You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
actor Charlie Sheen questions '9/11'
- Thread starter duendy
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
a possible motive for the collapse of wtc 7?
► "Aimed at the world's financial heart, the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks were designed to throw capitalism into chaos. In one respect they succeeded: Millions of crucial documents were vaporized in the tragedy, and the process of sorting the losses out has been difficult and has included charges of opportunism.
A Citigroup lawyer, for instance, recently told a congressional committee looking into the bank's role in the WorldCom mess that she couldn't provide them with all the information they sought because some of it was destroyed in the attack on the World Trade Center.
"Some further email records the committee has requested cannot be retrieved," wrote Citigroup Deputy General Counsel Jane Sherburne in an Aug. 7 letter to House Committee on Financial Services. "The backup tapes for external emails from September 1998 through December 2000, and for a short time period in September 2001, were lost when the building in which they were stored (7 World Trade Center) was destroyed in the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001."
Maybe no financial institution lost more critical documents than the Securities and Exchange Commission, which had its New York regional office at 7 World Trade Center. While the regulatory agency was fortunate in that it lost no employees in the terror attacks, it suffered setbacks in a number of long-running securities investigations.
In August, defense lawyers for several former executives of Rite Aid, who've been charged by the SEC with fraud and obstruction of justice, filed a motion seeking a delay in the trial, claiming some of the documents gathered by the SEC had been lost in the attack. SEC attorneys contend many of the original copies of those documents still exist at other locations but acknowledge it will take time to reconstruct all the evidence in the case.
The SEC says the main problem it encountered was that an index for the documents in the Rite Aid case was destroyed in the attack -- not necessarily the documents themselves.
A similar reconstruction of evidence had to take place in a decade-old insider trading case against several former executives of Motel 6, a chain of low-cost motels. The SEC settled the case against the remaining defendants in June. But before that could occur, it had to obtain a court order directing the lawyers for some of the defendants to assist the SEC in reconstructing files "that were destroyed due to the events of Sept. 11, 2001."
In the Motel 6 case, the four remaining defendants, without admitting or denying the insider-trading charges, entered into a settlement with the SEC in which they agreed to pay fines and penalties totaling $798,000. In all, the 10-year case netted $6.36 million in fines, penalties and disgorged profits for the SEC.
SEC officials won't discuss how many cases may have been impacted by the terror attacks, but they claim the lost information was limited to two weeks' worth of data stored on the agency's computers that hadn't yet been backed up.
But it's clear from talking to securities lawyers who practice before the SEC that things haven't gone as smoothly as the agency would like the public to believe.
"Regardless of what the regulators say, they lost a ton of files," says Bill Singer, a New York securities lawyer, who says one case he had pending before the SEC quickly settled because so many of the original documents were destroyed. "In my opinion it was a wholesale loss of documents." -TheStreet.com (9/09/02)
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/wtc7/collapse.html
► "Aimed at the world's financial heart, the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks were designed to throw capitalism into chaos. In one respect they succeeded: Millions of crucial documents were vaporized in the tragedy, and the process of sorting the losses out has been difficult and has included charges of opportunism.
A Citigroup lawyer, for instance, recently told a congressional committee looking into the bank's role in the WorldCom mess that she couldn't provide them with all the information they sought because some of it was destroyed in the attack on the World Trade Center.
"Some further email records the committee has requested cannot be retrieved," wrote Citigroup Deputy General Counsel Jane Sherburne in an Aug. 7 letter to House Committee on Financial Services. "The backup tapes for external emails from September 1998 through December 2000, and for a short time period in September 2001, were lost when the building in which they were stored (7 World Trade Center) was destroyed in the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001."
Maybe no financial institution lost more critical documents than the Securities and Exchange Commission, which had its New York regional office at 7 World Trade Center. While the regulatory agency was fortunate in that it lost no employees in the terror attacks, it suffered setbacks in a number of long-running securities investigations.
In August, defense lawyers for several former executives of Rite Aid, who've been charged by the SEC with fraud and obstruction of justice, filed a motion seeking a delay in the trial, claiming some of the documents gathered by the SEC had been lost in the attack. SEC attorneys contend many of the original copies of those documents still exist at other locations but acknowledge it will take time to reconstruct all the evidence in the case.
The SEC says the main problem it encountered was that an index for the documents in the Rite Aid case was destroyed in the attack -- not necessarily the documents themselves.
A similar reconstruction of evidence had to take place in a decade-old insider trading case against several former executives of Motel 6, a chain of low-cost motels. The SEC settled the case against the remaining defendants in June. But before that could occur, it had to obtain a court order directing the lawyers for some of the defendants to assist the SEC in reconstructing files "that were destroyed due to the events of Sept. 11, 2001."
In the Motel 6 case, the four remaining defendants, without admitting or denying the insider-trading charges, entered into a settlement with the SEC in which they agreed to pay fines and penalties totaling $798,000. In all, the 10-year case netted $6.36 million in fines, penalties and disgorged profits for the SEC.
SEC officials won't discuss how many cases may have been impacted by the terror attacks, but they claim the lost information was limited to two weeks' worth of data stored on the agency's computers that hadn't yet been backed up.
But it's clear from talking to securities lawyers who practice before the SEC that things haven't gone as smoothly as the agency would like the public to believe.
"Regardless of what the regulators say, they lost a ton of files," says Bill Singer, a New York securities lawyer, who says one case he had pending before the SEC quickly settled because so many of the original documents were destroyed. "In my opinion it was a wholesale loss of documents." -TheStreet.com (9/09/02)
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/wtc7/collapse.html
leopold99 said:because i haven't read or seen any reports that say there were
First page I googled:
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/nodebris.html
You must have looked very hard.
That was interesting, Leo, I don't recall having heard about that before - thank you.
As I was reading through it, the thought occured to me that it contains all the elements for yet another conspiracy theory to be developed. Some very wealthy individuals who were under investigation by the SEC paid to have 9/11 pulled off in order to destroy evidence against them that was being held by the SEC in their offices.
Have no fear, if the conspiracy buffs can conjure up just a very few facts they will quickly manufacture the rest needed in order to make another juicy story out of it.
As I was reading through it, the thought occured to me that it contains all the elements for yet another conspiracy theory to be developed. Some very wealthy individuals who were under investigation by the SEC paid to have 9/11 pulled off in order to destroy evidence against them that was being held by the SEC in their offices.
Have no fear, if the conspiracy buffs can conjure up just a very few facts they will quickly manufacture the rest needed in order to make another juicy story out of it.
from the site:spuriousmonkey said:First page I googled:
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/nodebris.html
You must have looked very hard.
This piece has been the subject of much interest because it appears to match an American Airlines 757 but its evident lack or abrasion or shearing damage, and its position relative to the attack plane's flightpath are difficult to explain within the confines of the official account of Flight 77's crash
the above quote was about a piece of the fuselage
so the only piece of the plane that can be identified and explainable is a wheel hub?
still no engines, no seats, no luggage
in the wtc 1 and 2 crashes there were seats from the planes with torsos still strapped in found in the lobby
Now, leopold, you start showing science of conspiracy theorisminitis. You ask for debris. You got debris. Now you want more debris.
Sad.
Sad.
if that was the case then i would join with the others in saying wtc 1 and 2 were brought down by explosives that were planted in themspuriousmonkey said:Now, leopold, you start showing science of conspiracy theorisminitis.
even you must agree that one lousy wheel hub does not explain anything
for SIMPLICITIES sake. can we not focus for NOW on the World Trade Centres and how they came down-----and the possiblye reasons why an empire-building administration might be party to such a staged atrocity(notice not one of you will help cut and paste an article which inspired tis thred to here. any reason? do you want paying?
my second post on this page is cut and pasted from the referenced siteduendy said:(notice not one of you will help cut and paste an article which inspired tis thred to here. any reason? do you want paying?
No it's not te onei mean. i you o here www.propagandamatrix.com on the right , a bit further down you will see this link headed: 'Mainstream Media Blackout on Sheen 9/11 Piece' can you please cut and pste that to here? thanksleopold99 said:my second post on this page is cut and pasted from the referenced site
Despite a huge reaction amongst the alternative media to Charlie Sheen's comments on 9/11, in part thanks to a brief link on the Drudge Report which was mysteriously pulled after a few hours, newswires and entertainment outlets have actively sought to impose a blackout on the story.
In our first conversation with the Associated Press they strongly indicated that they would be running a story on Sheen's comments, as they did with Carlos Santana's much weaker comments about the Iraq war. However, after talking with Jeff Williams of the LA Associated Press office it became clear what the policy was.
Williams' attitude was brash and arrogant in saying (to paraphrase), 'I know all about Charlie Sheen and I don't care what he says.'
Asked if the story was newsworthy in comparison with the milquetoast Santana piece, Williams responded by saying 'we're not going to run anything.'
Asked again if the story would be newsworthy if it wasn't attached to the 9/11 information and was just Sheen criticizing Bush, Williams barked 'you're not gonna bait me!' and slammed the phone down.
Further attempts to contact the Associated Press were met with stern rebuttals of 'we're not talking to you'.
Subsequently we contacted the Hollywood Reporter and spoke to a polite individual who said that he did consider the Sheen story to be newsworthy and that he had flagged it up for a potential piece, but that he was later told by someone in a higher office that there was to be no story and it seemed unusual.
We then contacted another major newswire who indicated that they had seen the story but under no circumstances were they touching it.
Does this represent simple journalistic cowardice or should we pay attention to the fact that the government has been caught time and time again paying off reporters to produce fake news and the Church Hearings of the 70's which concluded that the CIA has fully infiltrated newspapers and newswires with their agents across the country?
The mainstream media pour over stories about every detail of Mr. Sheen's personal life whether real or manufactured yet will they remain silent when Sheen actually discusses something serious?
George Bush can be an admitted narcotics user, have DWI's, frolic around with homosexual porn star Jeff Gannon, scream at staffers and have fits of anger, lie naked in a coffin and masturbate as part of his skull and bones ritual, and engage in mock human sacrifice at Bohemian Grove, a place where gay male porn stars are bused in to 'service' the members', and yet we are attacked by hypocritical phony Christians by even having Mr. Sheen as a guest on the show.
Again, Carlos Santana is all over the news today for criticizing George Bush and the Iraq war yet Charlie Sheen has gone much further, if the media ignores this story it is proof positive of a cover-up.
If Sheen had gone way overboard on 9/11 or used a limited hangout in saying that the attack was a result of incompetence the media would have been all over it. It is precisely because Sheen is dead on target with the facts that they have to ignore the story because his argument is credible.
Reaction from delusional Neo-Cons, a dwindling rabble of ignorant government apologists, has been predictable. The sum of counter-arguments against the evidence carefully presented by Sheen amounts to comments like "Sheen is an idiot," or the following comment which we received via e mail.
"Since Charlie Sheen has been dead for twenty years don't know how you got him to comment on 9/11. Maybe you should have contacted Elvis, he is living in inner city Detroit running a rescue mission with Adolph. They are also writing a book on how the South won the war. What the hell are you democrats going to come up with next? Do you all have day jobs?"
So the best they can come up with is saying Charlie Sheen's comments are not credible because he doesn't exist! This is the most bizarre conspiracy theory of them all and yet it is this insane level of idiocy that constitutes a minority of the response we received. Most comments were supportive of Mr. Sheen and his brave action in going public with his stance.
Sheen initially came forward because he was concerned about where America is heading as a country. He is the first from his industry to go public and his couragerousness should be saluted. Alex Jones has spoken privately with other Hollywood figures that are educated on 9/11 yet do not wish to step into the limelight and risk being attacked. Sheen took the risk and the reaction has been mute because he was very careful about his research before speaking out. This should be seen as a victory. The media cannot spin Sheen's comments because they are dead on target and leave no room to be taken out of context.
We will not cease in our efforts to turn this into a massive story but we need your support. Get the story and e mail it out to every newspaper, newswire and TV news station in existence.
The media's unwillingness to cover this issue only deepens the abyss that they find themselves in. We are not whining because the media won't give us or Sheen any attention, we don't even need the mainstream anymore to reach people, we can do it ourselves. But their reaction speaks volumes about how they are conditioned and in many cases ordered to shy away from these kind of stories.
Newspaper readership and TV news viewership is plummeting as people flock to the alternative media because the mainstream's credibility lies in tatters as it repeatedly lies by omission and covers-up for its government handlers.
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/march2006/220306mediablackout.htm
In our first conversation with the Associated Press they strongly indicated that they would be running a story on Sheen's comments, as they did with Carlos Santana's much weaker comments about the Iraq war. However, after talking with Jeff Williams of the LA Associated Press office it became clear what the policy was.
Williams' attitude was brash and arrogant in saying (to paraphrase), 'I know all about Charlie Sheen and I don't care what he says.'
Asked if the story was newsworthy in comparison with the milquetoast Santana piece, Williams responded by saying 'we're not going to run anything.'
Asked again if the story would be newsworthy if it wasn't attached to the 9/11 information and was just Sheen criticizing Bush, Williams barked 'you're not gonna bait me!' and slammed the phone down.
Further attempts to contact the Associated Press were met with stern rebuttals of 'we're not talking to you'.
Subsequently we contacted the Hollywood Reporter and spoke to a polite individual who said that he did consider the Sheen story to be newsworthy and that he had flagged it up for a potential piece, but that he was later told by someone in a higher office that there was to be no story and it seemed unusual.
We then contacted another major newswire who indicated that they had seen the story but under no circumstances were they touching it.
Does this represent simple journalistic cowardice or should we pay attention to the fact that the government has been caught time and time again paying off reporters to produce fake news and the Church Hearings of the 70's which concluded that the CIA has fully infiltrated newspapers and newswires with their agents across the country?
The mainstream media pour over stories about every detail of Mr. Sheen's personal life whether real or manufactured yet will they remain silent when Sheen actually discusses something serious?
George Bush can be an admitted narcotics user, have DWI's, frolic around with homosexual porn star Jeff Gannon, scream at staffers and have fits of anger, lie naked in a coffin and masturbate as part of his skull and bones ritual, and engage in mock human sacrifice at Bohemian Grove, a place where gay male porn stars are bused in to 'service' the members', and yet we are attacked by hypocritical phony Christians by even having Mr. Sheen as a guest on the show.
Again, Carlos Santana is all over the news today for criticizing George Bush and the Iraq war yet Charlie Sheen has gone much further, if the media ignores this story it is proof positive of a cover-up.
If Sheen had gone way overboard on 9/11 or used a limited hangout in saying that the attack was a result of incompetence the media would have been all over it. It is precisely because Sheen is dead on target with the facts that they have to ignore the story because his argument is credible.
Reaction from delusional Neo-Cons, a dwindling rabble of ignorant government apologists, has been predictable. The sum of counter-arguments against the evidence carefully presented by Sheen amounts to comments like "Sheen is an idiot," or the following comment which we received via e mail.
"Since Charlie Sheen has been dead for twenty years don't know how you got him to comment on 9/11. Maybe you should have contacted Elvis, he is living in inner city Detroit running a rescue mission with Adolph. They are also writing a book on how the South won the war. What the hell are you democrats going to come up with next? Do you all have day jobs?"
So the best they can come up with is saying Charlie Sheen's comments are not credible because he doesn't exist! This is the most bizarre conspiracy theory of them all and yet it is this insane level of idiocy that constitutes a minority of the response we received. Most comments were supportive of Mr. Sheen and his brave action in going public with his stance.
Sheen initially came forward because he was concerned about where America is heading as a country. He is the first from his industry to go public and his couragerousness should be saluted. Alex Jones has spoken privately with other Hollywood figures that are educated on 9/11 yet do not wish to step into the limelight and risk being attacked. Sheen took the risk and the reaction has been mute because he was very careful about his research before speaking out. This should be seen as a victory. The media cannot spin Sheen's comments because they are dead on target and leave no room to be taken out of context.
We will not cease in our efforts to turn this into a massive story but we need your support. Get the story and e mail it out to every newspaper, newswire and TV news station in existence.
The media's unwillingness to cover this issue only deepens the abyss that they find themselves in. We are not whining because the media won't give us or Sheen any attention, we don't even need the mainstream anymore to reach people, we can do it ourselves. But their reaction speaks volumes about how they are conditioned and in many cases ordered to shy away from these kind of stories.
Newspaper readership and TV news viewership is plummeting as people flock to the alternative media because the mainstream's credibility lies in tatters as it repeatedly lies by omission and covers-up for its government handlers.
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/march2006/220306mediablackout.htm
yeah, leopold99, great-----thanksleopold99 said:is that what you wanted duendy?
now in that artice--te link 'Get the Story'--is where you'll will find prominent spokespersons who ALSo question 9/11. this is what i am pointing to. WHY WOULD they? /....ie., for those here who look down on actors, for some reason...? well HOW do you feel about tese prsonalities saying sae thing, an in more depth? please explain?i am not saying we must believe them beCAUSE they had/have prominent roles in society. i am questioning YOUR judgment--tat when Charlie Sheen was mentioned you try and ridicule his insights about 9/11. well what about these peopl----of course you MUS research what i mean....just look for te link 'get the story' in the above link is all
surely i never implied you did....? from where i am standing, you seem to be an openminded explorer of this serious issue.....leopold99 said:i never, to the best of my knowledge, ridiculed sheen
i have questions about 9/11 like everyone else
but instead of jumping on the nearest bandwagon i choose to be open minded about it
I've never ridiculed Sheen either. The man is rather well known because he's an actor. He gets a degree of attention because he's an actor - just like all the other movie stars and entertainers.leopold99 said:i never, to the best of my knowledge, ridiculed sheen
i have questions about 9/11 like everyone else
but instead of jumping on the nearest bandwagon i choose to be open minded about it
But what special connections does he have that everyone else doesn't? Why would he know any more about it than Clooney (or the rest of them)? Is it because his dad plays the president every week on a TV show (West Wing)? And Martin gave him some inside scoop?
I can't see why we should take his comments and ideas any more seriously than anyone else in Hollywood.
it would save trouble if you could possibly read preceeding posts of any thread, mr light. forexample go above--4posts. and repond to that question i asked?.Light said:I've never ridiculed Sheen either. The man is rather well known because he's an actor. He gets a degree of attention because he's an actor - just like all the other movie stars and entertainers.
But what special connections does he have that everyone else doesn't? Why would he know any more about it than Clooney (or the rest of them)? Is it because his dad plays the president every week on a TV show (West Wing)? And Martin gave him some inside scoop?
I can't see why we should take his comments and ideas any more seriously than anyone else in Hollywood.
I take that to mean that you're refering to this list of people from the original Sheen article:duendy said:it would save trouble if you could possibly read preceeding posts of any thread, mr light. forexample go above--4posts. and repond to that question i asked?.
"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."
I don't know their qualifications any more than I do Sheen's. A CIA analyst can be a guy who reads reports and compiles the interesting parts into a short synopsis. And having been Assistant Sec. of Treasury doesn't necessarily indicate any more credentials beyond being a politician. The physics professor would seem qualified to judge some aspects of it. The rest don't seem to be anything special, at least from the little information stated here. Mostly just more professional politicians - and that certainly doesn't qualify them as having any special abilities science-wise.
Seriously - I think the only reason Sheen got any attention is because as a celebrity he has the opportunity to talk publicly. Like all entertainers.
Light said:I take that to mean that you're refering to this list of people from the original Sheen article:
"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."
I don't know their qualifications any more than I do Sheen's. A CIA analyst can be a guy who reads reports and compiles the interesting parts into a short synopsis. And having been Assistant Sec. of Treasury doesn't necessarily indicate any more credentials beyond being a politician. The physics professor would seem qualified to judge some aspects of it. The rest don't seem to be anything special, at least from the little information stated here. Mostly just more professional politicians - and that certainly doesn't qualify them as having any special abilities science-wise.
Seriously - I think the only reason Sheen got any attention is because as a celebrity he has the opportunity to talk publicly. Like all entertainers.
yet YOU believe YOU are qualified enough to question their opinions, yes? as well as the whole 9/11 event??
- Status
- Not open for further replies.