Charlie Sheen: US Govt. committed 9/11...

[Air Force Cane]

Uh, Bacculus? There have been about 25 questions which you conveniently ignore in all of your responses.

Yeah, we get it that you are a radical leftist who despises the government. You don't need to keep restating it.

But how about actually ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN PUT TO YOU in this thread?

And don't write back "what questions?" Just go back through the last 7 pages and cut and paste the questions and answer them.

I will get a Snickers bar since I know I will be waiting, oh, about a thousand years..

[Baculus]

Nivna, you wanted me to source this paragraph?

"Answer me this question - how come there have never been physical evidence produced by the government? Or how come the White House stone walled the investigation and then were reluctant to fund it? How come independent investigators were never allowed to touch any data, or why did the FBI seize all camera footage that easily would have shown the plane that hit the Pentagon?"

You're not familiar with these issues, if this is what you're asking me to source?

BTW, this is an interesting article that discusses some of the questions you have posed to me: http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/refusing_the_9_11_evidence.html

[Baculus]

Uh, Bacculus? There have been about 25 questions which you conveniently ignore in all of your responses.

I replied to questions. Oddly, though, you have ignored all the questions I have asked you. Here is a radical idea - read my replies and you will see where I actually responded to questions. Hypocrite.

Huh - I have to answer questions, but you don't reply to any of mine. Give me a break.

Yeah, we get it that you are a radical leftist who despises the government. You don't need to keep restating it.

You have no idea what a leftist is, do you? You have more in common with a Commie lover of Big Government and the Federal System then me. I am the one that despises Big Goverment.

Oh yeah, that is right - everyone that doesn't agree with the official government story is a radical lefty. Sorry, but, first of all, you're wrong. Second of all, you are right that some of us aren't mindless robots that loves the Federal government like our mother and father.

This reminds me of a Babylon Five saying for the PsyCorp: "The Corp is Mother, The Corp is Father." The Feds aren't my mother and father, bud, and my loyalty ain't to them, but to my country. You will never understand what I am saying.

But how about actually ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN PUT TO YOU in this thread?

I DID. I ACTUALLY REPLIED IN PREVIOUS POSTS. AND YET, YOU NEVER REPLIED TO MINE. TRY TO ACTUALLY READ MY POSTS INSTEAD OF MASHING YOUR KEYBOARD!

And don't write back "what questions?" Just go back through the last 7 pages and cut and paste the questions and answer them.

LOL...I haven't been involved in the thread for that long. As if I am going to reply to every single question in every post. You can't even reply to one of my questions, why should I have to do anything, especially for a Federal Robot?

I will get a Snickers bar since I know I will be waiting, oh, about a thousand years.

You do that, Comrade.

[Predicto]

What is kind of funny about this thread is the assumption by some that Baculus is a liberal, or that this conspiracy theory is somehow beleived more by liberals than by anyone else.

It ain't.

[Thiebear]

The reason why, Vinva, they don't report it, is because of folks such as yourself.

This big story would be too scary for any media to touch. Look at the neary hysterical reaction on this board: Some of you guys hate CNN and such media enough without the reporting a 9-11 alternative explanation story.

Answer me this question - how come there have never been physical evidence produced by the government? Or how come the White House stone walled the investigation and then were reluctant to fund it? How come independent investigators were never allowed to touch any data, or why did the FBI seize all camera footage that easily would have shown the plane that hit the Pentagon? Man, I have tons of questions, and if someone would answer them, then perhaps this story would be laid to rest, eh?

Baculas: I knew two people that died in the Pentagon... They weren't killed by a bomb as you say (certain parts could be true and others false).

But:

We see a plane hit the world trade center from many angles and we see the explosion and we saw it come down from serveral camera's.

We didnt see the Pennsylvania plane come down but there were phone calls made.. probably on every flight and from what was said it was pushed into the ground: Or are you saying that is untrue also?

I'm not saying you shouldnt question the government, but There is individual camera work here and people are gone forever and planes did dissapear.. They didnt just go into the Ocean and bombs went off on the 82/86th floor????

I can see the Moon landing as its all one sided: We will know soon if we see the flag up there.

I can see Pearl Harbor as again it seems implausible they got so far and that little sub? I dont know..

But this one was documented by regular people...9/11..etc...

[Baculus]

I understand, Thiebear - so you know, I wasn't just trying to discount the planes from hitting the WTC (I truly believe they did) and some of the curiosities of the Pentagon attack. (As I mentioned before, I don't believe in theories such as the "pod" theories.) I am also not fully convinced of the alternate Pentagon theories - hell, I am not sure what I believe, to be honest.

That is sometimes the quandry of always asking questions. Sometimes you don't know what to believe.

For me, I just have questions and want answers, and have yet to receive them. If I ever feel fully satisfied with them, then I can rest well. As far as the flight in PA, some believe it was shot down.

And, like I always say, I don't question this just because I am "anti-government" or "hate" Bush. The day impacted me so much, I truly want to know the absolute truth. And not to dishonor those who died that day.

Thanks for the replies - maybe some helped me along my way.

[PleaseBlitz]

Just found this:

Irony: Charlie Sheen appears in one of the "rights" most beloved films, Red Dawn.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/celebritology/

"Red Dawn" is on a list of "100 Best Conservative Movies" compiled by the National Review way back in 1994. A list preceded by an explanation of why the "Star Wars" trilogy heralded a return to conservative ideals in Hollywood. I wonder if they'd be as quick to claim the latest three offerings in the franchise, up to and including Jar Jar Binks.

Criteria for inclusion on this list are defined as expected: movies about "God and country," tradition, family, communism = evil, etc. Big surprise that many of the movies cited as beacons of conservative values were made before 1950.

Note: I'm having a hard time decoding what exactly about some of the films makes them distinctly conservative -- for instance, "Little Women" is categorized under "Best Pictures Celebrating Family Life," "My Left Foot" under "Best Picture About Personal Achievement Against Heavy Odds" and "Ghostbusters" under "Best Portrait of a U.S. Government Bureaucrat." These categories could really do wonders for the Academy Awards. I really started feeling played, though, when I came across categories for "Best Conservative Animal Pictures" ("Dumbo" and "the Yearling," fyi) and "Ronald Reagan's Greatest Movies."

My real question, though, after reviewing the relatively predictable list is: what if a movie meets the criteria above, but is still just plain bad? Take, for example, "Red Dawn" (co-written by "Waterworld" scribe Kevin Reynolds). It wasn't even believable when it premiered in 1984, during the height of the Cold War. Eight high school kids turning back the tide of a communist invasion? And not just any high school kids, but card-carrying brat packers Swayze, Howell, Lea Thompson and Charlie Sheen.

Now back to our regularly scheduled shouting match.............

[Westbrook36]

Most of the arguments I have seen here are based on faith that someone, or a group of individuals did not carry out this attack. I do not have such faith. After researching this subject for several years and reading a good deal of documentation, I have reason for this.

--The 9-11 Commission was a complete rubbish. There is more money spent on wide receiver's signing bonus then what was spent on the 9-11 Commission. They even stated that the objective was not to lay blame on anyone, and many relevent details were left out of the investigation.

--The people that took credit for the attacks.

Who? Bid Laden? Do we even have the physical evidence of who carried otu these attacks? Are you talking about the hijackers, some of whom were found as being still alive after 9-11? If the US Government walked into a court of law and tried to prosecure the 9-11 case using its current evidence, it would not have enough to bring anyone to justice.

And, btw, the tape where Bin Laden takes "credit" for the attack is bogus. You can easily see that it is not Bin Laden. (Bin Laden may have been involved for all I know, and I will not dismiss this possibility, but the government's case has been very weak. Convince us.)

--The phone records of the people on board flight 93.

What phone records? Did you read some of the strange conversations that happened? And do you know the near impossibility of cell calls occurring from that altitude?

--The structural engineers that explained why the Twin Towers were particularly suceptable to this type of attack.

What about the engineers that said such an event was nearly impossible? Or the New York Fire Department who demanded an investigation into the matter?

-The FBI records of ALL of the hijackers.

Did someone say FBI records? Like the FBI agents who were ordered off of the tail of the suspected terrorists? (And, btw, I cannot dismiss that the 9-11 hijackers were indeed some of the invididuals who were fingered, since someone was, in one fashion or another, involved with the attack). And why would the FBI have these records? And did they have the records before or after the attack?

And were these the same individuals who were not even on a plane manifest?

--Pretty much EVERYONE that isnt a crazy hollywood elitest or a democrat with something to gain.

There are much more then "crazy hollywood elitests or a democrats with something to gain" who have made this accusation. What about 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, including a whole host of military men...and this is only a small list.

Ya, those crazy Hollywood Elitists and Democrats...

Look at you. You watch one conspiracy movie off of google and now you are able to regurgitate all their points like a good little boy.

[skinfan133]

And by the way, what's puzzling are those who dismiss what Sheen said without even investigating the 9-11 attack or the events of that day. And don't even mention the 9-11 commission which was a whitewash.

Just by dismissing something because you simply "know" without investigating or researching the matter is pure ignorance.

If you really "know," then research and rebute with knowledge. But after the many times I have asked 9-11 questions, I have yet to have many answers. (Such as why WTC building 7 really collapsed.)

are you one of thise nuts who believes that the plane that hit the pentagon wasnt a plane but rather some kind of missle? sorry but i have a friend who was siting in traffic directly in front of the spot where it hit, flew right over his car, i dont think he ws lying when he called me and said, "a PLANE just hit the pentagon!" but your more inteligent than that.

when i see 9-11 i see an atack on america by crazy murderers, why would our government:

a) let 3000 inocent people die

let an atack on a major economic enter ocur

c) let an atack on our military headquarters take place

not to mention osama said himself that he did it, good enough for me.

[ChocolateCitySkin]

More brilliance from Hollywood. I guess in between ordering hookers, divorcing his wives, and going to rehab for drug addiction he had time to get a degree in Structural Engineering...

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

hmmm this thread just reminded me I have an structures exam tom.

[nonniey]

I'm a proud liberal who is repulsed by the current administration.

With that said....

Charlie Sheen is an ignorant doofus who does not speak for me or anyone I know on this issue.

ps - the building near the WTC fell because two of the largest buildings on the planet collapsed nearby. The vibrations from that impact shook the whole lower end of Manhattan. It is surprising that more buildings did not fall.

Actually it (7) collapsed becasue it was partially damaged by the falling towers but primarily because the fires spread to it and it burned all day until collapse.

[Thiebear]

I understand, Thiebear - so you know, I wasn't just trying to discount the planes from hitting the WTC (I truly believe they did) and some of the curiosities of the Pentagon attack. (As I mentioned before, I don't believe in theories such as the "pod" theories.) I am also not fully convinced of the alternate Pentagon theories - hell, I am not sure what I believe, to be honest.

That is sometimes the quandary of always asking questions. Sometimes you don't know what to believe.

For me, I just have questions and want answers, and have yet to receive them. If I ever feel fully satisfied with them, then I can rest well. As far as the flight in PA, some believe it was shot down.

And, like I always say, I don't question this just because I am "anti-government" or "hate" Bush. The day impacted me so much, I truly want to know the absolute truth. And not to dishonor those who died that day.

Thanks for the replies - maybe some helped me along my way.

I would never use the anti-american or nazi or you hate freedom argument because it kills the discussion right then and there.

My curiosity in this issue is:

Do you believe the people in the cars? (being second in traffic in the country means there were plenty of eye-witnesses.

There are some things you should just believe because of the videos/accounts/variety of sources... Question the wire-taps/question the WMD statements/jordan syria thing/ Question the Valerie Plame outing. Question the things that deserve questioning.

My thought is if you spend too much time questioning the obvious it takes away some credibility on the things that NEED questioning..

The plane in PA went down in a field with the hijackers on it... if it was shot down like (flight800???) kinda scenario they had 90% of the plane and could see the entry/exit holes... AND again with the phone calls from people on the plane, relatives accounts...

Its a head scratching kind of argument I'm having as being so close to it and going through it I didnt pull out my "Catcher and the Rye" copy...

Edit: sorry about the disjointed ramble

[TradeTheBeal!]

I think that a lot of thoughtful, intelligent americans believe that they are not getting the full story on 9/11. I also believe that questioning the government's "official" findings on a great number of incidents in the recent past is appropriate and patriotic behavior. The "shouting down" and belittling of those who disagree with the Gov't's position is childish and cowardly - you know who you are.

[Thiebear]

I think that a lot of thoughtful, intelligent americans believe that they are not getting the full story on 9/11. I also believe that questioning the government's "official" findings on a great number of incidents in the recent past is appropriate and patriotic behavior. The "shouting down" and belittling of those who disagree with the Gov't's position is childish and cowardly - you know who you are.

So:

you question = o.k. saying cowardly = o.k.

some question your question = not ok... saying childish = not o.k.

got to love that...

[RabidFan]

Somewhere along the line, Martin Sheen (real name: Ramon Estevez) thought he'd have a more successful acting career if he used his Irish Mother's maiden name rather than his real, Spanish surname. One son stuck with it, the other son uses his real last name.

Don't leave out the third son Ramon Sheen.

[Baculus]

Actually it (7) collapsed becasue it was partially damaged by the falling towers but primarily because the fires spread to it and it burned all day until collapse.

Actually, that is not correct. WTC Building 7 suffered light damage, had some hotspot fires, and certainly did not appear in damage of collapsing. In fact, there are buildings right next to where the Twin Towers were located that sustained a respectable amount of damage but did not collapse (and were repaired and are still in use). The resulting text-book-example of the demolition of WTC 7 is one of the reasons why there are questions surrounding the events of that day.

First of all, keep in mind that a skyscraper has never collapsed from a fire. Ever. The WTC buildings are the only known examples in history. Even after skyscrapers have completely burned from the top to bottom floor, these buildings have held fast and upright.

Pictures of the WTC at that time do not show enough damage to explain the resulting collapsed. Please refer to the following links which show pictures of building 7:

http://www.rense.com/general65/911m.htm

Now, questions have arisen over the collapse. If you examine the photos of WTC collapsing, most casual and even expert viewers will agree that it appears to be a controlled implosion. The structure falls straight downward, with the crown of the structure collapsing inward, which is one of the obvious signs of a controlled demolition. Even Larry Silverstein said that the buildings were “pulled,” which is a term for a controlled demolition. Examine the following pictures of WTC’s collapse:

http://www.wtc-terrorattack.com/wtc7/collaps_wtc7.htm

And here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/demolition.html

And a blurry .swf:

http://www.thewebfairy.com/911/pullit/PULLIT_3.swf

Here are quotes and a recording of Siverstein discussing the collapse of WTC 7 and their decision to “pull” the building:

http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/FDNY.htm

The issue is, how were explosives planted so quickly to demolish this structure with a controlled detonation? It is puzzling and not well explained.

[Chief skin]

The administration has made more then their share of blunders but to suggest they had anything to do with the events of 911 is ludicrous. I believe a lot of things this crew does is not only wrong but illegal. Sheen just proved he is a bigger moron then Bush

[ashburnskinsfan]

Baculus,

Here are two resources which may help:

A resource from an Australian Civil Engineering Department:

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

And an article from the Journal of Material Science:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

Both of these explain why the two main towers collapsed the way they did from and engineering and a material science perspective.

[Baculus]

Do you believe the people in the cars? (being second in traffic in the country means there were plenty of eye-witnesses.

Depends on which witnesses to which you are referring. First, I wanted to say that people saw something. A plane? Of some type - possibly or probable. But other witnesses saw something that was other than a 757, which is said to have struck the Pentagon. Some claimed to have seen a much smaller jet. An additional note – as I repeated many times, I am not convinced that a 757 *didn’t* strike the Pentagon. But there are oddities surrounding this ugly event, which has led to, once again, further questions.

As I have mentioned before, if the FBI released the footage that they seize of the plane as it flew to strike the Pentagon, this would alleviate questions. But they seized all video that recorded the plane and have not released it. Also, every plane has serial-numbered parts that would associated the plane to the scene of the crime. And yet, the government has not released any plane wreckage that a crash expect could verify that this was indeed the flight that struck the Pentagon.

Just the lack of such evidence, which doesn’t seem enough of a security risk to withhold, would go a long to answering questions. Don’t you all agree? It seems that most wreck investigations would release more details other than what's been released.

My thought is if you spend too much time questioning the obvious it takes away some credibility on the things that NEED questioning..

I can agree with this. I believe we get blindsided all the time so that we miss the obvious things that we really do need to question. And some people feel that the “pod” and Pentagon “missile” theories are just red herrings to distract and discredit anyone who questions the 9-11 official story.

The plane in PA went down in a field with the hijackers on it... if it was shot down like (flight800???) kinda scenario they had 90% of the plane and could see the entry/exit holes...

There are witnesses on the ground that saw a military aircraft trailing Flight 93 and with a smaller explosion happening before the plane went down. This article discusses this issue:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30682

There are theories that the plane was indeed shot down by the military, either as an interception and shoot or contrary to Washington’s orders. (Some believe that a general at NORAD ordered the actual shoot orders. It does not take orders to intercept a plane since interception does not mean a shoot down.)

AND again with the phone calls from people on the plane, relatives accounts...

Some have conducted experiments and claim that phone calls cannot be made from altitudes used by commercial flights. This details some experiments that have been conducted:

http://physics911.ca/org/modules/news/print.php?storyid=6

Personally, I am not convinced that the existence or non-existence affects aspects of the suggested government-connected 9-11 theories. I’d like to see information contrary show demonstrates the ease to make cell phone calls from a reasonable altitude.

Edit: sorry about the disjointed ramble

Seemed fine to me.  Half my posts are disjoined from multi-tasking at work!

[Baculus]

Baculus,

Here are two resources which may help:

A resource from an Australian Civil Engineering Department:

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

And an article from the Journal of Material Science:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JO...Eagar-0112.html

Both of these explain why the two main towers collapsed the way they did from and engineering and a material science perspective.

Thanks for the links, which I found interesting. One thing that must be noted: Both engineers mentioned that several variables were needed for the collapsed. Most of these variables are relying upon fires raging in the WTC to cause the weakening of the trusses as well as the supports in higher-floor levels, which led to the "pancake" effect as the structures collapsed. This is the point of contention by some observers: That jet fuel fuel is not hot enough nor persistant enough to cause the supports or structures to collapse, and that burning plane and building material was not enough of a burning fuel to cause the increased tempratures to cause such an event.

The following page has a compilation of different "alternative" information regarding the WTC collapse. By the way, do not let the opinions by others of the follow website deter you from reading its material. Let your own mind make its decision:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11_wtc_videos.html

Keep in mind witness on the ground, seismic evidence, and photographic evidence of possible secondary explosions. As noted in the following article: http://www.rense.com/general17/eyewitnessreportspersist.htm

Now, it is odd that the idea, if terrorists were involved with 9-11, of bombs being planted in the WTC has been categorically rejected. Why? Terrorists had bombed the WTC before, so why reject such a notion? Why the sudden desire to immediately dismiss ideas that are out of the realm of the conventional explanation?

Once again, I want to note that I am not fully convinced of any theory, official or non-official. I am more than willing to hear any reasonable debate points.

[Westbrook36]

Actually, that is not correct. WTC Building 7 suffered light damage, had some hotspot fires, and certainly did not appear in damage of collapsing. In fact, there are buildings right next to where the Twin Towers were located that sustained a respectable amount of damage but did not collapse (and were repaired and are still in use). The resulting text-book-example of the demolition of WTC 7 is one of the reasons why there are questions surrounding the events of that day.

First of all, keep in mind that a skyscraper has never collapsed from a fire. Ever. The WTC buildings are the only known examples in history. Even after skyscrapers have completely burned from the top to bottom floor, these buildings have held fast and upright.

Pictures of the WTC at that time do not show enough damage to explain the resulting collapsed. Please refer to the following links which show pictures of building 7:

http://www.rense.com/general65/911m.htm

Now, questions have arisen over the collapse. If you examine the photos of WTC collapsing, most casual and even expert viewers will agree that it appears to be a controlled implosion. The structure falls straight downward, with the crown of the structure collapsing inward, which is one of the obvious signs of a controlled demolition. Even Larry Silverstein said that the buildings were “pulled,” which is a term for a controlled demolition. Examine the following pictures of WTC’s collapse:

http://www.wtc-terrorattack.com/wtc7/collaps_wtc7.htm

And here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/demolition.html

And a blurry .swf:

http://www.thewebfairy.com/911/pullit/PULLIT_3.swf

Here are quotes and a recording of Siverstein discussing the collapse of WTC 7 and their decision to “pull” the building:

http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/FDNY.htm

The issue is, how were explosives planted so quickly to demolish this structure with a controlled detonation? It is puzzling and not well explained.

Did you read the Popular Mechanics article (linked earlier) which completely debunks what you are still contending. Are you the voice from that google video? You seem to just keep regurgitating the same talking points.

[TradeTheBeal!]

So:

you question = o.k. saying cowardly = o.k.

some question your question = not ok... saying childish = not o.k.

got to love that...

What point are you trying to make?

[ashburnskinsfan]

Baculus,

Compare the two sources. Professional engineers and material scientists, based on the evidence and reasonable assumptions, think the WTC collapse was caused by the planes loaded with fuel, with no additional cause required.

The references arguing in favor of a conspiracy are hardly credible in comparison.

The current administration has had many failings. Accusing them of fabricating the Al Qaeda 9/11 attacks without compelling evidence just makes the accuser look silly given the rational explanations offered by independent experts.

As an analogy, no number of fundamentalist Christians arguing against evolution means evolution is fundamentally flawed as they claim. I'd take the opinion of professional biologists in peer reviewed journals instead.

[Kilmer17]

I voted yes. Just so I could have someone to point at and laugh.

[vinva]

Ironically, Vivna, you really cannot produce any evidence either, can you?

See, this is your problem...I don't have to produce any evidence because I am not the one making outrageous claims. You are the one who must prove something because you are the one with the multiple conspiracy theories.

And Baculus, one thing I would really like to know that I forgot to ask yesterday: It this went down as you say it did, what was the governments motivation?