finalzero

Anyone see this video:

YouTube - Charlie Sheen's Video Message to President Obama

Now I don't discount the tragedy, no matter what the reason was the fact is a lot of people died that day... innocent people and it will not go away for a while.

But Charlie Sheen has posed some interesting questions that have been already posted around the net, but they are simple questions that need to be answered... otherwise we are led to believe that the terrorists on that fateful day had the power to bend the laws of physics to their will... boollox

j4ckos mate

listen to alex james on the interweb, he has lots to say,

i dont think there is a conspiracy myself though

Leslie

A lot of what happened does not tie in.

Les

Klaatu

Tie in with "the official release", or "tie in with observed accounts"?

Leslie

I would say one with the other Klaatu.

Les

Klaatu

We won't know until after 9/11/2026 (Is it 25 years in the US, not sure). I think bigger "problems" will beset us before then.

But out gummints are working extra hard to make that a lesser "problem" for them.

stilover

Nothing about 9/11 tie's in.

Fire alone could not bring down both towers.

Tower 7 caught fire on 2 floors, yet a demolition team were instructed to go into a burning building with explosives, and do in a few hours what normally takes weeks to do.

Amature footage shows a small object hitting the pentagon in the area that just happened to have no staff in, because of refurbishment. If you look at the surrounding area, no airliner could get that low without hitting other buildings, lamppost etc first.

Why didn't the Pentagons air defence system work?
Why was the F16 air defence planes instructed to fly in the opposite direction?

The truth will never be known. Because for the truth to come out would cripple America.

hodgy0_2

I read a great article about a Journo investigating the conspiracy arguments around 7/7

Why – well because he was there and on the train, and he actually spoke to the radio where he worked as a Journalist (LBC) minutes after the attack at Edgware Road

In that original broadcast – minutes after the attack, he quite clearly mentions the train “jumping” when the explosion hit.

Anyway fast forward 3-4 years and he starts investigating the whole conspiracy theory because he was there and to him there was no question it was suicide bombers on the train.

So he is interested by the whole concept of denial, especially by people who were not there – and against over whelming evidence to the contrary

So he spends months visiting these idiots and gets all sorts of **** and bull analysis of what went on (by people who were not even there) – one common theory was that bombs were pre-placed under the trains --- and this supposedly debunks the myth of suicide bombers

Until he finds an interesting website – devoted to these crackpot theories, and on it is a wav/audio file that according to the website proves the bomb under the train theory

When he clicks on the audio file – who does he hear – himself, that original, 2 mins after the event phone call to his radio station where he says the train jumped.

I think that just about sums up 90% of these conspiracy theorists.

they just "feed" off all the confusion in the event and the immediate aftermath and present it as fact

stilover

Slight difference between -

Highjacking airliners, bringing down 2 of America's tallest buildings, while in the meantime setting Tower 7 alight without even touching it, and flying another highjacked plane into the pentagon on a flight path that is impossible to do.

And just walking onto a tube train with a home made bomb on your back.

hodgy0_2

well the post was meant to be about conspiracy theories in general and how they they just "feed" off all the confusion in the event and the immediate aftermath and present it as fact

i am sure there are some inconsistancies in the events surrounding 9/11 -- it would be odder if there was not

but on all the substantive points like Tower 7 and the flight into the pentegon they have been debunked by most serious scientific journals

you are then left with the crazies that see the devil in the smoke arising from the twin towers



and honestly use that to convince us it was the devils work

astraboy

Tower 7 is the real problem for me too. I didn't know demolition teams were sent in, that would explain why it sure as hell looks like a controlled demolition!

Neanderthal

iTrader: (6)

I had heard before that Tower 7 fell down of it's own accord because the elevation that fronts on to the main towers was really badly damaged (no picture evidence of this though).

hodgy0_2

whats the source for this

The current explanation is that WT7 was damaged to a much greater degree by falling debris than initial reports suggested and that the fires were more widespread than just two floors.

Jamz3k

I find it hard to take Charlie Sheen seriously, I find it even harder to believe he wrote that letter since he's dyslexic.

Conspiracy theory or not, the truth will never been known and with every passing year it will get harder for the truth to be found.

stilover

If the front of tower 7 was badly damaged, why didn't the building fall over on it's damaged side. Afterall the rear was ok, so why did it fall like a controlled demolition?

Same as Tower 1 (may have been 2) that the dead weight actually fell off to the left, leaving no dead weight to collapse the rest of the building. Yet it fell just like a controlled demolition. In just the same way all the Towers did.

Have no doubt's, America will do what ever it takes to take what it wants. In this case oil. It's written into the American constitution that America can go to war with another country if it feels threatened. That threat doesn't have to be an aggresive threat. The threat can be resourses. ie, if America ran out of Peanuts, and we have all the Peanuts stock in the world, and America wanted those Peanuts, America's constitution makes it legal (under american law) for it to go to war with the uK to get those tasty Peanuts.

hodgy0_2

I don t understand this -- I am sure as I have stated that in a global cataclysmic event like this there will always be questions, inconstancy, unexplained coincidences, odd happenings

But on all the substantive facts – Terrorist flew planes into various buildings and they collapsed surely there can be no doubt. – that’s the truth of it

In the murky world of espionage did some people know, did some rogue elements of the CIA know of the attacks and let them happen – to bolster support for attacks on the middle east and increase Israeli security in the region – maybe, but that is a different question - well to me anyway it is.

And I am under no illusions to the deviousness of the US in attaining their strategic goals

davyboy

I question the fact the fire was savage enough to bring down 2 of the worlds tallest towers...yet a "paper" passport from a hijacker was found!

Add to that they found a passport but not flight recorders.

Jamz3k

The truth is nothing more than what you are willing to accept.

magepaster

iTrader: (2)

Ever thought he could have dictated the letter????? Dyslexic doesn't mean thick

hodgy0_2

wasn't just a fire though, can you imagine what the place looked like after the planes had hit - a very big internal hole

I know that some of the companies had "clean desk policies" -- but the place must have looked a mess all the same.

Jamz3k

apologies that was meant to be a bit of a small joke but i didn't put a smiley at the end.

magepaster

iTrader: (2)

Well that's alright then

EddScott

Anything else really is just conspiracy theories.

stilover

What? you mean like Skyscrapers have about a safety factor built into them. Where by they can take there own weight several times over, or where they can take the impact of a fully loaded 747 at FULL speed without falling down.

EddScott

The twin towers were not built to withstand a fuel laden 767 slamming into them.



You honestly think governments could keep it quiet? Like not really going to the moon, the man on the grassy knoll? Mountain Dew being available in the UK?

Pure conspiracy.

SirFozzalot

People keep talking about "Controlled demolition" and how the buildings (particularly the twin towers in this case) fell like it was "controlled".

However, if a tall building has a couple of floors collapse in the same sort of area as the twin towers then wouldn't you expect the buildings to come down like that?

Put it this way. If someone approached you and asked you to come up with a hypothosis of what you think would happen to a very tall building if a heavily damaged floor collapsed completely across the building about two thirds of the way up, what would you predict would happen?

I would of thought most would think it would cause a chain reaction of the next floor collapsing and then the next and then the next and so on until it completely collapsed.

Should it have been different then? If so, how should it have collapsed?

Geezer

This is almost as poor as the moon landing one!

Despite total refutation of most of the theories, "Truthers" still like to claim something odd went on.

I do love listening to them though, ultimately they are backed into claiming that the government used secret technology that no one knows about and how loads of civilian companies have been paid off to keep quiet! You just can't answer that sort of paranoia!

Geezer

hodgy0_2

Precisely -- you just can't win

they draw around the truth like a kid with crayons

if in the mayhem and confusion they had an “eyewitness” who saw a giant kangaroo flying the plane then in spite of all the evidence to the contrary they would have you believe kangaroos flew those planes



And as everyone knows you don’t get kangaroos in America, and they aren’t licensed to fly 767’s anyway

magepaster

iTrader: (2)

Ah but why would the Kangaroo care about being licensed if all it was going to do was crash the plane?

hodgy0_2

good point -- and like the "truthers" I didn't think that one thru