Hollywood to Challenge Official Version of 9/11: Sheen, Asner and Harrelson to Star in Film.

Originally posted by CoolStoryMan

Originally posted by karen61057
reply to post by Urantia1111

 

No they're not. The terrorists responsible are locked up or in the case of the actual perpatrators dead. The United States Of America did not terrorize itself. It did not make up a tragedy to start a war. Hey the real world isnt dangerous enough for you guys you have to make spit up about another world. This is the real world and in this world bad guys from the middle east did this. To all who think otherwise. You're all nuts.

the very idea of this on paper is ridiculous, it amazes me people believe the official story

Do you know how hard it is to fly a jet? Do you know how much harder it is to fly one without ATC to help you navigate a large aircraft?

The south tower plane on approach was clocked at between 550 and 600 MPH at 1000 feet altitude which pulled a high-G force turn the last moment before impact. One of the pilots who flew the plane purported to have been involved said that he himself could not have flown it like that, not at that altitude.

Originally posted by crawdad1914

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by InfiniteConsciousness


Yeah you've got the truth all wrapped up in a neat little package there General Radek. ROFL You must know more than the 911 commission itself, right? Because they didn't even address building 7 in the official book report. General Radek the all knowing, all seeing eye in the sky. Yeah, ok, buddy.

I'm willing to bet a steak dinner that you have no idea what the 9/11 Commission Report was tasked to do. So I find it quite amusing that you are trying to insult my intelligence, by commenting on something that obviously you have NO clue about. Way to go!

Do you even know what the 9/11 CR was suppose to do?

Forget the steak dinner bet please, and just answer his question as to why building 7 was not addressed in the report.

I did answer his question. By asking what was the 9/11 CR tasked to do. If you figure that out, then you will have your answer as to why WTC7 was not mentioned. Hell its only been said numerous times by myself and others here on ATS for years. But hey, I guess when questions are answered, and the answers are not fitting the pre-determined beliefs, well, sticking ones head in the sand is more preferable than actually learning your beliefs are all wrong and erroneous.

Originally posted by homervb


I agree with you on the fact that there are 2 truth movements.

1.) Those who want to know FULL OUT what happened that day

and

2.) Those who want the government to come out and say it was all an inside job.

I am with choice number 1, the real truth movement.

Very well. I too am curious into the intel failures leading up to 9/11 and the CYA methods after. However, if what you say is true, that there are two camps in the Truther movement, then why is it that 99.999999% of the Truth Movement involves the aforementioned nonsense of secret explosives and ninja-style rigging and staging everything right down to eyewitnesses? I have yet to see in the Truth Movement (or what is left of it today, but also before) whenever they claim they want the whole truth, in the same breath, they scream out explosives brought everything down and we have been lied to? Please answer me why that is.

And if that magical "independent investigation" finds the same thing NIST, FEMA and the 9/11CR discovered, and it does not conform with their preconceived notions, they will still not be satisfied.

Several members of the 9/11 CR have come out and said the investigation was flawed, someone was always covering for someone else, time restraints, materials redacted, etc. How bout the full out truth? If it was all a failure of the government then just tell us already. No redacted statements/evidence, no classified materials (in reference to the 5 dancing Israeli's who's police report will be classified until the year 2035), no covering for Saudi Arabia involvement...we just want the TRUTH. If 19 men armed with box cutters managed to take down 3 sky scrapers, penetrated a side of the pentagon, and killed 3,000 people while in the process then there should be nothing classified or redacted. And as far as I'm concerned, the NIST failed themselves. They could only theorize what initiated the collapse, they couldn't offer ANY theory of a total collapse. If you can't offer at least one theory of total collapse than who's to say the NIST did their job? Whatever, this isn't my main point, just going on a rant, apologies lol

No problem, rants are just fine!

Look at it this way: Would you want to be held responsible for the largest attack and deaths of US civilians on US soil due to being stupid? Think about that and those that were responsible for keeping us safe, and those that failed and now are living with the guilt, but got lucky and were not singled out. Wouldnt be the first time people covered for each others failures. *cough cough Operation Fast and Furious, cough*

As for NIST, I do not doubt it may have some flaws, but when trying to investigate something so catastrophic, it will never be 100% accurate. NIST was tasked to see what got the ball rolling, so to say. What happened after the ball started to roll and what it smashed is just an after thought, as once it started, there was no way to stop it. i'd be more than happy to give you my take on why it did what it did.

Originally posted by GenRadek
I have yet to see in the Truth Movement (or what is left of it today, but also before) whenever they claim they want the whole truth, in the same breath, they scream out explosives brought everything down and we have been lied to? Please answer me why that is.

Well, the explosives part probably has to do with NIST not looking for evidence of explosives. I personally have a feeling Israel played a part (and no I'm not anti-Jew lol , I didn't even know what a Zionist was until recently) but in terms of CD it's just the way the towers came down raises my eyebrow in suspicion. I mean if nobody bothered to inspect for evidence of explosives and there's no explanation for full collapse, it just leaves questions behind.

Look at it this way: Would you want to be held responsible for the largest attack and deaths of US civilians on US soil due to being stupid? Think about that and those that were responsible for keeping us safe, and those that failed and now are living with the guilt, but got lucky and were not singled out. Wouldnt be the first time people covered for each others failures. *cough cough Operation Fast and Furious, cough*

Whoever didn't do their job that day should be held responsible. Of course I'd never want to be held responsible but to be fair, all those who failed to do their job should be held responsible, we're talking about the death of 3,000 people. It's like a slap in the face to the victims' families to let all of these people off the hook.

As for NIST, I do not doubt it may have some flaws, but when trying to investigate something so catastrophic, it will never be 100% accurate. NIST was tasked to see what got the ball rolling, so to say. What happened after the ball started to roll and what it smashed is just an after thought, as once it started, there was no way to stop it.

Of course there's no way to stop it, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't hypothesize how it all happened. The NIST should have offered multiple theories, don't just leave it at the initiation of the collapse. If Al-Qaeda was really behind the attacks, who's not to say they didn't manage to place a small amount of explosives in or around the WTC? Who's not to say there was no explosive to assist in the plan? Why completely rule this out? Did the NIST not theorize total collapse because they knew secondary explosives would be needed to blow every floor out from top to bottom?

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests, and created sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

With these sophisticated computer simulations they could have at least hypothesized how both towers fell. With this 3 year investigation, and sophisticated computer equipment all they produced was "the towers collapsed at the point of impact", that's it. I could have told you that from just watching the video lol you get what I'm saying man? What would be the harm in offering a theory on total collapse? The initiating of collapse is explained, but the total collapse still remains a mystery. I mean AE911Truth at least offers a theory. NIST brought nothing to the table. It wasn't the initiating of the collapse that did the most damage, it was the entire destruction of both towers.

i'd be more than happy to give you my take on why it did what it did.

Let me hear it bro, I'm all ears

Originally posted by homervb

 

That's a good point, and I can't 100% clarify that, but to me an independent investigation would consist of
ALL evidence being released to the public, nobody covering for anybody else, George Bush testifying under oath as well as Dick Cheney, etc. After all, if this was all just one giant intelligence failure, as proposed by the 9/11 Commission report than there's no reason for

etc.)...

Hmmm. Going by this list it would appear you believe it was a genuine terrorist attack that Bush, et al, allowed to happen, rather than a completely fabricated event staged by insiders. Otherwise you wouldn't give a flip about any Able Danger reports because there really weren't any terrorists for Able Danger to identify. BUT, if that's the case then you wouldn't give a flip about WTC 7 because being a legitimate terrorist attack it would mean it really was destroyed by a chain reaction of damage caused by the north tower falling on it (which the terrorists were allowed to attack). Plus, I don't get why you'd want Bush and Cheney to testify rather than Clinton because Able Danger was set up in the last few months of the Clinton administration.

Would you mind clarifying this? From where I sit it sounds like you're simply grasping at straws for any signs of impropriety that you can find and you don't particularly care where it leads, just as long as it leads to a conspiracy somewhere.

I don't know what exactly you're referring to as "excuses". If you're talking about things such as The Gulf of Tonkin, Pearl Harbor, and Bush's 935 lies in reference to not being able to trust words of the government, well I don't see them as excuses.

No I'm not. I'm talking about the excuses the conspiracy theorists are using to justify their pet 9/11 conspiracies. Elsewhere I'm sure you'll see one fellow here on ATS even accusing the Jersey Girls (who are hardly gov't spokespeople) of being secret disinformation agents pretending to be widows of the nonexistent victims of 9/11, all so he can cling to his Northwoods fantasies. There was even one fellow here who insisted the towers were actually fake buildings.

I hope that we can at least agree that trying to force reality to conform to pet theories like this will only lead to more confusion than solutions, not to mention, useless bickering. Would you agree then that the goal is to identify what is actually reality and what is simply a pet theory?

Originally posted by maxella1

Why do you make me treat you like a child? I know that you know that navigating a huge 767 requires a lot more skills than navigating a cessna. do I really need to explain to you that 767 is a lot heaver, bigger, and faster ? You can drive a car all your life but try driving a bus without any real practice and you'll have issues with something as simple as making the same left tern you have made hundreds of times in the past sriving a car.

The reason you're "treating me like a child" is because I'm seeing large holes in your claims that you don't want me to acknowledge. If I had the advantage of having plenty of time to line up on a very big, very visible target from a long distance off, it wouldn't make a difference if I was driving the Death Star. Plus, planes are airborne and have nothing to bang into up in the air as a bus would in traffic. A better analogy would be driving a bus around a huge, empty parking lot, and then having you line it up on a tree a mile away, which I know you'd be able to do.

I guess i misunderstood what you were asking me.. Yes i believe the order was given but i don't believe Bush had anything to do with it.

Huh? Does that means you believe someone other than Bush gave a secret order to shoot down flight 93, but Bush admitted he was the one who ordered it shot down to cover for someone else? How does that remotely keep the shoot down order a secret from anybody?

Don't you think this theory of yours is starting to sound unnecessarily convoluted?

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Huh? Does that means you believe someone other than Bush gave a secret order to shoot down flight 93, but Bush admitted he was the one who ordered it shot down to cover for someone else? How does that remotely keep the shoot down order a secret from anybody?

Are you pretending not to know what I'm talking about or is it your memory problem again?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Hmmm. Going by this list it would appear you believe it was a genuine terrorist attack that Bush, et al, allowed to happen, rather than a completely fabricated event staged by insiders. Otherwise you wouldn't give a flip about any Able Danger reports because there really weren't any terrorists for Able Danger to identify. BUT, if that's the case then you wouldn't give a flip about WTC 7 because being a legitimate terrorist attack it would mean it really was destroyed by a chain reaction of damage caused by the north tower falling on it (which the terrorists were allowed to attack). Plus, I don't get why you'd want Bush and Cheney to testify rather than Clinton because Able Danger was set up in the last few months of the Clinton administration.

Would you mind clarifying this? From where I sit it sounds like you're simply grasping at straws for any signs of impropriety that you can find and you don't particularly care where it leads, just as long as it leads to a conspiracy somewhere.

I'm grasping at unanswered questions. I wish every question about that day was answered, but honestly it's not.

Able Danger might have been setup at the end of Clinton's term but it went well into Bush's term. If there's no connection linking Able Danger to the terrorists than give me an idea of why all the Able Danger files would be destroyed?

If this was indeed a giant intelligence failure then I still find WTC 7 very suspicious, especially since the CIA's anti-terrorism unit along with a CIA false front were within that building. The CIA had people picking through the rubble for important documents, weren't there alleged raging fires in the building all day long? Fires that destroyed the structural integrity of the entire building none the less? It's just shady to me.

Why would I want Bush and Cheney to testify under oath? Well, if their administration managed to lie nearly a thousand times to the general public than I'm very interested in what his testimony really was. If this was a giant intelligence failure than it wouldn't be Bush's fault. It would be the lack of communications between all intelligence agencies. Can you honestly say it isn't a little weird that they refused to testify separately & under oath? What is your reasoning for this?

No I'm not. I'm talking about the excuses the conspiracy theorists are using to justify their pet 9/11 conspiracies. Elsewhere I'm sure you'll see one fellow here on ATS even accusing the Jersey Girls (who are hardly gov't spokespeople) of being secret disinformation agents pretending to be widows of the nonexistent victims of 9/11, all so he can cling to his Northwoods fantasies. There was even one fellow here who insisted the towers were actually fake buildings.

Oh okay, well I too find those theories a little strange. Apologies.

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Are you pretending not to know what I'm talking about or is it your memory problem again?

I will take this as an attempt at evading a difficult question, which I note is an attitude unique among the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. As for me you can ask me what my thoughts are 500 times and I'll be glad to tell you, since I understand you don't know me from Adam and you're under no obligation to commit anything I say to memory. It's just that you're supposed to be the one "asking honest questions" and I'm the one supposed to be "blindly reciting other people's rhetoric" which I am certainly not seeing here.

Ye shalt know them by their works, and all that.

Originally posted by homervb

Why would I want Bush and Cheney to testify under oath? Well, if their administration managed to lie nearly a thousand times to the general public than I'm very interested in what his testimony really was. If this was a giant intelligence failure than it wouldn't be Bush's fault. It would be the lack of communications between all intelligence agencies. Can you honestly say it isn't a little weird that they refused to testify separately & under oath? What is your reasoning for this?

When the 9/11 commission was formed noone understood what responsibilities and powers the commission had, and as a result, nnoone wanted to be the one to come forward and admit they were the ones who screwed up and allowed 3000 people to die from their incompetence. This was bad enough for a seasoned gov't professional but Bush was a party frat boy sent to Washington to do a man's job, and he needed to hold a grown up's hand when he testified so he wouldn't look too incompetent in front of the American people.

There are a lot of things that Bush can be accused of, but "maturity" wouldn't be one of them. Did you see Bush giving the camera the finger in "Fahrenheit 911?

Oh okay, well I too find those theories a little strange. Apologies.

Apologies accepted. After all, it's an indisputable fact that there is an abundance of these damned fool conspiracy web sites pushing out a lot of false information to get people unreasonably paranoid for their own financial gain. It's just that the "controlled demolitions" theorists believe the "hologram planes" theorists are the ones being suckered by these internet con artists, while they themselves think it's the "lasers from otuer space" theorists who are the ones being suckered by internet con artists. My contention is that you're ALL being suckered by internet con artists. You yourself are simply the victim in their con.

reply to post by Screwed


MOMMY WAS VERY BAD!


Well said.

It is what it is and on the inside I think most people will know the truth.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by InfiniteConsciousness
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by homervb


You think we take comfort in conspiracy theories? What kind of ass backwards psychology are you studying? Wow. Unreal.

Subconsciously, yes. The world's a frightening place and conspiracy theories provide a comforting framing narrative to contextualise it all.

They also usually offer the chance of redemption and deliverance - look at all the posts here that talk about the day when "the truth will come out" and the "traitors will have to answer for their crimes". It's a judgement day. And the CTs are just religion in another guide, with all the comfort that religion gives.

edit on 23-10-2012 by TrickoftheShade because: (no reason given)

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


A bit like patriotism too then?

reply to post by GoodOlDave

I will take this as an attempt at evading a difficult question, which I note is an attitude unique among the 9/11 conspiracy theorists

You really are a funny guy Dave. And no I am not evading a "difficult" question because it is not difficult at all since I already answered it numerous times before.

Okay this was your question. Actually it's not even a question, it's more like you pretending that I just made up some crazy conspiracy theory that you have never heard before.


You said:

b) It's already been documented in the 9/11 Commission report ten years ago that Bush did issue a shoot down order for flight 93 and it was relayed by Cheney. Did you even know that?

I confused you with this response:

Did you know that the Commission report also documented that they were unable to find anybody To back it up? Not a single person in that room with Cheney or Bush heard that conversation even though they were taking notes regarding all other communications? You love showing evidence don't you? Show me any thing other than Bush and Cheney promising that it took place...

Then I clarified what I meant:

I guess i misunderstood what you were asking me.. Yes i believe the order was given but i don't believe Bush had anything to do with it.

But you still appear to be confused:

Huh? Does that means you believe someone other than Bush gave a secret order to shoot down flight 93, but Bush admitted he was the one who ordered it shot down to cover for someone else? How does that remotely keep the shoot down order a secret from anybody?

So let me make it as clear as I can again.

You see Cheney gave an order to shoot down but since the President was alive and well the military had an issue with the order.

Later the 9/11 Commission interviewed both of them and all the people that were with them at the time of that order being given. But for some reason the only two people that remember the conversation when Bush told Cheney to issue this order are Bush and Cheney. And the Commission documented (according to you 10 years ago) that they were shown all the notes taken about every conversation the President and the Vice President had, but there is not a single word about the President instructing anybody to issue a shoot down order.

You can read about the military confusion HERE

I believe you know where to find the Commission report, there you will see that no record of this phone call exists.

And in case you are still confused why this even matters please refer to the United States Constitution.

But when you look at the whole picture this is just one of the Constitutional violations they were allowed to get away with. So It isn't a really big deal in comparison to all the other ones.

Personally I think Bush was kept away from DC so that Cheney could complete what he had to, and I think United 93 was indeed shot down by order of the Vise President for whatever reason, perhaps the passengers really did take control of the jet and could land safe and sound with all the evidence of what was going on inside there. A shoot down would explain the debris fields. And spare FBI agent Bill Crowley the embarrassment.



I hope you are no longer confused about what I was talking about.

we have Larry silverstien admitting to pulling building 7 right on the news in your face, and your all here arguing weather or not it was an inside job? lol come on people

Originally posted by SkuzzleButt
we have Larry silverstien admitting to pulling building 7 right on the news in your face, and your all here arguing weather or not it was an inside job? lol come on people

That whole "pull it is lingo for controlled demolitions" bit was an internet hoax invented by Alex Jones. You know, THIS guy:



"LOL come on people" is right!

reply to post by GoodOlDave

That whole "pull it is lingo for controlled demolitions" bit was an internet hoax invented by Alex Jones. You know, THIS guy:

Alex Jones didn't invent it.
Loads of people said it before him. He's just one of many.

Hollywood to Challenge Official Version of 9/11:

This brings up the question of who is allowed to profit from the public interest in this event?

I mean if there was a media gag order and disinformation was carefully meted out through the appropriate censuring agents then why Hollywood now?

The US government can be nasty, individuals have been exiled for speaking the truth when it flies in the face of the PTB.

Yet Fox was allowed to air the Lone Gunmen episode disclosing the event?

redwolf.com.au...

What is Hollywood going to challenge the "erector set" version of the story?

Originally posted by lambros56
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Alex Jones didn't invent it.
Loads of people said it before him. He's just one of many.

Nope. I double and triple checked that claim and even asked for corroborating evidence from posters here on ATS a few months back. It's been irrefutably proven that the whole "pull it is lingo for Demolitions" appeared only AFTER 9/11, and specifically BECAUSE of 9/11 and specifically BECAUSE of Alex Jones.

That whole myth started when Alex Jones cherry picked a quote from a journalist's interview with a demolition crew at ground zero. The engineer said they were going to "pull" one of the buildings and Jones deliberately omitted the fact that's what they were literally doing- pulling a building down with cables. Every person saying "pull it is lingo for controlled demolitions" is just repeating the fake information Jones had put out. It's just that they're quoting someone who's quoting someone else who's quoting some other person who's quoting yet another person who's quoting the fake information Jones had put out.

If you want to believe in these conspiracies, that's one thing, but relying on notoriously fake information like this only adds more confusion to the mix. We can see that right away by reading Martin Sheen's reason for making this flick-

"Sheen grew suspicious after his son Charlie, also an actor, alerted him to apparent contradictions, such as how a structure known as "Building 7" fell.

He said: "However, there have been so many revelations that now I have my doubts, and chief among them is Building 7 – how did they rig that building so that it came down on the evening of the day?"

You can see right away that without actually saying it, Sheen was basing his statement completely on Alex Jones' fake information that had been repeated to absurdity.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
This was bad enough for a seasoned gov't professional but Bush was a party frat boy sent to Washington to do a man's job, and he needed to hold a grown up's hand when he testified so he wouldn't look too incompetent in front of the American people.

Cheney and Bush were both frat boys, you probably already know this but they were both a part of the Skull and Bones clan. And you can't say he wouldn't want to look too incompetent in front of the American people considering his testimony was behind closed doors. Nobody in the public saw his testimony at all. So there's just as much of a chance of him letting 9/11 happen as there is him being incompetent and letting the plot slip through his fingers because there was never any official word released that was said under oath.

Apologies accepted. After all, it's an indisputable fact that there is an abundance of these damned fool conspiracy web sites pushing out a lot of false information to get people unreasonably paranoid for their own financial gain. It's just that the "controlled demolitions" theorists believe the "hologram planes" theorists are the ones being suckered by these internet con artists, while they themselves think it's the "lasers from otuer space" theorists who are the ones being suckered by internet con artists. My contention is that you're ALL being suckered by internet con artists. You yourself are simply the victim in their con.

You do realize those that you are on the internet yourself, pushing ideas taken from the 9/11 Commission report? The 9/11 Commission members came out to the public and said the report is greatly flawed. As much as I think the hologram plane/lasers from space theories are quite outrageous who really is to judge where the source of the information comes from? Considering the report was publicly judged as flawed by the people who wrote it, these people who believe these alternative theories and put it out on the internet don't think they're theories are flawed.

You can say I'm a victim of the controlled demolition con, but you yourself are a victim of the "collapse" con. NIST never checked for explosives (not even taking into consideration the idea of these alleged al-aqaeda terrorists using secondary explosions) and they could only map out from the time the planes hit til the initiation of the collapse. Therefore you should be saying "I know what happened from the time the planes hit, to the beginning of the collapse". You should not be acting like you know what caused the total collapse if the NIST couldn't even figure it out themselves nor could they offer 1 theory about it.

1....all 3 buildings came down exactly like controlled demolitions....
2....with all the cameras around the pentagon....government and private, not one showed the plane
3....BBC annouced 23 minutes before bulding 7 came down... that it had already come down
4....no discussion of planted bombs were considered in the commissions investigation, nor was it allowed to.
5....passport of hijacker inside plane that exploded into a fireball inside the building, found intact on street

5 reasons i do not believe the government story