Charlie Sheen Questions 911 official story

The only thing better - actually worse - would have been calling on the academic elite of Berkley or some other bastion of liberal conspiracy thinking.

 

Who is Charlie Sheen, and why is what he says significant? If it is some kind of actor, I watch very little TV or movies, sometimes the history or discovery channel.

 

He's an actor, and a fairly marginal one at that. His father is another actor, Martin Sheen, who until quite recently played the President on a show called "The West Wing."

Like all actors, his opinion is worth a palmful of warm spit. And like all actors, this does not dissuade him in the least.

 

AAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

 

Please, poncho, esxplain to me why on God's green earth should the fact that some mouth-breather can marginally emote and occasionally memorize lines qualify said goober to be more conversant on a subject than another?

He's an actor. This makes him almost as important as the guy who drops fries at McDonald's.

 

I hear he graduated high school.

 

All emotion and no real facts again, figures. </font>[/QUOTE]Roll your eyes at someone who cares, ponch. I want evidence that Sheen is worth listening to about anything. You have none.

 

His daddy probably had to pull some strings, though...

 

For the sake of argument. Let's suppose, just suppose that Sheen's questions are valid.

What if it were not Afghanistanian terrorists that destroyed those towers? What if explosives were placed in the towers to bring them down as claimed?

What does that do to the whole 911 incident?

 

I know I always check to see what celebrities have to say before I look elsewhere to get my opinions.Yes I would say hollywood is where christians need to go to get sound information.

 

What was the bright flash just before the planes hit the towers? It could not have been a reflection of the sun. The sun waa on the other side of the towers.

What was the plane carrying under it?

If it was indeed some kind of military plane as many suggest, where are all the passengers of those planes that are missing?

So many questions...

 

How about that? so the sun on the other side of the tower can't reflect off of a surface tilted at a different angle than the towers?

Please.

And I suggest watching TLC/Discovery/NGC, because there have been a series of extensive reports done on exactly how and why the towers failed. Jet fuel, you see, dear chilren, burns. Yes, that's right, it burns and when things burn they get hot. Yes, and when they get hot they can't do what they used to do and they fail.

And the goo-gosh about military planes and missing people? Honestly.

Hey, I'm going to put together a movie claiming that Krispy Kreme jelly doughnuts are actually alien transmitters which the Government uses to track our bathroom habits. Think Charlie Sheen will talk about that one? I mean, it's as believable as all of this garbage about government planes and cruise missiles and explosives and phontom flashes and such.

 

Yes, I often fine myself wndering, "What would Oprah do?"

 

I know what you mean.

 

Also, it's important to remember that the jet fuel did not have to burn the buildings down; it only had to weaken the structural integrity to the point that the building could no longer remain erect.

 

Which is why the second building hit was first to fall. It had been hit at a lower level, thus the weight of the floors above caused its failure sooner.

 

Good comments, Poncho!

Of course he's "telling" a story whether it's by questions or statements. His message is that the truth of what happened is being hidden for us by some kind of conspiracy. The goal is to make people believe someone other than the terrorists, and their supporters, are responsible for what happened. That's a dangerous and destructive goal! It is plainly obvious what happened as witnessed and experienced by many people. There's no useful purpose to be gained by creating doubt in people's minds at the very time we need to be united in our determination to rid ourselves of the threat before us.

You know better than that! Questioning the government isn't a liberal or conservative trait. I think it's good to question what our government does and to hold them accountable for what they do. I do that and I'm certainly not a liberal. What's great about this is that we're free to do this without fear of reprisal. But those questions should be legitimate and based upon reason and handled in a way that is productive.

I don't believe you, Poncho, are a liberal but I do believe Charlie Sheen is absolutely a liberal just like his father. Maybe that's a generic label misused at times just like many others used here and elsewhere. I doubt many people are 100% liberal or conservative. I do, however, find a whole lot of entertainment celebrities to be true liberals. I think they have too much money, too much time, and live in world of fantasy acting out life in their work as they believe it should be. Capitalism is good to them because, obviously, they do offer a product people are willing to buy even I don't understand why! I don't have much, if any, regard for their points of view on political matters. Charlie Sheen, Martin Sheen, etc. are people I don't consider worth listening to about anything with respect to politics.

There are two ways to answer this statement. First, I don't think, in this matter, there's any conflict between one's oath to protect and defend the constitution and any of the actions taken. I believe everything that happened is clear and our response to it fully justified.

Second, I think if a person is truly faced with such an option they do have to make a choice and they bear the burden of that choice so they need to be real sure about it. I can equate this to the dilemma faced by a solider who decides to disobey an unlawful order. Such a solider is justified in doing so but had better be real certain about their grounds and be prepared to defend their choice. The burden of proof will be upon them. The same is true, in a somewhat different venue, for any citizen faced with following the law or disregarding their inherent rights.

Our system is designed such that under normal conditions we entrust some people to make decisions on behalf of all of us about what to do and others are expected to follow those decisions. In the example of soldiers, officers are commissioned to represent the authority of the President through their superiors and subordinates are expected to obey all lawful orders. That's also part of the oath taken by all soldiers. In our general society, the checks and balances are several including the judicial branch and the power of the citizens through the ballot box and the right to petition. However, everyone can not everyday challenge every decision just because they've determined by their own criteria something isn't constitutional. If they do they've got to prove their point or suffer the consequences of making the wrong decision. That's also a necessary element of the system else there would be no order and chaos would rule since no one would follow any directions, orders, rules, or laws.