Mr Sheen is the latest celebrity to confuse fact and fiction (UK Guardian)

[Taxloss]

He's a right Charlie

Mr Sheen is the latest celebrity to confuse fact and fiction

Pay attention, civilians. Actor Charlie Sheen has been focusing his mind on the official explanation for 9/11. And you know what? He's not buying it. "It just didn't look like any commercial jetliner I've flown on any time in my life," the Hotshots Part Deux star told a US radio station this week, "and then when the buildings came down later on that day, I said to my brother 'call me insane', but did it sorta look like those buildings came down in a controlled demolition?"

You're insane. Next.

...

Mmm. For many celebrities, conspiracy theories are the VIP rooms of history. Sure, you'll have your Earl Warrens and your senate investigations patrolling the velvet rope, but if you know the right people, and have access to enormous quantities of self-regard, you can get through to the inner sanctum where they tell you It's All A Big Lie.

Frankly, with dentistry as expensive as yours, you simply can't afford to let The Man stamp his jackboot down on your face, and so it is that when faced with the inquiry "did Lee Harvey Oswald act alone?", you find yourself thinking: "God, I mean ... do any of us? Like, he had to have people, you know? At least an agent and a publicist."

More ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1739254,00.html

[rman]

1. a large amount of ad-hominems coming from the Guardian

[Taxloss]

4. Charlie Sheen IS the story here, not MIHOP.

And when dealing with Alex Jones, the medium is the message.

[CJCRANE]

13. Yes, this article seems almost Rovian

in the way it directly attacks Sheen's assertions by attacking him personally without actually addressing the questions he's raised.

[Taxloss]

21. Do you actually know Marina Hyde?

Because one thing I can tell you with absolute certainty is that she is not a Rovian plant.

[CJCRANE]

24. That's why I said "almost"..

It's clearly a hatchet job on Sheen though.

I guess it was probably the easiest way to frame the story, by doing it from a "let's laugh at those crazy Hollywood celebs" angle.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CJCRANE]

30. Not exactly..

he asked three main questions

why did the towers fall down?

why did B*sh stay in the classroom?

how did B*sh see the first plane hit?

They seem to be legitimate questions.

[niallmac]

2. Which is a worse sin in the 'Guardians' opinion?..

Questioning authority or blind allegiance?

[Taxloss]

3. It doesn't have to be either.

The Guardian is the UK's leading left-wing paper. You don't need to tell them about questioning authority. In any case, this is a signed column, not a leading article. But Marina Hyde is a canny commentator.

[glitch]

17. Apparently you do.

"You don't need to tell them about questioning authority."

Or do you not question left-wing authorities?

[Taxloss]

20. There you go with the false dichotomies again.

This is a signed comment piece, not a leader article. Or do you not agree in free speech?

(See, I can play too.)

[glitch]

23. Wrong again. I do believe in free speech, including asking questions.

If you're going to use terms like false dichotomy you should learn what they mean.

To put it really simply: no one is saying the Guardian can't offer opinions. We are saying we don't need to swallow their opinions without questioning them, and we hate to see them do it.

No dichotomy, very straight forward.

[Taxloss]

26. See how frustrating it is?

So you must believe X - or are you saying Y? That, my friend is a false dichotomy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy

[CJCRANE]

18. But they also broadly support New Labour..nt

[pretzel4gore]

5. Charlie, boost your career good man

the frickin dems are terrified of the jackbooted boors who btw are very nice people who should be treated with respect, and...well a hug never hurts (a handshake is for those too chicken to hug, they say)...they also look very good in them $4000 dollar kevin klien jean uniforms.....and it's not their fault their boors, it's the liberal public education styastem....put the blame there...'I never felt the need to stick my nose into others droppings' and ...well go Charlie, but nice counts too!

[Peace Patriot]

6. I feel about 9/11 pretty much the same way I feel about rightwing

Bushite corporations counting all our votes in the 2004 election with "trade secret," proprietary programming code, with virtually no audit/recount controls, in an election system designed by the two biggest crooks in Congress, Tom Delay and Bob Ney.

That is.

Prove it, you S.O.B.'s!

:wow:

[glitch]

10. They can't, so they'll just attack anyone who questions their word.

Sad to see so many on supposedly on our side following along.

Prove It. Works for me! Along with Question Authority, which I hear is now passe.

[Taxloss]

14. Outrageous claims require outrageous backing.

You prove it.

[glitch]

15. You first, since apparently you buy their story.

Never been proved either, and just as outlandish.

[Taxloss]

19. That's the false dichotomy at the heart of MIHOP, its basic untruth,

right there. "You don't believe in MIHOP, so there you must believe the official version." That simply isn't true, there's a lot wrong with the official version. But I don't believe in controlled demolition. You're making the claims - the burden of proof is on you. Of course, it would help if the MIHOPers actually had a consistent version of events, but they can't even agree on where the explosives they know existed were, or even what type of explosive they were, or anything.

[glitch]

22. Not really, just asking you for proof of the official version.

That's fair, isn't it, since you're sneering at anyone questioning it?

[Taxloss]

25. Ah, so questioning MIHOP is "sneering"?

Interesting. But making out that anyone who doesn't believe in MIHOP is a government dupe is presumably intelligent debate.

This has all been gone over a million times on DU over the years to no one's apparent satisfaction. I'm sorry that you take the existence of people who don't share your beliefs as such an affront. The MIHOPers are clearly in the majority on DU, as you can see from this thread and many others. Good for you, well done.

[CJCRANE]

27. But Sheen

is just asking questions:

why did the towers fall down?

how did * see the first plane hit?

why did * stay in the classroom?

He doesn't know and neither do we.

[CJCRANE]

16. Sheen is mostly posing questions

not making claims.

[bemildred]

7. If this is about Charlie Sheen, it's mean-spirited drivel.

If it's about "conspiracy theories", it's propaganda.
Take your pick.

[MetaTrope]

8. But at least the Guardian still has Terry Jones

God: I've lost faith in Blair

The archangel reported that the Almighty has become increasingly irritated with the vogue for politicians to claim that He is behind their policies - especially if these involve killing large numbers of humans. According to Gabriel, God spake these words: "That George W Bush once had the nerve to say: 'God told me to go end the tyranny in Iraq, and I did.' Well, let me tell you I did no such thing! If I'd wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein, I could have given him pneumonia. I didn't need the president of the United States to send in hundreds of heavy bombers and thousands of missiles to destroy Iraq - even though I appreciate that Halliburton needed to fill its order books."

"How do Bush and Blair think it makes me look to all those parents who have lost sons and daughters in this grubby business? Don't they know that the Muslims they're taking out worship the same Me that they do? It's a public relations disaster that ought to set Christianity back hundreds of years. Though knowing the fundamentalists, it'll probably have the reverse effect."

[Briar]

28. Terry Jones most recent essay was, I think,

printed in the Telegraph (which is why I missed it).

[CJCRANE]

9. I don't expect this

kind of bullshit from the Guardian.

Comparing Sheen to Tom Cruise and Michael, WTF have they got do with it?!

Also, on which magical f'n TV did * see the first plane hit? It's a valid question.

[glitch]

12. It does bring out peoples true colors though, which is useful.

I'll go with the still functioning brain, which in this case is Charlie Sheen's. (Who knew?)

[CJCRANE]

11. "But it is George Bush's

assertion that he saw the first plane hit the north tower of the World Trade Centre before any footage of it had been released that tells Charlie he's on to something. "I guess one of the perks of being president is that you get access to TV channels that don't exist in the known universe," he continued in a manner which in no way suggests he once had a monstrous coke problem."

WTF does Sheen's previous drug habit have to do with this, I mean it's Bush who's making the outlandish claim (saw first plane hit)? Also, didn't * also have an addiction problem? So he's not exactly a reliable witness either.

[newfaceinhell]

31. Yes, the vicious attitude towards those recovering from drug addiction

tells you everything you need to know about this vindictive and spitefully personal hatchet-job of an "article".

[ovidsen]

32. What if the Chimp mis-spoke?

It wouldn't be the first time Bush has had a brain fart.

Which is another way of saying that I don't think his mentioning that he watched the first plane hit on TV proves anything.

[CJCRANE]

33. He said it at least twice though..nt

[ovidsen]

34. Maybe even more than twice

It's just that this guy is sooooooooo dumb.....

Now if Cheney had said it....

[CJCRANE]

36. Yes

he is dumb - the most important day in his life modern American history...and he lied about it!

All it would take is for one journalist to push him about what he meant to show him for what he really is.

[applegrove]

35. Very hard to gage the truth when there are so many lies. But there is

ample evidence that with hindsight flying planes into buildings was on the Al Qaeda agenda.

[teryang]

37. Why doesn't she ad hominen Physicist Steven Jones?

He's available for debate on the subject:

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

Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?

By Steven E. Jones

Department of Physics and Astronomy

Brigham Young University

Provo, UT 84602

On the basis of photographic and video evidence as well as related data and analyses, I provide thirteen reasons for rejecting the official hypothesis, according to which fire and impact damage caused the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC 7, in favor of the controlled-demolition hypothesis. The goal is to promote further scrutiny of the official government-sponsored reports as well as serious investigation of the controlled-demolition hypothesis. (No rebuttal of my argument can be complete, of course, unless it addresses all of these points.)

[Taxloss]

38. Because he's got zero media profile.

Even a Hollywood star had to go on a right-wing nutcase's radio programme in order to spread the creed. And that managed to create a blip.

[teryang]

40. Because he has credentials

The media can't deal with fact, only symbols, cliches, and zingers for the mass mind.

[bobbieinok]

39. Meacher supports Sheen in his important Guardian article in 2003

This article is extremely important b/c of its author, its place of publication, and the points it makes in criticizing the '9-11 story.'

(Michael Meacher MP was environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1036571,00.html

This war on terrorism is bogus

The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination

Michael Meacher
Saturday September 6, 2003
The Guardian

....

First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested.

....

Nor is the US response after 9/11 any better. No serious attempt has ever been made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early October 2001, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamist parties negotiated Bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US official said, significantly, that "casting our objectives too narrowly" risked "a premature collapse of the international effort if by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured". The US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that "the goal has never been to get Bin Laden" (AP, April 5 2002). The whistleblowing FBI agent Robert Wright told ABC News (December 19 2002) that FBI headquarters wanted no arrests. And in November 2001 the US airforce complained it had had al-Qaida and Taliban leaders in its sights as many as 10 times over the previous six weeks, but had been unable to attack because they did not receive permission quickly enough (Time Magazine, May 13 2002). None of this assembled evidence, all of which comes from sources already in the public domain, is compatible with the idea of a real, determined war on terrorism.

The catalogue of evidence does, however, fall into place when set against the PNAC blueprint. From this it seems that the so-called "war on terrorism" is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives. Indeed Tony Blair himself hinted at this when he said to the Commons liaison committee: "To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11" (Times, July 17 2002). Similarly Rumsfeld was so determined to obtain a rationale for an attack on Iraq that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to 9/11; the CIA repeatedly came back empty-handed (Time Magazine, May 13 2002).

In fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC plan into action. The evidence again is quite clear that plans for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before 9/11. A report prepared for the US government from the Baker Institute of Public Policy stated in April 2001 that "the US remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilising influence to... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East". Submitted to Vice-President Cheney's energy task group, the report recommended that because this was an unacceptable risk to the US, "military intervention" was necessary (Sunday Herald, October 6 2002).

....
The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the "global war on terrorism" has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda - the US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project. Is collusion in this myth and junior participation in this project really a proper aspiration for British foreign policy? If there was ever need to justify a more objective British stance, driven by our own independent goals, this whole depressing saga surely provides all the evidence needed for a radical change of course.

· Michael Meacher MP was environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003

[CJCRANE]

41. That's a good article

which connects the dots quite effectively. Unfortunately the political will and MSM consensus isn't ready to back people like Meacher.

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. Meacher does not question whether the planes brought down the WTC

he just points out how convenient the disaster was for the Bush admin, and raises the possiblilty of 'LIHOP' - that the air defence was stood down on purpose, and that investigations before 9/11 may have been negligent. He doesn't suggest that the hijackers didn't take over the planes, or that those weren't really the airliners that crashed into the buildings - or that Bush had a special skyscraper built and then demolished as a 'rehearsal'. You see, Sheen is babbling; Meacher is looking at actual events.

[TheBaldyMan]

42. it's an opinion piece from Marina Hyde not straight reporting

IIRC she used to write the wonderfully bitchy diary, maybe she can't get out of the habit. Personally I think most of the younger 'journalists' are careerists with little talent and less independance of thought.