Actor Charlie Sheen Questions Official 9/11 Story

Page 21 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Votingisanillusion

Senior member
Nov 6, 2004
626
0
0
When will people here who were not in the WTC stop believing the corrupt 9/11 commission members (as corrupt as most in DC) appointed by a liar, a criminal, an alcoholic, a cocaine addict, a psychopath (yes, that is Bush), and start believing the courageous heroes of 9/11 who were in the WTC to save people, who saw and heard what really happened?

http://www.911blogger.com/2006/03/stories-from-firemen-who-survived.html
http://www.greaterthings.com/News/daily/2006/03/30/6600920_WTC_survivor_wind/

Stories From Firemen Who Survived North Tower Collapse Suggest Demolition

A dozen firemen, a civilian, and a police officer, who were on Stairway B between floors 1 and 6, survived the collapse of the 110-floor north World Trade Center tower on September 11, 2001.

Their story is documented in the book Report from Ground Zero: The Story of the Rescue Efforts at the World Trade Center by Dennis Smith, which contains testimonies of several of the survivors from this pocket of life in a tower that plummeted to destruction.
..
The particular point of interest in this case is the report of a very strong wind going through the stairwell. Though there are a few contradictions among the individuals? accounts, a careful review of their statements explains these differences and creates a cohesive conclusion: a powerful wind was going up the stairs as the building was collapsing down.

This would seem to refute the official pancake theory of collapse in which one floor after another fails as the mass from above comes down. That would have created a downward wind due to the air being expulsed as the floors pancaked together, creating a piston-like effect.
..
In Dennis Smith's book, the first account from this group of survivors is the most compelling. Lieutenant Mickey Croft of Engine Company Sixteen was somewhere around the second floor in Stairway B when the building began to collapse. He described the wind as being "fierce" and that it almost lifted his body. He notes that he had to hold on to his helmet so it wouldn't blow off. As an instructor to new fireman, he routinely drilled into them the importance of snapping their helmets in place, and yet here he was, without his helmet snapped on, so that he was having to hold it by hand to keep it on. That particular comment lends high credibility to him as a witness. It involves being truthful enough to admit to having broken his own rules. And the wind was strong enough to demand his full attention and action. A downward wind would not have caused this risk of helmet loss, nor coaxed him to reveal his non-compliance with safety rules.

Jim McLean from Engine 39 was between the 1st and 2nd floors when the building began to fall. He also described a "rush of air going up".

Officer Dave Lim of the Port Authority's Police K-9 unit said that when building began to collapse, he was on the 4th floor, where he had stopped to help Josephine. He used the expression "huge windstorm" but the report of his experience in this book does not mention a direction of up or down.
..
These are not the only evidences for demolition, but are submitted as additional evidences in an already lengthy list of evidences that point to demolition from pre-positioned explosives, which point to this having been an inside job being covered up by the present administration.

Additional evidences are presented amply elsewhere. In brief, a summary is as follows:

* The engineers who designed the building designed it to withstand impact by planes and fire.
* Building 7, which was not structurally damaged by aircraft, came down in a manner that matches the signature demolition model, complete with triggering squibs (outward explosions of support structures preceding the falling mass), and falling into its footprint. Slow motion video footage highlights these features.
* Towers 1 and 2 also fell in a manner consistent with demolition, and had numerous visible squibs preceding the falling mass. Bear in mind that a "tidy" and "safe" fall would not necessarily be the objective of individuals pulling off such a thing.
* Rate of speed of the fall is near that of free-fall, which contradicts the pancake model in which a delay must be expected due to conservation of momentum ? one of the foundational Laws of Physics.
* The fine powder into which the building was converted during the collapse is consistent with the demolition model and its associated explosives. There would have been some pulverization in the pancake model, but not to the extent seen in this case.
* Molten iron in the wreckage, weeks after the collapse, is consistent with military-grade demolition charges, which chemicals continue to react with the metal long after the initial implosion event.
* Numerous eyewitnesses described hearing explosions not associated with the planes hitting the buildings.
* The wreckage from the towers was quickly shipped off for scrap, contrary to laws governing removal of items from a crime scene.
* WTC buildings 1,2 and 7 had undergone unannounced security evacuations in the days prior to Sept. 11. A concurrent power outage disabled security cameras. Explosives-sniffing dogs were called off as part of that evacuation procedure. Martin Bush, brother to the President, was involved with the security company involved in this process.
* It would take 10 men ten trips to place the necessary explosives to bring the towers down by demolition.
* The 911 Commission report says that there were no central support columns, which is a lie. The WTC had the most robust central support columns in the world at the time it was built, and was designed to be centrally supported.
 

noto12ious

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2001
1,131
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Alex Jones on MTV:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/020406MTV.htm

The kids seem to be shocked.

young people gullible?? say it aint so!

duh.

I guess Robert Bowman is gullible too?


Former Head Of Star Wars Program Says Cheney Main 9/11 Suspect


The former head of the Star Wars missile defense program under Presidents Ford and Carter has gone public to say that the official version of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory and his main suspect for the architect of the attack is Vice President Dick Cheney.

Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret. flew 101 combat missions in Vietnam. He is the recipient of the Eisenhower Medal, the George F. Kennan Peace Prize, the President?s Medal of Veterans for Peace, the Society of Military Engineers Gold Medal (twice), six Air Medals, and dozens of other awards and honors. His Ph.D. is in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering from Caltech. He chaired 8 major international conferences, and is one of the country?s foremost experts on National Security.

Bowman worked secretly for the US government on the Star Wars project and was the first to coin the very term in a 1977 secret memo. After Bowman realized that the program was only ever intended to be used as an aggressive and not defensive tool, as part of a plan to initiate a nuclear war with the Soviets, he left the program and campaigned against it.


continued at source:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/040406mainsuspect.htm
 

SarcasticDwarf

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2001
9,574
2
76
Votingisanillusion, why do you keep fabricating evidence? The towers were designed to (hopefully) withstand the impact of a 707, not a fully fueled, fully loaded 767. Are you really so pathetic that you have to make things up?
 

will889

Golden Member
Sep 15, 2003
1,463
5
81
Yeah it must be sematics. The designers thought it would be best to leave the tolerances off at the point of a fully loaded 707-737 and not move up to the 747-767.
 

SarcasticDwarf

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2001
9,574
2
76
Originally posted by: will889
Yeah it must be sematics. The designers thought it would be best to leave the tolerances off at the point of a fully loaded 707-737 and not move up to the 747-767.

I believe the buildings were designed in 1966. The first commercial 747 did not even fly until 1970.
 

will889

Golden Member
Sep 15, 2003
1,463
5
81
You're very correct. I knew that too. However, when you build something though you should give more leeway than exacting tolerances. In fact there was more tolerace than for a fully loaded 707. From what i found out it was tolerable enough to withstand a 747 fully loaded (unoficially). Even so the building would not have concaved 'direct down' as it did from 'most' experts opinions (not all but most).
 

bradley

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2000
3,671
2
81
Charlie Sheen has become a major spokesman of the MTV2 generation. After all, he has been researching this conspiracy for over four years.

I just wish we could corroborate a singular motive. But unfortunately the motive to this conspiracy seems just as wide, far-reaching, and all-encompassing as the actual 'crime', making it that much more implausible.

Although, Noto12ious in this thread is blaming "Bush.... Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, etc, etc", a few are stating oil as the ulterior motive, and Alex Jones has stated the conspiracy relates to the Republican need for a Fascist state. Although, I'm sure these are just scratching the surface. Like throwing garbage against the wall, until some of it sticks. And again, what's the expected resolution to this conspiracy? I'm not completely sure.

BTW, perusing through Infowars.com, you can read further about conspiracies, including: the political murders of Gary Webb, Hunter S. Thompson (9-11 related,) Princess Diana, Dr. David Kelley, and the Asian Tsunami being part of a "Tsunami Bomb Developed As Far Back As 1944" etc. ;)

Of course, covert operatives probably have now bugged the set of Two and a Half Men, and are looking to go all Hunter S. Thompson on anyone in political opposition. While, I'm simply wondering who'll be the first poster to reach 666 in this thread. :)
 

noto12ious

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2001
1,131
0
0
Originally posted by: bradley
Charlie Sheen has become a major spokesman of the MTV2 generation. After all, he has been researching this conspiracy for over four years.

I just wish we could corroborate a singular motive. But unfortunately the motive to this conspiracy seems just as wide, far-reaching, and all-encompassing as the actual 'crime', making it that much more implausible.

Although, Noto12ious in this thread is blaming "Bush.... Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, etc, etc", a few are stating oil as the ulterior motive, and Alex Jones has stated the conspiracy relates to the Republican need for a Fascist state. Although, I'm sure these are just scratching the surface. Like throwing garbage against the wall, until some of it sticks. And again, what's the expected resolution to this conspiracy? I'm not completely sure.

....

It's all connected, imo. Money, power, control, oil.


Charlie Sheen has certainly opened up discussion:


Mens News Daily:
If You Love Your Country, You Should Question 9/11


All things considered, it?s easy to see why folks would suspect the worst here. A number of men in the Bush administration pushed for war in Iraq before 9/11, and pushed for it afterwards?in spite of Iraq not attacking us. This alone doesn?t prove a conspiracy. But the fact that the White House likes secrecy as much as Charlie Sheen likes hookers doesn?t exactly help.

Since 9/11, the Bush team has implemented a number of policies?such as torture, domestic spying, and the capture of enemy combatants?all from behind closed doors. Toss in two controversial elections, and tie it all together with the ?Unitary Executive? theory (which effectively gives the president power to rewrite laws during wartime), and it?s no wonder people have their suspicions about 9/11. Our government?s undergoing fundamental changes. It?s not nutty to notice this. It?s nuttier not to.
 

morkinva

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 1999
3,656
0
71
*bump*

Charlie appearing on Ellen Degeneres and Jimmy Kimmel today. Will they ask him about this?
 

WildHorse

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2003
5,006
0
0
I could not care less about Charlie Sheen, but

it is plainly obvious no passenger jetliner hit the pentagon. It's a lie.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: scott
I could not care less about Charlie Sheen, but

it is plainly obvious no passenger jetliner hit the pentagon. It's a lie.

Then what did? And what happened the the "so called airliner" that had people on it?

 

imported_Aelius

Golden Member
Apr 25, 2004
1,988
0
0
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: scott
I could not care less about Charlie Sheen, but

it is plainly obvious no passenger jetliner hit the pentagon. It's a lie.

Then what did? And what happened the the "so called airliner" that had people on it?

All we have is tiny bits of information and nothing concrete. However there is MORE then enough to ask questions, questions that should be asked publicly through an independant investigation that should cut through any national security classified info BS and get to the bottom of it.

Why it won't happen. Omg so many reasons why, where to start. I'll simply give one example of a similar incident.

Assassination of RFK. All evidence gathered up, shipped off and destroyed after an official story was released and they had their aleged assassin. The way evidence was handled would have been enough to toss the case right out of court, never happend.

WTC... the evidence is shipped off and destroyed one way or another.

Oklahoma bombing... evidence is destroyed and what isn't destroyed is collected and burried and the site becomes highly restricted.

How many people have to die until we start asking questions. Just simple questions.

Obviously some 3,000 wasn't enough.

What happens if tomorrow our water supply is contaminated with radioactive materials and a couple of hundred thousand people start dying and it gets blamed on some terrorists and the evidence is again covered up.

Would you then at least start asking some basic questions?

I suspect not.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Its fine and dandy to deal in what ifs but what ifs don`t matter.

What matters in this whole thread is that Charlie Sheen is essentially a tin foil head!

All the proof that supposedly the 9/11 Consipracy nuts come up with is hardly proof at all!

Unless of course you throw common sense and rational thinking out the window!!
 

WildHorse

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2003
5,006
0
0
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: scott
I could not care less about Charlie Sheen, but

it is plainly obvious no passenger jetliner hit the pentagon. It's a lie.

Then what did? And what happened the the "so called airliner" that had people on it?


What did:
If the gov't would release the video captured by some security cameras near the Pentagon, we'd be able to answer that. Can you imagine any reason for classifying that video?

And what happened the the "so called airliner":
We don't know. What we do know is that Barbara Olson's recorded cell phone call to her husband from on board American Flight 77 was played on radio stations. She was going into her death in the Pentagon crash. However, 4 years later she was found living in Europe. Text
 

imported_Aelius

Golden Member
Apr 25, 2004
1,988
0
0
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Its fine and dandy to deal in what ifs but what ifs don`t matter.

What matters in this whole thread is that Charlie Sheen is essentially a tin foil head!

All the proof that supposedly the 9/11 Consipracy nuts come up with is hardly proof at all!

Unless of course you throw common sense and rational thinking out the window!!

Prove it.
 

WildHorse

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2003
5,006
0
0
Originally posted by: MadRat
Come on, poor Charlie had the biggest tinfoil of all for a dad, Martin.
MadRat,

How does that meet Sheen's request , "Challenge me on the facts?"

No offense intended to you, but your disparaging post is a cat call, like taunting. Come on now.

How do YOU analyze the facts, e.g.; testimony of firefighters inside world trade towers that numerous bombs were going off around them, visible evidence of little hole in pentagon, stand-down of USAF response, etc. I lean in favor of accepting these as facts.

If Sheen's willingness to provide a public focal point for inquiry is objectionable to you, since you make fun of it, and since you obviously reject eyewitness testimony of firefighters on the scene, it sounds like your mind is made up, don't bother you with any questions, let alone facts. Maybe you've inhaled a few too many fumes off that "big Mo!"

It's plainly obvious that a large jetliner filled with passengers did NOT hit the Pentagon.
 

BrokenVisage

Lifer
Jan 29, 2005
24,772
14
81
I'm actually glad that Charlie Sheen is the first celeb to come out. Even Dispite his past problems with drugs and his obvious fondness for women, he is also a man who won't give up on something like this. I can see him bringing the subject up on every show he's invited to and not caring what being think about him. In all honesty he's just asking the same basic questions we are, he's not going into some deep diabolical scheme here. I wish he had a bigger part in Scary Movie 4. :( He actually brought humor to the 3rd one!