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

Originally posted by jimmyx
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

Don't forget the wallet from United 93 and the red bandana..

Originally posted by homervb

 

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.

All right, point taken. However, I can give you as many concrete examples as you'd like of Bush being an incompetent boob. Can you give me one concrete example that shows he's secretly an evil genius?

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 do realize that the conclusions the 9/11 commission came to (I.E. that the gov't was suckered punched by imaginative terrorists and had no ability to prevent it) in no way inpugns the eyewitness and participants' accounts that the 9/11 commission used to come to their conclusions (I.E. flight attendant Renee May calling her mother and telling her that hijackers siezed the plane)

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.

You are right, I don't definitively know what caused the buildings to collapse and I never said I did...but what I do definitively know is that the buildings stood reliably for nearly thirty years and they only collapsed after a couple of planes came along and plowed into them. The adamant dismissal of what has to be a blatant relationship between the two events by the conspiracy crowd is astounding.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
All right, point taken. However, I can give you as many concrete examples as you'd like of Bush being an incompetent boob. Can you give me one concrete example that shows he's secretly an evil genius?

You believe that 19 lone wolves armed with items found at Home Depot managed to hijack several planes, take down multiple buildings all in the name of their religion though evidence points to the alleged culprits doing lines of coke at a strip bar right before this all took place. Sounds like the genius has managed to find people who will defend every detail of his story thought it is quite erroneous. .

You do realize that the conclusions the 9/11 commission came to (I.E. that the gov't was suckered punched by imaginative terrorists and had no ability to prevent it) in no way inpugns the eyewitness and participants' accounts that the 9/11 commission used to come to their conclusions (I.E. flight attendant Renee May calling her mother and telling her that hijackers siezed the plane)

Members came out and said it was flawed, and that's the truth. No matter how it's flawed, it's still flawed and you my friend believe every word in it and you try to convince other people it's what's true. You can say otherwise but the way you interact in this forum clearly shows you're here to promote it

You are right, I don't definitively know what caused the buildings to collapse and I never said I did...but what I do definitively know is that the buildings stood reliably for nearly thirty years and they only collapsed after a couple of planes came along and plowed into them. The adamant dismissal of what has to be a blatant relationship between the two events by the conspiracy crowd is astounding.

Astounding? If the NIST (the ones given the responsibility of trying to explain how these collapses occurred) cannot offer at least 1 theory to explain the full collapse then that makes it a complete mystery. So if they neglected any testing for signs of controlled demolition that means controlled demolition still remains a possibility but we now we will never know the results that the testing could have brought us. So whether someone of the skeptic community or those who believe the government story discuss the destruction of the towers, controlled demolition is still as much of a possibility as is a collapse. Face it Dave, it's logic.

Originally posted by homervb

You believe that 19 lone wolves armed with items found at Home Depot managed to hijack several planes, take down multiple buildings all in the name of their religion though evidence points to the alleged culprits doing lines of coke at a strip bar right before this all took place. Sounds like the genius has managed to find people who will defend every detail of his story thought it is quite erroneous. .

Nope, that whole "lines of coke" testimony came entirely from a former stripper who claimed Mohammed Atta was her boyfriend (she was the same one who claimed he dismembered her cats), and it came out after the fact that she was just making that whole thing up. I actually found that out from other posters here on ATS, so this place does occasionally produce useful unformation.

This is why I acknowledge there are problems with the 9/11 commission report. If phony information like that made its way into the report then it's a good bet there's other phony information in there as well. However, if the information from Renee May's mother is phony she'd have to be a damned good clairvoyant since it matched what Ted Olson told the commission.

Members came out and said it was flawed, and that's the truth. No matter how it's flawed, it's still flawed and you my friend believe every word in it and you try to convince other people it's what's true. You can say otherwise but the way you interact in this forum clearly shows you're here to promote it

You're going to have to explain what you mean by "flawed". Just because mischievous strippers looking for attention made up stories to get her name in the papers it doesn't mean everyone made up stories to get their names in the papers.

This is what separates you from me. You have an agenda to promote your pet conspiracy theories by knocking the 9/11 commission report, and you simply will not listen to anyone who says you're wrong. I have no real agenda other than to discuss the facts, so if it turns out the 9/11 commission report AND your pet conspiracy theories are proven wrong, I can live with that.

Astounding? If the NIST (the ones given the responsibility of trying to explain how these collapses occurred) cannot offer at least 1 theory to explain the full collapse then that makes it a complete mystery. So if they neglected any testing for signs of controlled demolition that means controlled demolition still remains a possibility but we now we will never know the results that the testing could have brought us. So whether someone of the skeptic community or those who believe the government story discuss the destruction of the towers, controlled demolition is still as much of a possibility as is a collapse. Face it Dave, it's logic.

This type of argument was sprung on me once before. That person claimed that just because we can't see god it doesn't mean god doesn't exist, to which I pointed out that it's equally true that just because we don't see Amun Ra it doesn't mean Amun Ra doesn't exist either. It was amusing to watch him short circuit on his propaganda.

The idea wasn't to investigate every possibility under the sun for the sake of investigating everything under then sun because it would take 10,000 years. The idea was to investigate what the existing evidence showed would cause such damage, as as I pointed out many times, there would have been a lot more more blatant evidence of explosives left behind that would have led investigators to look in that direction than just residue . Otherwise, in your case, although it's technically true that just because there's no evidence of explosives it doesn't mean explosives weren't used, it's also true that just because there's no evidence of sabotage by leprechauns it doesn't mean the buildings were destroyed by leprechauns either. Therefore unless they test for sabotage by leprechauns it must mean leprechauns still remain a possibility as well...?

Just becuase it's logical it doesn't mean you don't wind up with absurd conclusions.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Nope, that whole "lines of coke" testimony came entirely from a former stripper who claimed Mohammed Atta was her boyfriend (she was the same one who claimed he dismembered her cats), and it came out after the fact that she was just making that whole thing up. I actually found that out from other posters here on ATS, so this place does occasionally produce useful unformation.

That's quite funny because you and your clan of sheep once tried to explain to me that these terrorists didn't follow every aspect of the religion, so that's why they were doing drugs before the attack.

This is why I acknowledge there are problems with the 9/11 commission report. If phony information like that made its way into the report then it's a good bet there's other phony information in there as well. However, if the information from Renee May's mother is phony she'd have to be a damned good clairvoyant since it matched what Ted Olson told the commission.

You're going to have to explain what you mean by "flawed". Just because mischievous strippers looking for attention made up stories to get her name in the papers it doesn't mean everyone made up stories to get their names in the papers.

This is what separates you from me. You have an agenda to promote your pet conspiracy theories by knocking the 9/11 commission report, and you simply will not listen to anyone who says you're wrong. I have no real agenda other than to discuss the facts, so if it turns out the 9/11 commission report AND your pet conspiracy theories are proven wrong, I can live with that.

So you admit that the report has phony information, now what about the information that was completely left out of the report like the Saudi government officials' ties to the hijackers? Does this sound like I have an agenda or those behind the report have a lot to hide about what happened that day, and those days leading up to 9/11?

So now you have a piece of history published in a book that contains phony information and a lack of extremely important information. Care to keep defending the "facts" you're taking out of a book in which you said contains phony information?

The idea wasn't to investigate every possibility under the sun for the sake of investigating everything under then sun because it would take 10,000 years. The idea was to investigate what the existing evidence showed would cause such damage, as as I pointed out many times, there would have been a lot more more blatant evidence of explosives left behind that would have led investigators to look in that direction than just residue .

There's 2 ways a building can be destroyed, with assistance or without assistance. This does not constitute as "everything under the sun". What if these terrorists managed to bring explosives on the plane to assist in the destruction of the towers? Let me guess, it's of little significance to you, right?

Otherwise, in your case, although it's technically true that just because there's no evidence of explosives it doesn't mean explosives weren't used, it's also true that just because there's no evidence of sabotage by leprechauns it doesn't mean the buildings were destroyed by leprechauns either. Therefore unless they test for sabotage by leprechauns it must mean leprechauns still remain a possibility as well...?

Just becuase it's logical it doesn't mean you don't wind up with absurd conclusions.

The only absurd thing here is you bringing leprechauns into the equation for the sake of trying to kill my argument . The only absurd conclusions are the one's you MAKE absurd. The fact that the NIST didn't test for explosives and they couldn't hypothesize why these towers were completely destroyed, leaves the possibility of controlled demolition as a logical outcome. If they did test for explosives and still couldn't figure out how both towers were destroyed then I'd say your argument against me is valid, but sorry Dave that's not the case.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Asktheanimals

 

Here's where you and I disagree. It doesn't matter if you're the Dixie Chicks, an NFL player or Joe the plumber - Every American has not only the right to speak their mind, but a patriotic duty to do so. Several of the people you mention as losing status in your eyes are people whose careers have suffered because they dared to disagree with the official story.
That fact alone should tell you there really is a cover up going on.

No, actaully, I think Ed Asner being old as dirt and Charlie Sheen being an unreliable drug addict has more to do with their suffering careers than their belief in any conspiracy story.

I for one will be surprised if this thing gets played in even one movie house. Michael Moore was able to get away with playing "Fahrenheit 9/11" because Bush was still president and there was still money to be made from Bush bashing. Nowadays, claiming "Bush staged 9/11" is about as topical as Dan Quayle jokes...and if anyone has to ask who Dan Quayle is then you've just proved my point.

GREAT points man!

I mean, let's not talk about 9/11 because it's old news. No one wants to drag out ancient history. Let's stay topical, people! Relevance is god! Say it with me! Relevance is god. Go back to sleep. Your leaders are doing everything necessary for you too.... go back to sleep....

And I'm sure those guys' careers got ruined because they're old, and on drugs. I mean, there is no one, and I mean no one with a successful career in hollywood who is old or on drugs. Simply doesn't happen. It's all just a coincidence.

Go back to sleep. Everything is under control. Nothing to see here.

Originally posted by homervb

That's quite funny because you and your clan of sheep once tried to explain to me that these terrorists didn't follow every aspect of the religion, so that's why they were doing drugs before the attack.

Yes, I do recall I might have said that in a prior discussion, and it's still true- a religious zealot is capable of doing literally anything once he invents a reason for himself why God approves of it (mainly because flying a hijacked plane into a building isn't exactly rational to begin with). That was before I learned the person claiming the terrorists were into drugs and partying was making it all up. She might have only admitted she was making it up only recently, I don't know.

...and frankly, I don't care. I'm not going to slavishly cling to someone's statement simply out of stubbornness if I happen to find out the statement is false. As I see new information I change my opinions accordingly. Why is that funny?

So you admit that the report has phony information, now what about the information that was completely left out of the report like the Saudi government officials' ties to the hijackers? Does this sound like I have an agenda or those behind the report have a lot to hide about what happened that day, and those days leading up to 9/11?

Actually yes, you do have an agenda. I said the report was FLAWED, as in it has known mistakes in it and probably has even more mistakes in it that we don't know about. That in no way means that every single component of the report is false like you insist on making it out to be because all the components came from different sources. An officer not wanting to make the air force look like a bunch of bumbling idiots can misrepresent the effectivness in their response during 9/11 while Renee May's mother can still truthfully say what it was her daughter told her.

There's 2 ways a building can be destroyed, with assistance or without assistance. This does not constitute as "everything under the sun". What if these terrorists managed to bring explosives on the plane to assist in the destruction of the towers? Let me guess, it's of little significance to you, right?

No, actually it would be of great significance becuase it would almost certainly be the missing piece of the puzzle for how the planes caused the towers to collapse and we could dismiss all these "controlled demolitions" hoaxes once and for all.

You walked into that one.

The only absurd thing here is you bringing leprechauns into the equation for the sake of trying to kill my argument . The only absurd conclusions are the one's you MAKE absurd. The fact that the NIST didn't test for explosives and they couldn't hypothesize why these towers were completely destroyed, leaves the possibility of controlled demolition as a logical outcome. If they did test for explosives and still couldn't figure out how both towers were destroyed then I'd say your argument against me is valid, but sorry Dave that's not the case.

All right then, if it's absurd, please prove to me that the towers weren't destroyed by leprechauns. If you can't disprove it (because NIST didn'tt disprove leprechauns were involved) then it still leaves the possibility of leprechauns sabotaging the towers as a possible outcome.

You see how circular logic works? Change "Leprechauns" with "explosives" and it's literally the exact same thing.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

 

No, actually, I think Ed Asner being old as dirt and Charlie Sheen being an unreliable drug addict has more to do with their suffering careers than their belief in any conspiracy story.

Remember how i said in another thread that you're not even funny anymore? Well I take it back, you did it again.

Charlie Sheens suffering career...Sure.. Don't worry Dave your comment does not make you look foolish.

How Much Does Charlie Sheen Make Per Episode

Charlie Sheen was making $1.25 million per episode. That amount grows to $2 million when you include back end syndication points. A season is typically 24 episodes, so Sheen’s salary was roughly $48 million per year from the show.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Yes, I do recall I might have said that in a prior discussion, and it's still true- a religious zealot is capable of doing literally anything once he invents a reason for himself why God approves of it (mainly because flying a hijacked plane into a building isn't exactly rational to begin with). That was before I learned the person claiming the terrorists were into drugs and partying was making it all up. She might have only admitted she was making it up only recently, I don't know.

...and frankly, I don't care. I'm not going to slavishly cling to someone's statement simply out of stubbornness if I happen to find out the statement is false. As I see new information I change my opinions accordingly. Why is that funny?

Ah, I see I see. The tone of how sure you were then is reflecting on this same conversation and it's funny to see you say you were wrong though you called my logic dumb for bringing into question the ironic fact that people so dedicated to their religion (willing to die for it) will go do a line of coke which is strictly forbidden,

Actually yes, you do have an agenda. I said the report was FLAWED, as in it has known mistakes in it and probably has even more mistakes in it that we don't know about. That in no way means that every single component of the report is false like you insist on making it out to be because all the components came from different sources. An officer not wanting to make the air force look like a bunch of bumbling idiots can misrepresent the effectivness in their response during 9/11 while Renee May's mother can still truthfully say what it was her daughter told her.

Then it's more than obvious that they put it out there just to put something out there. Whether it was a cover up of an inside job or they're covering their own asses because they messed up, the truth is not out there and people like you constantly defend it.

No, actually it would be of great significance becuase it would almost certainly be the missing piece of the puzzle for how the planes caused the towers to collapse and we could dismiss all these "controlled demolitions" hoaxes once and for all.

You walked into that one.

I walked into that one? lol What makes it a hoax? The only way it's a hoax is if the truth is out there and you can finally dismiss it. Til then it's a theory just like the NIST half a theory in which can only explain the time of impact til collapse initiation.

You see how circular logic works? Change "Leprechauns" with "explosives" and it's literally the exact same thing.

You really amaze me man. The way you just throw ridiculous irrelevant factors into these phrases to try and shun them down is hilarious. So no Dave, I don't see how circular logic works. Not in this case. You sound like a loony. Leprechauns and Explosives DO NOT sound the same and nobody would say different...except you of course. Don't make me explain the illogical reasoning behind it. Please child.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Also, one thing that in these past 11 years, the 9/11 truth movement has NOT been able to give a basic workable idea of just how they could have rigged the WTC. I have not heard ONE plausible idea of just how demolitions would have worked or been used on the WTC buildings. Not a single one. What have Richard Gage, Dr. Griffin, or Steven Jones done, to make it believable? Nothing. Not a damn thing. Im hearing the same garbage that has been debunked so many times, it amazes me it still survives. Nothing new.

This movie, is going to be a comedy right? Comedy fiction? Are we going to be treated to hush-a-booms, nanu nanu superthermites being painted on beams, death beams and micro nukes in basements?

A upgrade construction workers, they could have painted the core columns with military grade nano (tiny particulate) thermite, from within the elevator shafts.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
A upgrade construction workers, they could have painted the core columns with military grade nano (tiny particulate) thermite, from within the elevator shafts.

So you think th film will be a comedy, using paint on nanoo nanoo thermite.... dressed as ninja's i suppose!

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by GenRadek
Also, one thing that in these past 11 years, the 9/11 truth movement has NOT been able to give a basic workable idea of just how they could have rigged the WTC. I have not heard ONE plausible idea of just how demolitions would have worked or been used on the WTC buildings. Not a single one. What have Richard Gage, Dr. Griffin, or Steven Jones done, to make it believable? Nothing. Not a damn thing. Im hearing the same garbage that has been debunked so many times, it amazes me it still survives. Nothing new.

This movie, is going to be a comedy right? Comedy fiction? Are we going to be treated to hush-a-booms, nanu nanu superthermites being painted on beams, death beams and micro nukes in basements?

A upgrade construction workers, they could have painted the core columns with military grade nano (tiny particulate) thermite, from within the elevator shafts.

That`s certainly a possibility as ACE elevators worked on the WTC six or seven months before the attacks.
I believe Otis had the contract for a number of years before.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


here is larry silverstien saying it, what else could it have meant?

www.youtube.com...

and here is what happens when someone asks him why he said "pull it"

www.youtube.com...


you cant tell me this guy is not involved in this. he makes up some bs about an dermatologist appointment on why he wasn't at work, and his family who all work there? they all happen to be late for work that day. he collects billions from the insurance. extreme luck? i don't think so he has guilt all over his face

reply to post by SkuzzleButt


Who made the decision to "pull it"?

Also, what did he gain from it if he lost money, HUNDREDS of millions of dollars, which insurance didnt fully cover, and still had to pay for a hole in the ground every year in taxes and other fees?

Originally posted by homervb

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
A upgrade construction workers, they could have painted the core columns with military grade nano (tiny particulate) thermite, from within the elevator shafts.

So you think th film will be a comedy, using paint on nanoo nanoo thermite.... dressed as ninja's i suppose!

Another shill turning someone's theory into a diss.

Excuse me, but shill is a "no-no" word on ATS.

Also, It is not a theory. A theory needs to have at least something to support it. This is just pulled out of an orifice and called a "theory". It is a hypothesis. You do know the difference between a theory and hypothesis?

www.mikeblaber.org...

for people who may not know the release date
its set for sometime in 2013

September Morn IMDb

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Which part of "close scrutiny" and civilised discussion are some people forgetting here?

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by SkuzzleButt

 

Who made the decision to "pull it"?

Also, what did he gain from it if he lost money, HUNDREDS of millions of dollars, which insurance didnt fully cover, and still had to pay for a hole in the ground every year in taxes and other fees?

Silverstein, who leased the twin towers weeks before they collapsed, took out a $3.5 billion policy with dozens of insurers. He went to court after the attacks, arguing that he should receive two payouts because the two hijacked planes that crashed into the towers represented two attacks instead of one.

Silverstein was awarded $4.6 billion in 2004.

he made alot of money, he did not lose out at all.

also

the towers required some $200 million in renovations and improvements, most of which related to removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards in the years since the towers were built. It was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. For years, the Port Authority treated the building like an aging dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the building for liability reasons

he was a property developer and has alot of experience in the field and no doubt he knew how to demolish a building. He had the right connections to pull off such a task

he is defiantly involved, but obviously there are many many more players here, the gov got their war he got the juicy paycheck