| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Newo |
Posted - 03/22/2006 : 09:06:26
Actor Charlie Sheen Questions Official 9/11 Story
http://www.wnymedia.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1164
Written by PrisonPlanet.com
Tuesday, 21 March 2006
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 110 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. (http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html) 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."
--
Gravy boat! Stay in the now! |
| 35 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Holy Fingers |
Posted - 04/23/2006 : 05:43:34
I do not have much of a theory. However, I do not trust the U.S. government for a second. Anything is possible (and I mean anything). If the G-Men are indeed responsible for 9/11, then they sure covered their tracks well. Much better than they did with the JFK asassination.
 "When you've done something right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all" |
| Erebus |
Posted - 04/21/2006 : 22:12:05
Oh yes, Charlie, please do tell us what to believe and how to behave. Bill Clinton would be so proud of you:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0421061sheen1.html [linked page provides PDF of 17 page sworn declaration]
Charlie Sheen Divorce Bombshell
APRIL 21--In a searing court attack on Charlie Sheen, actress Denise Richards alleges that her estranged husband is unstable, violent, addicted to gambling and prostitutes, and visits pornographic web sites featuring young men and girls who appear underage. In a remarkable sworn declaration (a copy of which you'll find below) filed today in Los Angeles Superior Court, Richards also charges that Sheen, 40, assaulted her and threatened her life during a December 30 incident at the actress's Los Angeles home. Richards claims that an enraged Sheen--who was over for a visit with the couple's two children--told her she was "fucking with the wrong guy" and called her a series of vulgar names in front of the children. The actor, Richards said, then shoved her to the ground and screamed, "I hope you f--king die, bitch." As Richards, 35, tells it, Sheen was angry because she had told her divorce attorney about discovering details of Sheen's porn-surfing practices. Richards's declaration, filed in support of her request for a restraining order against Sheen, contends that Sheen "belonged" to "disturbing" sites "which promoted very young girls, who looked underage to me with pigtails, braces, and no pubic hair performing oral sex with each other." Other sites visited by Sheen, Richards alleges, involved "gay pornography also involving very young men who also did not look like adults." Richards claims that she also discovered that Sheen "belonged to several sex search type sites" on which he "looked for women to have sex with." His online profile, Richards adds, included a photo of "his erect penis." The Richards evisceration also portrays Sheen as a lousy father who urged her to abort their first child. And, when she was about to give birth to their second child via a C-section, Sheen's attention was "diverted to his pager for the results of his betting." (17 pages) |
| Dallas |
Posted - 04/19/2006 : 06:58:09
Just in case there are any folks left still suffering from the dementia brought on by Charlie Sheen's foray into the idiotic...
With the upcoming release of the film "United 93," the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, have returned to the fore of public consciousness. While for many Americans such painful memories remain forever seared in their minds, for a small but vocal minority the Sept. 11 attacks have taken on a mythical character. These are the Sept. 11 conspiracy theorists.
If Web sites such as whatreallyhappened.com, 911truth.org and scholarsfor911truth.org (among countless others) are any indication, the Sept. 11 conspiracists have become a movement in their own right. Despite a host of differences, they share the belief that the widely accepted version of what happened on Sept. 11 is merely a front for a shadowy plot to fool the American people.
Rather than accept that Islamic terrorists flew planes into buildings and slaughtered innocents in the name of a fanatical ideology, the Sept. 11 conspiracy theorists believe the perpetrators included members of their own government -- that somehow the Bush administration, with the collusion of the Pentagon, was either behind the attacks or simply allowed them to happen in order to institute a quasi-police state.
Whatever one's criticisms of the administration and its approach to the war on terrorism, one would have to be awfully cynical to believe that it would kill or allow thousands (at the least) of Americans to die, simply to accumulate additional powers. But even if one assumes the government acted purely in its own interests, why on earth would it risk weakening the economy and creating instability for the foreseeable future? Not exactly a winning formula for the so-called ruling classes.
Flying in the Face of Common Sense
Undaunted by such appeals to common sense, Sept. 11 conspiracists point to gaps in what we know or widely repeated falsehoods as proof positive that the attacks were not what they seemed. To hear them tell it, United Flight 93 was not brought down by the heroism of everyday Americans but was shot down by U.S. fighter pilots. Similarly, the conspiracists insist that airplanes couldn't have taken down the World Trade Center towers or the nearby 7 WTC building, but that controlled demolitions accounted for their collapse. Then there's the theory that the Pentagon was hit not with an airplane but by a missile.
Never mind that the whole country witnessed the horrific sight of planes flying into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and eventually heard the heartrending cell phone calls and cockpit recordings from Flight 93. Or that many studies on the twin towers have concluded that jet fuel combined with incredible levels of heat were to blame for their collapse. Or that 7 WTC sustained much more fire damage in the attack than initially reported. Or that there's no possible way to predict exactly how such a chaotic scenario will play out.
The true believers continue to insist that our minds must have deceived us.
French left-wing activist and author Thierry Meyssan has made a career out of such claims. In his books "L'Effroyable Imposture" (The Big Lie) and "Le Pentegate," Meyssan takes great pains to present an alternative scenario for American Airlines Flight 77 and the attack on the Pentagon. Pointing to the seeming disappearance of the airplane after it plowed into the building and the small amount of resulting debris, Meyssan posits that the U.S. government used some variation on a truck bomb, a smaller airplane or a missile to hit the Pentagon. In other words, the government attacked itself.
Meyssan never does explain fully what happened to the 64 passengers who died aboard Flight 77, despite the positive forensic identification at the crash site. Media commentator Barbara Olsen was just one of several passengers who made cell phone calls to loved ones reporting that the plane had been hijacked. No doubt the families of the victims would be thrilled to hear that their relatives didn't really perish that day, but are being hidden in a CIA safe house somewhere.
Blaming the Jews
Yet another myth popular with the Sept. 11 conspiracy theorists is a belief in the involvement of the Israeli government and, by extension, the ever useful "international Jewish conspiracy."
Based on a Jerusalem Post article describing the Israeli government's attempts to account for its citizens in the area of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon when the attacks occurred, a conspiracy involving "4,000 Jews" was born. According to the adherents of this theory, the Mossad (Israeli intelligence agency) forewarned these Jews about the attacks, and so they were able to escape harm. Such rumors again arose after the bombings in the London subway last year. It seems that whatever happens in the world, there are people who will lay the blame at the feet of the Jews.
In the Muslim world, conspiracies involving the dastardly "Zionists" are a dime a dozen. But up until Sept. 11, in the West they were mostly the province of neo-Nazi groups. A brief look at any of the Sept. 11 conspiracy Web sites indicates that things have changed. In fact, a belief in the exaggerated power of pro-Israel Jews in the United States seems to have reached a much wider audience in the wake of Sept. 11.
Hence, the recent report authored by Harvard University's Stephen M. Walt and the University of Chicago's John J. Mearsheimer on the alleged influence of the "Israel lobby " over American politics. As Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz has pointed out, the information in the report could have been culled from any number of neo-Nazi or Islamist Web sites.
Even if one doesn't subscribe to the "blame the Jews" angle of Sept. 11 conspiracy theories, any foray into such territory inevitably leads in that direction. That's the problem with dipping one's toes into the waters of conspiracy theories. One might just sink to its bottomless depths.
It's not as if there's a shortage of sources debunking Sept. 11 conspiracy theories. PBS aired programs that examined both the building of the World Trade Center and its collapse. The State Department put out a series of detailed reports directly addressing various Sept. 11 conspiracy theories. Popular Mechanics published an eminently useful article last year that went down the list of every conceivable Sept. 11 conspiracy talking point -- and debunked them all. Author and Skeptic magazine publisher Michael Shermer also touched on the matter in an article for Scientific American. Then there's the small matter of al Qaeda having admitted several times to perpetrating the Sept. 11 attacks.
The Paranoid Style
It would be comforting to think that such information would have an impact on the Sept. 11 conspiracists -- but, alas, true believers are rarely moved by facts that contradict their preconceived notions.
Historian Richard Hofstadter encapsulated this political strain with his 1965 essay "The Paranoid Style in American Politics." As Hofstadter puts it, "I call it the paranoid style simply because no other word adequately evokes the qualities of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind."
While Hofstadter ascribes such beliefs to the political fringes, Sept. 11 kicked the trend into high gear, and the "paranoid style" has become much more prevalent in the years since. Sept. 11 conspiracy theorists now include politicians such as Cynthia McKinney, actors such as Charlie Sheen, professors, journalists and documentarians.
Indeed, adherents often point to the presence of so many well-educated and otherwise rational people in their ranks as proof of the validity of their claims. But delusional thinking has never been confined to the realm of the uneducated.
The underlying factors likely have more to do with psychology. Indeed, it is often said that conspiracy theories are born out of a sense of powerlessness. In the wake of Sept. 11 and the emergence of the nihilistic threat of Islamic terrorism, feelings of impotence and vulnerability were all too natural. All Americans were affected by such fears. But instead of facing the daunting truth, the Sept. 11 conspiracy theorists chose the path of denial.
Immersed in a political belief system in which the United States (and Israel) is always the bad guy and never the victim, adherents refuse to give credence to any development that does not fit this narrative. So rather than blaming the perpetrators, they fall back on familiar demons. After all, an enemy one can grapple with is much more appealing than the unknown. Such beliefs offer the tantalizing possibility that there's an explanation for a reality that all too often seems incomprehensible.
I encounter this kind of thinking in the form of feverish e-mails from readers insisting that if I just "knew the truth" I too would understand what's behind it all. And no doubt I'll receive more than a few in response to this column. But I've looked into the abyss and I have yet to see or hear anything to validate such fantasies.
Then again, I could be part of the conspiracy, too.
Cinnamon Stillwell is a San Francisco writer. She can be reached at cinnamonstillwell@yahoo.com
|
| lonely persuader |
Posted - 04/01/2006 : 09:36:09
>I don't even have a position on this issue, plus there is no room for gut feelings in such a >scientifically profound thread as this. Everyone here seems to be set on their agendas and no >positions will be changed by this thread.
"scientifically profound thread as this", I hope you were joking. There is absolutely NOTHING scientific about searching google for media stories and old photos with numbers on em. This is a forum board for god's sake. |
| kathryn |
Posted - 04/01/2006 : 07:05:54
Somewhat related...
Outrageous stuff in today's NYTimes about how the recently released transcripts and audio from inside the towers show that callers were bounced from one clueless agency to the next (police, fire) and repeatedly told to stay put, when in some cases they had enough time to walk down and out.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/01/nyregion/01tapes.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/01/nyregion/01system.html
I’m the only one who can say that this light is mine
|
| Newo |
Posted - 03/30/2006 : 08:42:50
I wouldn´t say this thread has dried up, it´s been going since the 22nd and yesterday AE posted a longish one which I´ve printed up because I don´t like to read or write for a long time by computer, and he´s given me a couple websites to check up on too. I´m also moving apartment, working on a book, a documentary, a series of screenings and leave room for loafing around town taking tea with friends cause the weather is glorious, brass tacks I´m taking the post home with me as ass/swivelchair interface is being kept to a mimimum these days.
quote:
BLT Posted - 03/30/2006 : 08:06:03
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone here seems to be set on their agendas and no positions will be changed by this thread.
Doesn´t bother me. If someone wants to volunteer information I´ll check it out, and I´ll provide information if I feel like it - whatever people do with it does not in the least concern me.
--
Gravy boat! Stay in the now! |
| BLT |
Posted - 03/30/2006 : 08:06:03
I don't even have a position on this issue, plus there is no room for gut feelings in such a scientifically profound thread as this. Everyone here seems to be set on their agendas and no positions will be changed by this thread. |
| Cheeseman1000 |
Posted - 03/30/2006 : 07:51:16
Or when the unfeasibly long post made everyone give up on it.
 I have joined the Cult Of Frank/And I have dearly paid |
| Dallas |
Posted - 03/30/2006 : 07:47:12
I love this. What happened to all of the Charlie Sheen adorers? Where are the rebuttals?? Still searching conspiracy sites??? Maybe we can see Charlie's calculations on what happened?
Just hilarious how this thread dried up when the bright light of reality hit it. |
| Dallas |
Posted - 03/29/2006 : 08:01:59
Thanks Angry E, but, don't expect the loons to buy in. Its Charlie Sheen man, CHARLIE SHEEN! |
| Angry Elvis |
Posted - 03/28/2006 : 17:02:37
quote:
yep. For all the mention of easily disprovable theories, the things that actually started the controversy, nobody seems to be taking Sheen up on them.
this isn't about sheen
quote:
What I meant by "mathematically harmonious" is the fashion in which demolition experts rig charges around the structure to ensure the building comes down neatly and symmetrically and does not damage neighbouring ones when it gets pulled
in this photo i took you can clearly see a large part of the wtc fell over onto it
sorrry for the cut and paste, people usually don't check the links
Photographic evidence proves beyond a doubt floors sagged pulling perimeter columns in. A fact some conspiracy sites suggest never happened.
If the upper floor sags, it pulls both the outer beams and inner beams toward the center of the floor. The beams that are left from the impact are pulled in more than the beams above or below it. Being made of STRIPS of beams and not one solid steel wall, the beams need only to move far enough out of the way to let the beams above slide around the beams below it. The beams above and intact have the full weight of all the "Stories" above which are connected to it. Everything above rips apart everything below. In other words the beams above are no longer square with the beams below.
A bow is clearly visible as trusses sag and pull in the perimeter columns.
Just before collapse..
Collapse begins a minute later. View from another angle..
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Briefing_040505_final.pdf
Start at page 36 of the above NIST briefing. You can see photographic evidence the building was pulled in. Not just one floor but across many.
Note how the sagging floors pull the outer column in. There is enough visual evidence the trusses were pulling the outer columns in. If you think a bomb blew up the building you have to explain how a bomb pulled in the wall well before building 2 fell...
Starting with the moment the plane hit survivors said the doors wouldn't open because the building was so out of alignment. The impacts alone BENT THE 110 STORY BUILDINGS. That building was made to sway. I grew up in NY and have been to that building many times. When the wind was strong you could feel the building sway. I can't imagine an impact that would cause the building to sway enough to knock it out of center. A humanly unimaginable energy. That alone should weaken the building. Once you start to pile on the fire, unique construction, sagging trusses, shifted load distribution it's not hard to imagine enough of these factors adding up to cause a collapse. Factors which weren't known at the time. NIST computer model even took the wind shifting into account...
"It is impressive that the World Trade Center towers held up as long as they did after being attacked at full speed by Boeing 767 jets, because they were only designed to withstand a crash from the largest plane at the time: the smaller, slower Boeing 707. And according to Robertson, the 707's fuel load was not even considered at the time. Engineers hope that answering the question of exactly why these towers collapsed will help engineers make even safer skyscrapers in the future. ASCE will file its final report soon, and NIST has been asked to conduct a much broader investigation into the buildings' collapse."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/minu-trans.html
quote:
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. (http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html) 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.
Pull it" means “PULL” the operations out…
Here is the interview which I'm sure you know about...
"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
-Fact which is undisputed by either side, he was talking to the fire commander
-Fact which is undisputed by either side, both are not in the demolition business
Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:
"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."
He could be lying right? But here is the corroborating evidence...
"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Banaciski_Richard.txt
Here is more evidence they pulled the teams out waiting for a normal collapse from fire...
"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Nigro_Daniel.txt
"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Cruthers.txt
"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Ryan_William.txt
Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?
Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn’t know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.
Firehouse: How many companies?
Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we’re heading east on Vesey, we couldn’t see much past Broadway. We couldn’t see Church Street. We couldn’t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty.
Before we took off, he said, look, if you see any apparatus, strip the apparatus for hose, nozzles, masks, anything you can get. As we headed east, we reached Church and then we were midway from there and then all of a sudden, we could see 5 come into view. It was fully involved. There was apparatus burning all over the place. Guys were scrambling around there. There were a lot of firemen, and there was a lot of commotion, but you couldn’t see much that was going on. I didn’t see any lines in operation yet. But we found a battalion rig there. We got a couple of harnesses out of there. We had some bottles from another rig, so we put together a couple of masks.
We went one block north over to Greenwich and then headed south. There was an engine company there, right at the corner. It was right underneath building 7 and it was still burning at the time. They had a hose in operation, but you could tell there was no pressure. It was barely making it across the street. Building 6 was fully involved and it was hitting the sidewalk across the street. I told the guys to wait up.
A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.
But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.
So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...e/gz/boyle.html
This proves there was a big hole on the south side. It's in the middle of the building and goes up about 20 stories...
Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
Firehouse: Jay Jonas told me that at one point, when he had finally made his way out of the debris, you were standing on top of a truck?
Hayden: Yes. It was covered in debris. I got on top of the rig only to establish a presence there. There was a lot of confusion, a lot of chaos. That was my command post in that sector. I stood on top of the rig and people could see who I was, that there was a chief in charge and that people could come to me and I’d give them assignments. It worked. I didn’t realize it at the time, but it worked. People could point, there’s the chief over there, rather than out of all this chaos and destruction, where was there a command post? You couldn’t even make out West Street. So I saw the rig. I got on top of the rig and I stayed there. And eventually we got a bullhorn, a radio. I had a bullhorn and we were able to get some type of order in the assignments and what we were doing. We tried to get some type of accountability. I gathered everybody around me. There were hundreds of guys and there was a lot of confusion. I had everybody take their helmets off for a moment of silence, and it calmed everybody down. Then, I said, please assist the chief officers in getting some accountability here. Whether you’re on duty or off duty, give them your name, your unit, and give it in to the chiefs. The chiefs made up a list and I had started getting a list of who I had working on the site there, also. It was just an attempt to gain some kind of control.
Firehouse: So you were able to move forward a little bit at that point?
Hayden: At that point. And then also when I got everybody around. I didn’t know how many chiefs I had there. I just told them what we’re going to do, we’re going to split this up into companies. I did it by getting them to stop and take their helmets off for a moment of silence.Once I had the moment of silence, then I started giving out the orders to everybody about what we’re going to do. After that, we had some type of organization. That’s the only way I could have done it. I couldn’t think – I needed help. It was a desperate measure.
Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that’s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that’s a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn’t seem so bad. But that’s what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didn’t want to lose any more people that day. And when those numbers start to set in among everybody… My feeling early on was we weren’t going to find any survivors. You either made it out or you didn’t make it out. It was a cataclysmic event. The idea of somebody living in that thing to me would have been only short of a miracle. This thing became geographically sectored because of the collapse. I was at West and Liberty. I couldn’t go further north on West Street. And I couldn’t go further east on Liberty because of the collapse of the south tower, so physically we were boxed in.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html
It mirrors what Silverstin said.
WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]
Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]
And now for the best video evidence to date from our friends at 911myths...
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi
That alone should end this debate. The fire dept didn't have orders for on high. So that leaves the fire dept lying to cover up a demolition for Bush or the firefighters made a good call.
What we have for sure...
Silverstein is not a demolition expert and was talking to a fire fighter and not a demolition expert. Why would he use the word "Pull" to describe the demolition to a fire fighter?
Silverstein denies "Pull" means "Controlled demolition". He said it means "Pull" the teams out of the building.
Silverstein did not make the decision to "Pull". (Whatever that means) "they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse"
Another fire fighter used "Pull" to describe the decision made to get him out of the building.
Maybe none of these things by themselves mean anything but together it means there is no case. The person who said "Pull" and started this cascade later clarified. Fireman use the word "Pull" to describe getting out of a building and the person who made the order was not Silverstein according to the same first interview.
9/11 conspiracy sites are being dishonest. You have to ask yourself why?
They are interviewing this woman with Building 7 in the background because they knew well in advance the building was going to collapse. The reporter says “This is it” as if they are waiting for the collapse. Then the other reporter says “What we’ve been fearing all afternoon has finally happened.” Why did they fear a controlled demolition? If it was a secret demolition for money why did the media know about it ahead of time?
More from another blogger…
RealityCheck
“(1) In your own quote we have a Fire Dept. COMMANDER saying: "....they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire......". How and why is everyone ignoring the fact that the COMMANDER, obviously based on his relevant/authoritative experience/knowledge, judges that the WTC7 fire is OUT OF CONTROL!
I ask any reasonable person to tell me WHAT POSSIBLE OPINION from ANY 'civilian' could have been persuasive enough to CHANGE THE COMMANDER'S MIND enough to continue with a 'lost cause'? [....the persistence with which 'lost cause' could only INEVITABLY have resulted in greater loss of life than if they "pulled back" NOW and leave it to burn out while concentrate on preventing its spread further afield, heh? ].
So, whatever Silverstein might have WANTED, in light of what the COMMANDER said, it is OBVIOUS to any reasonable person that Silverstein could have had little OTHER choice than to recognize and acquiesce/concur with the FIRE COMMANDER'S professional judgment Wouldn't you agree?
(2) As to the term "pull":
Given that the fire department is organized/regimented along semi-milaristic lines (evidence terms such as Battalion and Commander), would it seem unreasonable to find that OTHER traditional 'military' terms are used?......like withdraw[ or move out or PULL (back) etc. .......in such a structure/culture as in a FIRE DEPT. COMMAND STRUCTURE maneuvering/ordering about MANY 'troops' (firemen)? I for one would find it extraordinary if such an organization did NOT use such traditional and well understood/useful (and to the point) terms to ISSUE ORDERS WHICH COULD NOT BE MISUNDERSTOOD EVEN IN THE HEAT OF 'BATTLE' (remember the term "Battalion" which is part of their organizational/operational structure?).
i don't know how much will fit so i'm going to post this and see what happens
i do have more
the two photographs on top are ones i took, the real good digital ones were on the hard drive on the other computer that my kid fried
i'm trying to get them sent to me, i can't find the photo card
we also have hours of video that needs to be edited, if i ever look at them again that is
like i said, unfettered access
***i'm just a hunka hunka burnin love*** |
| Newo |
Posted - 03/28/2006 : 15:04:25
yep. For all the mention of easily disprovable theories, the things that actually started the controversy, nobody seems to be taking Sheen up on them.
Friend of mine posted on a blog an email from Sander Hicks, guy who runs Soft Skull Press in NY had been scheduled to talk about it on CNN tonight but was bumped because they couldn´t find anyone else to argue "the other side." (!) And the producer said something like "people are asking me ‘why are you bringing this up’." Maybe they´re going to start auditioning people to defend the official story.
--
Gravy boat! Stay in the now! |
| BLT |
Posted - 03/28/2006 : 11:08:12
quote:
Originally posted by Newo
Like so many other mainstream outlets, domestically and abroad, no attention whatsoever is given to the questions I raise or the evidence that stimulated those very questions.
Instead, low-brow idiotic hit pieces are spewed forth in an effort to sway the readers' opinion of the messenger while blatantly disregarding any of the potentially valuable content of the story.
I hate to say I told you so, but I did. |
| Newo |
Posted - 03/28/2006 : 10:37:09
Charlie Sheen's Statement to the London Guardian
Challenges Press to Stop Slinging Mud, Confront The Science
Charlie Sheen felt compelled to respond to one of many hit-pieces against him, a column written for the London Guardian and carried by British commonwealth newspapers worldwide. Sheen sent his statement to The Australian newspaper. This is his full statement minus a phone number to his manager so that the paper could confirm its authenticity. This is a direct challenge for them to debate the facts.
Sheen Challenge to Media
I dare you to print this email in it's entirety ...
The mere fact that you did a cut and paste job of the slanderous and idiotic Marine Hyde London Journal piece, speaks volumes about your credibility as a major media entity.
Like so many other mainstream outlets, domestically and abroad, no attention whatsoever is given to the questions I raise or the evidence that stimulated those very questions.
Instead, low-brow idiotic hit pieces are spewed forth in an effort to sway the readers' opinion of the messenger while blatantly disregarding any of the potentially valuable content of the story. It's transparent sandbox propaganda as dated and cheap as the paper it's printed on.
Do a little research on Building Seven. Building Seven lives at the epicenter of my entire debate. Prove yourself worthy of genuine investigative journalism. Look at the video evidence.
Observe the same data I have. Submit a formal request to the Pentagon or the DOD to release video PROOF that flight 77 did exactly as they claim. You will be stonewalled. You will be dismissed unconditionally. If there is nothing to hide - why are they hiding it?
To avoid any confusion - I reiterate:
Building Seven - Pentagon video documentation.
If any portion, or portions of this text is any way deleted or manipulated, you will only confirm what myself and countless others have suspected all along: Media complicity with no interest in the truth.
A CNN poll at the time of this writing currently sits at 84 percent IN SUPPORT of my views.
Say what you must about me - it means nothing.
Yet, if you continue to overlook the hard questions and physical evidence regarding 9/11 - you only confirm what so many of us "Conspiracy Idiots" have suspected all along - The Official Report is, at best, an insulting work of FICTION.
Respectfully,
Charlie Sheen
--
Gravy boat! Stay in the now! |
| Newo |
Posted - 03/28/2006 : 10:13:46
Haven´t you heard? Slavery is the new freedom. I guess he´s managed to put the shits up someone.
--
Gravy boat! Stay in the now! |
| Carl |
Posted - 03/27/2006 : 17:46:34
Fuck, Goggle censoring things?! What is this, China?
 pas de dutchie! |
| Newo |
Posted - 03/27/2006 : 10:14:09
Google Caught Censoring Charlie Sheen 9/11 Story
Quickly re-indexes pages during live radio discussion
Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | Updated March 24 2006
Update: Google has today started carrying Prison Planet.com as a news affiliate. Was their apparant censorship just a spidering error and are they are trying to make up for it? No one promotes Google more than us as they are clearly the best search engine company but their actions still call for us to be watchdogs.
Note: Before you e-mail please understand that we are aware of the fact that Google now carries links to Sheen 9/11 articles, that is not our point as you will read below. The censorship issue began before Google reversed their policy this afternoon.
Google is again embroiled in a censorship scandal after being caught blocking information about Charlie Sheen's 9/11 comments, despite the fact that every other major search engine had indexed the pages.
For days, major search engines like Yahoo and others contained tens of thousands of web pages relating to Sheen's comments first broadcast on the Alex Jones Show on Monday afternoon. Last night CNN aired a piece on the issue and by early this morning both the New York Post and the Boston Herald ran articles.
We first noticed that there were no search results related to the story on Google the day after we broke the Sheen story. At first we decided to be fair and wait another day for Google to index an article which was by now linked on thousands of other websites and blogs. By Thursday afternoon, and with the story receiving more traffic, Google still had not indexed any material relating to the Sheen interview, from Prison Planet.com or any other websites. This despite the fact that the Drudge Report had briefly directly linked to our article, sending it millions of visitors.
During a live radio discussion of this issue between Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson on Alex Jones' broadcast Thursday afternoon, Google, as if they had people listening to the show, immediately re-indexed the pages and a search for 'Charlie Sheen 9/11' now returns 111,000 results at time of writing.
Pictured below are screenshots we managed to cache shortly before Google re-indexed the pages with the search terms 'Charlie Sheen 9/11' and the entire headline "Actor Charlie Sheen Questions Official 9/11 Story". As you can see, the Boston Herald story is linked from Google News (Google do not censor their affiliates) but the main search engine below returned no results. To stress again, this is three days after we broke this massive story. The usual index time for a story of this size is 12-24 hours and at the same time that Google returned no results whatsoever, tens of thousands were being carried by other major search engines like Yahoo.
To make it crystal clear, Google's web spidering process is automated and we have received high Google rankings in the past for nothing stories that get little traffic. The Sheen story was linked everywhere and to eliminate it from Google's search results would have required technicians to physically access the spidering control panel and exclude an enormous amount of varied search terms.
Google has a history of censoring websites it dislikes within the US. Google Inc. banned and removed a mainstream news website from all its worldwide search engines, seemingly due to the website's reports on China's geopolitical affairs and military technology.
Google has banned its users inside the US and the rest of the world from accessing the Space War website from its search engine. Space War speculated at the time that this was at the behest of the "boys from Beijing."
Space War is a reasonably tame mainstream website that focuses on geopolitical affairs and satellite and military technology advancements. It is based in Australia and carries articles from AFP and United Press International.
After a complaints campaign supported by this website, Google agreed to re-index the website.
Did our defense of Space War cause Google to impose a blackballing campaign on our major articles or is this just a response to the sheer magnitude and influence of the Charlie Sheen story?
To emphasize, Google is now carrying search results related to Charlie Sheen's 9/11 comments, but only after it was exposed live on nationally syndicated radio that they had stonewalled this issue for three clear days even as it raged around the rest of the Internet as a viral story and broke into the mainstream yesterday and early this morning.
The floodgates on the Sheen story have opened, with CNN airing a balanced piece on the controversy. Meanwhile mainstream publications like Human Events, the New York Post, CBS and the Boston Herald used Sheen's comments to attack him and demonize anybody who questions the official line on 9/11. A round-up article of today's reaction to Charlie Sheen's comments will follow later tonight.
--
Gravy boat! Stay in the now! |
| Newo |
Posted - 03/26/2006 : 16:00:27
That piece is certainly lower on snideness than those that usually come out of fourth-estate press. It´s cool that they at least mentioned Building 7, but again, no mention of most of the things that really had researchers going like
- the FBI report of September 2001 stating the then-head of Pakistan´s intelligence agency ISI, General Mahmoud Ahmad, had transferred money to Mohammed Atta. Or Ahmad´s official visit to US from 4-13 September 2001 in which he met his counterpart CIA Director George Tenet and Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage, Colin Powell too.
- the 911 Comission Report claiming it was "not important" who funded the attacks. Which would be hilarious if thousands weren´t dead.
- this NASA and US Geological Survey thermal map taken five days later, after firemen had poured millions of gallons of water over the site (and it had rained in the interim), still one point where WTC 7 had been had a temperature higher than aluminium's melting point, 1341º, and another at the south tower measured 1377º.
Cheers Kathryn, I enjoyed reading that, plus was nice to see mention of that Father Morales character. I´d read and account of his of Ground Zero he´d dedicated to John Lennon a year or so back http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/linkscopy/Ground0Rpt.html
--
Gravy boat! Stay in the now! |
| kathryn |
Posted - 03/26/2006 : 08:37:08
Much as I hate to be the one to put a thread back on topic, Owen you might find this interesting, it's by one of my favorite journalists
http://newyorkmetro.com/news/features/16464/index.html
I’m the only one who can say that this light is mine
|
| HeywoodJablome |
Posted - 03/25/2006 : 21:30:06
I'm still waiting for "Men At Work" Part II.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
"Charity is doing something for others, while other people are watching." |
| kathryn |
Posted - 03/25/2006 : 09:52:58
floop, the longer Patton quote was better.
I’m the only one who can say that this light is mine
|
| floop |
Posted - 03/25/2006 : 09:51:53
quote:
Originally posted by Frog in the Sand
If we really have to discuss conspiracies, I humbly suggest we start a "Roswell" thread. At least it will be fun.
-----
 I joined the Cult of Le Cigaw Volanttt
you just want a Roswell thread because it takes place in New Mexico
"May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't.” - General George S. Patton |
| Newo |
Posted - 03/25/2006 : 06:57:22
Angry E, my remark about my work being done was me being jokingly proud of having helped clear up Kathryn´s confusion between Rob Lowe and Charlie Sheen.
When you mention halfbaked conspiracy theories, I´ll tell you now I am no fan of theories. Everyone has a theory about something or other, they´re too common to be helpful - when jetliners crash into a tower and someone who wasn´t actually on one of the jetliners sez I think they were piloted by 19 Arabs, that is a theory they hold about a conspiracy that took place. See, they´re not such dirty words are they?
But enough about theories, I noticed we seemed to have developed this weird wrinkle in our reasoning (whether it´s been indoctrinated or we nurtured it off our own bats) whereby people tend to hold them so dear that when a fact comes along that does not fit, instead of getting rid of the theory, the fact is dispensed with. So I prefer to listen to what people tell me and look for emerging patterns.
One thing here you said :
quote:
they would not have been able to hide their activities, and there would be too many people with intimate knowledge of such activities to be able to keep it secret
Regardless of who you feel committed the act, I´ll say that in top-down intelligence operations, knowledge is so rigidly compartmentalised that the left hand does not know what the right is doing - this is the nature of paramilitary endeavour.
I originally believed the military´s story about Sep 11, and felt it was a backlash from incursions into other countries. Then I started finding and hearing accounts that I had trouble reconciling with the official theory. I pass on this information not because I care what people think (I´ve said before I don´t and even if I did it would be tough shit for me because what other people think is none of my business) but because I feel that people should be able to have as much information as possible at their disposal, that´s it, take it or leave it.
What I meant by "mathematically harmonious" is the fashion in which demolition experts rig charges around the structure to ensure the building comes down neatly and symmetrically and does not damage neighbouring ones when it gets pulled - to "pull" being the industry term for a controlled demolition and the word WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein used to describe what he ordered NYFD to do to Building 7 later in the afternoon. You can see him say this on a PBS special America Rebuilds http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/.
Two things which contributed to me throwing out Silverstein´s story were 1) it takes weeks to rig a building in such a way and 2) NYFD do not train their personnel for controlled demolitions.
Then I found something which jibed with my impression that the attacks were unpredictable because they were orchestrated using methods our military government(s) had never thought of. Operation Northwoods was a project from 1962 approved by the Joint Chief of Staff but vetoed by Kennedy seeking pretexts to rally the American public to invade Cuba. It listed staged pretexts such as shooting Americans in the street, staging terrorist attacks in DC and Miami, hijacking Cuban or American airliners (and if an American airliner, switching it with a remote-controlled drone that would be crashed over Cuba to blame the Cubans). This is no empty theorising, this is public record, go see for yourself that September 11 has a historical precedent that hasn´t been deemed newsworthy.
I got to go meet a friend now about a book we´re working on, so I´ll just say if you don´t believe me it really makes no difference to me but all the same, you´re the only one who didn´t take the anger or ridicule route so thanks for asking questions and trying to understand (you like PKD so I assume you already got a taste for converging realities).
Owen
--
Gravy boat! Stay in the now! |
| PixieSteve |
Posted - 03/24/2006 : 08:27:16
kathryn http://www.911review.com/coverup/oralhistories.html
 |
| Frog in the Sand |
Posted - 03/24/2006 : 02:27:25
If we really have to discuss conspiracies, I humbly suggest we start a "Roswell" thread. At least it will be fun.
-----
I joined the Cult of Le Cigaw Volanttt |
| kathryn |
Posted - 03/23/2006 : 18:48:21
quote:
Originally posted by Steak n Sabre
Chuck Norris should kick Sheen's ass...
 The Cult of Frank : Gimme Gimme Gimme...I Need Some More
Now there's an idea I totally agree with!
I’m the only one who can say that this light is mine
|
| Steak n Sabre |
Posted - 03/23/2006 : 18:05:31
Chuck Norris should kick Sheen's ass...
The Cult of Frank : Gimme Gimme Gimme...I Need Some More |
| kathryn |
Posted - 03/23/2006 : 17:09:36
People who in every sense of the word survived 9/11 are understandably offended by conspiracy theories. I can't speak for Angry Elvis (and he makes his point clearly), but I do know that my best friend who lived 4 buildings from one of the towers and had to run for her life thru the cloud, etc., etc., is easily and deeply angered when people who were nowhere near try to tell her that something occurred other than what she witnessed and escaped. There is a vast difference between after-the-fact speculating and on-the-scene imperical knowledge.
Also, I've never heard a single person who was there dispute the terrorists-flying-planes explanation; conversely the people who do believe in other scenarios inevitably were not there.
I’m the only one who can say that this light is mine
|
| PixieSteve |
Posted - 03/23/2006 : 16:58:39
http://www.911review.com is quite a good site
|
| Angry Elvis |
Posted - 03/23/2006 : 16:47:15
well in that case i wish he would find something better and less hurtful to entertain himself with
http://www.newyorkmetro.com/news/articles/wtc/index.htm
***i'm just a hunka hunka burnin love*** |
| BLT |
Posted - 03/23/2006 : 15:44:33
I'm never sure if Owen really believes his own posts or just likes to stir up shit. |
| Angry Elvis |
Posted - 03/23/2006 : 15:08:26
owen
to me you are a paradox wrapped in enigma
you seem very well read and intelligent
but please, wtf is mathematically harmonious, did you really write that?
i love the pixies, i love frank, pk dick is one of my favorite authors, i taught myself to draw by copying r.crumbs work, i love his cartoons especially angelfood mcspade and the snoid ones
i have lived in nyc my entire life, i was in the hood 9/11, so was my brother
i was on the street and managed to get away safely, my bro almost died
i spent time in the aftermath helping the search and rescue effort
my bro works for one of the big newsers doing sattelite uplinks
we had pretty unfettered access in the area
i've seen things and smelled things down there that i would love to be able to forget
if you really knew anything about explosive demolition you wouldn't be holding the pancake theory so dear
there are only a handful of people in the entire world that are capable and qualified to destroy buildings in that manner
they would not have been able to hide their activities, and there would be too many people with intimate knowledge of such activities to be able to keep it secret
anyone who got "disappeared" would have been missed
every time this subject comes up i get a little sick
you are certainly entitled to your odd opinion
i choose to believe my eyes rather than some half baked easily disproven conspiracy theories
i have two words i would like to leave you with:
occams razor
i'm glad you feel your work here is done
***i'm just a hunka hunka burnin love*** |
| Dallas |
Posted - 03/23/2006 : 14:57:33
I'm so glad that Charlie is on the case here. This is a HUGE conspiracy that Charlie can see right through.
Don't let us down Charlie! Humanity is counting on you! |
| Newo |
Posted - 03/23/2006 : 09:47:00
Thanks for the report again Angry E, but for me to feel it was a thorough one they would have to cover how three buildings with asymmetrical fires managed to burn at such mathematically harmonious points as to make each one collapse neatly into its own footprint.
--
Gravy boat! Stay in the now! |
| Newo |
Posted - 03/23/2006 : 09:45:12
My work here is done.
--
Gravy boat! Stay in the now! |
|
|
