critiques source fair use notice

Critique of's
'Actor Charlie Sheen Questions Official 9/11 Story'

The article critiqued here highlights excerpts from an interview Charlie Sheen gave to Alex Jones. Two days after publication of the article, CNN devoted part of its "Showbiz Tonite" segment on Headline News to Sheen's remarks. The segment had Nichole Rittenmire -- a supervising producer for the National Geographic television special Inside 9/11 -- defending the official story, and Michael Berger -- representative of -- supporting Sheen's statements. Berger said that Sheen had "done his homework" about 9/11.

However, Sheen evidently didn't do enough homework to understand the pitfalls of trotting out long-discredited theories that will inevitably be amplified in order to discredit substantive challenges to the official story. Sheen's comments suggesting he believes the no-jetliner theories, were selectively highlighted by the CNN piece, as could be expected. However, as this critique shows, also chose to highlight those comments. The article's byline reads 'Alex Jones & Paul Joseph Watson/Prison', but the fact that Jones does not support the no-jetliner theories while Watson does suggests that Watson had a dominant role in crafting this article.

Actor Charlie Sheen Questions Official 9/11 Story
Calls for truly independent investigation, joins growing ranks of prominent credible whistleblowers

Alex Jones & Paul Joseph Watson/Prison | March 20 2006

Actor Charlie Sheen has joined a growing army of other highly credible public figures in questioning the official story of 9/11 and calling for a new independent investigation of the attack and the circumstances surrounding it.

Over the past two years, scores of highly regarded individuals have gone public to express their serious doubts about 9/11. These include former presidential advisor and CIA analyst Ray McGovern, the father of Reaganomics and former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury Paul Craig Roberts, BYU physics Professor Steven Jones, former German defense minister Andreas von Buelow, former MI5 officer David Shayler, former Blair cabinet member Michael Meacher, former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds and many more.

Concluding the list of 'highly regarded individuals' is Morgan Reynolds who argues that all four jetliner crashes on 9/11/01 were faked, and idea he originally introduced in his Trojan Horse article packaged as an article rejecting the official account of the collapses of the World Trade Center skyscrapers.

Speaking to The Alex Jones Show on the GCN Radio Network, the star of current hit comedy show Two and a Half Men and dozens of movies including Platoon and Young Guns, Sheen elaborated on why he had problems believing the government's version of events.

Sheen agreed that the biggest conspiracy theory was put out by the government itself and prefaced his argument by quoting Theodore Roosevelt in stating, "That we are to stand by the President right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

"We're not the conspiracy theorists on this particular issue," said Sheen.

"It seems to me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75% of their targets, that feels like a conspiracy theory. It raises a lot of questions."

Sheen described the climate of acceptance for serious discussion about 9/11 as being far more fertile than it was a couple of years ago.

"It feels like from the people I talk to in and around my circles, it seems like the worm is turning."

Suspicious collapse of buildings

Sheen described his immediate skepticism regarding the official reason for the collapse of the twin towers and building 7 on the day of 9/11.

"I was up early and we were gonna do a pre-shoot on Spin City, the show I used to do, I was watching the news and the north tower was burning. I saw the south tower hit live, that famous wide shot where it disappears behind the building and then we see the tremendous fireball."

"There was a feeling, it just didn't look any commercial jetliner I've flown on any time in my life 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'?"

Whatever Sheen's intentions, he could hardly have done a better job of casting the controlled demolition idea as nonsense by pairing it with the idea that the South Tower was not hit by a jetliner.

Are Sheen's statements genuine recollections of his feelings as the attack unfolded. They have the ring of an assebalage of sound bytes culled from 9/11 websites. In the wide shot Sheen is apparently referring to, the plane was just a small, blurry sillowhette revealing almost no detail. Did he really think the appearance of the plane was anomylous at the time?

Sheen said that most people's gut instinct, that the buildings had been deliberately imploded, was washed away by the incessant flood of the official version of events from day one.

Sheen questioned the plausibility of a fireballs traveling 1100 feet down an elevator shaft and causing damage to the lobbies of the towers as seen in video footage, especially when contrasted with eyewitness accounts of bombs and explosions in the basement levels of the buildings.

Here, without having noted any of the many substantial pieces of evidence for conrolled demolition, highlights one of the most questionable pieces: the idea of basement bombs detonated at the time the jets hit the towers. Popular Mechanics highlighted this claim in create a smokescreen around the evidence of controlled demolition. would do better to highlight the many credible accounts by firefighers and EMTs describing the sites and sounds of explosions goining off at the outsets of the Twin Towers' 'collapses'.

Regarding building 7, which wasn't hit by a plane, Sheen highlighted the use of the term "pull," a demolition industry term for pulling the outer walls of the building towards the center in an implosion, as was used by Larry Silverstein in a September 2002 PBS documentary when he said that the decision to "pull" building 7 was made before its collapse. This technique ensures the building collapses in its own footprint and can clearly be seen during the collapse of building 7 with the classic 'crimp' being visible.

Turning to the subject of Building 7, immediately trots out Silverstein's 'pull-it' comment, amplifying it instead of any of the physical features of WTC 7's collapse that are the hallmarks of a controlled demolition:
  • The sudden onset of the collpase
  • The near free-fall speed of the building's descent
  • Streamers of dust emerging from the facade
  • The precise verticallity of the collapse
  • The totallity of the collapse
  • The tidy rubble pile left by the building's emphasis of the 'pull-it' remark, which is ambiguous at best, effectively eclipses consideration of these physical features which comprise an open-and-shut case for controlled demolition.

Furthermore, contrary to the article's assertion, "pull" is not "a demolition industry term for pulling the outer walls of the building towards the center in an implosion" as a simple research exercise clearly demonstrates.

The highly suspicious collapse of building 7 and the twin towers has previously been put under the spotlight by physics Professor Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories, the company that certified the steel components used in the construction of the World Trade Center towers.

"The term 'pull' is as common to the demolition world as 'action and 'cut' are to the movie world," said Sheen.

Sheen referenced firefighters in the buildings who were eyewitnesses to demolition style implosions and bombs.

"This is not you or I watching the videos and speculating on what we saw, these are gentlemen inside the buildings at the very point of collapse."

This is an odd statement of highlight, since if the gentlemen were "inside the buildings at the very point of collapse" they would not have lived to tell their stories.

"If there's a problem with building 7 then there's a problem with the whole thing," said Sheen.

True enough, but instead of pointing the reader to, for example, videos of the collapse the article highlights only the pull-it remark.

Bush's behavior on 9/11

Sheen then questioned President Bush's actions on 9/11 and his location at the Booker Elementary School in Florida. Once Andy Card had whispered to Bush that America was under attack why didn't the secret service immediately whisk Bush away to a secret location?

By remaining at a location where it was publicly known the President would be before 9/11, he was not only putting his own life in danger, but the lives of hundreds of schoolchildren. That is unless the government knew for sure what the targets were beforehand and that President Bush wasn't one of them.

"It seems to me that upon the revelation of that news that the secret service would grab the President as if he was on fire and remove him from that room," said Sheen.

The question of how Bush saw the first plane hit the north tower, when no live footage of that incident was carried, an assertion that Bush repeated twice, was also put under the spotlight.

"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," said Sheen.

"It might lead you to believe that he'd seen similar images in some type of rehearsal as it were, I don't know."

The Pentagon incident

Sheen outlined his disbelief that the official story of what happened at the Pentagon matched the physical evidence.

"Show us this incredible maneuvering, just show it to us. Just show us how this particular plane pulled off these maneuvers. 270 degree turn at 500 miles and hour descending 7,000 feet in two and a half minutes, skimming across treetops the last 500 meters."

We have not been able to confirm that a large commercial airliner hit the Pentagon because the government has seized and refused to release any footage that would show the impact.

The large body of eyewitness accounts describing the crash of a jetliner and the many ways in which the pattern of damage matches a 757 leave little doubt that the plane was a 757.

"I understand in the interest of national security that maybe not release the Pentagon cameras but what about the Sheraton, what about the gas station, what about the Department of Transportation freeway cam? What about all these shots that had this thing perfectly documented? Instead they put out five frames that they claim not to have authorized, it's really suspicious," said Sheen.

Sheen also questioned how the plane basically disappeared into the Pentagon with next to no wreckage and no indication of what happened to the wing sections.

Sheen's quote highlights suspicius aspects of the Pentagon attack from the final approach to the seizure of evidence of authorities. Then paraphrases Sheen as supporting the no-plane theory, using the erroneous missing wings argument. Does Sheen really support the no-plane theory?

Concerning how the Bush administration had finalized Afghanistan war plans two days before 9/11 with the massing of 44,000 US troops and 18,000 British troops in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, and in addition the call for "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor," as outlined in the PNAC documents, Sheen stated, "you don't really put those strategies together overnight do you for a major invasion? Those are really well calculated and really well planned."

"Coincidence? We think not," said Sheen and he called the PNAC quotes "emblematic of the arrogance of this administration."

A real investigation

Sheen joined others in calling for a revised and truly independent investigation of 9/11.

Sheen said that "September 11 wasn't the Zapruder film, it was the Zapruder film festival," and that the inquiry had to be, "headed, if this is possible, by some neutral investigative committee. What if we used retired political foreign nationals? What if we used experts that don't have any ties whatsoever to this administration?"

"It is up to us to reveal the truth. It is up to us because we owe it to the families, we owe it to the victims. We owe it to everybody's life who was drastically altered, horrifically that day and forever. We owe it to them to uncover what happened."

Charlie Sheen joins the rest of his great family and notably his father Martin Sheen, who has lambasted for opposing the Iraq war before it had begun yet has now been proven right in triplicate, in using his prominent public platform to stand for truth and justice and we applaud and salute his brave efforts, remembering Mark Twain's quote.

"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."

Overall, the article does not seem to do justice to the substance of Charlie Sheen's comments. It amplifies points that Sheen may have made only in passing -- such as the suggestion that jetliners didn't hit the Twin Towers and the Pentagon -- and fails to back up the strong points that he makes -- such as for controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7 -- with solid evidence.