respected" figures. ;D

[Spider]

I have asked the same exact questions , and I was told I hate America , need to move to france , and as you can clearly see I forgot to fax Sheen the answers I recieved .................

[Spider]

I like Charlie Sheen, but I wouldn't put him on a list of "highly credible" and "highly respected" figures. ;D
;d I wouldnt either , but I did like him in the Hot shots shows , Hewas great in scary movie ............

[alkemical]

highly credible is funny for charlie sheen.

that being said - i live in a world where the only thing that is true, is the world i see with my eyes closed.

[ClevelandBronco]

I reserve final judgment in all matters until I hear what Charlie Sheen has to say.

[Garcia Bronco]

Does this jackass know that he only plays the President on TV?

[alkemical]

uhm, that would be 'martin' sheen....

[Spider]

Does this jackass know that he only plays the President on TV?
you mean Martin Sheen dont you ? Charlie does alot of the comedy spoofs ... Watch Scary Movie3 ............ Charlie Sheen could become a comic giant .......

[bendog]

The impeach stuff is hilarious. If dems weren't making such jackasses out of themselves, bushii would be seen for being as much a tool as he really is.

[epicSocialism4tw]

When Charlie Sheen speaks, we all need to listen.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The impeach stuff is hilarious. If dems weren't making such jackasses out of themselves, bushii would be seen for being as much a tool as he really is.

Tricky Dick faced impeachment for similar (possibly even lesser) crimes.

Too bad the current crop of repubs are too busy making jackasses of themselves to do what their predecessors did with Nixon.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I reserve final judgment in all matters until I hear what Charlie Sheen has to say.

ROFL!

Statements like these always make me chuckle when they're uttered by members of a movement whose most sacred icon was a two-bit, Hollywood 'B' actor whose performance in "Bedtime for Bonzo" was never quite eclipsed by his portrayal of the POTUS.

:giggle:

[BroncoBuff]

I think he's a complete idiot.

The facts as we're told them are 99% as it actually happened. 9/11 was WAY too big to cover anything up.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I think he's a complete idiot.

The facts as we're told them are 99% as it actually happened. 9/11 was WAY too big to cover anything up.

???

That's a joke, right?

http://www.bartcop.com/budrives.jpg

[BroncoBuff]

???

That's a joke, right?

Well, no ..... well, lemme ask you this: just exactly what part of the
mainstream 9/11 story do you contend is a coverup/conspiracy ?

[clarker]

Did I miss the something? Was there not a 9/11 investigation? Does not every person who does not like Bush on this board quote it at least once a week.(That is an overstatement used to make a point, so do go off on a provide a link rant.)

Charlie Sheen and the term "highly credible" do not belong together.

[baja]

It is regrettable the article headlined Charlie Sheen, what about the dozen or so other very credible people calling for a deeper independent investigation?

[clarker]

It is regrettable the article headlined Charlie Sheen, what about the dozen or so other very credible people calling for a deeper independent investigation?Any article that is not about hookers and coke that uses Charlie Sheen as the main quote, I take with a grain of salt big enough to refill the Great Salt Lake 50 times over.;D :thumbs:

As for a deeper invetigation. We had the 9/11 commision.

[alkemical]

;D :thumbs: Any article that is not about hookers and coke that uses Charlie Sheen as the main quote, I take with a grain of salt big enough to refill the Great Salt Lake 50 times over.;D :thumbs:


well our prez had a few lift tickets in his life.....

[clarker]

well our prez had a few lift tickets in his life.....Come on you got admit that was kind of funny.

[enjolras]

I think he's a complete idiot.

The facts as we're told them are 99% as it actually happened. 9/11 was WAY too big to cover anything up.

Completely agree...

Occam's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor)

[Rohirrim]

Completely agree...

Occam's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor)

Oswald acted alone. So did Ruby. So did Sirhan. Marilyn ODed herself. Sorry folks. Pathetic and unsatisfying, but true nonetheless.

[Crushaholic]

Legitimate questions HAVE been brought up about 9/11, but another investigation doesn't need to be opened just because an actor who hates Bush calls for it.

[Taco John]

Well, no ..... well, lemme ask you this: just exactly what part of the
mainstream 9/11 story do you contend is a coverup/conspiracy ?



Most all of it... But if you want to learn more of why this thing is a sham, look into the destruction of WTC7.

[Taco John]

Completely agree...

Occam's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor)



Occam's razor cuts in both directions when investigating 9/11.

[Taco John]

Oswald acted alone. So did Ruby.


:rofl: LOL :rofl:


Right-oh...

[Mile High Shack]

this is really you, isn't it Taco

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/haplo1998/img-imga.jpg

[Rohirrim]

Most all of it... But if you want to learn more of why this thing is a sham, look into the destruction of WTC7.

Please explain...

[Taco John]

this is really you, isn't it Taco

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/haplo1998/img-imga.jpg




Please.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus3.gif

[Rohirrim]

:rofl: LOL :rofl:


Right-oh...

You sound like somebody who buys the Giancana/Marcellus theory, right? Or is it the Fidel Castro one? Maybe the FBI/CIA one?

[Rohirrim]

Please.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus3.gif

Except that Connally was sitting on a jump seat that was lower and more toward the center of the limo. When you adjust for that, the trajectory is a straight line.

[Taco John]

Please explain...



Nah. Clearly I'd be wasting my time.

Anyone who believes that a bullet could take the course that this one supposedly did, and then have a follow-up bullet act equally wierd, hitting the president in the head from behind in a way that would send his head back and to the left isn't going to fairly consider any data that I present.

If you're really interested in why the science doesn't support the official explination, here are some good starting points:

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Both are peer reviewed papers by credible scientists... One of these papers, as you can see, comes straight from the Physics department of BYU.

[Taco John]

You sound like somebody who buys the Giancana/Marcellus theory, right? Or is it the Fidel Castro one? Maybe the FBI/CIA one?


I wouldn't hazard a guess at which story is the correct one. Given that it wasn't properly investigated, it's difficult to say. I do, however, question the motives behind not throwing every resource at this thing to investigate it in totality. Much like it concerns me that we didn't do the same for 9/11.

[Taco John]

Except that Connally was sitting on a jump seat that was lower and more toward the center of the limo. When you adjust for that, the trajectory is a straight line.



And the reason the President's head goes back and to the left when supposedly hit from behind?

[Mile High Shack]

conspiracy theories are always juicey but rarely are they true

http://loogey.ytmnd.com/

[Taco John]

conspiracy theories are always juicey but rarely are they ever fully investigated


Fixed your post for you.

I'm of the opinion that people who are adverse to conspiracy theories don't truly understand what a high stakes game we are playing here. I agree that there are a lot of bad conspiracy theories out there. That being said, the ones revolving around important events that shape the nation get much of their fuel from the fact that they are not investigated fully.

Had 9/11 been investigated fully, two competing stories would come out, neither which is favorable to government...

Story #1 is about incredible incompetence that defies logic. Five-time Emmy-winning investigative reporter goes through that story here. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060543558/qid=1143143944/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/103-2616065-8884647?s=books&v=glance&n=283155) It's a shocking revelation of the political side of the cover-up, and why the FBI, CIA, and government in general have no interest in doing a full investigation.

Story #2 is about the scientific invalidity of the official story. You can get this aspect of the story with these following peer review papers:

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

It doesn't bother me that people skeptical of the government and their story are considered kooks, loons, tin foil hat wearers, or what not. The path of righteousness is beset by the iniquity of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men, and I recognize this a reality, and not just a movie quote . I will keep asking the questions that the government refused to answer in their shallow "investigation" searching for truth for it's own sake, if not for the sake of my children and fellow man.

[Mile High Shack]

didn't we already go over this in yavoon's post of that 9/11 conspiracy movie

Beerslug isn't even on your side with this one TJ

[Rohirrim]

The official theory about the collapse of the towers, I have suggested, is rendered extremely implausible by two main facts. First, aside from the alleged exception of 9/11, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been caused to collapse by fire; all such collapses have all been produced by carefully placed explosives.

Even the architect admitted that the Empire State Building would have withstood the fire, because of the way it was built, as all steel frame skyscrapers of the past were built, with interior box steel frames supported by a central tower. He pointed out that the WTC towers were built on a new concept, a perimeter support steel frame, kind of like on the order of an exoskeleton. The weight of the concrete slabs was supported on the OUTSIDE, not toward the inside. On the inside, each slab was designed to support the weight of the slab above it. Thus, when one slab fell, it gathered weight from the next slab, the combined weight of which fell unobstructed to the next slab, and so on, gaining more power (weight) and speed the further they fell. Of course, as each slab fell to the slab below, it exerted an enormous amount of air pressure beneath it which exhaled with a tremendous, almost explosive, force HORIZONTALLY, that force increasing exponentially as it gained more weight and speed. Hence, the witness reports of horizontal blasts of debris and the sound of explosions. (Thunder is the sound of massive stacks of air being displaced rapidly)

Also, the exoskeleton guided the collapse of the slabs right down the center pillar and were then pulled down behind the collapse of each successive floor.


Second, the collapses of the Twin Towers manifested at least 11 characteristic features of controlled demolitions. The probability that any of these features would occur in the absence of explosives is extremely low. The probability that all 11 of them would occur is essentially zero.

Here, he violates the basic precepts of Occam's Razor. What we know happened is this: Two, large jet aircraft with full fuel tanks crashed into the towers igniting massive fires. After a period of time, the buildings collapsed. A simple explanation.

He comes up with an explanation that is this: The towers were both wired with explosives prior to the jets striking them. Then, after the jets hit, the explosives were activated, causing the buildings to implode. The jets, in and of themselves, were merely secondary, and in reality meaningless factors, regarding the implosion and collapse of the structures.

It's ludicrous on so many levels.

[Taco John]

didn't we already go over this in yavoon's post of that 9/11 conspiracy movie

Beerslug isn't even on your side with this one TJ


:rofl:

First off... You always say this line "didn't we go over this" as if you're some sort of instructor who everybody is supposed to just listen to. I don't know if "we went over it or not," and don't much care if we did. I would think for someone who believes in such fantastic things as giants once roamed the earth, believing in scientific evidence presented in peer reviewed format wouldn't be too much of a leap.

Secondly, what do I care what side Beerslug, or anyone for that matter is on? The only side I'm on is the side of the truth. The idea that all of the scientific evidence is invalid because people don't believe that an organization could exist to pull it off is laughable to me, and most uncompelling.

[Bronx33]

Charlie needs to stick to hookers he knows they all all collapse for around 100 bucks...

[Mile High Shack]

:rofl:

First off... You always say this line "didn't we go over this" as if you're some sort of instructor who everybody is supposed to just listen to. I don't know if "we went over it or not," and don't much care if we did. I would think for someone who believes in such fantastic things as giants once roamed the earth, believing in scientific evidence presented in peer reviewed format wouldn't be too much of a leap.

Secondly, what do I care what side Beerslug, or anyone for that matter is on? The only side I'm on is the side of the truth. The idea that all of the scientific evidence is invalid because people don't believe that an organization could exist to pull it off is laughable to me, and most uncompelling.

by we I didn't mean you and I, I mean the board as a whole

[Taco John]

Here, he violates the basic precepts of Occam's Razor... It's ludicrous on so many levels.


Occams razor cuts both ways in the 9/11 story. It's more or less useless. The only thing it does is cut away valid evidence in favor of safe opinion.

You can cite occam all you want. But after awhile, all of the amazing coincidences start to pile up, and occam starts working against the government's story.

Occams razor is nothing more than a tool for lazy people.

[alkemical]

i have LOTS of questions about 9/11

[Mile High Shack]

i have LOTS of questions about 9/11

no offense Josh, but I think you have a conspiracy theory on why the earth is comprised mostly of water
:rofl: :wiggle:

[alkemical]

nah - Nah, most people don't understand the reason and value i find in conspiracy theories even though i find 97% of them bunk.

If you don't challenge what you think and believe and reason - how do you know what is true?

[Rohirrim]

The other part of this is that he keeps mentioning the "central columns." There were no central columns. On most skyscrapers there are central columns, but not on the Twin Towers. The reason Giuliani escaped before the towers fell is because the architects warned them that there existed the "possibility" that the buildings could collapse due to the way they were constructed and the fact that, while they were designed to withstand the heat generated by a normal fire (burning furniture, wiring, etc.) the steel exoskeleton main supports might not be able to withstand a fire fueled by an accelerant like jet fuel, especially thousands of gallons of it.

[alkemical]

what about WTC7?

[Taco John]

The other part of this is that he keeps mentioning the "central columns." There were no central columns. On most skyscrapers there are central columns, but not on the Twin Towers. The reason Giuliani escaped before the towers fell is because the architects warned them that there existed the "possibility" that the buildings could collapse due to the way they were constructed and the fact that, while they were designed to withstand the heat generated by a normal fire (burning furniture, wiring, etc.) the steel exoskeleton main supports might not be able to withstand a fire fueled by an accelerant like jet fuel, especially thousands of gallons of it.



Your facts are way off. Especially the part about the heat of the kerosene (plane fuel) and the temperatures that the steel supports in the building were able to withstain.

As far as the fuel goes, most of it visibly burned up on impact anyway.

[Taco John]

what about WTC7?



Indeed. What does Occam have to say about WTC 7 being the first steel structured building in the history of the world to suffer complete progressive collapse due to fire?

Better yet, WTC 7 is a steel structured building that was build around another, smaller steel structured building, and integrated. The entire thing collapsed into peices no larger than the size of the truck beds that carried them out. It's just an amazing coincidence that it happened like that, I know... Just like the hundred other amazing coincidences that happened that I'm not supposed to believe can possibly be connected at all.

[bronco militia]

Actor Charlie Sheen has joined a growing army of other highly credible public figures in questioning the official story of 9/11 and calling for a new independent investigation of the attack and the circumstances surrounding it.

bwahahahahaha

[AboveAverage]

FWIW, Charlie Sheen did not graduate high school.

[Rohirrim]

what about WTC7?

The structure was significantly weakened by the seismic event of the WTC towers falling and finally, after many hours, collapsed. I've watched lots of buildings brought down by explosives, and the fall of WTC 7 is similar in some ways, it's also significantly different in others. Number one being, there is no evidence of det cord around the base of each floor snapping out the external beams as each floor fell, that you always see on planned demolitions.

Secondary to all of the scientific stuff, there are a bunch of other factors that need to be explained, and the conspiracy theorists have the burden of proof if their ideas are to be accepted.

Who did it?
Why did they do it?
What did they hope to gain by doing it?
How many people are involved in the conspiracy? Somebody layed explosives, wiring, det cord, etc. etc. etc. On a job that big, it would take months to properly set up. If you've ever seen a building wired for implosion, the wires literally fill the spaces of the building. Beneath every ceiling tile, at every support, around the exterior supports, and on every single floor. It would also take hundreds of explosive experts to wire a job that enormous. Who are they? Where did they come from? Where did they gain their experience? Can you rely on every one of them keeping the secret? Why would they do it? Hypothesizing that they are all Americans (after all, if they weren't, wouldn't somebody have noticed their presence around the buildings at some point?) what motive did they have that was strong enough to coerce them into cold bloodedly murdering thousands of their countrymen? How many security personnel would have to be in on the plot? Same motive questions apply to them. Each building had scores of maintenance and cleaning personnel. How many of them would have to be in on it? Motive? Reward? Once you start rolling this little conspiracy snowball down the hill, it gets real big, real fast.

[AboveAverage]

Rather humorous blog site with a post on this story.

http://wwtdd.com/index.php?type=one&i=756

[Rohirrim]

Your facts are way off. Especially the part about the heat of the kerosene (plane fuel) and the temperatures that the steel supports in the building were able to withstain.

As far as the fuel goes, most of it visibly burned up on impact anyway.

I saw a film of the architects discussing this on a Frontline investigation into 9/11. They all agreed that the heat was sufficient to weaken the exterior columns that began the collapse. They had designed, and allowed the Frontline team to show, a computer program that detailed how the collapse began and how it progressed.

The idea that thousands of gallons of jet fuel burned up on impact relies strictly on witness reports and video of black smoke curling out the windows. All that shows is the exterior of the building. What was happening on the interior where, presumably, most of fuel remained?

[alkemical]

The structure was significantly weakened by the seismic event of the WTC towers falling and finally, after many hours, collapsed. I've watched lots of buildings brought down by explosives, and the fall of WTC 7 is similar in some ways, it's also significantly different in others. Number one being, there is no evidence of det cord around the base of each floor snapping out the external beams as each floor fell, that you always see on planned demolitions.

Secondary to all of the scientific stuff, there are a bunch of other factors that need to be explained, and the conspiracy theorists have the burden of proof if their ideas are to be accepted.

Who did it?
Why did they do it?
What did they hope to gain by doing it?
How many people are involved in the conspiracy? Somebody layed explosives, wiring, det cord, etc. etc. etc. On a job that big, it would take months to properly set up. If you've ever seen a building wired for implosion, the wires literally fill the spaces of the building. Beneath every ceiling tile, at every support, around the exterior supports, and on every single floor. It would also take hundreds of explosive experts to wire a job that enormous. Who are they? Where did they come from? Where did they gain their experience? Can you rely on every one of them keeping the secret? Why would they do it? Hypothesizing that they are all Americans (after all, if they weren't, wouldn't somebody have noticed their presence around the buildings at some point?) what motive did they have that was strong enough to coerce them into cold bloodedly murdering thousands of their countrymen? How many security personnel would have to be in on the plot? Same motive questions apply to them. Each building had scores of maintenance and cleaning personnel. How many of them would have to be in on it? Motive? Reward? Once you start rolling this little conspiracy snowball down the hill, it gets real big, real fast.


At of times, it doesn't take as many 'knowing' participants as you would think. WTC7 was closed before 9/11 - so what if plans to demo it were already in place.... the contractor would be an unknowing participant.

And i've read as much scientific basis to suggest that WTC7 was demo'd & enough plausible cause to deny that there was not the type of plane they say at the pentagon.

[alkemical]

I saw a film of the architects discussing this on a Frontline investigation into 9/11. They all agreed that the heat was sufficient to weaken the exterior columns that began the collapse. They had designed, and allowed the Frontline team to show, a computer program that detailed how the collapse began and how it progressed.

The idea that thousands of gallons of jet fuel burned up on impact relies strictly on witness reports and video of black smoke curling out the windows. All that shows is the exterior of the building. What was happening on the interior where, presumably, most of fuel remained?


IF there was such a huge explosion and problems with burning jet fuel, why so many people standing at the holes?

[Rohirrim]

At of times, it doesn't take as many 'knowing' participants as you would think. WTC7 was closed before 9/11 - so what if plans to demo it were already in place.... the contractor would be an unknowing participant.[quote/]
Wouldn't he say something after the fact? What about his crew?

[quote]And i've read as much scientific basis to suggest that WTC7 was demo'd & enough plausible cause to deny that there was not the type of plane they say at the pentagon.

Sure, but here's the big question: Why? Bush didn't need 9/11 to invade Iraq. Sure he USED it to get everybody stirred up, but he didn't need it. If there was no 9/11 he could just as easily have used the WMD, not complying with inspections, Nigerian yellow cake, not following UN security directives, etc. that he did use. The Iraq invasion was a foregone conclusion once Dubya was elected. Hell, the neocons had it in their gameplan in '91. They didn't NEED 9/11. So, who benefitted, and how?

[alkemical]

[QUOTE]At of times, it doesn't take as many 'knowing' participants as you would think. WTC7 was closed before 9/11 - so what if plans to demo it were already in place.... the contractor would be an unknowing participant.[quote/]
Wouldn't he say something after the fact? What about his crew?



Sure, but here's the big question: Why? Bush didn't need 9/11 to invade Iraq. Sure he USED it to get everybody stirred up, but he didn't need it. If there was no 9/11 he could just as easily have used the WMD, not complying with inspections, Nigerian yellow cake, not following UN security directives, etc. that he did use. The Iraq invasion was a foregone conclusion once Dubya was elected. Hell, the neocons had it in their gameplan in '91. They didn't NEED 9/11. So, who benefitted, and how?


Well i find it awfully convienant they were never able to 'recover' the data on the 'stock trades' that went down....

i'd like to know why the hijackers were on casino boats that jack abramoff had....

i have a good bit more as well.....


PS - bush did need 9/11 - still to this very day - people believe the false info to be true.

[Rohirrim]

Also, why are the architects of the WTC and all the building engineers who testified at the Kean Commission in on the coverup? Not to mention, one of the FBI's top terrorism experts had recently retired, took the job of being in charge of WTC security, and died in the attacks. You'd think some of his old buddies in the FBI would have warned him, or at least taken him out to breakfast or something.

[alkemical]

Also, why are the architects of the WTC and all the building engineers who testified at the Kean Commission in on the coverup? Not to mention, one of the FBI's top terrorism experts had recently retired, took the job of being in charge of WTC security, and died in the attacks. You'd think some of his old buddies in the FBI would have warned him, or at least taken him out to breakfast or something.


why would arhitects of the WTC7 need to be in on the plot....?

why would an old FBI guy or his pals, who may not have been in the plot notify him?

[loborugger]

Didnt we just have this conversation over on the main board last month???

I saw an 80 minute video... it cleared up everything for me!!!

[Taco John]

What was happening on the interior where, presumably, most of fuel remained?


Most of the fuel was not on the interior. Most of it visibly blew up on impact.

[Rohirrim]

I've said all I'm going to say. It's somebody elses turn to answer some of my questions:

Who did it?
Why did they do it?
What did they hope to gain by doing it?
How many people are involved in the conspiracy? Somebody set explosives, wiring, det cord, etc. etc. etc.

On a job that big, it would take months to properly set up. If you've ever seen a building wired for implosion, the wires literally fill the spaces of the building. Beneath every ceiling tile, at every support, around the exterior supports, and on every single floor.

It would also take hundreds of explosive experts to wire a job that enormous. Who are they? Where did they come from? Where did they gain their experience? Can you rely on every one of them keeping the secret?

Why would they do it? Hypothesizing that they are all Americans (after all, if they weren't, wouldn't somebody have noticed their presence around the buildings at some point?) what motive did they have that was strong enough to coerce them into cold bloodedly murdering thousands of their countrymen?

How many security personnel would have to be in on the plot? Same motive questions apply to them.

Each building had scores of maintenance and cleaning personnel. How many of them would have to be in on it? Motive?

[Taco John]

Sure, but here's the big question: Why? Bush didn't need 9/11 to invade Iraq.

Yes he did. America would have never gone along with it without 9/11. All the other stuff without an attack on our homesoil would not be enough to gain the support Bush needed for this war, especially given his low ratings.



The Iraq invasion was a foregone conclusion once Dubya was elected. Hell, the neocons had it in their gameplan in '91. They didn't NEED 9/11. So, who benefitted, and how?


Yes they did, and they said so them selves in the document called "Rebuilding America's Defenses," written by the Neo-cons in their think tank, "The Project for the New American Century." The full quote is as follows: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

To say they didn't "NEED" 9/11 to go to war is ridiculous. There is no way in hell that Bush could have declared war on Iraq, and then kept his job if it weren't for 9/11.

[Taco John]

Who did it?
Why did they do it?
What did they hope to gain by doing it?
How many people are involved in the conspiracy? Somebody set explosives, wiring, det cord, etc. etc. etc.


That's for the Justice Department to figure out. The only thing I'm interested is in the anomalies, and the picture that they paint. And also a full investigation, not a political cover-up which refuses to ask any tough questions.

I'm not an investigator, nor to I have access to the necessary courts that it would require in order to answer all these questions. Certainly, I'm interested in the answers, because I believe that they are out there. But to say that it's not possible because we don't know the full details behind the plot is your logical fallacy to bear.

I'm merely observing the evidence left behind, and putting together an image based on these puzzle pieces. I don't know who made the puzzle. I just know what it starts to look like once the pieces are connected.

[ak1971]

That's for the Justice Department to figure out. The only thing I'm interested is in the anomalies, and the picture that they paint. And also a full investigation, not a political cover-up which refuses to ask any tough questions.

I'm not an investigator, nor to I have access to the necessary courts that it would require in order to answer all these questions. Certainly, I'm interested in the answers, because I believe that they are out there. But to say that it's not possible because we don't know the full details behind the plot is your logical fallacy to bear.

I'm merely observing the evidence left behind, and putting together an image based on these puzzle pieces. I don't know who made the puzzle. I just know what it starts to look like once the pieces are connected.


So you realize the number of people who would have to be involved in such a conspiracy? Do you really think that the airlines (United and American) were going to let 4 of thier aircraft go and nobody says anything? That alone is enough for me.

[Taco John]

So you realize the number of people who would have to be involved in such a conspiracy? Do you really think that the airlines (United and American) were going to let 4 of thier aircraft go and nobody says anything? That alone is enough for me.


I'm not interested in the number of people it would take. I look at that as something for the Justice Department to figure out. I'm more interested in the science and live accounts from people on the ground that contradict the official story.

That said, I am aware that there are organizations in America that have their own vision for the country, their own version of the history, their own chains of command, and their own social network that promotes their members to positions of power when they can. I know this because I'm a member of one. Now, of course, the organization that I'm "forever" a member of is a benign one with goals only of socialization and networking. But the benefits are clear and real. I know more than one person who has advanced to a position that they'd probably had never gotten if they didn't "know the right person."

The fact that it would be "really hard to pull off" doesn't deter me from looking at the fact that there are dozens of anomalies that have gone unchallenged, unexplained, ignored, and marginalized in favor of the official story. And I'm not here to tell anyone that the official story is absolutely false. I'm just here to say that the investigation of it was. Otherwise, there'd be an answer for why there were news reports that Flight 93 had landed in Cleveland as a potential bomb threat. Or why Fox News first had a report that it absolutely was not a commercial plane that flew into tower 1, but something that looked like a cargo plane with a blue logo on the nose of it. Or why after a history of steel strucutred buildings, none had previously collapsed, including buildings that had planes flown into them, burned for days on end, and suffered any number of calamities, but in just over an hour, buildings that were designed to take the impact of a plane flying into them like "a pencil punching through a screen door" suffered complete and total collapse. Or why pentagon people reported the smell of cordite in the air. Or why a 50 foot high plane punched only a 16 foot hole in the pentagon, without the massive wings deaving a dent in the building, or any holes where the multi-ton engines should have made impact. Or why Building 7 suffered complete progressive collapse, making it the first building in the history of steel structured buildings to do so under the conditions of "earthquake and fire." (and that's not mentioning the fact that the buidling was designed to withstand both). What about the detonations that people heard coming from the basement? What about the helicopters that eye-witnesses saw at the pentagon, or the unexplained plane in the Pentagon's air space after the skies were cleared. What about all of those strange streaks that cameras caught, but nobody could explain at the WTC site? Why did they close the buildings and certain floors for security checks in the weeks before the attack, and why did they remove the bomb sniffing dogs after those checks?

That's not even the tip of the iceberg. How many "coincidences" do we need to have before you start to scratch your head and wonder? 10? 20? 100?

All I want is a real investigation. Not a political CYA. Is it too much to ask to have the biggest crime in American history to be scrutinized by independant investigators bent on nothing but the truth and only the truth?

An investigation alone is enough for me.

[baja]

Charlie needs to stick to hookers he knows they all all collapse for around 100 bucks...A Hundred Bucks!

Dude if you get laid for a 100 dollars go get your pecker checked immediately.

[baja]

I'm not interested in the number of people it would take. I look at that as something for the Justice Department to figure out. I'm more interested in the science and live accounts from people on the ground that contradict the official story.

That said, I am aware that there are organizations in America that have their own vision for the country, their own version of the history, their own chains of command, and their own social network that promotes their members to positions of power when they can. I know this because I'm a member of one. Now, of course, the organization that I'm "forever" a member of is a benign one with goals only of socialization and networking. But the benefits are clear and real. I know more than one person who has advanced to a position that they'd probably had never gotten if they didn't "know the right person."

The fact that it would be "really hard to pull off" doesn't deter me from looking at the fact that there are dozens of anomalies that have gone unchallenged, unexplained, ignored, and marginalized in favor of the official story. And I'm not here to tell anyone that the official story is absolutely false. I'm just here to say that the investigation of it was. Otherwise, there'd be an answer for why there were news reports that Flight 93 had landed in Cleveland as a potential bomb threat. Or why Fox News first had a report that it absolutely was not a commercial plane that flew into tower 1, but something that looked like a cargo plane with a blue logo on the nose of it. Or why after a history of steel structured buildings, none had previously collapsed, including buildings that had planes flown into them, burned for days on end, and suffered any number of calamities, but in just over an hour, buildings that were designed to take the impact of a plane flying into them like "a pencil punching through a screen door" suffered complete and total collapse. Or why pentagon people reported the smell of cordite in the air. Or why a 50 foot high plane punched only a 16 foot hole in the pentagon, without the massive wings deaving a dent in the building, or any holes where the multi-ton engines should have made impact. Or why Building 7 suffered complete progressive collapse, making it the first building in the history of steel structured buildings to do so under the conditions of "earthquake and fire." (and that's not mentioning the fact that the buidling was designed to withstand both). What about the detonations that people heard coming from the basement? What about the helicopters that eye-witnesses saw at the pentagon, or the unexplained plane in the Pentagon's air space after the skies were cleared. What about all of those strange streaks that cameras caught, but nobody could explain at the WTC site? Why did they close the buildings and certain floors for security checks in the weeks before the attack, and why did they remove the bomb sniffing dogs after those checks?

That's not even the tip of the iceberg. How many "coincidences" do we need to have before you start to scratch your head and wonder? 10? 20? 100?

All I want is a real investigation. Not a political CYA. Is it too much to ask to have the biggest crime in American history to be scrutinized by independant investigators bent on nothing but the truth and only the truth?

An investigation alone is enough for me.

Excellent post TJ

I noticed V didn't make four pages.

I appears most people don't give a shiit and the chances of an investigation without mass demand is very low. We Americans are getting just what we deserve.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Well, no ..... well, lemme ask you this: just exactly what part of the mainstream 9/11 story do you contend is a coverup/conspiracy ?

For starters, the statement "no one could have imagined anyone would use aircraft as missles."

This is such a howling, egregious, bold-face lie it's beyond belief.

During the G-8 summit in Genoa, Italy, in the summer of 2001, Bush was moved out of his hotel precisely because of concerns about just such a possible "aircraft as missles" threat.

Furthermore, prior to 9/11, NORAD was conducting exercises which involved scenarios in which aircraft were deliberately flown into buildings.

The whole conspiracy theory thing has been rehashed so many times on this board that there's probably nothing new to add at this point.

However, I think everyone has to acknowledge that a lot of Americans (and not just liberals) don't buy into the official account. I'd wager that everyone here knows people who believe that either BushCo knew about the attacks and let them happen or was outright complicit in facilitating the attacks.

There was a Zogby poll a while back that found 50% of NYC residents believed BushCo knew the attacks were coming.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It is regrettable the article headlined Charlie Sheen, what about the dozen or so other very credible people calling for a deeper independent investigation?

Bingo. :thumbs:

I was wondering when someone was going to catch that.

Charlie Sheen's name in the headline makes it easy for the radical right to give the story the Dan Rather treatment.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It doesn't bother me that people skeptical of the government and their story are considered kooks, loons, tin foil hat wearers, or what not. The path of righteousness is beset by the iniquity of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men, and I recognize this a reality, and not just a movie quote . I will keep asking the questions that the government refused to answer in their shallow "investigation" searching for truth for it's own sake, if not for the sake of my children and fellow man.


Secondly, what do I care what side Beerslug, or anyone for that matter is on? The only side I'm on is the side of the truth. The idea that all of the scientific evidence is invalid because people don't believe that an organization could exist to pull it off is laughable to me, and most uncompelling.

:thumbsup:

Welcome back, TJ! ;)

[DownRiver Bronco Fan]

why anyone cares what someone who reads someone elses writing in front of a camera is beyond me.

[BroncoBuff]

Most of the fuel was not on the interior. Most of it visibly blew up on impact.
We definitely saw a lot burn up on impact, true .... but why do you say "most"? I know you remember their tanks were full for a cross-country run. I agree with you that Bush needed 9/11 to manage public and congessional support for Iraq ... but that doesn't mean he knew it was going to happen! Or, -gulp-, helped plan it (?)

And I did read that article. Obviously Charlie Sheen is an idiot, but I didn't recognize one single name on the list of poeple who agreed! All their names began with "former..."

Personally, I'm kinda shocked by everybody's posts here. I guess I feel a bit like Russell Crowe's wife in "A Beautiful Mind" when she stumbles on his shed out back with all the crazy newpaper clippings, and her jaw drops! Or perhaps like when I visit fireshanahan.com and see that mind at work. I'm truly surprised. Everybody has a perfect right to an opinion, I'm juist surprised, is all.

I don't know any more than you guys do, but I guarantee that I hate Bush and Cheney as much as anybody! I have thought through whether losing my life would be worth killing the bastard. My decision? I decided no, because Cheney would take over :~ohyah!: .... but I guess I agree with loborugger, ak1971 and Rohirrim only, in that I really believe we know about 90% or more of what really happened.

[BroncoBuff]

I saw that Frontline episode, and I saw a Discovery-Architecture special that explained the Towers had a unique central core design, to permit more windows .... and that the Boeing 707 was the largest plane at the time to model in disaster scenarios ... (just 60% the size of a 767).

I do have ONE lingering question ... was there a fifth plane? A sixth? Another plane wherein the team of hijackers just lost their nerve, landed and de-planed? I've always wondered that, but of course, that wouldn't be a conspiracy ... just a few sensible cowards gathered in one place.

[alkemical]

the casino's that the 9/11 hijackers were on, were owned by jack abramoff....

[Rohirrim]

the casino's that the 9/11 hijackers were on, were owned by jack abramoff....

Link? Story? ???

[alkemical]

http://www.madcowprod.com/06202005.html

here's "a" link - do the leg work on your own.....

[Rohirrim]

http://www.madcowprod.com/06202005.html

here's "a" link - do the leg work on your own.....

You're too kind. Yeah, I can see where Atta and some of the other hijackers went out on a floating casino that counted, as one of its "secret" investors, Jack Abramoff. Does that mean that Abramoff was in on it? Atta and his buddies also went to strip clubs. Maybe some strippers were in on it? They also went to the horse track. Maybe some of the horses were in on it?

[Taco John]

We definitely saw a lot burn up on impact, true .... but why do you say "most"? I know you remember their tanks were full for a cross-country run.



...

Prior to 9/11, fire had never brought down a steel-frame high-rise. The firemen who reached the 78th floor of the south tower certainly did not believe it was going to collapse. Even the 9/11 Commission reported that to its knowledge, “none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible” (Kean and Hamilton, 2004, p. 302). So why would anyone have told Giuliani that at least one of the towers was about to collapse?

The most reasonable answer, especially in light of the new evidence, is that someone knew that explosives had been set in the south tower and were about to be discharged. It is even possible that the explosives were going to be discharged earlier than originally planned because the fires in the south tower were dying down more quickly than expected, because so much of the plane’s jet fuel had burned up in the fireball outside the building.[60] This could explain why although the south tower was struck second, suffered less structural damage, and had smaller fires, it collapsed first---after only 56 minutes. That is, if the official story was going to be that the fire caused the collapse, the building had to be brought down before the fire went completely out.[61]

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html#_ednref60










http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

The government reports admit that the building fires were insufficient to melt steel beams -- then where did the molten metal come from? Metals expert Dr. Frank Gayle (working with NIST) stated:

Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it did not, the steel did not melt. (Field, 2005; emphasis added.)

None of the official reports tackles this mystery. Yet this is evidently a significant clue to what caused the Towers and WTC 7 to collapse. So an analysis of the composition of the previously-molten metal is required by a qualified scientific panel. This could well become an experiment crucis.

Prof. Thomas Eagar explained in 2001 that the WTC fires would NOT melt steel:

"The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.... The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.

In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame.... In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types... The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C."

"But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio... This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 °C to 650 °C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke.... It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425 °C and loses about half of its strength at 650 °C [Cote, 1992]. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse... The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 °C fire." (Eagar and Musso, 2001; emphasis added.)

[Taco John]

You're too kind. Yeah, I can see where Atta and some of the other hijackers went out on a floating casino that counted, as one of its "secret" investors, Jack Abramoff. Does that mean that Abramoff was in on it? Atta and his buddies also went to strip clubs. Maybe some strippers were in on it? They also went to the horse track. Maybe some of the horses were in on it?



Nothing more than another link in a long chain of coincidences. Might mean something... Might mean nothing. We'd never know without a real investigation.

[alkemical]

You're too kind. Yeah, I can see where Atta and some of the other hijackers went out on a floating casino that counted, as one of its "secret" investors, Jack Abramoff. Does that mean that Abramoff was in on it? Atta and his buddies also went to strip clubs. Maybe some strippers were in on it? They also went to the horse track. Maybe some of the horses were in on it?


It doesn't matter what evidence i would present to you - you'd discount it anyway. You've made up your mind. that's fine. But i'm not here to be an 'authority'.

The only thing i can say, is that there's a possiblity that some people in our gov't, who serve the people got paid. With the dollar signs in their eyes, they didn't see possibly what was happening, or just didn't care. (maybe that's why the pat act passed so easily? - guilt)

There's enough evidence to suggest there should be a major inquiry/investigation - which won't happen because of the $$$ ties and where they go. End of Story.

[Rohirrim]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

My final input on the subject.

[alkemical]

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=39018

More links to $$$ issues and shady dealings by jack abramoff


Funny, you won't research items that raise questionable objections to the status quo, because it requires effort. Is every theory right? No. Not even the gov't and big media sponsored stories.

[Rohirrim]

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=39018

More links to $$$ issues and shady dealings by jack abramoff


Funny, you won't research items that raise questionable objections to the status quo, because it requires effort. Is every theory right? No. Not even the gov't and big media sponsored stories.

Not true. I read everything that TJ posted and everything that you posted. Then, I read the Popular Mechanics article. Then I kicked in my own common sense and critical thinking faculties in order to make a decision whether or not to pursue it any further. I decided that no more research was needed. The conspiracy theories require wild leaps of logic that the simple explanations do not. Have you read the PM article I posted?

[alkemical]

Not true. I read everything that TJ posted and everything that you posted. Then, I read the Popular Mechanics article. Then I kicked in my own common sense and critical thinking faculties in order to make a decision whether or not to pursue it any further. I decided that no more research was needed. The conspiracy theories require wild leaps of logic that the simple explanations do not. Have you read the PM article I posted?


I actually have that issue, and see it as redunant to the 9/11 commision report. Which does have factual information - but i view it with as much credibility as anything the gov't does.

Still doesn't explain the 'mystery stock transaction' - or the ties with abramoff from politicans, to the 9/11 hijackers, to his ties to the AIPAC firm -

I also feel the gov't shot down the plane over PA. 8mi of wreckage is a big 'scattared' for a crash......

[Taco John]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

My final input on the subject.



Yeah, I've read about 30 rebuttals to this stuff as well...

I don't know why anyone is against a real investigation into the biggest crime in American history.

[Rohirrim]

I also have to add in that if anyone thinks the Bush administration, or his cronies were somehow behind 9/11, it boggles the mind. This has got to be the most incompetent, lame-brained, doofus administration in the history of the U.S. I don't think they could pull off a successful flea market, let alone the worst attack in the history of the U.S.

[alkemical]

I also have to add in that if anyone thinks the Bush administration, or his cronies were somehow behind 9/11, it boggles the mind. This has got to be the most incompetent, lame-brained, doofus administration in the history of the U.S. I don't think they could pull off a successful flea market, let alone the worst attack in the history of the U.S.


Hmm, i can't say i'd have any proof that they would 'know'. But i also say that it's still very possible key players knew. In fact there'd have to be x amout of people that would know.

I mean russia, israel even said "uhhh, hey something's going on - we thought we'd say we are hearing rumblings"....

[Taco John]

I also have to add in that if anyone thinks the Bush administration, or his cronies were somehow behind 9/11, it boggles the mind. This has got to be the most incompetent, lame-brained, doofus administration in the history of the U.S. I don't think they could pull off a successful flea market, let alone the worst attack in the history of the U.S.


I wouldn't guess who is and isn't involved. I'd rather see an independant investigation, and let the Justice Department sort out those kinds of details.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I also have to add in that if anyone thinks the Bush administration, or his cronies were somehow behind 9/11, it boggles the mind. This has got to be the most incompetent, lame-brained, doofus administration in the history of the U.S. I don't think they could pull off a successful flea market, let alone the worst attack in the history of the U.S.

I think we have to consider the possibility that those BushCo actions or omissions which appear to be instances of incompetence are actually intentional or by design, i.e., part of a coordinated effort by the neocons to destroy America, its governement, and its infrastructure, and to rebuild the country and its government to suit themselves and the globalist robber barons for whom the neocons are merely a proxy.

When we read the PNAC manifesto and see the reference to "a new Pearl Harbor," it's not at all unreasonable to assume that the neocons knew 9/11 was coming and allowed it to happen for political (and financial) gain. Without 9/11, the entire neocon agenda (especially the invasion/occupation of Iraq) is dead in the water.

[Rohirrim]

I think we have to consider the possibility that those BushCo actions or omissions which appear to be instances of incompetence are actually intentional or by design, i.e., part of a coordinated effort by the neocons to destroy America, its governement, and its infrastructure, and to rebuild the country and its government to suit themselves and the globalist robber barons for whom the neocons are merely a proxy.

When we read the PNAC manifesto and see the reference to "a new Pearl Harbor," it's not at all unreasonable to assume that the neocons knew 9/11 was coming and allowed it to happen for political (and financial) gain. Without 9/11, the entire neocon agenda (especially the invasion/occupation of Iraq) is dead in the water.

Maybe I've just lived long enough to become jaded, but like Freud said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a good smoke." :rofl: Sometimes a coincidence is just a coincidence. I would like to believe that there is some kind of devious master plan behind Dubya's blithering incompetence. It would make it so much less pathetic. But I'm afraid I can't. I came to the same conclusion about the JFK and RFK assassinations. For years I studied every possible conspiracy theory about that to its logical conclusion. Finally, I just had to admit that Oswald and Sirhan, those pathetic, worthless little weasels, acted alone. The odd laws of coincidence put them in those places, at those times and they were primed already in their warped little minds, to take advantage. It's not satisfying. It's pathetic. And it leaves you feeling that the universe is somehow inherently unjust and its rules devoid of reason or fairness. But there it is..

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Maybe I've just lived long enough to become jaded, but like Freud said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a good smoke." :rofl: Sometimes a coincidence is just a coincidence. I would like to believe that there is some kind of devious master plan behind Dubya's blithering incompetence. It would make it so much less pathetic. But I'm afraid I can't. I came to the same conclusion about the JFK and RFK assassinations. For years I studied every possible conspiracy theory about that to its logical conclusion. Finally, I just had to admit that Oswald and Sirhan, those pathetic, worthless little weasels, acted alone. The odd laws of coincidence put them in those places, at those times and they were primed already in their warped little minds, to take advantage. It's not satisfying. It's pathetic. And it leaves you feeling that the universe is somehow inherently unjust and its rules devoid of reason or fairness. But there it is..

I think those of us who entertain so-called "conspiracy" theories sometimes ask the wrong questions.

I believe it's much more instructive to ask questions like "whose interests do the 9/11 atacks serve?," or "whose interests did the JFK and RFK assassinations serve?" Or "who benefitted from these momentous historical events?"

Then we can legitimately label the "conspiracy theory" nay-sayers "conicidence theorists."

Re: Dubya's blithering incompetence: I have to remind myself that Dubya is just a puppet and a front man (much like Red Ink Reagan was) for a cabal that prefers to operate in secrecy and relative anonymity.

[BroncoBuff]

Most all of it... But if you want to learn more of why this thing is a sham, look into the destruction of WTC7.

Well, I did look ... and lots of what you say is true. 50% of New Yorkers believe the official line in BS, and there was no formal inquiry into the WTC7 destruction. I don't know enough about buildings and construction, but it does seem far-fetched that a 47-story building could collapse simplt because of the seismic effect of the Twin Towers a couple blocks away. There's a really long, comprehensive article in New York Magazine this week on this topic: http://www.nymag.com/news/features/16464/index.html Here's a clip from the story (below):

According to Jim Hoffman, a software engineer and physicist from Alameda, California, where he authors the site 911research.wtc7.net, what I saw was a “classic controlled demolition.” This was why, Hoffman contends, 7 WTC dropped so rapidly (in about 6.6 seconds, or almost at the speed of a free-falling object) and so neatly, into its “own footprint.” For 7 WTC to collapse unaided at that speed, Hoffman says, would mean “its 58 perimeter columns and 25 central columns of structural steel would have to have been shattered at almost the same instant, so unlikely as to be impossible.” I heard the author of the story on Rachel Maddow, and he says after doing all the polls and research in it - he's leaning MORE toward conspiracy than he was before. Here were his poll choices:

(A) The Official Story (a.k.a. “The Official Conspiracy Theory”). The received Bushian line: Osama, nineteen freedom-haters with box cutters, etc. As White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said, there was “no warning.”

(B) The Incompetence Theory (also the Stupidity, Arrogance, “Reno Wall” Theory). Accepts the Official Story, adds failure by the White House, FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. to heed ample warnings. This line was advanced, with much ass-covering compensation, in The 9/11 Commission Report.

(C) LIHOP (or “Let It Happen on Purpose”). Many variations, but primarily that elements of the U.S. government and the private sector were aware of the hijackers’ plans and, recognizing that 9/11 suited their policy goals, did nothing to stop it.

(D) MIHOP (“Made It Happen on Purpose”). The U.S. government or private forces planned and executed the attacks.

Pretty good article.

[BroncoBuff]

The author says he was a (B) believer before ... but after doing the story, and reading about how FDR knew about Pearl Harbor and let it happen ... he's leaning toward (C) now ... he sounded very sane.

[Bronx33]

Blogged in Military Perspective by CJ Saturday March 25, 2006
Go to the link for the pictures it's pretty funny

http://www.soldiersperspective.us/
(Just another uneducated military kid) insert massive sarcasm

Fox News aired a story about how Charlie Sheen is on a crusade to [somehow] prove that the Bush administration coordinated and executed the 9/11 attacks against the WTC and Pentagon. Here are a few quotes (italicized) to get me started:

“It seems to me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75% of their targets, that feels like a conspiracy theory. It raises a lot of questions.” I wouldn’t exactly call training for months in U.S. flight schools exactly amateur. But, it does raise a lot of questions: Why isn’t Charlie instiutionalized again? for one.

I spoke with a Bush administration spokesman who responded saying, “We would have gotten 100% too if hadn’t been for those meddling kids and that dog.”

“It feels like from the people I talk to in and around my circles, it seems like the worm is turning… It is up to us to reveal the truth.” In A Soldier’s Perspective exclusive, I can now confirm that Charlie was in Mexico at the time of this comment and didn’t realize the worm was SUPPOSED to be in that bottle. You’d think he’d have realized that after he down the first five bottles. I didn’t think spin the bottle was still a valid Hollywood pasttime.

“There was a feeling, it just didn’t look any commercial jetliner I’ve flown on any time in my life and then when the buildings came down later on that day I said to my brother ‘call me insane, but did it sorta look like those buildings came down in a controlled demolition?” Well, unfortunately, that wasn’t the commercial airliner some would have wanted you on that day. I’m not sure if I should blame the cocaine or the high cost prostitutes for what messed up his head. The pictures I saw looked like EVERY OTHER commercial airliner I’ve flown on.

Amazingly, the people that are supporting and spreading Sheen’s claim are the same people spreading word that “the planes in the videos we have were superimposed in real-time by the television networks using advanced graphics technology, and they proceed to identify a number of anomalies in the videos and in the physics of the impacts which they claim indicate that the 767 was not actually there.” How is it possible that the very networks that would have nothing to do if they didn’t have Bush to kick around would be willing to go along with such a “plan”? That’s a lot of people that would have to be sworn to secrecy AND keep it.

This is just another example of how out of touch our “role models” in Hollywood have become. They are just as bent on destroying this president as the Democratic parties and their lacky groups. Claiming that this country is responsible for what happened on September 11th is a smack in the face to those that were there. To the survivors that made it out of those building and actually witnessed those things.

You know, I don’t recall seeing Charlie Sheen on TV that particular day. As a matter of fact, funny how I didn’t really know who Michael Moore was before then. I’m beginning to think that this whole September 11th thing DOES need a little more scrutiny. We need to be investigating the Hollywood elite.

ASP Exclusive: After an exhaustive investigation, I’ve discovered proof that Charlie Sheen has been training to attack NYC and the Pentagon for years. HERE is a picture of Charlie at an al Qaeda camp in the woods of Afghanistan. HERE, Sheen is seen torturing one of the 9/11 terrorists amateurs into flying a plane in the Pentagon. HERE, Sheen is seen with two unwitting accomplices scouting out the exact angle the plane should fly into the WTC. HERE’s proof that he was part of the “government conspiracy”. How much more “proof” do we need that the real enemy is Charlie Sheen?

[alkemical]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oem_wtc.html

The OEM Issued a WTC Collapse Warning

Again, times are a little fuzzy initially for me. A few minutes
later, John came to me and said you need to go find Chief Ganci and
relay the following message: that the buildings have been
compromised, we need to evacuate, they're going to collapse. I said
okay. I went down Vesey Street towards West.

Q. You were by yourself?

A. I was by myself, me and my helmet and my radio. I got to the
corner of Vesey and West. I found some EMS vehicles. I think I saw
Chief Gombo there. I'm not really sure. I mentioned to the EMS
people there, again, not knowing who they were, I said you need to
get away from here, the building might collapse, we need to leave
this spot. As I was walking towards the Fire command post, I found Steve
Mosiello. I said, Steve, where's the boss? I have to give him a message. He said, well, what's the message? I said the buildings are going to collapse; we need to evac everybody out. With a very confused look he said who told you that? I said I was just with John at OEM. OEM says the buildings are going
to collapse; we need to get out.

[Atlas]

When Charlie Sheen speaks, we all need to listen.

I like him better when he is banging porn stars