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

Quote :

"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.""

how many more experts do you need to point this out?

you can see this clearly here:

3/22/2006 12:44:40 PM

lollers

3/22/2006 12:45:51 PM

Quote :

"growing ranks of prominent credible whistleblowers"

So... celebrities are credible by default? Here I was thinking a credible person in this instance would be some kind of architect or something.

3/22/2006 12:53:22 PM

this whole time, salisburyboy was charlie sheen

no but seriously, I still agree that there are some falsehoods in the original story.

3/22/2006 1:02:33 PM

this is the first time i've ever disagreed with charlie sheen


EVER

3/22/2006 1:10:08 PM

Utter non-sense. I know quite a bit about structural engineering and none of it seems beyond reason.

Quote :

"It seems to me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners"

This wasn't the first successful hijacking in history. What percentage of hijackings in history have failed to take control of the aircraft? Were there any at all before 9/11?

Quote :

"it just didn't look any commercial jetliner I've flown on any time in my life"

I've seen the pictures. Radio controlled or whatever, they were as advertised.

Quote :

"look like those buildings came down in a controlled demolition"

Buildings of that size always come down the same way, controlled or otherwise. We as a people have been brainwashed by watching the demolition people say how hard this or that demolition was. The fact is, once the top of the building starts moving nothing is going to stop it, not even the ground. That said, it looked nothing like a controlled demolition: the buildings didn't come to rest entirely in their own footprint, they fell slightly sideways crushing neighboring buildings, such as Tower 7.

Quote :

"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"

Jet fuel, like any other object, falls with gravity.

Quote :

"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"

As the maker of the documentary: where did you get this word? Why did you say that? I'm sure they'll tell you. A PBS documentary has never and will never constitution primary source material. That is why PBS will mail you their bibliography for a small fee.

Quote :

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

My physics text-book had a few errors too, doesn't change the fact that objects fall down.

Quote :

"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."

What does Bush being an idiot have to do with anything? This just proves my point: Bush is too stupid for the events of 9/11 to have been faked by our government. Bush replaced the heads of every department with cronies, how could these idiots have faked 9/11 when they couldn't even fake some WMDs? All it would have taken was a single canester of mustard gas or something, easy to fake, and easy to place (we ran the country) but no, they couldn't do it because they knew they were too stupid not to get caught.

Quote :

"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.""

Fine. It was a 767, a very maneuverable aircraft. The on-board computer will keep the pilot from making stupid mistakes. And 2.5 minutes is a LONG time for an airplane. Anyone with a version of MS Flight Simulator could demonstrate just how easy this would be. We're not flying a 777 or a 747 here, a 767 is very agile. Not to mention, a plane as advanced as a 767 could easily make the dive and turn much faster. An emergency descent takes you from 30,000ft to 10,000ft in five minutes or less.

[Edited on March 22, 2006 at 1:13 PM. Reason : mustard]

3/22/2006 1:10:50 PM

Quote :

""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'?""

It clearly did look like a commercial jet.

Also, pretty much everyone said when the towers went down it looked like a demolition, but to my knowledge, none of the people that said that had seen a big jet smash in to one of the tallest buildings in country before. Considering that, the way that the towers fell and the explanation of why they fell the way they did seems to make sense to me.

3/22/2006 1:14:25 PM

This week on a special "2 and a Half Men," Charlie wonders what really happened to the World Trade Center

[Edited on March 22, 2006 at 1:21 PM. Reason : V WTF is that? ]

3/22/2006 1:20:17 PM

This week on a special "2 and a Half Men," Charlie wonders what really happened to the World Trade Center.

3/22/2006 1:20:20 PM

he may not be an expert, but he's played one on tv

and really, thats good enough

dont pretend like its not

3/22/2006 1:20:43 PM

he has played the deputy mayor of new york city

3/22/2006 1:38:27 PM

and his dad has been the president

3/22/2006 1:40:22 PM

oh he's an expert

3/22/2006 2:16:56 PM

at least he looked intelligent

3/22/2006 9:51:38 PM

Quote :

"Charlie Sheen (who never finished Santa Monica High School because he was expelled for poor attendance and bad grades just weeks before graduation) has called for a new independent investigation of the attack and the circumstances surrounding the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States. Sheen (who has been arrested five times for drug possession, soliciting prostitutes and credit card fraud) says he has problems believing the government's official version of events. Sheen (who was engaged to porn star Ginger Lynn and once made plans to fake her death, then have her undergo extensive plastic surgery and assume a new identity to hide her past) says that the biggest conspiracy theory was put out by the government itself, but the public may finally be catching on: "It feels like from the people I talk to in and around my circles, it seems like the worm is turning." Sheen may believe that because he heard something from a hooker at a coke party in Malibu, and then heard the same thing from a hooker at a coke party on South Beach, the whole country is talking about it, but Sheen (who has been in rehab for drug and alcohol addiction at least 3 times) is quick to point out that he has had lingering questions from the very first day. "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'?" Now, I haven't seen as many buildings explode because someone speared it with a 767 as Charlie Sheen apparently has, so I don't pretend to know how to compare the two, but one time I went into the kitchen and my dog was eating my peanut butter and jelly sandwich, even though my dog had never shown the skill or training necessary to steal my peanut butter and jelly sandwiches in the past. Charlie and I talked about, and we totally agree that President Bush was behind it."

3/23/2006 10:09:49 AM

^haha, nice

3/23/2006 10:22:10 AM

This is a good thing overall. The public needs to know more.

3/23/2006 10:39:05 AM

^^^ LOLOL

3/23/2006 11:03:44 AM

LOL CHARLIE SHEEN HAS HAD PERSONAL PROBLEMS THERE WAS NO 9/11 COVERUP

3/23/2006 1:23:22 PM

LOL WAY TO MISINTERPRET

his personal problems arent what wipe out the 911 conspiracy, it does that well enough on its own for anyone with any intelligence

his personal problems DO, however, wipe out his credibility and the importance of his statements.

if a structural engineering professor from MIT came out w/ a similar highly publicized statement, it may be cause to think.


i would have hoped i wouldnt have to explain such a simple premise to a college student.

3/23/2006 2:01:43 PM

The link says prisonplanet.com. That's enough for me to believe it's credible.

3/23/2006 3:59:23 PM

http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_314234334.html
but he probably doesn't have any intelligence like you say.
and i realize byu isn't mit, but i'm sure not many people want to risk their reputations and career by coming out with statements like this. this professor was told by the university to stop making public appearences after he spoke on a few cable news shows.

[Edited on March 23, 2006 at 4:29 PM. Reason : poop]

3/23/2006 4:28:53 PM

whats wrong with prisonplanet?

oh i get it, you cant attack his claims so you attack the source. way to be brainwashed by the zionist controllers.

3/23/2006 4:36:04 PM

talking about "zionist controllers" is not going to help get people on your side.

just my two cents

3/23/2006 4:39:13 PM

why? you can't deny there is a huge zionist conspiracy to controll the government, thats just a fact.
everyone knows that

3/23/2006 4:40:16 PM

oh

3/23/2006 4:41:13 PM

http://www.mae.ncsu.edu/courses/mae543/eischen/docs/BazantWTC.pdf

http://www.mae.ncsu.edu/courses/mae543/eischen/docs/WTCCollapse.ppt

yea, lets see, physicist who studies neutron bombardment or mechanical and civil engineers?

hmmmm

3/23/2006 4:49:00 PM

estevez is a very jewish name

i think sheen is in on it

3/23/2006 4:50:10 PM

I blame cheese.

3/23/2006 4:53:55 PM

rwoody, the crux of the byu professor's hypothesis is building 7. those links had nothing to do with building 7. it wasn't struck by a plane. it recieved much less debris than some of the surrounding buildings but was the only other building to collapse. the government explanation is fire. i just don't see how it's possible.

3/23/2006 4:54:42 PM

we all know that the 2 towers were brought down by planes, the government flew those planes into the towers

no one is arguing against that

3/23/2006 4:56:06 PM

100% PROVEN FACT

3/23/2006 4:56:42 PM

^, ^^

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

3/23/2006 4:59:58 PM

Quote :

"BYU professor Steven E. Jones says that planes alone did not bring down the towers."

and charlie sheen damn sure discussed the main towers

3/23/2006 5:05:10 PM

i'm not charlie sheen, i'm not steven jones, i'm not salisburyboy, i'm not jonhguth.
i'm not certain of a government conspiracy. i just think there is a problem with the governments story about building 7.
and i know the professor says that not just planes took out the twin towers, but every interview i've read or seen with him, he mainly focuses on building 7.

3/23/2006 5:08:24 PM

^ Fine then, building 7. The pictures I have seen of building 7 show it completely engulfed in flames (every floor). So, can a steel structured building survive being so completely on fire? From what I understand of the process, fire proofing is a misnomer, it doesn't fire proof anything. All it does is slow the rate of heat absorption, hoping to buy time for the fire-fighters to put out the fire. In this case, they didn't put out the fire, instead letting it burn. So, after awhile, the metal heated up sufficiently to allow the building to start moving. And as we all know, once 1000 tonnes of metal start moving, it doesn't stop until it has hit the ground.

3/23/2006 6:26:05 PM

fire cant get hot enough to melt steel, it was a controlled demolition
the fire was a distraction and the pictures you saw were probably doctored by the jews (they own everything)

3/23/2006 6:27:33 PM

i think that every celebrity who actually thinks their opinion holds weight needs to be shot... not in the head or heart or anything vital, just in the leg or arm or something... just enough to learn'm something...

3/23/2006 7:09:26 PM

Quote :

"fire cant get hot enough to melt steel, it was a controlled demolition "

I am a structural engineer... a typical fire can't melt steel, but with every single degree the steel is heated it is weakened.

Fireproofing isn't really "fireproofing", like someone said. It's a spray on coating that will allow you more time to exit a building. It's rated in degrees and hours (As in, you could buy a flooring system that will withstand a 1000 degree farenheit fire for 2 hours before the steel weakens.... and I think that's about as high as it goes. Remember, this was also the 70's... no idea if they could achieve those numbers then). 2 problems with that 1) There were photos showing shitty fireproofing in the WTC when the investigation was begun. 2) A freaking plane hit the building. It's not something that is fused into the metal... it's either sprayed on or you can buy pre-fab flooring systems of it. It's not beyond reason to think a lot of that was knocked off in the collision.

In one of these conspiracy videos I watched I got a kick out of "a plane hit the Sears Tower, (insert building here), and (insert building here) and none of them came down". That's crap. The difference here is that those buildings were made in a typical floor layout... meaning that they are supported 100% by load-bearing columns evenly spaced throughout the building. The weight is more evenly distributed throughout the floor plan.

The WTC are a tubular design. They wanted an open-floor system, so to design the WTC's they used a "tubular" bracing system. 100% of the load-bearing columns of the WTC were on the EXTERIOR of the building.... completely different behavior. Now, I can't say I know for a fact that a plane could bring this type of design down, but here's an experiment for you. Go find a paper towel roll.... turn it on it's side, and press down. Pretty strong. Now, take a big chunk out of the side and do the same. Huge difference. It's a whole helluva lot weaker with that design than it would be if it was built in a traditional "evenly spaced columns throughout" manner that most other buildings are designed by.

Even if the WTC were designed for an aircraft hitting them, there's no way they could have fathomed aircraft as large as they are today back in the 70's, much less with fully loaded with fuel. By the tower being critically weakened by the plane, the steel softening from burning jet fuel, and the wind from being such a tall building.... it could have easily fallen.



[Edited on March 23, 2006 at 7:39 PM. Reason : ]

3/23/2006 7:30:06 PM

no one is saying the wtc wasnt hit by a plane
a plane (plus some explosives to make sure) is exactly what took it down

the plane was flown remotely by the government, you can see the explosions go off but they ended up not being needed cause the plane worked and the tower was already falling

3/23/2006 7:49:06 PM

this is the saddest excuse for sarcasm and trolling i have ever seen

3/23/2006 7:50:34 PM

what the hell are talking about

3/23/2006 7:51:18 PM

Damn, I didn't know you started this thread. I seriously figured it was Salisburyboy without even looking

3/23/2006 8:01:14 PM

Quote :

"100% of the load-bearing columns of the WTC were on the EXTERIOR of the building...."

This is wrong the WTC did have a central core about 30*40 meters that supported the building with the exterior steel.

Quote :

"Even if the WTC were designed for an aircraft hitting them, there's no way they could have fathomed aircraft as large as they are today back in the 70's, much less with fully loaded with fuel."

It was designed to be struck by a fully loaded 707.

3/23/2006 8:43:17 PM

WE KNOW IT WAS A PLANE

WE HAVE A PICTURE OF IT


DURRRR

3/23/2006 8:54:45 PM

Quote :

"there's no way they could have fathomed aircraft as large as they are today back in the 70's, much less with fully loaded with fuel.""

i have to step out of character for a second to point out that this statement is retarded. hell, the 747 first flew in '70

3/23/2006 9:00:06 PM

^ They had finished construction by 1970.

Quote :

"It was designed to be struck by a fully loaded 707."

And they suspect the plane would be flying slowely at 200mph, not 600mph as occured on 9/11. And, they suspected it would be low on fuel after just finishing a cross country flight, not fully loaded before even beginning a cross country flight.

And it worked marvelously, the buildings with-stood the impact perfectly. But the fact remains, when a sky scraper built out of steel becomes a raging inferno, it is only a matter of time until it collapses. As steel heats up, the yield point falls. Of course, had the planes not torn a side out of the buildings, they should have stood for another couple hours.

In most buildings, it is hoped that fire-fighters or fire suppression systems can extinguish the fire before the critical yield point is reached, but it is only a hope.

3/23/2006 9:34:21 PM

it wasnt flown across country
it was flown by remote control so probably took off from somewhere nearby

3/23/2006 10:04:09 PM

Quote :

"And, they suspected it would be low on fuel after just finishing a cross country flight, not fully loaded before even beginning a cross country flight."

The things I've read said a "fully load 707" I take that to mean loaded with fuel. Also why would they only assume that planes landing near there had a chance of hitting the building?

Quote :

"But the fact remains, when a sky scraper built out of steel becomes a raging inferno, it is only a matter of time until it collapses. As steel heats up, the yield point falls. Of course, had the planes not torn a side out of the buildings, they should have stood for another couple hours. In most buildings, it is hoped that fire-fighters or fire suppression systems can extinguish the fire before the critical yield point is reached, but it is only a hope."

Really? Please tell me the last time that a fire caused a skyscraper to collapse.

If the planes had not torn a hole in the side they would not have collapsed even if the fire was exactly the same. Also the steel packbacker was talking about was located on the outside of the building as far from the center of the fire as possible, with one side exposed to the air. Its not like the steel supports were in the middle of the fire they probably were subjected to the lowest temperatures of anything on those floors.

I don't believe these cospiracy theories Im just trying correct some of the crap ppl are posting.

3/23/2006 10:17:41 PM

Quote :

"i'm not charlie sheen, i'm not steven jones"

well then why do you mention them?

if i was just arguing against you i wouldnt even have bothered, b/c what the fuck do you know?

its funny, of the 1 serious proponent of conspiracy (you) and the 3 serious opponents of conspiracy (me, PB, LS) in this thread, we know that 2 of them have an engineering background relevant to this discussion, and you arent of them. now since you dont have your degree listed, you may be in said background, but it doesnt seem likely based on your lack of any knowledge on the subject.

and with, i'm done.

[Edited on March 23, 2006 at 10:20 PM. Reason : i just saw LS say he knows about structural, but i'm gonna keep it to degrees/jobs]

3/23/2006 10:19:48 PM