Amazon.com Widgets

« Discard | Main | Bill Maher Fox Fun »

The Charlie Sheen Conspiracy

Concerned writes in the comments of an unrelated post, a no no by the way, "why is onegoodmove.org completely avoiding the recent charlie sheen/alex jones 9/11 challenging on cnn's showbiz tonight?". Funny isn't it, a conspiracy cognoscenti is concerned because I'm not covering his favorite conspiracy, and implies that I have some nefarious purpose in not jumping on his bandwagon. It's been a while since I've reminded readers that I choose what to post here based on my interests not theirs. I know it leaves me open to petty criticism, but to them I say get your own damn blog and post whatever you want. You could also do a google on it and read what others write. I'm not your tool, get it. That said, I'm not totally insensitive to others interests.

conspiracy.jpg

 

Comments

I've been watching Bonjour America since its (albeit recent) inception. I have to say that this episode was the most tedious, drawn-out, and unfunny. Sort of like an SNL skit. I guess it's more interesting if you're really into the conspiracy theory world.

Some more authoritative news on this from Showbiz Tonight, interviewing Sharon Stone. http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/sheenshowbizsharon_stone.htm

Cyrille is a hoot.

I dearly love the French.

But for some reason I hate this guy. French humour cannot translate well, especially because Anglo-Irish humour is much better.

user-pic

Bonjour America needs a really good script editor. He is not nearly as funny as he thinks he is. Each of his bits has about 30 seconds of amusing material, but he stretches them out like stream-of-consciousness ramblings.

Honestly, Norm, Bonjour America's are always your weakest links.

He is "not ready for prime time."

Hey, you've got to check out Perry Logan. http://perrylogan.org/ He's been ripping Alex Jones a new one for a couple of years now on his show on Austin's PACT cable network. Especially you can scroll down and check out the "What Alex Jones Believes" section. It is priceless, and true. All of it is actual Alex Jones assertions. lolz You can download video of Perry Logan going crazy like a fox here, too: http://perrylogan.org/Downloads.html Enjoy! :)

Thanks for the link, Heretic.

I have to say, I'm a bit disappointed. I have always referenced/plugged your blog to countless others, based on the prejudicial notion that you seem genuinely concerned about truth, beauty, and exposing hypocrisy. Have you sat down and watched with a critical mind, for example, 911 Revisted (Updated), via YouTube?

Again, a bit perplexed. How could an apparent truth-seeker such as yourself respond to this issue with a link to such horse-shiite. True, you can post whatever you want, but it seems very irrational (i.e inconsitency in your 'preference hierarchy') by shrugging off the most important issue for the next hundred years (or for however long these BS terror-wars last) with a link to such nonsense.

And please, ya-ya, in this 'post-modernist' world, and especially in Bush's America, we have witnessed the death of meaning. One such example is the phrase 'Conspiracy Theory'. However, I thought the 'Official' 911-Story is based on the most ludicrous of all conspiracy theories possible - i.e that the towers were brought down solely by the fires caused by the planes. That to me, is absolute insanity. Shrugging off those who recognize this, in my opinion, are no less insane.

Shits and Giggles, Peaches.

user-pic

And yes, Alex Jones IS a nut-job. But please, these guys are too?

http://st911.org/

D'oh!

user-pic

Oh, and concerning the Perry Logan links that 'debunk' the explosives hypothesis. Again, sit down, smoke a doobie (or whatever it takes), and WATCH 911 Revisted (Updated) (@ ~1/2 point).

Logan references a FEMA (lol!)/SEI/ASCE study as an attempt to refute the explosives hypothesis. One BIG problem - their model EXCLUDES the 47 support columns in both towers that were the cores centers of support for the buildings!!!

Again, lol! Kinda begs a question - whose more ignorant - Logan or Jones.

"What distinguishes us from other animals is language, and when we use language not to communicate truth as best we can determine it, but to deceive, mislead, obfuscate and obscure the facts, then we are committing the ultimate sin against humanity. We are playing a dangerous game with our own sanity."

  • Charley Reese (2006) - The Value of George Orwell

Woouhaoooo... It's funny how the comments can be violents. "hate"? I'm always surprised by the kind of words... Anyway, thank you for this link. I understand that everything is not funny in what I do, or that people don't appreciate my humor. This is perfectly normal. But I try.

I don't expect you to cover subjects that don't interest you, but am shocked that someone so pro-science would not be interested in 9/11 Truth. The "conspiracy theory" is the one where 19 Arabs with box cutters hijack four planes, cause three buildings to collapse into their own footprints at free fall speed, knock out the Pentagon's anti-aircraft defenses, and trick NORAD into standing down. I also would expect you to be a little more respectful of those of us whose grasp of the laws of physics is functional, and who still can think rationally despite all the hooey being fed to us by the 9/11 Commission, than to post this bozo clowning about something this consequential.

I visit your site every day, and try to click on ads to help you. I'm really offended by this post.

Norm, your instinct led you straight and true in this instance (as it usually does for us animals, whenever we pay attention to it). You shouldn't have posted that stupid, lame thing.

I live here--have for 25 years. I was here that day, saw it all. I have no conspiracy theories, but lots of the same questions that others have (why did #7 WTC, an enormous 43 story building that was ignored because two larger buildings were near it--fall when it was not hit by any airplanes?). But to ask any of these questions is to be labeled a conspiracy theorist. Fortunately, the New Yorker magazine has had the courage to ask them again, and so has Mark Morford of SF Gate (there's a link to Morford near the top of my blog's sidebar). These are questions that we New Yorkers know have to be asked and explored, whether or not the rest of the country wants to stick us with the "conspiracy theorist" label. Believe me, we've been called worse.

Daily Rev, Having folks like Alex Jones and Charlie Sheen on your side doesn't help. And then having these words backed up by Sharon Stone.. oh, yeah, that lends credibility. I following Heretic's links to the following article on debunking 9/11 myths. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y

If you want your comments to go through without moderation sign up for typekey

I'd love to have 5 authors, one editor, one producer, many specialists like "freaked-out canadian" to help me to inprove. I just remind you that it is a "personnal" show, with its limits, and of course I'm not ready for prime time. I have a job and a life. I DO IT FOR FUN!!!! Anyway, may be you're right, may be it's too long, I'm going to try to reduce the time of my sketchs.

Jo Ann - Attack the message and not the messenger. If you have seriously taken the time to research the events of 9/11 for yourself you wouldn't be relegated to tossing out irrelevant details about the one of the most important days of the 21st century. Alex Jones and Charlie Sheen are patriots, they may not be your kind of "patriot" but this definition is not up for you to decide.

In case you slept through school here is a little reminder for all of you out there...

The Law of falling bodies

Galileo was the first to demonstrate and then formulate the equation for the distance d traveled by a falling object under the influence of gravity for a time t.

Refresher:

Buildings one and two - Aprox 10 seconds. Building 7 - Aprox 6 seconds.

Free fall is the unrestricted acceleration from a height toward an impact with the Earth. The WTC towers both fell to the Earth very quickly as is timed by seismographs and video. They fell at the rate of free fall; that is, they fell as though NOTHING was in their way. The speed at which they fell totally cancels the theory that they "pancaked" one on top of the other and then stressed one floor after another until the entire mass was in rubble on the ground. According to rate of collapse, the towers fell smoothly and without encountering obstruction or resistance of any kind. That's it! It's impossible for the floors to fall / crash / fall / crash / fall...and get to the ground level in 10 seconds. Starting from the 80th floor, for example, at just ONE second per floor, it would take 80 seconds to fall--eight times too long. Even at only 1/2 second per floor it is STILL four times to slow. The only way that the WTC towers could get to the ground within approximately ten seconds is to encounter a weakened building on the way down--demolition.

If you want to call the laws of physics a conspiracy theory, please do.

Challenge the facts, not the men presenting the facts.

And Norm, you just lost a long time reader of your site. I have tried to help you with bandwidth costs by clicking on your ads, but I will never return. ::shakes head::

OGM are a perfect example of why America is not living up to it's potential, you have a voice -- believe it or not -- and your wasting it on that French guy? Wow

Without content from the Daily Show, etc. your site is weak anyway. Have fun living in the left/right paradigm.

Oh, I forgot... the Popular Mechanics story is Bogus....

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/index.html

Look, I don't know if there is any truth to the 9/11 conspiracy theories or not. I'll leave that to others to pursue. Further until someone persuades congress to launch some new official investigation, this will be no different than the 43 years we've followed the Kennedy assassination. There will always be unanswered questions, but unanswered questions aren't proof of a conspiracy. If you are disappointed that I don't share all your interests well did you really expect that I would did you? Finally to agent99. Think rationally, grasp of physics, your arrogance is unwarranted, and your condescension is annoying. Please, " your I thought you were genuinely concerned about truth trope is on the same level as the child that says to his father, if you really loved me you'd buy me a new bike.

Call me insane, but I like the French guy. I like his humor, both intended and unintended, that's why I link to him. I agree the pieces could probably be a little tighter, but like he says, he's doing it for fun and he's learning as he goes. I'm a fan and look forward to his future efforts. Here's a question was the pronunciation of flood intentional? It had me laughing out loud. Maybe he'll tell us.

So it's ok to have Mahler and Jon Stewart make jokes about the Bush administration and Christians, but when something you believe in is poked fun of, that's a bad thing.. a very very bad thing and is an indication of some neurosis? And if someone doesn't agree with you, then you run off all angry? Why not stay around and say how you feel? See, you have provided a link which debunks the debunker (Poplular Mechanics).. If I had not said anything and just read that link without a response, would that have been better? Isn't it better that I said what I had read and gave you the opportunity to respond? Now everyone who read the Popular Mechanics article can read the retort. Is it not preferable to confront what people are saying about the conspiracy theory and discuss it, or do you run away all angry when someone happens to contradict what you say? Oh, but Norm doesn't share you fervor for approaching this 9/11 conspiracy theory, so you no longer will support him? So if Norm posts something some day that really goes against how I believe, then I should get all bent out of joint and post how he has lost me as a reader? No, I don't think so. How are any two people supposed to share all of the same views? I have heard this same thing from the Christian liberals who say that they will no longer support 1gm because Norm posts blogs about Daniel Dennet and Dawkins? Will people just grow up, please.

Oh, and Vinvin, I don't think that your clips are too long! I love them. I hope that you don't allow your detractors to ruin your Bonjour America vlog.. It is so much fun and you provide me with some much needed humor in this oh too serious world.

Your missing one key point, there was no internet when Kennedy was killed.

Our founding fathers created this nation with a government that was designed for the people and by the people. Not the other way around. If the country knew the facts/questions surrounding 9/11, there would be a mass movement and Congress would have to follow suit. It's not a pipe dream... it can be reality if everyone stopped being so ignorant and reasearched it for themselves.

And here I thought this was an April Fools Joke...

Thanks Norm. No, the "flood" mistake is really not on purpose. I'm a goak in english, I still have many things to learn.

Here's an amusing comment from "The French Guy's" blog on his Charlie Sheen vlog.

"ps. mais je ne cede pas que l'origine de cet vision paranoiac est la belle France! Charlie Sheen est un dupe des Francais. Quel influence...l'exception culturelle!

I am not sure if I am translating this correctly, but it goes something like this:

"I remain firm that the origin of this paranoid vision is La Belle France. Charlie Sheen is a dupe of the French. What exceptional cultural influence!

This Bonjour America is horrible. It's not funny!

Sorry, but I didn't laugh o even smile...

Keep doin' the good work on onegoodmove...

Greetings from Spain (Barcelona) ;-)

To believe the 9/11 conspiracy theory you have to believe that George Bush, Condi Rice and the hundreds, perhaps thousands of others would have to be in on it were willing to kill 3000 Americans. I'm not persuaded. Evidence like we considered painting a plane with U.N. colors to provoke Sadamm and in the 90's considered faking a plane downing with college students. Not actually killing them but faking it is credible evidence, you have some screws loose. If you who believe there was a conspiracy and want to convince others you'd be well advised to leave out shit like that it does nothing but destroy your credibility.

Vinvin, it always cracks me up to see people who are not scientists acting like they are scientists. I am not a scientist, either, but I live in Austin, and so have been treated to all kinds of crazy stuff coming out of Alex's mouth, but I actually really like him. He, also, acts like he is a scientist. Did you see him shooting a plucked chicken to prove Cheney was closer to the guy he shot? Alex proclaimed it was a "scientific" experiment. Maybe stuff was covered up about the shooting, but, no, Alex, that was not a scientific experiment and you are not a scientist. We heard no evidence about what kind of shot Cheney was using, whether the barrel was choked, how long the barrel was, what kind of gun, or any of the confounds of Alex's "scientific experiment." The first time I ever heard Alex, he was telling me that the rich are sequestering themselves in compounds where they have genetic technicians learning unlimited life extension to make them immortal. You can read my Alex Jones article here: http://unrealitycheck.com/articles/alexjones.htm

Norm said: "Look, I don't know if there is any truth to the 9/11 conspiracy theories or not. I'll leave that to others to pursue. Further until someone persuades congress to launch some new official investigation, this will be no different than the 43 years we've followed the Kennedy assassination."

If you don't know, wouldn't you want to find out? What if the truth was that the official story makes no sense, as the so-called "conspiracy theorists" contend? Wouldn't it eat you up inside that there was in fact a cover-up? It seems you care deeply for reason and truth, why would you, on this most crucial question, shy away from the truth, or be so unconcerned with knowing with absolute certainty that you're right? The fact that you might not learn the truth for greater than 43 years and will be labeled a "conspiracy theorist" in the meantime means that you're willing to throw reason out the window and abide by the "official story"? Where is the logic in that?

You'll leave it to others to press congress to launch a new investigation??? (Or, I should say, the FIRST investigation into 9/11.) Why? Because it's too difficult to inspire the majority to question the legitimacy of their government or the motives of their "leaders"? I realize now I was mistaken, but it was my impression that was precisely what you were trying to do with this site.

By the way, attacking messengers rather than their message is an ad hominem argument -- i.e. a logical falacy.

Just out of curiosity, how many of those attacking the truth-seekers here have actually researched the events of 9/11 and PNAC? If you're new to it, I suggest Professor David Ray Griffin's lecture at University of Wisconsin (Madison): http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8765.htm

(Anyway, I do respect your opinions, Norm, and unlike "OGM lost a supporter", I won't abandon this site just because you don't see things as I do.)

Com'on Guys, it's April Fools !!!

Try smilling a bit, open your mind and stop looking 4 a battle on the poor VinVin's English Accent and his jokes about US paranoia ;)

You think it's inconceivable? Have you heard of Operation Northwoods?

"Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a 1962 plan to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government of Fidel Castro as part of the U.S. government's Operation Mongoose anti-Castro initiative. The plan, which was not implemented, called for various false flag actions, including simulated or real state sponsored terrorism (such as hijacked planes) on U.S. and Cuban soil. The plan was proposed by senior U.S. Department of Defense leaders, including the highest ranking member of the U.S. military, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lyman Louis Lemnitzer."

Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Jo An -- I'm not running anywhere and Im not angry, just disapointed. It's not that I am unable take critism of a belief that I hold, it's just that you may not be informed of the facts so I do not feel that you should speak on behalf of something you don't know enough about. I challenge you on the facts.

Jo Ann, I don't want to bicker back and forth because that will go nowhere. We are both American's and we both know something is wrong with our governement. I know we can both agree about that.

If you truly care I invite you to read a transcript of this lecture.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050521102328420

We need to come together because we both should know that rule # 1 of keeping a civilization from realizing the truth about its government is to divide them apart.

I am simply and American asking you to take time out of your day to objectively look at this information. If you have something that you would like for me to read or watch, I would glady do so.

If you care to watch a lecture instead of reading, see the following link:

http://www.911blogger.com/2005/04/proper-release-of-griffin-in-madison.html

Thank you.

I actually laughed out loud. couldn't watch the whole thing, but the idea is funny. Still, I want to know why WTC7 fell and why are several of the highjackers still alive and well. thanks for the giggle

Did I attack the messengers? Asking questions about the qualifications of those making the claims is not ad hominem. What I've seen passed off as evidence so far has been anecdotal, or not persuasive. Take the Operation Northwood for example. It is not evidence that 9/11 was government sponsored. The differences in scale as well as the fact that Northwood wasn't instituted both argue against it as being credible evidence for what you claim it is evidence for. If that's one of the best arguments you have have your case is incredibly weak. Other claims require expertise that I don't have, and I haven't seen evidence from anyone I consider qualified and reliable with nothing to gain that supports those views.

Norm, you didn't attack the messenger, that part of my rant was directed at Jo Ann's comments about Alex Jones (whom I can't stand either -- I agree that he does not help the truth movement one bit).

Of course you should know the credentials of those making these accusations so you can determine for yourself whether you should accept their claims. All of the documentaries I've seen and articles I've read quote "the experts", as do the MSM. I've seen countless interviews with scientists and engineers who refute the official story. Admittedly, I haven't run background checks on these people. But, have you run background checks on those whom you have chosen to believe?

You say that there is no evidence that the government had any involvement in 9/11. It's interesting to note that 95% of the documentaries out there don't point fingers; but only say that the official story can in no way be correct (per the laws of physics). Indeed, it is implied that the government is most likely behind it because we can all guess that the gov't knows what really happened but made a conscious decision not to share it with the public.

You said "The differences in scale as well as the fact that Northwood wasn't instituted both argue against it as being credible evidence for what you claim it is evidence for." I ask you: Has there ever been such a wreckless, cold-hearted administration? Was there ever an administration that actually wished for a "New Pearl Harbor" in order to gain support for their plans for global domination?

You say you haven't seen enough evidence to convince you. I'm not going to bombard you with links, but it just makes me wonder if you've researched this. Because it is so hard for me to look at the facts and draw any conclusion other than that PNAC was behind 9/11.

Yeah, I gotta stick up for Bonjour America. I don't think it's really a humor site. If you expect it to be sketch comedy, of course you'll be disappointed. It's not sketch comedy, it's a vlog, it's a soapbox for a guy to share his views with the world. Sure, it's a wacky soapbox, but I think that comparing it to SNL is just misguided.

True, it could be tighter and the humor doesn't always translate, but it is amusing and I just kinda like the guy. It makes some interesting points, too -- I learned a lot about the Maginot Line and the French resistance, for example.

It also worth noting that Cyrille obviously puts a lot of effort into it, and I appreciate that. If you've never tried to put together a video segment before -- from writing to acting to shooting to audio to editing -- it's a LOT of work. Seriously, it's difficult to understand just how much effort goes into putting together even just a few minutes of video until you've done it. And, of course, there's also the fact that you've got a French guy who's obviously spent a lot of time learning to speak good English and who really cares about communicating with us. I think that's really cool.

Bonjour America is okay in my book.

user-pic

The reason Opperation Northwoods was brought up was just to show that it's not "out of the question" for govenments to think like this.

If you you need science - Its right here. Right in Utah...

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

user-pic

Yeah, Penn & Teller said so, now I'm convinced.

Thanks Madsen :p (j/k)

Actually, to their comment that a "real skeptic" should be begging to be convinced otherwise, I agree wholeheartedly. And I would love -- absolutely LOVE -- for someone to explain all the "unanswered questions" surrounding the events of 9/11 (of which there are many). This has not been done because there aren't enough people with loud enough voices demanding answers.

That's precisely what the truth movement is about.

The failure to answer questions is no more proof of a conspiracy than the failure to explain the nature of the universe is proof of a gods existence.

If you're going to post more than an occasional comment please get a typekey identity so I don't have to approve all your comments.

Again, it is the fact that the "official story" is at best incomplete (to put it mildly) and we and the victims and their families deserve to know the whole truth.

As a truth-seeker, you resent religion for trying to persuade people that evolution is nonsense -- for evolution is "just a theory". (Just like global warming and plate techtonics.) As a thinker you want to know the truth.

Why is 9/11 different? (Rhetorical question.)

Well, I'm off to bed (6AM in Thailand). It's funny...I came here two years ago to escape the madness, but your site keeps me bogged down in it with all your damn videos! Keep up the good work!

Well, I guess I'm joining the consensus here; I find this vlog pretty lame, not humourous and too long. I enjoy most everything you post, but the 2 Vinvin videos are something best kept to oneself perhaps. I can't help but feel that his accent is forced as well - I understand he is certainly French, but I expect perhaps he affects his accent somewhat to try and add to the humour and fulfill the stereotypical accent expectation... At any rate, thanks for your blog!

Consensus perhaps, but I'm the only one with a vote. :)

I can't help but feel that his accent is forced as well

yes, and i wonder how fabulous you sound when you speak French? Or do you speak French?

And, of course, there's also the fact that you've got a French guy who's obviously spent a lot of time learning to speak good English and who really cares about communicating with us. I think that's really cool.

Amen.

I've been visiting this site for awhile now and I was absolutly shocked at this pile of sh*t that was posted about Charlie Sheen, and the theories that he's trying to shed some light on.

Wow, I can't believe how off you were on this one. I don't think I want to waste my time on this site anymore. Have fun watching Colbert Report clips when the real sh*t that's out there is on every other site but yours.

I'm done with this site. You look like an ass.

Manyof the posts here are quite unfair to Norm.

I have no vested interests as I voted for a conservative party in my country in Asia.

Here is my 5 cents' worth.

To those who have made claims that Norm has avoided this issue, do you have proof that he is avoiding this issue?

Truth is, you have none as it is merely your opinion.

Here's mine.

onegoodmove is not huffingtonpost. There are simply way too many issues to be covered by 1 single blog and that by itself shouldn't imply guilt by omission.

If you take this to court, the judge will throw it out. In Singapore, you can be sued for slander, as our conservative party membershave a penchant for doing.

Just one example, when a person don't comment on gays, that does not mean he is homophobic or that he likes gays.

I also subscribe to the conventions of a host. As all of us are guests at this blog, we should respect the tastes and wishes of the host, rather than criticising him when the situation suits those with their own ulterior motives.

Whether Norm includes something or excludes it is his own business. And we should respect that, rather than just expecting him to follow our wishes if there are no true cause for it.

As far as I'm concerned, US has way too many conspiracy theories.

Not enough time, media space and congressional dialogues have been spent on the official documents released in the last few years, which clearly pointed out that Bush and his administration lied to the public and Congress on numerous counts.

When in doubt, go back to primary documents, not the latest conspiracy theory.

Btw, for those not familiar with me, I have extremely negative opinions on the liberal Democractic parties in my country based on the incompetence and lack of coherent thought.

For that reason, I share the same opinions when it comes to the current Republican White House, Senate and Congress.

Incompetence at the political level should be condemned or it will put more lives on the line.

Shinta, I love the way you conspiracy guys always call yourselves exalted names like truth seekers and patriots, and are so sure you know the Truth. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously if you guys think there is no difference between the Republicans and Democrats after five years of this?

I don't recall referring to myself as exalted or a truth-seeker?? Thanks for lumping me into a group of conspiracy theorists, that's always nice. An effective tactic. Next you'll tell me that the 9/11 truth movement is a joke because the moon landings were real.

Heretic, if you wanted a response about Republicans and Democrats you need to be more clear. What are you talking about? What's your stance, and how is it supposedly differant from mine?

I dare you guys to watch this entire thing. It's an hour and a half.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change

Ok, I'm done.

Shinta, Heretic must have been referring to me using the term "truth seeker", though I didn't mention anything about patriotism.

Heretic, in one comment I simply asked how many of those attacking the "truth-seekers" had actually done any meaningful research on the topic (rather than simply taking the official story for granted). In that instance, the term applied to the group of people you like to label "conspiracy theorists" -- I.e., people who are seeking the whole truth surrounding 9/11. (To me, it seemed like an apt term.) By this question, I did not mean to imply that we have a monopoly on the truth in general. All that I was implying was that regarding this ONE topic, we require, and therefore we are seeking, more proof before we will be able to accept the official story as true.

If you, in fact, have sought the whole truth about 9/11 -- if you’ve bothered to critically examine both sides -- and are still convinced there was no foul play on the part of the government, do enlighten us to the proofs that you have discovered so that we can move on with our lives. You can start by explaining how WTC Building 7 collapsed. (If you have done the research, and can enlighten me, I certainly would owe you an apology for insinuating that you are NOT a 9/11 Truth Seeker.)

BTW, the second time I used this term was when I labeled Norm (someone who does not share my opinions on this) a truth seeker and a thinker.

Further to say that “I am seeking the truth” is not to say that “I know the truth.” It, is in fact an admission that I do NOT know the truth.

Oh, one more thing, Heretic: your condescension does not constitute an argument.

(Ugh, why am I exerting so much energy refuting your absurd comment?)

I love this bit. I want to be Charlie Sheen for Halloween. I couldn't give two shits about what Charlie thinks about anything, but a French dude impersonating this American hack is pretty amusing to me.

I like to make my last post clearer.

My point is to go back to primary documents when in doubt, rather than have someone digesting and interpreting it for you.

That's the issue that I have with the Bible. It caanot be considered as the primary document as the English versions were all translated from Greek, Araemic and other dead documents, most of which are not around anymore.

And I can't help but notice the political and religious biases of the intepreters within the text.

Frankly, I am dissapointed in the fact that you seem to be so close minded on the issue of 9/11.

I come to this site each and every day, and I am very pleased with most everything you post and with most of your views. This post on 9/11 shows me that a person can be extremely open minded and still close off one area of discourse all together because it is tainted with the word 'conspiracy'....sad really.

Let me explain what a conspiracy is since it would seem that you have the wrong impression here. Conspiracy = An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.

Therefore, a conspiracy theory is A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act.

Now, with that out of the way, any detective in the known world forms "conspiracy theories" on a daily basis about crimes that are committed. The official story given to us by the US government about 9/11 is in the most raw sense of the prase a "conspiracy theory". The only difference between the government's account of 9/11 and the wacko conspiracy theories that Charlie Sheen spoke of, is that there is hardly a shred of evidence for the government's theory, and boatloads of evidence for the latter.

Watch this video that proves the towers were a controlled demolition:

http://911busters.com/LAGJ/MOV/GJ17JimHoffmanWTCImploded13min.NotHere9.54.mov

Here is a list of other clips from that same event:

http://911busters.com/LA_GJ/index.html

Also, read Operation Northwoods, a plan in the 60s that was never enacted to create a fake terror campaign and blame Cuba.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf

Fire Engineering calls investigation a 'half baked farce':

http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/ArticleDisplay.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSe%20ction=Display&PUBLICATIONID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225

9/11 Victim's Families started the 9/11 Truth Movement:

http://septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-02-19-longisland.php

Watch David Ray Griffin speak on Cspan2 about 9/11 at Univ of Wisconsin - Madison:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1/griffinmadisonfull_25.wmv

Please research 9/11 before you bash the movement without sufficient evidence, I respect your website greatly.

-Taylor

I'll try one last time. I'm not close-minded to the idea that governments do heinous shit and cover it up. Look at Iraq for recent evidence of that. I've watched the 2nd edition video and I've read the transcript of David Ray Griffin's speech. I'm still not convinced. The unstated premise in the theory is that George W. Bush, Condi Rice, Dick Cheney et al with the cooperation of the military and many others intentionally killed 2800 Americans, and destroyed a vital bit of New York's infrastructure to create an environment that would make it possible to invade Iraq. That is an extraordinary claim and for me requires extraordinary evidence to support it. The evidence I've seen doesn't come close to meeting that standard. Absurd arguments like well he was willing to paint a U.S. plane with U.N. markings to provoke a war is somehow evidence that he would personally authorize a plan that would kill thousands of U.S. Citizens. Other evidence has been offered, technical in nature that I'm not qualified to evaluate and I suspect neither are many of you who seem to take it as fact. Virtually all of these arguments rely on cause and effect arguments, and although there are a any number of possible causes for the various parts that make up 9/11 those that want to believe our leaders are mass-murders pick and choose those that support that view. I've asked for reliable and qualified experts who support the technical explanations given for the various claims and the best anyone can do is Steve Jones from BYU. Now I know that Steve Jones is a physicist, but not sure if his area of expertise qualifies him to speak on the specifics here but there is also the fact that when Pons and Fleishman announced their cold fusion discovery Steve Jones was quickly on the bandwagon. He seems to be a bit of a media hound. Of course that doesn't disqualify him, but it certainly would cause one to take pause and look for others to substantiate the view. I have limited time to spend keeping this blog going and I have to make decision on how to spend that time. I am getting damn tired of hearing the tired refrain, I come to your site every day and I click on the ads, as if that gives you some say in the content. It doesn't. I pick and choose like I've said a dozen times things that interest me. I've haven't closed the book on 9/11 theories, but the evidence is going to have to get a lot more convincing before I spend more time on it. If you don't like the fact that I don't see the world exactly like you, that's too bad. I know many of you feel strongly about this issue, if you don't like how I cover or don't cover it get your information somewhere else.

I will make this post and leave the issue alone, since you seem to be tired of hearing about it.

All I can say is that you have to make a decision at some point about what you are going to accept as credible evidence, whether it is a physics professor or an independent researcher, or government officials with no physics background. Either way there are questions about 9/11 that the US government has covered up, and refused to answer.

ie. Building 7, put options of UA and AA, pentagon tapes, the list goes on.

Now I will list some links to look at with your discretion. I am not saying you have to believe anything, I believe none of the 'theories', I only look at what facts are out there, and these facts do not coincide with the official story that we were given by the US government. You don't have to believe anything, but you can wonder why victim's families started this movement and why there are so many people behind it now, which leads you to start questioning and researching if you so desire.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/03/07/gen.pentagon.pictures/ Is that a 757?^

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/12/1211_wirepentagon.html Plane wreckage?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/10/attack/main508656.shtml They knew and did nothing to stop it.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3340101/ Who is to say he isn't still CIA?

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi%2Dbin/conspiracy%5Ftheory/fullstory.asp?id=149 We could have had him, yet we didn't....

http://www.americanfreepress.net/051302/Revealing9-11StockTradesCo/revealing9-11stocktradesco.html Put options would show who knew ahead of time, but they won't release the names because "they had no conceivable connection to Al-qaeda"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8926416/ 9/11 tapes show there were secondary explosions throughout the hour between the planes hitting the towers and their collapse.

There is much more out there, the towers were liabilities at their collapse, they had asbestos and many other problems that would have taken billions of dollars to fix. Instead a lone company "Silverstien Properties" bought them for 3.2 bil the summer before the attacks, and made 4.8 bil on insurance, and they are still working on getting more money out of it. The whole deal stinks. Marvin Bush was security advisor for the WTC until his contract ended on September 11th 2001. There were war games on 9/11 which were mock terrorist hijackings of planes flying into the WTC towers. Just like on 7/7/05 when there was a security company doing a mock bombing of the London Underground at the same places and times that the actual attacks happened. The list goes on, all I can say is start looking to prove that Usama and Al-qaeda were the masterminds behind the attacks (just like I did, when I started) and soon you will see a different story arise.

-Taylor

PS. I don't care about your ads, I just thought I would mention that its nice to have a website like this to post dissenting ideas, but to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement without proper research is disheartening, but it is your site, and you will do as you please. Good Day.

Many of you are missing the point. Alex isn't 100 percent, but it's not all bullshit. You have make your own decisions. I actually personally know Dean Haglund, whom Alex interviewed. I can personally verify this: Prior to 9/11, The Lone Gunman TV show filmed a pilot depicting terrorists, actually a government plot, intent on crashing a plane into WTC. It was never aired. Don't call it all bullshit, if you don't know for sure. The FIRST thing I would do if I were the CIA, is call anybody on my tail a nut. Conspiracy theory = fuck you. Prove ME wrong.

That all being said, I have a rather different theory. I think the adminstration left the back door open, on purpose.

"Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true."

-Niels Bohr

French humor is...peculiar. Remember, these are the people that LOVE Jerry Lewis. Hell, they made him a member of the Legion of Honor.

I see some undue harshness directed at Norm here. What gives? I think the words "Conspiracy Theory" say it all.

Hi Taylor, no offense but I like to point out again that just because you don't mention something does not mean that you are close-minded by omission.

You might call that personal preferences i.e. you have a special interest in this subject and some do not.

Hi Kestrel,

I guess I have to note that Norm posted an anti-charlie sheen, anti-911 truth video. That is what I am referring to. Not the fact that he didn't mention 911. I am referring to the fact that this video was posted.

911 was the catalyst for everything that is happening now. You may not have an interest in it, but it created the foundation for the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, and most of the other problems that our society is facing with this government. It is no small issue.

I know that not everyone is interested, but why post a video against it, when you know nothing of the subject? If you are willing to post against it, then you should be willing to research it.

-Taylor

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives