Who is the highly credible public figure? It is Charley Sheen.

Forget that 4 large commercial airliners with scores of real people left on flights that morning and never reached their destinations. Charley Boy is convinced it was smaller planes that hit the towers and the Pentagon and government demolition teams that done the deeds. Sheen was reached for comment at Heidi Fleiss's residence after a multiple 8 ball party. Just kidding with the last sentence, I think ?. Here is the story.

"...highly credible public figure..."

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

Charley Sheen may be way more unstable than I thought, Makes his other history look exemplary!

Check this document out.  http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0421061sheen1.html  Just one long paragraph. Yikes.

Wow! I read the whole 17 page document. At first I felt a little voyeuristic but of course I read on! I believe her 100% and remember all those tabloid stories that matched up with Denise's deposition.

He is completely unstable. I remember a few years back when Martin Sheen campaigned AGAINST a proposition that would allowt the courts to send junkies and other drug abusers to rehab houses instead of doing prison time. As I recall, Martin Sheen thought prison would have helped his son and he KNEW that rehab had not. What a dill weed!

A few of my favorite parts:

The Respondent assured me that he had never been with prostitutes sober!

Well, so what's the problem?

This sounds like more Charlie logic:

He heard that by my stopping breast-feeding and giving our daughter formula, that the formula would cause our daughter to develop brain damage or would cause her to be mentally retarded.

What a mess! Poor Denise! How about this:

Respondent began to obsess about vaccines being poisonous, about 911 being a conspiracy, purchasing gas masks on the Internet, and putting guns under the table so that they would be within reach if someone broke into our house

But the best stuff is on page 16 where Charllie implies he killed or had killed the hooker who was blackmailing him!

Geez, if I were poor Denise Richards, I'd be shared skitless! She knew what she was doing by getting this all in print and publicized before she becomes the next Hollywood celebrity ex-wife murdered by her husband. Little wonder Charlie had an obsession with Nicole Brown Simpson as well.

Then there's his problem with boy and girl kiddie porn! 

That was riveting, Raymond! Thanks!

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Granting the argument for the moment that Charlie Sheen is in fact out of his tree, I bet I can find busloads of freakbags who believe that the questionable aspects of 9/11 have been truthfully and accurately explained by the officials who ostensible purpose is to do that sort of thing.  Personally, I try to use celebrities of unproven intellect for reference purposes as sparingly as possible...

Even taking into account the nature of the event, and that a full accounting would necessarily bump up against information for which there may be reasonable arguments against public divulgence, I don't feel things have been explained to what I consider an adequate degree, yet I can tie my own shoes and everything.

I feel distrustful of ideologies when they insist that certain ideas held as truths should be exempt from skepticism, curiosity, and rigorous analysis.

Oh, there it is. That expression "event," most often expressed as "the events of 9/11." So delicate. So non-descriptive. But okay. I know it's hard to come up with just the right terminology for that day. It might be judgmental and say "terrorist attacks." We can't assign a location name, as in "Pearl Harbor," since there were four hits. We wouldn't want to attach the name "Al Qaeda" either since that comes across like an endorsement in some way. Plus, it is a little vague as well.  "Day of Infamy" is spoken for. Same with "The Longest Day." I usually just reduce the entirety to "9/11" and figure everyone knows what I mean. Oh well, like that Doonesbury cartoon where America's Founding Fathers are drawing up the Constitution and one asks, "What should we add about the slaves?" -- "Let's leave that for future generations. It'll make them feel involved."

We could veer away from Martin Sheen's unfortunate son and go in the 9/11 direction with this thread if anyone wants to. I'm more than willing to go down that road if Jamie or anyone else would like to. But you need to be a tad more specific about:

1. Things that have not been explained to an adequate degree.

2. Certain idea that have been held as truths exempt from skepticism, curiosity and rigorous analysis.

3. Whatever else...

What tends to happen with these sort of friendly discussions is a barrage of links and material is blasted from one or another direction. If anyone who believes that the 9/11 Commission Reports fundamental conclusion -- 19 Arab Muslim hijackers commandeered 4 fully fueled commercial jets and proceeded to crash them into the 2 WTC and the Pentagon until the last of them was taken down by the passengers and crew over Pennsylvania -- was a misjudgment, lay it on me. Tell me the most troubling niggling details that prevent you from accepting that conclusion.

But let us establish our initial consensus. For the record, I accept the fundamental conclusion as posited above. And you??? For some we may need to backtrack to the point of agreement that would deny that Flights 11, 175, 77 and/or 93 actually crashed on September 11, 2001. But let's find where we ALL agree so that we can find the point of departure.

Are we accepting that overall premise -- the Al Qaeda conspiracy -- but there are more questions?

From Jamie, it is the latter I would presume to be the case.

Susan

PS  Yes, Raymond, not only did I READ the whole declaration, I PRINTED it out and had my husband read it last night!  Yes, yes, yes, by all means, do read the whole thing!  She had to be so frightened by him to go to that length of putting it all on the record.  Smoking Gun is a tremendous resource! 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

I'm really not into getting into an in-depth debate on this one.  I don't know enough, and while that seldom stops me, 9/11 is an especially important topic, and I'd rather watch people better informed than myself wrestle with it than tromp my own muddy boots all through it.

My general impression of the where the controversies lay is like so: 

1) Who planned it, and why?

A) Al Qaeda, for terrorist purposes, as an act of war.
B) The Bush family, to enrich connected business interests, and/or as a doorway to establishing a permanent military presence in Iraq.
C) Israel/The Jews, to attract a greater Western political and military presence in the region, and/or because they're so cacklingly evil.
D) Saudi Arabia, because they want the oil nations, and they already own Bush.
E) Some or all of the above, though I'm not sure "all" would work...

2) Were the towers demolished by explosives from within?

A) No, that's madness.
B) But consider the indecipherable, theoretical scientific evidence!  And the puffs of smoke!  It's obvious!

3) What hit the Pentagon?

A) A commercial airliner, as generally reported.
B) A military jet, as some have speculated, and others have reported seeing and/or hearing.
C) A missile fired from a military jet, as some have speculated, and others have reported seeing and/or hearing.
D) Nothing, it was all a controlled explosion, and they scattered some junk on the front lawn for verisimilitude.

There are other splinters of debate, but I think most of them, large as they might be, are offshoots of these three.

Good answers, CCC. I don't know why it's so hard for people to believe that Islamic facists could fly planes and crash them into buildings. Guess it's easier to believe in a vast conspiracy involving evil political leaders.

B) The Bush family, to enrich connected business interests, and/or as a doorway to establishing a permanent military presence in Iraq.
C) Israel/The Jews, to attract a greater Western political and military presence in the region, and/or because they're so cacklingly evil.
D) Saudi Arabia, because they want the oil nations, and they already own Bush.

LOL! Those would be funny - if I didn't already know that some people believed this. B - if that's the case, then why Afghanistan. Why not just plan the whole thing to look like it was actually Iraq - ensure the "terrorists" were actually from Iraq, and were Iraqi soldiers. Taht would be a lot easier to do than go the route that we actually did take. If the ultimate goal was to get a military presence in Iraq, then there was an easier way that probably wouldn't not have required killing 2000+ Americans and flush our economy down the toilet.  I won't touch C because it's even more absurd than B.

Explosives: B) But consider the indecipherable, theoretical scientific evidence!  And the puffs of smoke!  It's obvious!

There's no evidence in that stupid documentary that bombs were set. You have a few individuals who say that they heard bombs but that's not real evidence. And the puffs of smoke could be literally anything. Again no "scientific" evidence. It's all speculation from non-experts.

No need to deal with 3 either except to say, "If it wasn't an airliner with all those people on the plane, then were are the people?" Are they stashed away in a hidden bunker? And with all the leaks that have come out of the CIA over the past couple of years that were intended to hurt this administration, then why not one like this? This would truly hurt the President!

I've seen a recent rise in politics and media in which it's perfectly okay for people to throw out varying opinions/ideas as if they are facts, and then pose the qeustion: "The accusation is so serious that it needs an answer" even though the proof just isn't there. Rather did that with the National Guard papers that were faked. Kerry did it during the election, and I just continue to see this need to accuse others of something without any evidence, and then imply that these accusations need to be answered. Some of you may remember me during the election saying that Kerry was an alien, and demanding an answer from Kerry regarding this accusation. In the case of 9/11 it's "question authority" and question the evidence that the govt has given us. I don't have any problems questioning the evidence - it's obvious that the 911 Comission didn't do as good of a job as they should had and didn't investigate certain things that I personally feel should've been. 

But sometimes, it just goes way too far into something else entirely. 

Jordan .