WOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Thanks ~ :+: :+: :+:

Sweet, I can take the rest of the night off!

Glory to Canada!

I just gave dz the poll at the end...

I have the CNN Poll portion of the show available here...

Showbiz Tonight Dedicates An Entire Show To 9/11 Truth - Video Inside

be sure to check out what helen thomas had to say today.. it talks about 9/11 being the reasoning for iraq, and how that is completely retarted:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/03/22.html#a7614

They attack him, and not what he's saying.

I still think it's interesting that I didn't hear Sander Hicks on the John Gibson radio show. I can't get in touch with Sander.

Thanks warszawa for the e-mails and article links.

I sent a polite but pointed letter:

Dear Mrs Hyde,

Over the years I have developed a lot of respect for the Guardian and the quality articles I've read in it.

Your commentary on Charlie Sheen undermines my confidence in the journalistic integrity of your paper. At no point in your ramblings do you refute the arguments that Mr Sheen has made.

Instead, you resort to ad hominem attacks to slander his character, without actually doing your homework on what the facts are. You presume he is insane simply for asking questions.

... and on from there ...

Please take time to write if you feel strongly about this issue.

my email to the guardian:

"Hi, I see you are attacking Charlie Sheen for speaking
up about 9/11. He is not insane, there's a growing
number of engineers and physicists asking the same
questions. Please go to 'Scholars for 9/11 Truth' at
www.st911.org

Watch '9/11 Revisited', witnesses talk about
explosions:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1951610169657809939&q=revisited

In '9/11 Eyewitness'you'll hear explosions going off:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=eyewitness

David Shayler, former MI5 counter-terrorist agent
discusses 9/11:

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=shayler

“I know 9-11 was an inside job, the police know it’s
an inside job,and the firemen know it too.”

New York City auxiliary fire lieutenant Paul Isaac,
Jr, September 11, 2005"

That's an outstanding piece by A.L. Kennedy. This column should be linked on discussion posts everywhere.
Do not underestimate the necessity of DENIAL. The majority of people have a death grip on their view of reality for fear of 'losing it' altogether. It may seem like a small, logical extension of thought for us now [who know enough to see the official 9/11 conspiracy theory in a broad light], but the consequences of connecting those dots is going to be devastating for many people.
This is not an apology for denial or for chosen ignorance; I just want to underline that we are dealing with some fundamental human survival issues; and way up on that list is the need to believe that we are sane.

9-11 was an inside job

illegal war was the result

also our borders were left unprotected

texas bush did nothing about illegal immigration, and will now grant amnesty

he passed cafta because mexican labor is too expensive

hello socialism

it works so well

look how succesful mexico is

we are fucked

Someone mentiond something about myspace...

http://www.myspace.com/wtc_7

So was Charlie Sheen high when he gave that interview or does he really believe in flying saucers and 9/11 conspiracies?

Good morning Flanstein.

it must be so nice to be willfully ignorant.

seeya flanstein.

You people here are incredibly naive in your euphoria.

remember-

a lot of people have a lot to lose

politicians,media,talking heads

be vigilant and firm

still a long, long way to go

You person there are incredibly brave in your anonymity.

I knew that media attention would attract the trolls. Ha Ha

9-11 Blogger You Guy's ROCK!!!

This is the most hillarious 9/11 blog I've come across yet. The video generation here gets high on an actor appearing on celebrity TV shows and in gossip columns talking about 9/11 conspiracy theories that hit the skids years ago.

And you all celebrate!

You're getting used and you don't even have a clue.

I'll make sure this blog gets the publicity it richly deserves.

See,,, told you guys the trolls would be hitting this joint.

anonymous

"I'll make sure this blog gets the publicity it richly deserves."

Very kind of you I must say...

Keep up the good work ;)

Cheers

check your feed back somebigguy or dz .
I'll be waiting for your e-mail.

To:

marina.hyde@guardian.co.uk

Copied to the Editor:

alan.rusbridger@guardian.co.uk

Dear Marina Hyde,

The actor Charlie Sheen has gone public with his entirely rational distrust of a notoriously mendacious government. You respond by telling him that he's insane. The Guardian's readers will decide which of you is braver and better-informed.

In 2004, the Bush administration's hand-picked 9/11 Commission issued a grotesque official account that has been accurately described as "a whitewash", "a cheat", and "a fraud":

http://www.harpers.org/WhitewashAsPublicService.html

Your own faith in that account is apparently rock-solid, yet you do not condescend to tell us exactly what justifies it. Therefore, after 25 years as a Guardian reader, I shall not be buying your newspaper again.

In the fifth year of the oxymoronic War on Terror, George Bush and Tony Blair should finally be facing some serious questions about the uninvestigated crime that still serves them as an all-purpose casus belli. Now, courageously, the actor Charlie Sheen has raised some of those questions - and your casual contempt for his stance confirms the truth of Gore Vidal's assertion in the Observer: "'Conspiracy stuff' is now shorthand for unspeakable truth." Vidal wrote those words more than three years ago, and little has changed in the meantime. But if print journalism is to have any future at all, it will start to fulfil its function as a check on the powerful, rather than continuing to waste its readers' time with snide slanders and craven evasiveness.

Yours sincerely

[warszawa]

Erica Jong rawks! Wonderful to see her speaking out in a reasonable way, just like Sheen. See, this isn't about Hollywood or "entertainment" or "infotainment" -- people are HUNGRY for the media expose the truth behind 9/11. Americans are way ahead of the media on this, and the polls show this over and over.

"We need to change the language. We are all part of the "9-11 Truth Movement" the official version is the conspiracy theory."

The government are not only the conspiracy theorists, the are coincidence theorists (everything that points to their wrong doing is "coincidence")

We are not conspiracy theorists, we are conspiracy factualists. We are also 9/11 skeptics not conspiracy theorists.

Excellent letter to the Guardian, warszawa!

Andi,

You can couch the language any way that you want - the reality is that you folks are conspiracy dorks - of the same ilk that once believed that Y2K (remember that?) was going to be the end of the world.

The real question you have to ask yourself is this; if 9/11 WAS generated by an evil government, try and determine how many people would be involved to pull this off.

WTC-7 "Pull it."

Modern, steel-framed buildings do not fall because the over-insured shyster landlord speaks with a "fire chief." Firefighters do not demolish/implode buildings.

And if Sylverstein meant the firemen should leave the building (not that the fire dept would give a shit what Silverstein thought), he would have said, "pull out" or "pull back", not "pull it."

Silverstein was on a PBS documentary with a camera on him. He lied about how WTC-7 imploded, because the building was hundreds of feet from the towers & the "scattered fires on several floors" bullshit wasn't cutting it.

WTC-7 was pre-wired for a controlled demolition, and so were WTC-1 & WTC-2.

Admit it!!!

Charlie Sheen speaking out on the 9/11 cover-up is obviously good news. Lets just hope others follow suit. Wouldn't it be nice if someone like Tom Hanks spoke up? Who would dare attack Hanks?

The real question Flanstein has to ask himself is this; if 9/11 WAS generated by an evil Muslim conspiracy, try and determine how many people would be involved to pull this off.

Last I heard, the official account says nineteen hamfisted students managed it.

Attacking Sheen on a personal level in no way invalidates the fact that 9/11 was an inside job.

Here's my new addition to the conspiracy: On the Fox News site yesterday

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,189081,00.html

The Charlie Sheen story was finally published halfway down the page, with the headline "Not a 'Nutbag' ?"

What's INTERESTING is that his name is highlighted in red to indicate links, but "accidentally" the Ch in his name has not been included. Any clicks on the name will take you all over the internet on fruitless searches for "arlie Sheen". Anyone who reads the story on foxnews.com and follows the link will find NO clairification or other articles published anywhere.

Try clicking on Fidel Castro's name below it. That opens a page with links to other Fox News articles about Castro, as well as search engine results from Yahoo (at the bottom). It seems like Fox might not have wanted people to follow up on any of Arlie's claims or see a whole pile of search engine results with headlines that are more fair and balanced (for example, the headlines might mention 9/11 and not use the word "nutbag".)

Now combine this with information about Google initially self censoring themselves
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/230306googlecensoring.htm

It looks to me like some people in charge of mass information distribution (FOX News and Google, the world's biggest search engine) thought that this story might disappear if they kept it as quiet as possible for a few days.

Is the link mistake too coincidental to be an accident?

Something to ponder.

http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2001/s20010910-secdef.html

Some might ask, how in the world could the Secretary of Defense attack the Pentagon in front of its people? To them I reply, I have no desire to attack the Pentagon; I want to liberate it. We need to save it from itself.

-Donald Rumsfeld, 9/10/2001

DHS, that is a great quote. (Never heard it before.)

We know the adversary. We know the threat. And with the same firmness of purpose that any effort against a determined adversary demands, we must get at it and stay at it.

Some might ask, how in the world could the Secretary of Defense attack the Pentagon in front of its people? To them I reply, I have no desire to attack the Pentagon; I want to liberate it. We need to save it from itself.

The men and women of this department, civilian and military, are our allies, not our enemies. They too are fed up with bureaucracy, they too live with frustrations. I hear it every day. And I'll bet a dollar to a dime that they too want to fix it. In fact, I bet they even know how to fix it, and if asked, will get about the task of fixing it. And I'm asking.

I don't think he was talking about 9/11...

From the same, peculiarly knowing, speech:

"It's about respect for taxpayers' dollars. A cab driver in New York City ought to be able to feel confident that we care about those dollars."

Hmmm. Why not a plumber in Peoria?

- But this is relatively trivial.

I do think there is a big danger of the 9/11 truth movement getting too hung up on the slippery issue of controlled demolition. It could end up exploding in our faces. Michael Ruppert is absolutely right to insist that the focus should be on what can be proven - and it is easy to prove that Rumsfeld, Myers, Winfield, Cheney and Bush were NOT doing what they should have been doing on the morning of September 11th.

So let's forget any bombs, missiles or laser beams for the time being. Not HOW but WHO: that's surely where our energies should be directed.

How about WHO & HOW? NeoCons & Bombs.

It's kinda funny when you all have to depend on an actor instead of structural engineers. Same goes for Professor Jones and his group of unqualified scholars.

I posted elsewhere here that you are all playing right into the hands of the Right giving them a propaganda coup they've never had to date on this subject.

And CNN gets a ratings jump on its Hollywood entertainement show.

It's showbiz!

Doug, generalizations about Sheen being an actor mean nothing. Sheen & The Scholars deal in facts & details. Have any?

Doug Janes: "It's kinda funny when you all have to depend on an actor instead of structural engineers."

Notice that Bush Gang defenders like Mr. Jansen also prefer to concentrate on the unprovable controlled-demolition stuff. There's a lesson there.

Vesa, I'm familiar with most of the work done on WTC7, and some of it is very good work indeed. I'm not putting that work down or dismissing it. I'm saying that it's very important, five years after the fact, to set priorities, and to look at what will work - reasonably quickly now - and what won't. The fact is, you can present any amount of arguments about the "physical evidence" and the Bush Gang will come up with an army of salary-enslaved scientists who are prepared to dispute it in court. The US government has more money than any of us have, so it's clear who'll "win" that dispute in the end.

What cannot be disputed is that serious lies have been told by Rumsfeld, Rice, Myers, Cheney and others; so that's where any legal case has to begin. Once they've been nailed for those lies, we can start demanding answers about how it was all done.

For all you or I know, there may have been a suitcase nuke on every floor of those three WTC buildings. But try proving that before you have managed to get the culprits indicted for their demonstrable lies. You'll be arguing forever with people who say: "Yeah, it all looks very fishy, but what do I know? I'm not a structural engineer..." Meanwhile, those structural engineers (most of whom have families to support and mortgages to pay) will be taking very good care not to endanger their employment prospects by being unnecessarily outspoken. QED.

P.S Whether Mike Ruppert is tubby, bespectacled, or "an egomaniac" is entirely beside the point. I don't know anything about the private lives and peccadilloes of Stephen Jones or David Ray Griffin, nor do I want to or need to. The only question that matters is: What will work?

And to clarify one other point: I do not believe that the task is to get a particular bunch of Uniquely Bad Guys out of the White House, so that Hillary can take over and raise WalMart workers' wages by 1%. I believe that the task is to defeat capitalism before it succeeds in eating the planet.

"Evidence:
1) 7 World Trade Center collapse, Notice that the shed on the roof collapses before the roof does. This can only be the result of demolition..."

We don't need any more unsupported assertions and videos that don't prove anything, Mahattanite.

Either come up with some FACTS or don't bother spamming this board with the same old nonsense.

Hey, Flanstein, steering away from the physical evidence, how do you who still believe the gov't story feel about...

...the numerous money trails, and known financiers not even being sought by authorities?

...the BIZARRE claim by General Myers that the war games of 9/11 ENHANCED the military response?

I could go on, but here's a handy guide for you...

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/08/coincidence-theorists-guid...

Be sure to get back to us when you're done.

Anonymous, that is so lame.
You don't know me.

Your assertion that I didn't support my claim with evidence is blatantly untrue. It is clearly linked. Apparently you are incapable of evaluating (or finding) evidence on your own.

How come no one can offer another explanation for what the videos show?
The shed on the roof of WTC7 collapses before the roof.

Just sent the Sheen news to our german celebrity outlets.

PS: Charlie Sheen rocks!

http://www.moviehole.net/img/hotshotspartdeux.jpg

;)

"How come no one can offer another explanation for what the videos show?"

Manhattanite, videos only show the collapse. Videos do not explain the collapse. You'll have to learn some basic concepts of what constitutes evidence. You'll have to start acknowledging all the other evidence.

Then maybe you'll catch yourself before making such foolish statements again.

Alan wrote,

"Hey, Flanstein, steering away from the physical evidence, how do you who still believe the gov't story feel about..."

Why, are you afraid of the physical evidence?

The physical evidence trumps politics every time and 9/11 CT'ers have been conistently unable to prove a case against the physical evidence. Instead, they hide behind politics.

warszawa: on the other hand, if the collapse of the WTC buildings begins to be debated in court, that is a *lot* of publicity for our cause. Also, I don't think there is any way in which WTC 7 could be explained as a "natural" collapse. Don't forget that even the NIST lead investigator basically says in the New York Magazine article that they have no idea what caused the building to collapse...

In any case, I believe this needs to be pursued on a wide front, ie not narrow things down too much, although at the same time it is important to concentrate on the most important points.