« Bill Maher and Richard Belzer Insult American Troops | Main | Medea Benjamin: North Korea Has No Nukes »

March 20, 2006

Charlie Sheen Comes Out of the Closet in His Tinfoil Hat

Charlie Sheen, coke-fiend sitcom star, son of an equally obnoxious left-wing kook, and a "scumbag" even by the standards of Heidi Fleiss, has come forward with his doubts that what the whole world saw happen at the World Trade Center on September 11 really occurred.

Evidently the planes flying into the towers were just our imagination; Sheen applied the considerable engineering skill that he developed while telling lame jokes for the laugh track machine on bubblegum programs like Spin City and Two and a Half Men to reach the conclusion that the WTC fell in a controlled demolition.

Sheen also expressed his disbelief that a jet hit the Pentagon. How could a jet maneuver itself right into a building? And where is this jet now? Inquiring minds want to know.

If al Qaeda wasn't behind the 9/11 attacks, then it could only be our own President. The purpose was apparently to provide a pretext for the invasion of Afghanistan. Why we would want to invade Afghanistan if not to respond to Islamic terror is a question Sheen doesn't address. Maybe our troops are over there to steal Afghan rugs.

Tinseltown moonbattery and our acceptance of it have come a long way in the last half century. Imagine an actor in the early 1940s proclaiming that it was not the Japanese but Franklin Roosevelt who attacked Pearl Harbor. Imagine WWII America putting up with lowlife like Charlie Sheen.

Hat tip: Drudge Report

One more reason not to waste your time on sitcoms.

Posted by Van Helsing at March 20, 2006 9:28 PM


Honestly, what can you expect from a guy who looks for love from prostitutes.

Sheesh. His moonbat father taught him well: the only real parent is the almighty STATE. Sex does not equal love. Terrorism does not equal evil.

Posted by: Doug at March 20, 2006 9:50 PM

He probably watched the documentary In Plane Sight. If you want to know where he is coming from you should check it out. Or if you don't have the time you can check out the great propaganda internet site

I am not sure about the evidence that is brought fourth from these two sources, but it is an interesting ride down conspiracy lane.

I actually acquired some of the original footage they talk about and I did see the anomalies they described, what that really means I haven't a clue.

Posted by: Reed Harding at March 20, 2006 10:18 PM

He asks where is the plane that hit the Pentagon? It was vaporized, it was full loaded and struck a reinforced concrete building. Besides, witnesses on the ground saw the plane flying into the building.

Hundreds of people saw the plane.

As for the WTC looking like a controlled demolition, the fire fueled by 10-20000 gallons of jet fuel along with the destruction of up to half of the support columns would make it look that way. Its amazing they held up as long as they did. With the huge weight of the buildings above the crash sites, it was only a matter of time before they pancaked. Skimping on fireproofing of the upper floors didnt help matters. Although even then they would have collapsed eventually anyway.

This goes into alot of detail on the defects in the WTC design. They dont build heavy reinforced concrete building like the Empire State Buildings that much any more since they are hugely expensive. I think Petrons Towers was one of the few built to withstand almost anything but a nuclear bomb.

If it were really controlled, the explosion would have originated near the base of the towers, not near the middle and upper third. Thats how they take down building, Ive seen several of them where I live. It takes weeks of preparation for controlled implosions and somebody would have noticed the wires, the precut steel beams, the explosives being placed. Its not something you can do overnight.

Posted by: General Jack D. Ripper at March 20, 2006 11:19 PM

The only reason that the 9/11 truth movement is being so vigorously suppressed by the far-right element is not because conspiracy theories are anthetical to their sensibilities (after all, the guy who took down the Oklahoma City building had WHAT book in his jacket when he was busted?)

It's because 9/11 is the only plausible justification they can come up with for everything that immediately followed it. It was the "new Pearl Harbor" of the Project for the New American Century, and its architects.

The entire scenario was DESIGNED to help an entire nation justify their own atrocities, and for a neocon police state to be instituted.

Americans, due to the presidency of the worst terrorist ever on Earth, have lost a staggering number of personal and civil freedoms guaranteed to them by the very Founding Fathers of this nation themselves (it took only one Patriot Act, and a climate of total fear, for the American people to acquiesce to their own rape).

Ask the average working person who the bigger freakazoid is: Charlie Sheen, or Arnold Schwarzenegger?

Ask the average person who THEY'D trust with their widescreen television overnight: Bill O'Reilly, or Randi Rhodes?

The truth, logic, intelligence is winning.

And the right simply doesn't have the facility to cope with losing "hearts and minds" under those parameters.

Posted by: moonbat supreme at March 20, 2006 11:25 PM

Are you fucking kidding me with this shit???

"moonbat supreme"

This is joke post, right? I mean, I know that smirking dickweed Bennish is sore about being caught with his pants down, but hey - is he REALLY that demented that he'd troll conservative sites?

Come to think of it, he probably is.

Eric in Hollywood

Posted by: HollywoodNeoCon at March 21, 2006 1:57 AM

The most telling quote from Sheen: "It feels like from the people I talk to in and around my circles, it seems like the worm is turning."

Ah, surely.

It's amazing these claims are still out there despite being debunked again and again.

I refer you to this very nice compilation of moonbat myths concerning 9/11 and their thorough smack down by Popular Mechanics.

Posted by: Dangerous Dan at March 21, 2006 2:51 AM

Eric, why is it that when someone, anyone, challenges Republican talking points and debunks them, you turn around and categorize that as "trolling conservative websites"?

If you are espousing a position that even you know you can't defend under scrutiny, why would you post it on any website to begin with? Who's trolling here?

Furthermore, who says "moonbattery" is a conservative website?

I've seen a president, who borrows from our ENEMIES, more money than all other previous presidents COMBINED, knowing full well that the American people will have to pay five back for every dollar borrowed.

This is not "conservatism", in any way, shape, or form. But I've seen these thought processes powerfully defended here.

I miss having lively debates with true conservatives, but don't ask me to swallow your neocon demon-seed full force, and then look up longingly, begging for more?

Where the fuck do you think you are?

Assholes, your time has come.

Posted by: moonbat supreme at March 21, 2006 7:22 AM

Dangerous Dan, I have a few questions for you.

First off, what exactly do all these "conspiracy theorists" have to gain, by challenging the regime's official version of what happened?

Are the vast majority of the proponents of these "conspiracy theorists" what you always denounce "moonbats", "commies", "leftists"....or are they conservative Texans like Alex Jones and the like?

Do you think that a stand-down order issued while American planes are making U-turns over our skies is not cause enough for further investigation of what really happened?

Lastly, why might a publication such as "Popular Mechanics" be motivated to attempt to discredit these "theories" and support the regime's version of events?

Posted by: moonbat supreme at March 21, 2006 7:31 AM

I'd say Sheen didn't answer the "why?" question to attacking Afghanistan because he's a buyer of the Left's great defining myth about the War on Terrorism: "It's all about the oil!!"

In this case, the Left's thinking goes that Bush was given marching orders during his candidacy in 2000 by Big Oil (in this case, Unocal) to prepare the guidelines for what would be 9/11. Unocal's guideline was that the terrorists pegged for the attack would all be in Afghanistan, thereby allowing Unocal to resurrect an oil pipeline plan it'd had to drop in the 90's due to the Taliban taking over.

So, Bush wins (thanks to Big Oil's money), goes on to orchestrate 9/11, declares war on terror (thus giving Big Oil a carte blanche in case of future oil conquests), and while the dust settles after the Taliban's downfall, Unocal moves in and secures a oil pipeline deal. The Left goes on to be the only group who has friends inside Afghanistan who're eyewitnesses to the pipeline's construction.

This myth has been around since the first days after 9/11, when the Left looked for any way to claim Bin Ladin was innocent and Bush was the one at fault. It's part of what sparked the great "No Blood for Oil!" meme that's kept the anti-war movement afloat.

Posted by: Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds at March 21, 2006 9:36 AM

Moonbat Supreme has to be a joke. No one could be so delusional in their thinking and not be in a padded cage somewhere. If you are serious, it's a bit audacious of you to expect to be responded to with anything but derision, for you are so far gone that you're unreachable. No response is necessary to your non-arguments.

Posted by: MG3 at March 21, 2006 9:57 AM


In my circles, I have NEVER heard ANYONE deify Osama bin Laden (or Saddam Hussein, for that matter) for what they actually have done to their own.

The question is, what specifically did either Osama bin Laden do to offend thee, if the regime's official 9/11 explanation has more holes in it than a slice of Swiss cheese?

The point is that the 9/11 occurrences served as a validation of an invasion of a sovereign nation that the neocons had always intended to march into anyway, and never leave (please reference "The Project For The New American Century" and the Downing Street memos as backup documentation, as well as Condoleeza Rice's testimony regarding the White House daily briefings, for supporting documentation).

Osama bin Laden was definitely pissed at the US, no question about it-but it had nothing to do with "hating our freedom", or any other such nonsense. It had to do with the establishment of the Sultan US Air Base in Saudi Arabia, on land the Wahabist Muslims consider sacred ground, and the fact that there was never any intention of US neocons ever allowing it to be vacated, once its allegedly strategic (but in fact political) purposes were achieved.

And, as for Saddam Hussein, what did Iraq ever do to threaten the US's security in the first place?

If anything, we invaded the wrong country.

Uh, can you visualize the neocons authorizing the right one, to begin with?

Afghanistan, which did harbor Al-Qaeda, and the operations there, were quietly put on the back burner, especially after Bush's staged codpiece spectacle on the deck of the aircraft carrier (docked a few miles off California), where he declared that combat operations in Iraq had ended.

Folks, they are not going to get into invading the countries where the Wahabist Muslims that do which to destroy America actually are. It's not so much an issue of "that's where the oil is", as much as it is an issue of "that's where all the neocon money is", and "that's where our business partners rule".

The antiwar movement has, in actuality, unlike the war itself, little to do with "Big Oil".

The antiwar movement has to do with the WAR, and the fact that the vast majority of Americans do not accept it, do not believe it should have ever been undertaken, and are holding the Bush administration responsible for their crimes.

Posted by: moonbat supreme at March 21, 2006 10:13 AM

Apparently, some moonbats have nothing else to do all night except respond to blogs, which would be just dandy if anyone cared to listen to
the same bullshit over, and over, and over, and over again.

As I've written before, I'm not going to engage this fuckwit. He has no interest whatsoever in debate, rather his continued repitition of what he's been TAUGHT to think only reflect's the left's complete intolerance of anything that runs contrary to their groupthink.

I'll be anxiously awaiting November, at which point "the collective's" heads will explode.

Eric in Hollywood

Posted by: HollywoodNeoCon at March 21, 2006 10:40 AM

Actor Charlie Sheen has joined a growing army of other highly credible public figures....

WTF? By what possible standard can any Hollywood yahoo with a track record like Charlie's possibly be considered "highly credible" about anything other than the best lap dancers at strip clubs, and who are the trustworthy bouncers when you need to score some blow?

Posted by: TC@LeatherPenguin at March 21, 2006 10:48 AM

These fine elitist actors evidently live in some alternative universe.

Posted by: nikko at March 21, 2006 11:23 AM

I would like to clear a couple of things up. Why would we invade Afghanistan if not for Islamic terrorists? Isn't there a Natural Gas Pipeline from Turkmenistan that needed to run through Taliban controlled Afghanistan. And this theory is not really that far out there, America has attacked itself before to invade other countries. Roosevelt knew about the Japanese fleet comming but allowed them to attack so the Americans would finally approve of joining the war effort. There is also the northwood( I believe this is the one) document, were we plan to have ex-patriate Cubans attack us so we can invade Cuba. And let us not forget the U.S.S. Maine, the original false attack on America. An accident that was trumped up by Newspapers as an attack on the U.S. and used as an excuse to go to war.

Posted by: Kornphlake at March 21, 2006 12:18 PM

Americans, due to the presidency of the worst terrorist ever on Earth, have lost a staggering number of personal and civil freedoms

Name one. The only constitutional right or civil liberty I have lost under Bush is the right to buy an advertisment to criticize a politician 60 days before an election... and that was because Bush signed a campaign finance bill pushed by John McCain and Russ Feingold.

Posted by: V the K at March 21, 2006 1:01 PM

V the K: He can't name one, because there isn't one. It is another of the tiring, inane left-wing talking points. blood for oil! bush lied! saddam never had wmd! bush/cheney blew up the levees! It is sad and kinda funny to watch this happen. But, what are ya gonna do?

Posted by: nikko at March 21, 2006 1:15 PM

Conspiracy theorists seem to think that a bunker buster was used on the Pentagon. They like to point out that this part of the Pentagon was "under construction" and that seems a little convient. They back up their conspircay by looking at the photographic and video footage evidence shortly after the event at the Pentagon. There is no apparent airplane reckage around the Pentagon where the event happened and the hole created by the event seems to indicate that a plane could not have made it. Also I believe two rings of the Pentagon were comprimised which means several feet of reinforced concrete was penetrated by a Jumbo Jet. This, as they point out, is highly unlikely. The fuel left over from this crash would have required a major enviromental clean up effort. This was never conducted (Perhaps they don't mind poisoned ground water).

I don't believe these theories are the truth, but they are interesting. You guys should study them more if you want to be able to discredit them.

Posted by: Reed Harding at March 21, 2006 1:19 PM

Og all it. All of them. Try not to argue like a child in the process

All the links below are to videos on either Google Video and/or streaming videos for Windows Media Player. Nobody has to wait for the entire file to download completely before you can watch it.

Quick overview of 911 for busy people

911 for Very Busy People

Analysis of the attack on the twin towers and the Pentagon:

A thorough analysis of the attacks on both the Pentagon and WTC. This video deals with pretty much, every unanswered question surrounding the attacks. This is a very good start!

Painful Deceptions - An analysis of the September 11th Attack

’Loose Change (2nd Edition)’ contains animations of the attack on the Pentagon
and a very thorough analysis of both the attacks on WTC and the Pentagon:

Loose Change 2nd Edition

Acoustic profile of the explosives used to bring down the towers. Recorded by an eyewitness, who filmed the entire attack from peer 51. This video contains footage you can't find anywhere else.

911 Eyewitness

This recent presentation by Dr. Steven Jones (Department of Physics and Astronomy - Brigham Young University) is primarily focused on the collapses of World Trade Center 1, 2, and 7 on 9/11.

9/11 Revisited: Scientific and Ethical Questions

Here are the related documents that go along with this presentation:

Jones's research 'white paper'

Steven Jones has joined: Scholars for 9/11 Truth

Out of the ashes of the September 11th tragedy, a dark empire of war and tyranny has risen. The Constitution has been shredded and America is now a Police State. This film exposes not just who was behind the 9-11 attacks, but the roots and history of its orchestrators.

Martial Law 9/11 - Rise of the Police State:

There are some who maintain that the mythical 9/11 hijackers, although proven to be too incompetent to fly a little Cessna 172, had acquired the impressive skills that enabled them to fly airliners by training in flight simulators. Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a qualified pilot. Here, he explains how the manoeuvres Hani Hanjour had to go through to reach the Pentagon are virtually impossible.

The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

About suspicious Stock Market events in the period leading up to 911

Ever since the attacks on the World Trade towers and the Pentagon, disturbing questions have been raised about the possible involvement of some parts of the U.S. security apparatus or Administration. These questions have been supported by extensive circumstantial evidence and have been investigated by several U.S. Congressional Committees. Furthermore, the media have reported on the well known relationship which exists between President George W. Bush, the Carlyle Group, several oil companies and the Bin Laden Family.

Former narcotics investigator Mike Ruppert was forced out of the LAPD in 1977 when he exposed evidence of drug trafficking by the CIA. The Truth Lies of 9-11 is a filmed lecture at University where Ruppert uses only government documents, official statements and press reports as the basis of his investigative work. This pioneering, groundbreaking expose of 9-11, now two years old, paints a stark, but accurate picture of our world today and tomorrow.

Truth and Lies of 911

Debunking the Kean commission report about 911

David Ray Griffin explains PNAC and the neocon's dream about an American empire in relation to 911:

911 and the American Empire

Here he literally debunks the entire report as a 570 page lie:

The 911 Commission Report: Ommissions and Distortions

Specifically about 9/11 in relation to PNAC (Project for the New American Century)

Was 9/11 more than just an attack? Could the Bush administration have had anything to gain from the attack? Two prominent European politicians, Michael Meacher and Andreas von Bülow, express their serious doubts about the official version of the 9/11 story.

Attack or Godsend

Alternative link: Attack or Godsend

About the media as complicit in the cover-up of 9/11

This is a ground-breaking 44-minute video by Barrie Zwicker. He was the first mainstream journalist in the world to go on air (in January 2002) and ask hard questions about the official story of 9/11. He analyses the use of fear to befuddle the public. He deconstructs the so-called "war on terrorism". He examines in depth the failure of the military on 9/11 and George Bush's highly inappropriate behaviour that day. He finds the 9/11 Commission to be a total coverup operation. Throughout, he analyses the role of the mainstream media as complicit in keeping the public massively misinformed and befuddled.

The 911 news special you never saw

Israeli spying on 9/11

These are the videos AIPAC lobbied FOX News to remove from their website. Since then, AIPAC has found itself embroiled in yet another espionage case, this time involving an operative inside the very Pentagon office, from which many of the now discredited claims abut Iraq's WMD emerged.

FOX News threatened to force the removal of this report, but here it is for those of you unaware that on 9-11, the largest foreign spy ring ever uncovered in the US was in the process of being rounded up, and that evidence linking these arrested Israeli spies to 9-11 has been classified by the US Government!

911 The Israeli Connection (Spy Scandal - 4 Part Series Dec. 2001)


This video is a compilation of segments from other videos on the 9/11/01 attack and historical precedents.

* The Great Deception by Barrie Zwicker

* Painful Deceptions by Eric Hufschmid

* Aftermath -- Unanswered Questions from 9-11 by

* 9-11 International Inquiry, San Francisco

Perspective on 9-11 excerpts the portion of Painful Deceptions that covers the collapse of Building 7 -- which includes five videos of the Building 7's implosion. Jenkins' video is an excellent tool for education and outreach in audiences sceptical of the idea that the attack was an inside job. Jenkins combines the best parts of the work of others, sticks to substantial evidence, and frames the presentation of that evidence in a historical context that facilitates its objective examination.

Perspective on 9/11

Download links to all the videos listed above

Other Documentation for those who wants to check the facts for themselves:

NIST report:

Comments from other experts on this report:

Eyewitness testimonies:

911 reading room:

Pictures, reports, articles etc.

Precedents, motives and a history of bankers raping nations with artificial inflation to plunge them into war

THE MONEY MASTERS is a 3 1/2 hour non-fiction, historical documentary that traces the origins of the political power structure that rules our nation and the world today. The modern political power structure has its roots in the hidden manipulation and accumulation of gold and other forms of money. The development of fractional reserve banking practices in the 17th century brought to a cunning sophistication the secret techniques initially used by goldsmiths fraudulently to accumulate wealth. With the formation of the privately-owned Bank of England in 1694, the yoke of economic slavery to a privately-owned "central" bank was first forced upon the backs of an entire nation, not removed but
only made heavier with the passing of the three centuries to our day. Nation after nation, including America, has fallen prey to this cabal of international central bankers.

The Money Masters 1 of 3

The Money Masters 2 of 3

The Money Masters 3 of 3


Posted by: Anonymous at March 21, 2006 2:49 PM

A wonderful compendium of fever dreams, oh gutless "Anonymous" schmuck. But answer me this:

If this vast, dark neocon cabal--freshly imbued with their Straussian marching orders delivered while in college in the Fifties and Sixties--truly existed, lurking in the bowels of think tanks and whatnot, planning their overthrow of the government, why'd they wait so long?

They could have started the fun back in '80-81 by knocking Iran flat on its ass for having the nerve to hold Americans hostage after invading our sovereign territory (embassy). The Soviets would have freaked and the jackbooted American military drones would have deployed (and been greeted by the sheeple in the streets with cries of "kill those Commie bastards!") while Ronnie got the Final Days underway?

(shit...I just gave away one of my "alternate history" manuscripts....)

Posted by: TC@LeatherPenguin at March 21, 2006 3:06 PM

Do you have a have a reading disabillity or are you just plain stupid? Have the depleted uranium reached you water resevoirs maybe? Each and every one of your questions are answered via links in my post. If you're simply too lazy to check it out, then shut up. It's always painful to watch morons talk abou things they know absolutely nothing about.

Like these guys:

Australian television interviews some of the remaining 30% who think Bush is still doing a great job:

Undereducated nutjobs for Bush

What a bunch of nutters! They can't even find the goddamn country they want to bomb on a map. And thinks Australia is France and Iran. Hahahahahaha!!!

Posted by: Anonymous at March 21, 2006 3:18 PM

It's just amazing to watch the parade of fruitcakes go by:

moonbat supreme


anonymous (what a pathetic coward)

Let's see, it's almost as big as the latest antiwar protest (turnout: 2) But there sure was a big hot wind!

Keep up the entertainment--losers.

Posted by: Doug at March 21, 2006 3:28 PM

Posted by Nutbag:

This recent presentation by Dr. Steven Jones (Department of Physics and Astronomy - Brigham Young University) is primarily focused on the collapses of World Trade Center 1, 2, and 7 on 9/11.

9/11 Revisited: Scientific and Ethical Questions

Here are the related documents that go along with this presentation:

Jones's research 'white paper'

Steven Jones has joined: Scholars for 9/11 Truth

Out of the ashes of the September 11th tragedy, a dark empire of war and tyranny has risen. The Constitution has been shredded and America is now a Police State. This film exposes not just who was behind the 9-11 attacks, but the roots and history of its orchestrators.

Martial Law 9/11 - Rise of the Police State

This site is the greatest. I literally almost fell out of my chair laughing.

BTW, here is the audio of uberwhacko Alex Jones interviewing Chaz Sheen:

Posted by: Anonymous at March 21, 2006 3:40 PM

Anonymous, I can point to people in any country who know jack about geography. This isn't a uniquely american trait, nor is it a majority trait in the states - or, indeed, any country. Think about it. The US has a population of some 300 million people. Statistically you're dead certain to find a few dozen very stupid people with a sample that large. But lets consider, the UK has 60 million people living on it's green and pleasant lands and France has 58 million. In each case I can guarantee you'll find nearly as many stupid people per 100 as you'll find in the states; and again, in australia, you'll find just as many stupid people. In fact in just about any country you look you'll find similar proportions of stupid, idiotic know-nothings who believe anything they're told and spout it off as received wisdom to their stupid buddies over a bong or a pint of beer. So why the focus on America? Isn't that prejudice? I thought the left hated prejudice. Am I wrong now?

Posted by: Archonix at March 21, 2006 3:42 PM

Parade of fruitbats huh? It's hard to imagine what would happen if moonbats took over and got their way(shudders). Even worse to think of what would happen if the Christian Right took over(shudders twice). Sometimes one has to take a step back and look at the truth. Is it really so hard to believe that this attack was planned by the powers that be? I am not against Iraq or Afghanistan being invaded. I am not against spying on Americans without warrents. Hell I think we should move on over to Iran and Syria to impose a little American style Democracy there. What I'm saying is that I would like to see these bastards just tell the truth. Too bad this is not possible. The American people are just too predictable, those with power know how to keep it. This is through the manipulation of the public's emotions. Anger is the easiest emotion to get from somebody, and the powers that be know how to stir up the hornets nest. That is not the trick though, the trick is stirring up the hornets nest and pointing those hornets in the direction you want them to go. This time we got pointed towards the Middle East. Where will we pointed to next time?

Posted by: Kornphlake at March 21, 2006 4:35 PM

To everyone who is so quick to demonize Sheen for questioning the official 9/11 fairytale (You know, the one where arab cavemen masterminded a plot that outsmarted the entire American military.) I would simply ask if you have ever seen the videos of the towers falling and watched the dozens of explosions appearing before the towers fell. I doubt many of you have so perhaps you should check out and see for yourself before you blindly swallow the government story. By the way, Alex Jones is a pro-life, Christian, Constitutionalist, and American Patriot, so I wouldn't lump him in with the far left. Of course since many neocons such as Richard Perle and David Horowitz are ex-marxists and communists maybe they know the far left better than most.

Posted by: BenChaput at March 21, 2006 4:49 PM

Re the two posts above, Moonbats are truly flocking to Charlie's sheen!! [rimshot] Anyone?

The Alex Jones wing is now deploying. This offshoot of the species usually drops videotape "documentaries" with ramblings of squibs and blast points on "the towers" as they fell.

This site is entertaining on a variety of levels.

Posted by: Riiiiight at March 21, 2006 5:01 PM

I don't really understand why "documentaries" and "the towers" are in quotations, but the squibs and blast points aren't ramblings, they are photographic evidence. But I guess the 9/11 commission which did not begin its "investigation" until more than a year later and was staffed by compromised, career political hacks, is the true gospel of 9/11.
By the way the only thing more pathetic than laughing at your own jokes is doing it on a message board. [rimshot]. Go back to sleep

Posted by: BenChaput at March 21, 2006 5:10 PM

To all resonable people--this nonsense just is laughable. Get a life before someone comes along with grape koolaid circa Jime Jones.

Posted by: nikko at March 21, 2006 5:26 PM

"To all resonable people--this nonsense just is laughable. Get a life before someone comes along with grape koolaid circa Jime Jones."

Gullible whackos such as these have always existed. The moon landing was faked people were more prevalent than many realized. The internet today just allows them to more easily communicate.

On the flip side, one great thing about the internet is that the rest of the world can now see them, and their various whacko conspiracy theories, such as and

Not only is the comedy great, but watching the psychology of the publishers and followers is also fascinating. Many times, nothing more than airing some otherwise inoccuous videotape and pictures, followed by virtually any explanation or theory linked to pixels and activity said video and pics, stated with an air of confidence and in mechanically descriptive language, is enough to amass large groups of people behind said theory or "serious question of credibility." No matter how ridiculous.

Posted by: Riiiiight at March 21, 2006 5:41 PM

Ben, I HEARD the first plane hit, then SAW the second auger in and watched the Towers burn until they fell from my bedroom window.

Later I ended up attending roughly one hundred funerals, many where we buried empty boxes.

I don't need no damn video to tell me what I saw, or some moonbat conspiracy freaks who believe any snake oil some idiotic "intellectual" hiding behind ivy-crusted academic walls (because he's too pathetic to cut it in the real world) wants to sell to the suckers who believe American society in and of itself somehow is so corrrupted that the wool can be so easily pulled over our collective eyes, and only moronic, whore-chasing drug addict Hollywood assholes like Charlie Sheen are smart enough to seee "the truth."

Among other things, I do "script doctor" work, and have met many an actor and actress, and the overwhelming majority of them are brainless dolts who have trouble finding their stage marks without a map.

Posted by: TC@LeatherPenguin at March 21, 2006 5:42 PM

Who cares what nonsense these moonbats espouse. I am not going to argue with them point by point, tht would be utterly futile as the Mikewhale Moore KKKoolaid has rotted out their brains and stolen their hearts and fed them to Satan.

But please do continue fruitackes--it's so entertaining!


Posted by: Doug at March 21, 2006 7:10 PM


The problem with hardcore conspiracy theorists is that their theories become self-perpetuating. They start with motivated speculation and then add assumptions, coincidences, bad data, and poor reasoning. Anything that contradicts their hypotheses is merely added to proof of the conspiracy.

Thus, when I linked to the Popular Mechanics article debunking the multiple myths the theorists have generated, Moonbat Supreme, instead of confronting the content, merely rhetorically asked why PM would be motivated to discredit the conspiracy theories. That is, because what PM said ran counter to his conspiracy theories, that by default meant that PM itself was part of the conspiracy. That, bizarrely enough, is taken as further proof of the conspiracy.

The problem is that absolutely nothing can dissuade the determined conspiracy theorist. Anything that supports the theory proves the theory, and anything that discredits it (no matter how damning) also proves the theory. So in the mind of the conspiracy-minded person, the theory is impossible to disprove. All evidence only serves to prove the theory, despite whether it augments or detracts from it.

So to you conspiracy folks, please explain to me how I am the one being close-minded to possibilities when your minds funnel any and all evidence towards support of your pre-determined position? You accuse us of denying evidence. This is because we argue against it. You, however, merely and conveniently assert that all evidence supports you. This improperly absolves you of the responsibility to confront the content itself. Instead, the conspiracy just grows ever-larger. The problem with this, though, is that the larger the proposed conspiracy, the less likely it's true. How large have these conspiracies grown?

Posted by: Dangerous Dan at March 21, 2006 7:51 PM


Let's keep this simple (why complicate matters?)

Please explain to me why none of our top-flight strategic air command didn't happen to BE anywhere while, for the better part of an hour, planes were doing U-turns in the air.

Please explain YOUR version of how a plane could have gotten close enough to the Pentagon (what most people would certainly assume to be one of the most secure airspaces on Earth) in order to crash into it and cause that particular type of damage and fire.

Uh, don't all jump up at once.....

Posted by: moonbat supreme at March 21, 2006 8:50 PM

"Anything that contradicts their hypotheses is merely added to proof of the conspiracy."

You're just saying that because you're one of them.

Dan, note how supremo answers your questions by shifting the burden of proof to you. Classic. But you're right, there's no point even trying to argue with people who are so mired in epistemological relativism.

Note what's missing in all this conspiracy theorizing are two useful intellectual tools: Occam's Razor ("When multiple explanations fit the available data, the simplest is most likely to be true"), and the principle that one shouldn't ascribe to malice what can just as easily be attributed to incompetence.

Posted by: prince of leaves at March 21, 2006 9:22 PM

Oh. "Them".

Is there any Zyprexa in the house?.....

Posted by: moonbat supreme at March 21, 2006 9:37 PM

I actually took the time to watch some of these videos and found them somewhat interesting. They all rehash the same theories though. I think it would be in our countries best interest to re-open the 9-11 investigation to discredit these videos if they are indeed inaccurate. If not many more "moonbats" will be born throughout the internet.

Posted by: Reed Harding at March 21, 2006 9:42 PM

Prince, indeed. So let's do something interesting and turn the pithy questions back on them. M. Supreme, though I have my doubts, I will assume you have an adequate amount of common sense. Let's think about the following.

Planting demolitions explosives is an intensive and time consuming endeavor requiring a great deal of skill. You don't just stick them in a building, you must strategically place them on key supports, cutting some supports, etc. If these were planted in the towers, how is that nobody noticed?

If 9/11 was a big conspiracy and the government flew two jets into the towers (that planes hit the towers isn't under debate), why would the government neglect to hit the Pentagon with a plane? I would think that if they had gone to the trouble to do so with the towers and that they lacked the moral scruples to do so, there would be no reason NOT to hit the Pentagon with a plane. Not to do so and then claim it had happened anyway would have been extraordinarily foolish and dangerous to the conspiracy. Are the plotters malevolent geniuses or sloppy amateurs?

The reason the likelihood of a proposed conspiracy being true is inversely proportional to its size is because larger conspiracies involve greater numbers of people. The more people who are involved, the more likely it is that someone will talk and expose the conspiracy. As it is, your conspiracy involves, at least, thousands - possibly tens of thousands. Among the people that would have to be in on it to some degree: administration officials, CIA, FBI, various local officials, police forces, foreign intelligence agencies and their governments, demolitions experts, the people on the airplanes, congressmen (both Democrat and Republican), various military entities, all media outlets, eyewitnesses, and the list continues growing. Why has nobody talked? In over four and a half years? These are not all government stooges, but many common people. Surely someone would have a crisis of conscience.

Democrats would have to know about the conspiracy. Why not reveal it and crush the president and Republicans?

Reporters would have to be in on it. Why not reveal it and crush the president and Republicans?

Foreign governments not friendly to the U.S. or at least those that don't like Bush would have to know about it. Why not reveal it to get rid of Bush?

Domestic intelligence agencies haven't been able to keep a lid on many, many classified operations due to "whistleblowers." Why have none blown the whistle on this, which is much larger and more important than any of the other operations?

Surely the civilians on the planes didn't volunteer to die and their phone calls to friends and family described the hijackers. If the 19 hijackers were government agents, why would they volunteer to die? Why wouldn't they also use weapons that would better guarantee them of success? Surely the conspiracy could have arranged some reason for guns to be planted somewhere on the plane.

Why have the experts in building demolitions not come forward? Especially since controlled building demolition isn’t particularly a government or military expertise, it’s a civilian one.

If it was a grand conspiracy, presumably the goal would be to inculcate fear without causing peripheral damage. That is, preserve the economy. Why pick a technique that destroyed a major financial center, grounded civil aviation, and severely hurt the economy which in turn hurt Bush? Why not do something that could still cause fear without the severe economic damage?

Why pick something so complicated as what happened on 9/11? For terrorists, they can identify weaknesses and exploit them. Exposure of their plot after it’s in action is unimportant. Conspirators, though, need to continue concealing their plot after the fact. So why do something as complex as hijacking four planes, flying one into a field, flying two others into the towers at roughly the same point where they had previously planted large amounts of explosives (while somehow keeping the explosives intact and keeping them from detonating until the appropriate time), apparently making the fourth plane disappear but detonating explosives in the Pentagon anyway and saying a plane hit it, etc. This would be an unnecessarily complex operation with too many people involved and too great a chance of being uncovered. It would be foolish. Real conspirators would have kept the operation small and with few or no loose ends.

Considering that the accepted opinion is that 9/11 was the result of terrorists and not a conspiracy, considering that you want to convince everybody that it resulted from a conspiracy, and considering that you are acting as a plaintiff indicting numerous people of malfeasance, the burden of proof is, at the very least, pragmatically yours. Thus far, you have presented speculations based on assumptions that are in turn supported by outright improbabilities which are suspended in the ether. What say you to my questions? And remember that it is not enough that you point out oddities or coincidences, you must be able to present a cohesive case for a conspiracy that cannot only explain the oddities and disprove accepted events, but also bear a reasonable chance of success and also remain concealed to this day. Can you do it? Can you make a thing that defies common sense and is of absurd complexity and improbable likelihood more plausible than what’s accepted?

Posted by: Dangerous Dan at March 21, 2006 11:27 PM

Dangerous, I'm not saying definitively that any of these theories IS necessarily correct, because, as far as I know, nothing has been proven (including, notably, the Bush regime's stock version of events).

What has always troubled me about the whole thing (and I am someone who made my way up Broadway that sad day, trying to make it home, but with very little emotion) is that there are WAY too many aspects that simply don't add up, just don't pass the smell test. It was after Labor Day. Why were so many individuals notably absent from work that day? The flames from the impact would admittedly seem catastrophic, but the fire itself really wasn't as hot as some reports would have had us believe, and they simply burned themselves out far too quickly for that type of heat to be believable. I've wondered why at least one of the planes appeared to be a commercial jet made to look like a passenger jet. The Olsen cellphone call was pulled, and all records of it destroyed-why? For a period of afternoons over a week prior to the occurrences, employees in WTC did indeed testify to being rousted from their offices for extended periods of time for unannounced "maintenance" work that wouldn't have ordinarily been necessary, and was never adequatedly explained. The steel that was used in the construction simply doesn't react to heat and impact in ways that would have caused the TYPE of collapse we saw (although I'm not ready to insist that any type of collapse COULDN'T have been. I've always wondered why Silverstein ordered 7 WTC to "take the building down", when indeed, such an endeavor would be nearly impossible to accomplish in such a short period of time. I've always been skeptical that "hijackers" of the caliber involved would have been able, regardless of their zeal and maniacal intentions, to possess the coordinated logistical knowledge needed to carry off this type of synchronized attack. There's not one shot of any plane hitting the Pentagon-why?

I'm honestly not so much really interested in trying to convince anyone that this theory or that theory or whatever are necessarily valid or even provable. I have no vested interest in whether or not the real perpetrators of this atrocity ever are apprehended, after all of what has transpired worldwide at our hands, supposedly because of it.

What troubles me more than anything is that these occurrences were unprecedented, and I'm truly blown away by the fact that Republicans in general and conservatives and neocons in particular have so much confidence and trust in ANY administration, that they could just take a story that undeniably has so many discrepancies, so insufficiently explained away, that they'd rather just let what seems so patently obvious to so many people be so casually dismissed, especially over the graves of so many Americans.

At first, after many of the allegations had surfaced, I believed that it was obviously some sort of collective psychosis, an extreme form of denial of what could not be comprehended or accepted.

I don't believe that anymore, though. It really comes down to the simple fact that Republicans, by and large, are so married to their candidate having to have the letter "R: follow their name on the ballot in order to validate what has become this deranged belief system, and because they hate America, they hate the troops, they hate all the virtues and pricciples of our Constitution and our founding fathers, and simply see there own fortunes as having risen under corporatist rule.

I don't even see it as ideologically based anymore. Support for the Bush Crime Family is based on nothing less base than avarice and greed, pure and simple.

And that's why I assert that George W. Bush is the best president Osama bin Laden could have ever imagined for himself, whether he was ultimately responsible or not.

Posted by: moonbat supreme at March 22, 2006 1:06 AM

It's ridiculous to believe that the WTC was brought down by explosive demolition.

Everybody knows that the government needed those explosives to blow up the levees in New Orleans.

Posted by: V the K at March 22, 2006 8:07 AM

THAT'S the best you can do on the issues I've brought up?

Wow, that's insightful. Thank God we have you and Laura Ingraham around to "educate" us, and tell us what to think.


Posted by: moonbat supreme at March 22, 2006 10:51 AM

I was working just 3 miles north from the Pentagon on 9/11 with a 12 floor office facing south.

While I was not affected on that day as those working in the Pentagon were, 9/11 was still very up front and personal for me, and the off-the- reservation comments in this thread by indiviuals who I suspect were nowhere near either the WTC or Pentagon on that Day of Infamy, are wrong on so many levels.

Posted by: ex-expat at March 22, 2006 11:03 AM

Not me, bud.

I was there, I WALKED home that day.

But even I had the brains to figure out that something strange was up that day.

Posted by: moonbat supreme at March 22, 2006 11:12 AM

My tinfoil hat itches. It matches my panties. I once masturbated to the thought of a nude Helen Thomas with Charles Nelson Reilly.

My Depends is leaking. I gotta go...

P.S. Pass the crack pipe, dude.

Posted by: moonbat supreme at March 22, 2006 12:28 PM

Don't you mean bong, hashfanatic?

Why the name change?

Posted by: HollywoodNeoCon at March 22, 2006 12:53 PM

A few quick points for the government apologists.
1. Why does Charlie Sheen's past drug use and drinking problem disqualify him from making intelligent observations gleaned from mainstream media reports and live television clips. Last I checked our President was also an alcoholic.
2. To all the people who heard or saw the planes hitting, no one is trying to claim that planes didn't hit the towers, just that planes alone would not have caused them to collapse.
3. Most of the researchers who have created videos such as "Loose Change" "Martial Law 9/11" etc. are not "Ivory tower intellectuals who couldn't make it in the real world" they are private citizens using their own time and money to investigate something they feel is important.
4. If you watch some of these videos you will see literally dozens of NY firefighters talking about multiple explosions in the buildings, including the FDNY Chief of Safety. Also there are dozens of live news reports from CNN, Fox News, etc. that mention explosions. William Rodriquez, a janitor in the WTC also saw explosions in the basement of the building which badly burned his coworkers, this was at the moment the plane struck.
5. Just use common sense! Do you really think a mostly aluminum plane would really do enough damage to cause the towers to collapse that fast? Do you really think that there just happened to be several drills and war games diverting military resources away on 9/11? Do you really believe the government had no prior knowledge yet almost immediately knew the names of the hijackers? Who by the way were not even on the flight manifests.

Chew on these for a while, and try and respond without using the words tinfoil, moonbat, or crazy.

Posted by: BenChaput at March 22, 2006 1:21 PM

That would be IMPOSSIBLE. Remove the tinfoil hat, you freaking crazy moonbat. I can't believe I live on the same planet with these wackos. (Note to self: remember to say those prayers nightly)

Posted by: nikko at March 22, 2006 1:33 PM

Just as I expected nikko, you can't refute any of the points I brought up so you resort to name calling. Let's hope the people behind 9/11 don't decide that its time for another one soon, because judging by the critical thinking of people like you, they will probably get away with it again.

Posted by: BenChaput at March 22, 2006 1:57 PM

Alright Ben, lets look at these points...

1. Well, alright, why exactly should we care about Charlie's observations? Does he have some hidden doctorates that allow him to give expert analysis? Or is it simply what it sounds like, the rantings of a Hollywood blowhard?

2, 4, and the first part of 5 I can tackle in one go. None of the experts have said that the impacts alone brought down the towers. Nor have they stated that the fires burned hot enough to melt steel. However, a sustained fire on steel beams whose fireproofing had been stripped does not have to melt, but simply weaken. With the steel weakened and the structural integrity of the building already compromised, it was only a matter of time before the weight of the floors above began a domino effect of floors pancaking atop one another.

As each floor smashed down on the floor below it, the compression of the air in between caused everything to blow out the windows, including dust and dirt. This sudden expulsion of debris is what appeared to alot of people like the hallmark of a triggered explosion. So far, nobody's been able to find any pieces of debris that carry of any known explosives...though I'm sure that's just part of the grand scheme

3. See, the last four words of your statement are key: "they feel is important." They have no solid proof, no smoking gun, just piece after piece of circumstantial evidence and a chain of coincides that stretches back to the 1960s. Yet their feelings are supposed to be proof in and of themself. Nick Cage in Lord of War says my point best: "Thank God we are living in a world where suspicion alone does not constitute a crime."

5. Now, having dealt with the first question earlier, lets look at the the others.

Yes, I really believe that there were several drills and war games going on at the time. If you check the US military on any given day, one branch or another has several drills going. Just because the Cold War has ended does not mean that they've stopped making sure everything's ready to go at a moment's notice.

Now, as to having prior knowledge...that's an iffy subject. We already know that Able Danger had singled out Atta months prior to 9/11. And that the intel community had records of increased chatter amongst known terror cells months prior to the attack. But I've seen nothing that says the Administration knew the when, how, who, and what of the attack itself.

Posted by: Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds at March 22, 2006 7:36 PM

The domino effect theory seems plausible, even though I remember being advised at the time that such an occurrence would still have taken place in stages (8-14 floors falling in layers, drawn out more slowly, which certainly would have been captured on camera).

I simply can't believe that our strategic air command forces were so diminished as to have allowed these occurrences to happen over such an extended period of time, in the Northeast, without stand down orders having be issued (which is where I actually think the next stage of inquiry will be directed at).

Posted by: moonbat supreme at March 22, 2006 8:18 PM

According to "Loose Change" the procedure was changed for non critical Air Force interception shortly before 9-11. They cited that basically all commands to scramble would have to go through the Secretary of Defense.

I don't know if that is true, but if it is I am sure conspiracy theorists are loving it.

Posted by: Reed Harding at March 22, 2006 9:44 PM

M. Supreme, there’s a saying in medicine that, “When you are on the prairie and you hear hooves, don’t look for zebras, look for horses.” The meaning of this is that if a patient presents with the symptoms of a common disease, it’s most likely that and not something exotic. You can take this as a variation of Occam’s Razor.

In the case of conspiracy theorists, they’re looking for zebras. They look at events and automatically reach for the most complex explanations instead of what would be the most reasonable and simplest explantions. For example, lots of people screwed up and mistakes were made. Human failure, especially at the governmental level, is far more probable than positing a vast government/military/intelligence conspiracy in which nobody’s talked. Since apparently the Bush administation is at the head of this, it also seems an awfully impressive and vast conspiracy to piece together in just 9 months of the first term when a new president is still trying to assert authority in Washington.

Have you even briefly considered how the things you described can be explained within the context of the “accepted” account instead of reaching for explanations that are pretty far out there?

What I find most surprising is that the theorists think so highly of the government’s ability that it could actually pull off and maintain a conspriacy of this scale. The theorists themselves seem to be at cross-purposes on this. On the one hand, the conspirators are evil geniuses pulling the wool over the eyes of America or they’re sloppy amateurs who make mistakes like saying identifying a hijacker as a man who was still alive. If they really were as good as they're supposed to be, they wouldn't have made such silly mistakes. And as I said before, this is far too complicated a plot. Think like a conspirator. For the purposes of inculcating fear, would this be the sort of plan you'd concoct, with so many loose ends, so much potential for exposure, and such a devastating result to your plans should you be exposed?

Furthermore, you accuse conservatives of being so committed to Bush that they'll believe anything that the government tells them. Given your animosity towards Bush, Republicans, and conservatives, I think it's equally likely that your antipathy is so great that you're unable to believe anything the government tells you. Do you not suffer from the same damning epistemological problem that you say conservatives do, just from the other side? That you have beliefs without justification, but you cling to them because you hate those who say otherwise? This seems to be justification by negation - since the other side is established to be evil, whatever they say is necessarily false and is further proof of their evilness. It's like a theory of knowledge based purely on ad hominem attacks.

Posted by: Dangerous Dan at March 23, 2006 1:13 AM

I lose every argument I get in. Clinging to paranoid asshat conspiracy theories that normal America rejects tends to contribute to my intellectually vacuous existence.

Posted by: moonbat supreme at March 23, 2006 8:20 AM

This is a GREAT blog. Good job!

Posted by: Lady Heather at March 23, 2006 1:08 PM

Apologies for including the html tags (br)... the enter spaces didn't show up on "preview", so I included the enter (br) html tags.

Posted by: Truth seeker at March 25, 2006 5:03 PM

Operation Northwoods:

In 1962 the Joint Chiefs of Staff were going to paint a plane like a commercial airliner and swap it with a real one. Then they were gonna shoot it down and blame Castro for it. Then go to war against Cuba using this fake terrorism. The document shows that they were not opposed to killing civilians to make this plan happen.

I think maybe they finally got around to using this tactic on Sept 11, 2001.

All you have to do is read history:

Posted by: Truth for a Change at March 26, 2006 3:41 AM

There are no holes/flaws/problems in the official version of 9/11.

It all stands up to scrutiny.

Nothing to see here, folks.

The pouplar mechanics article is flawless and unbeatable.


I'm an idiot.

Posted by: deano at March 27, 2006 3:42 AM


Interesting you waited to long to jump on the "lets not challenge Sheen on the facts and instead call him names" bandwagon.

So what do you say? YOu and Betsy Hart VS Alex Jones and Charlie Sheen. Do you understand the kind of ratings you guys would get?

If you had any balls you would put your money where your mouth is : )


Posted by: Roxdog at April 3, 2006 12:47 PM