Charlie Sheen's Video Message to President Obama

theboss80

King Mob wrote: »

Yes that's why I'm asking you to back up your points.

And did you actually read those links?
yes i did. did u read mine or watch them???

Except where I showed how your points are wrong.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62079250&postcount=75
[/quote]

so that says basically there were a few small fires in the building and thats why it just demolished itself?? hardly definative evidence considering the precise way it dropped and the huge number of architects ,engineers and demolition experts , not to mention senior fire men , who say it couldnt possible emplode like that from fires alone.

theboss80

and showing me my points were wrong by highlighting the word LIKE when referring to eye witness accounts freely broadcastedis again hardly providing strong basis for your "points"

King Mob

theboss80 wrote: »

so that says basically there were a few small fires in the building and thats why it just demolished itself?? hardly definative evidence considering the precise way it dropped and the huge number of architects ,engineers and demolition experts , not to mention senior fire men , who say it couldnt possible emplode like that from fires alone.

So then you haven't actually read the links.

It wasn't a small fire:
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html

And it wasn't because of fire alone either.
In case you missed it two rather large building collapsed right next to it.
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

And it wasn't precisely dropped by any measure.
See in this sequence of images that it falls at a tilt.
http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7f1.jpg
http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7f2.jpg
http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7f3.jpg

The reason it "imploded" was because the internal structure failed before the façade did.
You can see part of the penthouse disappear before the rest of the buidling collapse.
Before:
http://www.debunking911.com/7-1.jpg

After:
http://www.debunking911.com/7-2.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLHwvwJCmgk&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.debunking911.com%2Fpull.htm&feature=player_embedded

And if you actually compare the collapse to an actual demoliton you'll see key differences.
Most importantly the lack of explosives on every level going off in sequence starting from the bottom followed immediately by the collapse of the building.

So how exactly did they rig up the building for a demolition without anyone noticing? Or leaving any evidence?

theboss80

debunking
debunking
debunking
debunking

u sure ur not an admin for that site? haha.

ur "evidence" is as plausable as mine

However i only once replied with a link to a "truth" site the rest however are live recording from the day from people who were ACTUALLY there and know what they saw and heard rather than some people sitting at their comps trying 2 find ways to disprove people who were there rather than actually being there at the time themselves.

do you believe the full truth is known about what happened that day? u have zero suspicions whatsoever about any of it?

King Mob

theboss80 wrote: »

debunking
debunking
debunking
debunking

u sure ur not an admin for that site? haha.

ur "evidence" is as plausable as mine

Except mine is actually verifiable.
If I have claimed anything I haven't backed up point it out.
You keep making that claim but you haven't yet backed it up.

theboss80 wrote: »

However i only once replied with a link to a "truth" site the rest however are live recording from the day from people who were ACTUALLY there and know what they saw and heard rather than some people sitting at their comps trying 2 find ways to disprove people who were there rather than actually being there at the time themselves.

And for the fifth time witness reports are fallible and open to misinterpretation.
You have not provided anything to exclude the other possibilities I have suggested or have not provides any evidence that explosives were present.

theboss80 wrote: »

do you believe the full truth is known about what happened that day? u have zero suspicions whatsoever about any of it?

No not really.
Every single CT I've seen collapses under any scrutiny.

How about we just focus on WTC7 for now?

barochoc

King Mob wrote: »

Except mine is actually verifiable.
If I have claimed anything I haven't backed up point it out.
You keep making that claim but you haven't yet backed it up.

And for the fifth time witness reports are fallible and open to misinterpretation.
You have not provided anything to exclude the other possibilities I have suggested or have not provides any evidence that explosives were present.

No not really.
Every single CT I've seen collapses under any scrutiny.

How about we just focus on WTC7 for now?

How about you just turn off the light & spoon Bin Laden?

Seriously!

Are you for fooking real?

6th

barochoc wrote: »

How about you just turn off the light & spoon Bin Laden?

Seriously!

Are you for fooking real?

Banned for 1 week.

King Mob

barochoc wrote: »

How about you just turn off the light & spoon Bin Laden?

Seriously!

Are you for fooking real?

But I think he did it.
Why would I spoon him?

weiss

King Mob wrote:

What about it exactly?

You see this is the problem with the 9/11 conspiracies.
No matter what you prove wrong you always get "but what about this.....?"
You never see any verifiable evidence.

The problem is that people like you never accept ALL the evidence, just what you want to believe.

When I said you wanted everything "empirically verified" i was joking.

To refresh your mind on what i'm talking about, you don't know who financed the 9/11 attacks, correct?

I don't know either, but there were suspects never mentioned in the "official" 9/11 report.

When the chairman was asked why no explanation was given for who financed the attacks, he said it was of "little significance".

Pretty strange he would say that, wouldn't you think?
IMHO, it's pretty damn significant who financed the whole operation...

CNN reported in 2001 that a senior-level US government source claimed some of money for financing the attacks came from Saeed Sheikh.

Saeed is alleged to have wired $100,000 to Mohamed Atta, one considered to be the ringleader of the hijackers.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/05/inv.terror.investigation/

Ex-President of Pakistan Pervez Musharraf claimed in his 'In The Line Of Fire' book that Saeed Sheikh (british national) worked for the ISI (pakistani intelligence), that he was recruited by MI6 and probably working as a double agent.

Saeed is currently in jail awaiting juducial appeal of his 2002 death sentence for the kidnapping/torture and beheading of wall street journalist Daniel Pearl.

Incidentally, Pearl was in Pakistan investigating links between ISI and Al Aqaeda.

In November 2007, during an interview with David Frost from the BBC, Benazir Bhutto stated that Saeed Sheikh had killed Osama Bin Laden.

Benazir was assassinated not long after, so we don't know for sure if she made an error in her statement or if she actually believed/knew Saeed killed bin laden.

Of course, all of this is "insignificant" and debunkers like you would conveniently ignore it because it can't be scientifically proven

bonkey

weiss wrote: »

To refresh your mind on what i'm talking about, you don't know who financed the 9/11 attacks, correct?

I don't know either, but there were suspects never mentioned in the "official" 9/11 report.

When the chairman was asked why no explanation was given for who financed the attacks, he said it was of "little significance".

Pretty strange he would say that, wouldn't you think?

I don't think so at all...if he was speaking in his capacity of the chairman of the 911 Comission, given that the question of who financed the attacks fell outside the scope of what they were tasked to do.

One could argue that the scope they were tasked with was unusual, but that would be a seperate argument and one I'd be more than willing to discuss....but for a Comission to say that something which wasn't relevant to the scope of their task wasn't of any major significance isn't terribly unusual. Indeed, I'd be somewhat concerned if a taskforce started attachoing significance to anything and everything they felt like, ignoring what it was they were actually supposed to be doing.

Of course, all of this is "insignificant" and debunkers like you would conveniently ignore it because it can't be scientifically proven

Here's the interesting thing...

If you accept that line of funding, then you must also implicity accept the suggestion that what happened on that day was pretty-much exactly what the official report says...because the funding you refer to was the funding of 19 terrorists to hijack 4 planes, and fly them into major buldings.

Do you accept that this is what happened? Or is it a case that you put weight on the evidence of the funding, but don't believe the accounts of what it was that was funded?

weiss

The 9/11 commission was setup "to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11 attacks"

For many including myself, the report falls short of providing a conclusive explanation of events leading up to that day.

It is certainly not "full and complete" when it omits information on who financed the attacks.

Whether you feel it was outside the scope of commission duty, it is certainly not "insignificant" to the families and friends of those who died that day.

Imagine a homocide investigation where a wife hires a hitman to kill the husband so she can inherit his wealth.
The hitman is the murderer but of course the wife provides money and directly benefits from her husbands death, which is evidence to prove motive.

If the purpose of an investigation is to "prepare a full and complete account of circumstances surrounding" the murder, and the main detective states financing of the hitman is of "little significance"

Do you expect most intelligent people to agree with that statement? :rolleyes:

I'd assume because of national security, we're unlikely to find out anytime soon the "full and complete" story.

King Mob

So your reasoning just seems to be "I don't know the details of something therefore it must have been an inside job."

You don't have a clue at all where the money trail leads but your assuming with no evidence to back it up.

If it was an inside job why didn't they just fake a money trail to lead them to whoever they want?

Undergod

Why would an inside job need them to have controlled demolitions and all that jazz? As far as I'm concerned, the fall of the towers was caused by the planes. The evidence really seems to support it, the counter-evidence hasn't convinced me.

This does not mean it was not an inside job. An inside job could still involve flying planes into buildings.

Flamed Diving

@ Weiss:

Just to clarify, everyone who disagrees with you on any point is simply a gullible fool, right?

weiss

oh dear..:rolleyes:

i can say no more.

6th

Flamed Diving wrote: »

@ Weiss:

Just to clarify, everyone who disagrees with you on any point is simply a gullible fool, right?

weiss wrote: »

oh dear..:rolleyes:

i can say no more.

Ok any more of this and there will be long bans handed out.

Kernel

Undergod wrote: »

Why would an inside job need them to have controlled demolitions and all that jazz? As far as I'm concerned, the fall of the towers was caused by the planes. The evidence really seems to support it, the counter-evidence hasn't convinced me.

This does not mean it was not an inside job. An inside job could still involve flying planes into buildings.

I agree.

Flamed Diving

So, did this receive a mention in the regular media?

Saint Ruth

theboss80 wrote: »

do you believe the full truth is known about what happened that day? u have zero suspicions whatsoever about any of it?

I can't believe people believe this stuff.

The world is sloppy. So there are probably some unanswered questions about that day.

But that is irrelevant. The real question is:

Do you believe the US government would kill 3000 of its citizens and blow up its own military headquaters in order to do what exactly? Invade Afganistan! A worthless mountainous wasteland.

And then after going all that trouble to invade Afganistan, they didn't fake finding WMDs or Uranianium in Iraq? Considering the military were ruling the place, such fakery would have been simple and cost nothing. And yet they didn't do it.

You know, oscam's razor and all that.

weiss

Saint Ruth wrote:

Invade Afganistan! A worthless mountainous wasteland.

You are misinformed.

Saint Ruth

weiss wrote: »

You are misinformed.

How so?

weiss

if it was worthless, why would the americans spend so much time and money invading it? ..i'll answer that, Bin Laden -- but that's only a distraction from the primary motive.

Why would the russians have fought over it with the taliban during the 70's/80's?

Why would CIA have funded the taliban with $3 billion tax dollars to fight the russians?

It's important because it would allow america access to oil/gas in central asia which has traditionally been dominated by Russia.

Research information on "The new great game" which pretty much explains the main reason for wars in middle east and central asia.

Flamed Diving

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,548400,00.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/6177194/Charlie-Sheen-urges-Barack-Obama-to-reopen-911-investigation-in-video-message.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1212543/Charlie-Sheen-demands-speak-Barack-Obama-9-11-government-cover-up.html

Charlie Sheen and Pathetic Conspiracy Theorists
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,549904,00.html

Celeb heads... Only a proper Charlie demands to see the US President
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ian-odoherty/celeb-heads-only-a-proper-charlie-demands-to-see-the-us-president-1883975.html

Flamed Diving

weiss wrote: »

if it was worthless, why would the americans spend so much time and money invading it? ..i'll answer that, Bin Laden -- but that's only a distraction from the primary motive.

Why would the russians have fought over it with the taliban during the 70's/80's?

Why would CIA have funded the taliban with $3 billion tax dollars to fight the russians?

It's important because it would allow america access to oil/gas in central asia which has traditionally been dominated by Russia.

Research information on "The new great game" which pretty much explains the main reason for wars in middle east and central asia.

One book explains it all?

samson09

Saint Ruth wrote: »

I can't believe people believe this stuff.

The world is sloppy. So there are probably some unanswered questions about that day.

But that is irrelevant. The real question is:

Do you believe the US government would kill 3000 of its citizens and blow up its own military headquaters in order to do what exactly? Invade Afganistan! A worthless mountainous wasteland.

And then after going all that trouble to invade Afganistan, they didn't fake finding WMDs or Uranianium in Iraq? Considering the military were ruling the place, such fakery would have been simple and cost nothing. And yet they didn't do it.

You know, oscam's razor and all that.

To answer your question, yes.

Not just to invade Afghanistan. Or even Iraq. The main objective was to keep the people of America in a constant state of fear. It's all about control Ruth, when people are fearful for their lives they can easily be controlled and manipulated. Ever hear of the Patriot Act?

The good news is that the amount of people waking up and realising the truth is accelerating at an exponential rate, especially in the USA. The American public are realising that the mainstream media are nothing more than liars that peddle the misinformation of corrupt government and corporate officials.

This is what's happening in the real world:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8L9HqRYYV3c&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npxQOEFGkFQ&feature=related

weiss

The New Great Game is a term based on The Great Game which is used to describe the strategic rivalry and conflict between the British Empire and Russian Empire for supremecy in Central Asia.

Flamed Diving

weiss wrote: »

The New Great Game is a term based on The Great Game which is used to describe the strategic rivalry and conflict between the British Empire and Russian Empire for supremecy in Central Asia.

So, you're not referring to that book.

Nick_oliveri

Flamed Diving wrote: »

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,548400,00.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/6177194/Charlie-Sheen-urges-Barack-Obama-to-reopen-911-investigation-in-video-message.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1212543/Charlie-Sheen-demands-speak-Barack-Obama-9-11-government-cover-up.html

Charlie Sheen and Pathetic Conspiracy Theorists
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,549904,00.html

Celeb heads... Only a proper Charlie demands to see the US President
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ian-odoherty/celeb-heads-only-a-proper-charlie-demands-to-see-the-us-president-1883975.html

Haha, I like how you post the Titles of the scathing reports on the story.
I assume you have considered by now this is precisely the reaction that was expected. Either through hatred or consideration the video and its (stupid) letter accomplice have gone completely viral and once again the same carousel arguements are going around and the "conspiracy", even for a short time, is "renewed" - at least in some "larger circles".

The hatred I am seeing is laughable. Its even better when people try to gain the upper hand by bringing up his past -as if that is even necessary!
"Oh hes a D list actor, why should people listen to him" etc. Really?

I think the video itself is laughable. Message to the Prez? Or message for the publicity. Hook, line and sinker boys. Even faux are advertising prisonplanet ffs, in the article and in the O Reilly factor (yes, I watched that...).

I thought the most interesting thing was the responses on youtube, one was an earlier Jesse Ventura interview ( looks like demolition etc!). I missed that one.

Flamed Diving

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Haha, I like how you post the Titles of the scathing reports on the story.

I stopped reading here. I merely posted the titles that seemed most amusing to me. They were the 'opinion' pieces of the news sources, rather than the bread & butter reporting of the other links. I know you like to search for spurious reasoning for past events, and you struck gold again.

humanji

When you think about it, what do Sheen and Jones expect to happen? I mean, I see 4 possible outcomes:

1) Obama admits that the US government were behind it. This will pretty much destroy America.

2) Obama will tell people that it was Bush and Co who were behind it. The Republican party are pretty much destroyed since nobody would want to have anything to do with them. They're left with one party in the US. Congrats Jones. That New World Order you've been harping on about is that little bit closer.

3) Obama investigate fully and still finds that Osama is behind it. No conspiracy theorist will accept that.

4) Obama will ignore them.

Am I missing something here?

Flamed Diving

humanji wrote: »

When you think about it, what do Sheen and Jones expect to happen? I mean, I see 4 possible outcomes:

1) Obama admits that the US government were behind it. This will pretty much destroy America.

2) Obama will tell people that it was Bush and Co who were behind it. The Republican party are pretty much destroyed since nobody would want to have anything to do with them. They're left with one party in the US. Congrats Jones. That New World Order you've been harping on about is that little bit closer.

3) Obama investigate fully and still finds that Osama is behind it. No conspiracy theorist will accept that.

4) Obama will ignore them.

Am I missing something here?

They want 3 or 4. Because 1 or 2 would result in their own demise. Alex Jones would lose his livelihood.

Nick_oliveri

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I stopped reading here. I merely posted the titles that seemed most amusing to me. They were the 'opinion' pieces of the news sources, rather than the bread & butter reporting of the other links. I know you like to search for spurious reasoning for past events, and you struck gold again.

What? care to back that up? If you did read what I posted, you would see that it was critical of the need to attack Sheen given the content and context of the video. Like it wasn't necessary to do so. But maybe your right, maybe your selective reading will give comfort to your retinas and not take those precious minutes from your life reading garbage from a misinformed idiot with "spurious reasoning".

humanji wrote: »

Am I missing something here?

Yes, publicity.

Saint Ruth

weiss wrote: »

if it was worthless, why would the americans spend so much time and money invading it? ..i'll answer that, Bin Laden -- but that's only a distraction from the primary motive.

Why would the russians have fought over it with the taliban during the 70's/80's?

For the same reason that the US didn't want commies in Cuba/Central America. I can't honestly think of any other reason.

weiss wrote: »

Why would CIA have funded the taliban with $3 billion tax dollars to fight the russians?

Eh, because Regan hated Commies and it was the Cold War?

weiss wrote: »

It's important because it would allow america access to oil/gas in central asia which has traditionally been dominated by Russia.

Research information on "The new great game" which pretty much explains the main reason for wars in middle east and central asia.

And those countries are still dominated by Russia.

Killing 3000 of your own citizens to build a pipeline through one of the most lawless states on earth?

And that still doesn't answer my question. Why go to all that trouble to capture a country (for nothing more than a pipeline) and don't plant WMDs in Iraq (a country that HAS oil and oil that is easily accessible)?

Saint Ruth

samson09 wrote: »

To answer your question, yes.

Not just to invade Afghanistan. Or even Iraq. The main objective was to keep the people of America in a constant state of fear. It's all about control Ruth, when people are fearful for their lives they can easily be controlled and manipulated. Ever hear of the Patriot Act?

Well, that's a better reason than a pipeline.

But that means that Obama is in on it.

Kernel

Saint Ruth wrote: »

Well, that's a better reason than a pipeline.

But that means that Obama is in on it.

Of course he is.

Flamed Diving

Kernel wrote: »

Of course he is.

Obviously.

indough

isnt everybody?

Flamed Diving

indough wrote: »

isnt everybody?

By taking part in capitalist society, everybody is complicit.

Captain Furball

Mahatma coat

on the topic of financing,

the evidence points at the house of Saud for the main finance agents
the Saudis and the bush dynasty are very close allies

make what ye will of that.

Flamed Diving

Mahatma coat wrote: »

on the topic of financing,

the evidence points at the house of Saud for the main finance agents
the Saudis and the bush dynasty are very close allies

make what ye will of that.

In that the attack had something to do with elements of the Saudi royal family and not some mountain-dwellers in Central Asia?

I would go with that. But it would more likely be elements working against both the current king and the US government, as opposed to with them.

indough

Mahatma coat wrote: »

on the topic of financing,

the evidence points at the house of Saud for the main finance agents
the Saudis and the bush dynasty are very close allies

make what ye will of that.

allies often stab each other in the back in spectacular ways

Captain Furball

The best way to control the opposition is to lead them yourself.

indough

well the best way is to kill them all really

Captain Furball

lol probably but that would cost a fortune haha

Black Uhlan

Captain Furball wrote: »

The best way to control the opposition is to lead them yourself.

I agree. Alex Jones falls into that category.

Charlie Sheen looks like a shill to me. He is represented by Ari Emanuel - Rahm Emanuels brother President Obama's Chief of Staff. Maybe it shouldn't be so hard to get that interview afterall, It is what is behind the bull**** that intrigues me.

Charlie Sheen is one of the highest paid actors in Hollywood today, 2½ Men is on about 4 times a day over here. His first outburst came in 05'. There is no way if it wasn't a setup that he would still be employed today.

samson09

Black Uhlan wrote: »

I agree. Alex Jones falls into that category.

Charlie Sheen looks like a shill to me. He is represented by Ari Emanuel - Rahm Emanuels brother President Obama's Chief of Staff. Maybe it shouldn't be so hard to get that interview afterall, It is what is behind the bull**** that intrigues me.

Charlie Sheen is one of the highest paid actors in Hollywood today, 2½ Men is on about 4 times a day over here. His first outburst came in 05'. There is no way if it wasn't a setup that he would still be employed today.

I disagree. In my opinion, Glenn Beck is the man to watch. Do people seriously think that a Rupert Murdoch owned news channel would allow him to do what he's doing unless they had a hidden agenda?

I can't see anything that Jones or Sheen has done that would suggest they are batting for team NWO. But then again who knows, nothing would surprise me at this stage.

ynotdu

Captain Furball wrote: »

Ten pages on and still Captain Furballs video has not been properly adressed!
Dont people realise that Charlie Sheenes DA was president for eight Years?
President Bartlet would have shut everybody up with facts on this thread if he was a boardsie:rolleyes:

just like Bush jnr tried to shut up his DA's enemys!

NOT to smell a rat about many aspects of 9/11 would IMO be naive!

Black Uhlan

samson09 wrote: »

I disagree. In my opinion, Glenn Beck is the man to watch. Do people seriously think that a Rupert Murdoch owned news channel would allow him to do what he's doing unless they had a hidden agenda?

I can't see anything that Jones or Sheen has done that would suggest they are batting for team NWO. But then again who knows, nothing would surprise me at this stage.

I hope I am wrong, and if I am Sheen is a hero. It all just seems a little bit smoke and mirrors for me. Sheen, like Rosie O'Donnell is personally flawed and it is easy for the media to ridicule anything they say by attacking them personally without actually addressing what they say. Jones if nothing else is a publicity whore for this stunt at best I would say. He intentionally discredited his followers/subscribers with the fake interview, the censored their comments when they didn't like it.

Penn

I never found the issue to be Charlie Sheens personal life. My issue with the video is that Obama was never going to agree to an interview. Why would he?

Firstly, Obama wasn't President at the time.

Secondly, Obama is President now, so I'm sure he has better things to do than discuss something which happened 8 years ago with a sitcom actor.

Thirdly, in the fake interview that Sheen wrote, he makes the President seem foolish by having him not even try to answer any of the questions and appear to be dismissive (as Sheen originally asked for 30 minutes but was only allowed 20 minutes)

Finally, if a real interview were to take place, it would be a pure attack on the President and make him look weak, purely because Sheen would have the advantage in asking the questions. Sheen would have his 'impressive files and data' and would ask the questions. The President would either have to try and answer off the top of his head, even though he was not involved in the investigation, or he would have his own folders in front of him and would have to try and find the answers and would pretty much just end up reciting the NIST report anyway. Or he could be fed answers through an earpiece, which would also make him look weak and is something Alex Jones would rip him to shreds on.


An interview was never going to happen. Anybody can see that. So Charlie Sheen making up his own interview and making this video pleading for an interview is nothing more than blatent attention seeking in my opinion