Charlie Sheen and 9/11

D

dhess31

Guest
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/200306charliesheen.htm

Don
 

Cyre2067

The Living Force
Took about 3-4 years for JFK to get some attention, bout time 9-11 is too. Noticing the same trend among my friends - they're starting to wake up.
 

Renaissance

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
My initial reaction prior to reading the article was, "what if he's coming in the movement as a distraction." After reading the article and doing a little research I don't think that is the case. He supports the solid pieces (i.e. the big holes in the official version - i.e. the little hole at the Pentagon) and it seems like he is facing some tough times as a result of his support. The first 'Charlie Sheen forum' I came across, one guy posted how he was an idiot drug addict, while all the others posted in support of the 911 truth movement. I found all that support rather interesting.

The next forum showed how his wife had filed for divorce just a couple of weeks ago:

Denise Richards Files for Divorce from Charlie Sheen
Actress Denise Richards has filed for divorce from actor Charlie Sheen,
citing irreconcilable differences. Married since June 2002, the couple
have a one-year-old daughter and are expecting their second child in
three months. Richards is seeking spousal support and full legal and
physical custody of the children; she has asked Sheen be granted
visitation rights. Richards has retained powerhouse attorney Laura
Wasser, known for representing Hollywood's most powerful men.
One has to wonder if these 'irreconcilable differences' deal with his decision to publicly support the 911 Truth Movement. Certainly for a wife to leave while she is pregnent means some pretty big 'differences' must be there.

He'll be facing a custody trial for his children while standing up for the truth about September 11th. That can't be easy.
 

Beau

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
See, some people will focus on what he is saying. And others will focus on his past. A few people who I've shown the prison planet article to have scoffed at the notion that Sheen represents a credible source. His associations with cocaine and prostitues is undeniable, but still what he says is very true. Leave it to prison planet to paint Sheen as a "highly credible public figure" and a "prominent, credible whistleblower". Maybe the implication is that he is an actor and thus more weight is added to his words. But he isn't blowing any whistles.

Then again, his credibility should be defined in a fluid way. If he continues to support the truth, then, for me, he will be a worthwhile spokesperson. But it's hard to define what motives famous people have in taking on political issues. That is to be determined as well.

So, I'm unsure if Sheen is meant to be a distraction or not. His father does have a history of speaking up. But from my experience the involvement of famous persons in the truth movement is few and far between. And it's typically for their benefit, not for all. so it seems to me
 
D

dhess31

Guest
One of the reasons I posted this article in particular is because of who he is. Although his dad was known as somewhat of an activist, Charlie doesn't usually get involved in this kind of stuff to me knowledge.

In general he doesn't get "associated with the left". so maybe, MAYBE, people who are on the fence might listen to what he has to say since he isn't known as a whack-job.

Although I'm sure he will get labeled like that NOW.

Don
 

Mr. Premise

The Living Force
I think you are right about this. He is more well-known for not being political, so he is harder to write off.

As for his reputation as a hedonistic airhead, someone put it this way to me today: "If even Charlie Sheen can figure it out, no one has any excuses not to see the official story is full of holes!"

dhess31 said:
One of the reasons I posted this article in particular is because of who he is. Although his dad was known as somewhat of an activist, Charlie doesn't usually get involved in this kind of stuff to me knowledge.

In general he doesn't get "associated with the left". so maybe, MAYBE, people who are on the fence might listen to what he has to say since he isn't known as a whack-job.

Although I'm sure he will get labeled like that NOW.

Don
 

Mr. Premise

The Living Force
As of now, 77% of respondents say they agree with Charlie Sheen on the CNN website. Vote here: http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/showbiz.tonight/
 

Ruth

The Living Force
I particularly like this effort at damage control by the Boston Herald. Talk about blatant.
http://thetrack.bostonherald.com/moreTrack/view.bg?articleid=131750
Charlie Sheen doesn’t buy 9/11 spin
By Inside Track
Thursday, March 23, 2006

Charlie Sheen, following in the footsteps of his politically outspoken father, Martin Sheen, has joined the chorus of conspiracy theorists who don’t believe the official version of events surrounding 9/11.

The estranged husband of Denise Richards, who is better known for his affinity for prostitutes and gambling than his Homeland Security credentials, told the GCN Radio Network he doesn’t buy the government’s explanation that “19 amateurs with box cutters (took) over four commercial airliners and (hit) 75 percent of their targets.”

The “Two and a Half Men” star, who was shooting his former sitcom “Spin City” the morning the World Trade Center towers fell, said he was immediately suspicious about the official reason given for the buildings’ collapse. After watching in horror as the South Tower was hit, he said to his brother, “call me insane, but did it sorta look like those buildings came down in a controlled demolition?”

Sheen pointed out that eyewitnesses recounted hearing what sounded like bombs and explosions coming from the basement levels of the buildings and discounted the theory that the damage to the towers’ lobbies was the result of fireballs traveling 110 feet down elevator shafts.

The father of two also questioned whether a plane actually hit the Pentagon and how President George Bush was able to see the first plane hit the north tower, when no live footage of that incident was carried.

“I guess one of the perks of being president is that you get access to TV channels that don’t exist in the known universe,” the actor-turned-pseudo-intellect quipped.

“It is up to us to reveal the truth,” Sheen asserted. “We owe it to everybody’s life who was drastically altered, horrifically that day and forever. We owe it to them to uncover what happened.”

Excuse us if we don’t exactly feel that Charlie’s the man for that job!
 

Mr. Premise

The Living Force
Yes, it's blatant. That's because the Herald is a cheesy tabloid. The classier paper in Boston, the Globe (owned by the New York Times, didn't run the story at all! At least I didn't see it there. Didn't go through every page, though.

Ruth said:
I particularly like this effort at damage control by the Boston Herald. Talk about blatant.
http://thetrack.bostonherald.com/moreTrack/view.bg?articleid=131750
 
D

dhess31

Guest
Poor Charlie. He doesn't know what he's getting himself into. Maybe we ought to send him a link to the SOTT...

That article is just the beginning I bet. They'll slam him now.

I bet he either changes his story or goes all "Tom Cruise".

Don
 

Mr. Premise

The Living Force
No, I don't think he's that stupid at all. He has ALREADY gotten all the negative publicity from the drugs and whores. This won't add to it. I think he knows exactly what he's doing and what the consequences will be. Not only that, but the consequences will be good for his image and career, since now he is seen as having more serious interests.

Also, look at the timing.

There seems to be elements of the power structure who are pushing out "alternative" 911 interpretations. Webster Tarpley was on CNN, if I am not mistaken. I can now find both David Ray Griffin books in every Barnes and Noble store. A year ago you couldn't find them.

So why and why now? It may have to do with a fear among the plutocrats that Bush is taking them into the abyss. There are reports that important, behind-the-scenes power brokers have been sent to Bush every so often to talk some sense into him about Iraq and that Bush screams at them, calls them defeatists and sends them away. Bzrzinski, James Baker, Lee Hamilton, these types.

The smears against Sheen were done by Zionist outlets (the NY Post, the Boston Herald). The AIPAC, Larry Franklin indictments, the Fitzgerald investigation, the Harvard study released last week about the influence of the Israel lobby in U.S. politics and culture are all indications that there is a greate deal of resentment of Israel at the highest levels of the U.S. power structure. Bush I and James Baker are notorious among Zionists for being the least friendly to Israel of all administrations. Bush I and Clinton are best friends now, and the Lewinsky scandal was clearly a Mossad operation.

Now it is likely all these elements of the 911 op. were in on the original plans, but that the Pentagon crash could well have a kind of double cross by the Zionists against the Imperial Nationalists. It was so clearly amateurish and designed to put blackmailable pressure on anyone who tried to cover up the whole thing.

This is all speculation of course... But I am struck in the last few months about how much play they are allowing the 911 truth movement to have. It could be a distraction, of course, but the Washington Post putting Laura and the Pentagon Crash movie on their front page could be read in two ways, at least.

Back to Charlie Sheen, the media is treating this as an entertainment celebrity story. One important thing about that is those stories get MORE attention than serious pieces. A big celebrity coming out with 911 truth brings a whole new audience in play to take this seriously.

Any thoughts?

Don


dhess31 said:
Poor Charlie. He doesn't know what he's getting himself into. Maybe we ought to send him a link to the SOTT...

That article is just the beginning I bet. They'll slam him now.

I bet he either changes his story or goes all "Tom Cruise".

Don
 

Mark

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
The estranged husband of Denise Richards, who is better known for his affinity for prostitutes and gambling than his Homeland Security credentials, [...] Excuse us if we don’t exactly feel that Charlie’s the man for that job!
I guess the writer is dumb as a rock. How many politicians, who now proclaim to be acting in our best interests, fit that same description? Sheesh.
 
G

Guest

Guest
beau said:
See, some people will focus on what he is saying. And others will focus on his past. A few people who I've shown the prison planet article to have scoffed at the notion that Sheen represents a credible source. His associations with cocaine and prostitues is undeniable, but still what he says is very true. Leave it to prison planet to paint Sheen as a "highly credible public figure" and a "prominent, credible whistleblower". Maybe the implication is that he is an actor and thus more weight is added to his words. But he isn't blowing any whistles.
When I first heard about this, my impression is that Mr. Sheen is trying to mimic George Cloony's political posturings (sincere or not). There was plenty of time for him to come out, but he waited until his reputation was already going down the tubes to do so. In this age of high and moral America (officially), his antics may get him blacklisted, and some publicity (not too brazen, mind you, but just a bit across the line) may do him good, as public support shows.

Personally, I believe acting is more than a job; it's a life-style especially at this level of public exposure and "fame". I really think in the end it is hard to separate the actor as a person from the profession (again, dealing with the "more glamorous stars").

On the other hand, he could just as easily supported the system although with his scourched private life that would have been more difficult. So even if he does believe what he says, which I believe he does, his timing may be a stroke of marketing ingenuity (albeit a calculated risk).

Alex Jones, obviously does not care probably its the last thing they want to allow come into focus. After all, it is good for the movement. However, call me paranoid, but when CNN comes out with an unbiased interview, I cannot help but stir uneasily in my seat.

I believe the PTB did not cause this, Sheen did for personal reasons with morality coming in second. However, I also think that the PTB know that this topic is getting beyond their capacity to shut down. So I see two consecutive tactics:

A) Get as large and public a poll as possible regarding what people do believe by encouraging them with an "unbiased official interview". Most people believe something fishy is going on with 9/11, but the question is HOW fishy. Getting an assessment on the percentage of doubters can be useful for the PTB for many reasons.

This poll gets people to believe they are ALL in the same boat, when they might have differing opinions regarding the extent of the government's participation in 9/11. In this way they feel a sense of solidarity, so when the compromise version becomes "acceptable" those who would otherwise not compromise will feel compelled to follow the crowd of "sane" others.

This extends to the second tactic:

B) Allow the story to get to the next level (but still nowhere near the view of purposeful criminal intent). At most some neo-cons will take the fall (and everone who is public is obviously expendable) and once again the pent up rage of Americans will be safely channeled as the PTB plans their next move. I am also not surprized that this has come about after 500 million people viewed the Pentagon video, which SOTT observed has obviously ruffled some feathers.

The PTB knows Americans have a dire compulsion (as dire as the need of a hungry babe for its mother's breast) to justify their Glorious System, forgive the stray lambs, smooth out the wrinkles and wipe away the tears (in contrast to expressing murderous unrelenting vengance regarding other peoples- at least as a majority).

I would think the populous of the US needs to focus on its tendencies for Pathocratic dependency before there is any hope of freedom in this country. The PTB has played upon this weakness, after all, time and again.

In addition, I am a bit surprized at Alex Jones and infowars in all of this. Their motto has always been along the lines of "if it's official, don't trust it". Here they are praising the media and claiming hope for a "turnaround" as if all of the sudden the sinners will see the error of their ways and the prodigal son will come home.

Fat chance!


...IMO.

So is Sheen (regardless of personal motives) rallying the masses with his example, or is he getting their attention so that enthusiasm is wasted on waiting for some icon of the establishment to carry the weight every citizen must bear?
 

Mike

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
EsoQuest said:
A) Get as large and public a poll as possible regarding what people do believe. I.e., gather information by bringing the fearful populace out of their bunkers by encouraging them with an "unbiased official interview", and
I'm having similar thoughts remembering about a year and a half ago when I think it was Anderson Cooper on CNN did a similar short lived debate on 9/11. Seemed to disappear rather quickly after the polls were opened and the data gathered. The problem I have with this line of thought, in terms of polling the populace, is that doing so seems to create a feedback loop where people that might not have been interested in the topic or question the official story now are presented with something that might jar them out of their sleep. The more polls and debate that are shown on the MSM would seem to create more interest and more individuals that question the offical story. Also, the polls would seem to be more biased (towards the higher end of yes, we don't believe the offical story) because people frustrated by the situation naturally want an outlet or voice. So they jump at the chance to show their thoughts. Atleast this is how I've reacted to any MSM debate and polling.
 
Top Bottom