9/11 – Charlie Sheen calls on Obama to deliver the truth
On this eighth anniversary of the carnage of 9/11, we again think of those who died and lost loved ones and the many firefighters who have died and continue to die from the effects of inhaling the toxic fumes from that day.
My thoughts on the day of 11th September 2001 were of disbelief that such an operation could be carried out without the dozens of US security services knowing about it. After hundreds, if not thousands, of hours of study, I came to the conclusion that not only did the US Administration know of this attack, but elements of it orchestrated the false flag terrorism.
Cui bono? Who benefits? Government, arms manufacturers, petrochemical corporations and many others do.
Actor Charlie Sheen is one of many famous people to declare their belief that the truth is yet to be known and here he demands Obama reopens the 9/11 investigation in this video message.
Paul Joseph Watson from PrisonPlanet writes that “Sheen highlights several issues in the video, including the unexplained collapse of WTC 7, a 47-story building that was not hit by a plane yet collapsed in free fall fashion into its own footprint within 7 seconds later in the afternoon on September 11. He also cites multiple reports from firefighters, police, first responders and others who were at ground zero and who all described explosions before the collapse of the twin towers and Building 7.
“He also discusses how former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds broke her gag order to go public with the revelation that Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were working with the U.S. government right up until the day of 9/11.
“Sheen also demands to know why NORAD’s standard operating procedure was not followed on 9/11, allowing the hijacked jetliners to find their targets, asking, “Where were the planes?”
“Sheen expresses his hope that President Obama has read his letter, adding, “We have questions Mr. President, lots of questions….people of the United States and the world demand the truth sir,” adding that Obama has the power and the responsibility to initiate “a truly independent Congressional investigation into the events of 9/11 as well as its aftermath.”
““We want our country back Mr. President, therefore I’m not just calling on you I’m calling on your team, I’m calling on each and every American citizen to wake up, stand up, and demand the truth,” states Sheen in the video.”
What I find hard to believe is that you have done “hundreds, if not thousands” of hours of study, and yet still post claims like this.
“The unexplained collapse of WTC 7″. Hmm. Perhaps it could be explained by the massive hole carved into the south side of it by falling columns from another tower, and massive fires raging that the firefighters didn’t attempt to fight?
“Sheen also demands to know why NORAD’s standard operating procedure was not followed on 9/11, allowing the hijacked jetliners to find their targets, asking, “Where were the planes?”
NORAD’s standard operating procedures were completely unsuitable for rapidly dealing with hijackings of this nature. They were tightened up after the event, certainly, but before 9/11 they weren’t adequate. Stewart, I’d be interested to know what you think NORAD’s procedures were back then.
And as for all the people talking of explosions: the clips conveniently cut off so we can’t hear how those statements were subsequently qualified. If, for instance, somebody witnessed a sudden plume of flame, they might well describe it as an “explosion” even if it is not.
Another conspiracy theory with nothing to back it up.
Jonathan, Charlie Sheen has done a lot of studying too, not that I agree with him on absolutely everything.
Building 7 had *some* damage and did not have ‘massive’ fires raging, just some sporadic ones. It staggers me that anyone – anyone – can watch the collapse and not find it strange. Tell me where you’ve seen anything remotely similar that wasn’t a controlled demolition. Look at the Oklamoma City bombing – the whole front was blown off by the blast, but the rest of the building remained standing. Look at *any* steel-framed building ravaged by fire – it doesn’t completely collapse onto its own footprint.
Convince me WTC7 wasn’t deliberately brought down – show me a similar case anywhere from the world where a building has behaved like this.
On 9/11, Dick Cheney had control of NORAD. He decided not to act.
I agree, some of the clips did fade out before they had finished. I wasn’t happy about that myself. I have seen the whole clips and firefighters have reported, as did Mr Rodriguez, the janny, that there were explosions at or below ground level.
“Another conspiracy theory with nothing to back it up.”
Well if you believe Building 7 can fall like a controlled demolition and not be, then you’re probably going to be difficult to persuade. Just keep loving the government! They really care about us!
You want me to show a similar case: where a tower was hit by columns from another tower, then caught fire? I can’t; to my knowledge what happened at the World Trade Centre is unique. But let’s look at WTC7 itself. I’ll direct your attention to the following links, which include comprehensive testimony, videos, pictures and diagrams regarding WTC7:
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm
Evidence that Dick Cheney had full control of NORAD on 9/11 and decided not to act to have interceptors launched. With links, please.
“Jonathan, Charlie Sheen has done a lot of studying too…”
Now, I could agree with a statement that read ‘Jonathan, Charlie Sheen has done a lot of hookers and blow..’, but not with this one!
Ventura Sheehan Perot Paul Nader McKinney Kucinich Kaptur Gravel Gonzalez Clemente Choate Carter Baldwin Anderson
Israel-first dual-nationals of AIPAC
Willful major media disinformation
Federal Reserve scam
Anthrax intimidation
9/11 sham
Julia, I expected a more open mind from you. How much studying have *you* done?
Stewart, when is predictable and angrt post about this – http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1212274/Children-young-learn-masturbation-abortion-new-UN-guidelines.html – going to appear on this blog?
Thanks, Andrew, I hadn’t seen that. At first I thought it was a made-up URL, but holy cow, it’s real.
You think it’s okay do you? Fits in with what Labour should be all about?
Do tell.
“Julia, I expected a more open mind from you. How much studying have *you* done?”
Enough to know that 9/11 conspiracy theories are great fun in a ‘what if..?’ moment, but other than that, totally round objects.
‘Fortean Times’ did a pretty good round up of the theories and debunked them very well last year. Hopefully, they will do another this year because, like weeds, they seem to spring up time and time again.
Oh, and ‘JFK’ was an absolutely cracking film, and I’ve watched it many times. But Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy. Sorry
Any comments on the links that I provided, Stewart?
You think it’s okay do you? Fits in with what Labour should be all about?
I think the headline is unlikely to be in sync with reality, as with lots of Daily Mail headlines. There’s nothing in the article that suggests that children of 5 are going to be taught how to masturbate.
Jonathan – why are you more likely to believe the debunkers? As for Silverstein’s ‘pull it’ quote. I don’t count this as evidence.
Dick Cheney and NORAD. This is about Flight 77 which, we are led to believe, hit the Pentagon: “There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, “The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out.” And when it got down to, “The plane is 10 miles out,” the young man also said to the vice president, “Do the orders still stand?” And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?”"
Julia – I think the FBI’s assassination of JFK is more-or-less a given thing, which is the reason 90% of Americans believe it.
As for 9/11. Do a bit more studying
Andrew – “Mark Richmond, UNESCO’s global co-ordinator for HIV and AIDS, said: ‘It doesn’t mean that teaching about masturbation must take place at five years old. It may be mentioned, but it is up to parents and teachers about whether this is done.”
Who, but a sick person (like a paedophile), would ‘mention’ masturbation to a five year old?
The whole agenda is to produce a dysfunctional proletariat. A nation of dumbed-down slaves who think of nothing but sex, sport and ‘entertainment’.
“The whole agenda is to produce a dysfunctional proletariat. A nation of dumbed-down slaves who think of nothing but sex, sport and ‘entertainment’.”
If so, I think Channel 4 must be behind it…
They don’t help, Julia, they don’t help.
Stewart – firstly, the UN is a worldwide organisation, not a British one. Don’t know quite how you missed that.
Secondly, I think it’s just about explaining to kids how their bodies work in a factual way, rather than espousing any particular agenda. If there’s an agenda out there, it’s a conservative one designed to stigmatise sex.
“Jonathan – why are you more likely to believe the debunkers?”
Well let’s see. In your post you describe the fall of WTC7 as being “unexplained” without saying anything else, whereas the links I provided you actually explain it in great detail, with a wealth of supporting evidence including building plans, pictures, testimony from people on the ground and video.
Are you claiming that the information I provided you in the links is inaccurate? If so, please point out which parts, and why.
Re Dick Cheney-
I asked you for evidence that Dick Cheney had full control of NORAD and failed to have interceptors launched. You provided a link and this quote:
““There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, “The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out.” And when it got down to, “The plane is 10 miles out,” the young man also said to the vice president, “Do the orders still stand?” And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?””"
Unfortunately the orders in the quote you supplied actually related to the president saying that commercial aircraft suspected to contain hijackers were to be shot down.
So in fact the quote you gave me actually supports the idea that interceptors were launched, albeit too late to do anything about it. You have actually provided evidence that supports my position.
Where is the evidence that Dick Cheney had FULL CONTROL of NORAD, and that he acted to prevent the flights being shot down?
Should I assume that you haven’t found anything wrong with the evidence in the links I provided you?
Jonathan,
“In your post you describe the fall of WTC7 as being “unexplained” without saying anything else, whereas the links I provided you actually explain it in great detail…”
So why do NIST keep changing their minds? Why have they considered that explosive charges may have been involved?
The info about the orders Cheney was giving about Flight 77 could, I guess, be read either way. It seems a bit confusing, actually, e.g.
“MR. HAMILTON: Let me see if I understand. The plane that was headed toward the Pentagon and was some miles away, there was an order to shoot that plane down.
MR. MINETA: Well, I don’t know that specifically…”
“So why do NIST keep changing their minds? Why have they considered that explosive charges may have been involved?”
Where did it say that explosive charges may have been involved according to NIST? And why shouldn’t they consider all possibilities? That’s what science does. The fact that they haven’t concluded that WTC7 was demolished by controlled explosions is one that you have seemingly overlooked.
The fact is, the building was massively damaged: photo and video evidence as well as testimony from firefighters shows that. There were significant fires. In addition, the building had several transformers containing oil which could have blown up and added to the damage.
There is no evidence for a controlled demolition.
“There is no evidence for a controlled demolition.”
Just the video of the building collapsing like a controlled demolition.
Just the emergency services relating a countdown.
Stewart Cowan-
“Just the video of the building collapsing like a controlled demolition.”
Appearances can be deceiving. All the evidence contained within the links I provided shows that there was not a controlled demolition.
“Just the emergency services relating a countdown.”
You’ll forgive me for being blunt, I’m sure, but it would be a pretty s*** conspiracy that had a public countdown to the controlled demolition of a building that they wanted to subsequently claim fell of its own accord.
Jonathan, your comment was held for approval due to a naughty word.
Try this: Key Witness to WTC 7 Explosions Dead at 53
Stewart-
So you agree with me that it would be a pretty stupid set of conspirators that let the media count the demolition down?
The firefighter claims there were explosions: WTC7 had 12 oil-filled transformers on the fifth floor. What he heard could have been them quite easily.
Jonathan, I think the conspirators knew the general public would believe just about anything.
Sometimes your gut instincts tell you something’s wrong. So you try and satisfy your curiosity and find all sorts of strange happenings.
How many people even know three buildings collapsed on 9/11?
From that link, the late Barry Jennings said, “The explanation I got was it was the fuel-oil tank. I’m an old boiler guy– if it was a fuel-oil tank, it would have been one side of the building.”
And when you have a bin Laden tape released every time it’s convenient for the ‘authorities’ then the whole thing becomes evident for what it is, another false flag terror attack by western governments for political purposes.
Do you think 3,000 dead is of any concern to really evil people? Stalin and Mao had tens of millions of their own countrymen killed.
“Jonathan, I think the conspirators knew the general public would believe just about anything.”
So they let the media do a count-down to the building’s destruction? Come on.
“Sometimes your gut instincts tell you something’s wrong. So you try and satisfy your curiosity and find all sorts of strange happenings.”
Gut instincts are very often wrong.
“From that link, the late Barry Jennings said, “The explanation I got was it was the fuel-oil tank. I’m an old boiler guy– if it was a fuel-oil tank, it would have been one side of the building.”
He could easily have been wrong. One man’s testimony does not hold up against the weight of the evidence that says otherwise.
“And when you have a bin Laden tape released every time it’s convenient for the ‘authorities’ then the whole thing becomes evident for what it is, another false flag terror attack by western governments for political purposes.”
Irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
“Do you think 3,000 dead is of any concern to really evil people? Stalin and Mao had tens of millions of their own countrymen killed.”
I imagine really evil people wouldn’t care. But there’s no evidence that any such people were involved, just religious fanatics aboard planes.