A THIN SHEEN OF CELEBRITY

HOLLYWOOD'S TOP CONTRIBUTION TO THE FRAUD

The most famous figure yet to hop on board the truth train and bring these valid but skewed concerns to America’s attention is the gainfully employed prime time actor Charlie Sheen, then anchoring "Two and a Half Men," and nowhere the pits of obscurity. In his March 20 2006 comments on Alex Jones' radio show, he agreed with Jones that “we're not the conspiracy theorists on this particular issue […] 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.”

Sheen's concerns sounded by-now-boringly familiar; he related on seeing Flight 175 hit the South Tower “it just didn't look like any commercial jetliner I've flown on any time in my life.” On the collapses of the Twin Towers and Tower 7, he said “it sorta look[ed] like those buildings came down in a controlled demolition.” Regarding the Frustrating Fraud over the Pentagon attack, Jones (who elsewhere has called this a honeytrap) incredulously cited it "just disappeared into a fourteen foot hole." Sheen admitted “I don’t know what a Boeing jet is going to do into a reinforced limestone façade,” but questioned the precision of the jet’s attack and was just starting to voice the by-then well known list of doubts when Jones cut him off for a commercial break. [1]

Not that I’m into Hollywood gossip on the integrity of Sheen’s intelligence or clarity of mind, and frankly I'd probably like the guy, but he does have dubious experience in calling attention to the video evidence of crimes and it can't go unnoticed. At a party in 1991 he got his hands on a copy of a horrific Japanese snuff film depicting a samurai in full costume hacking a captive girl to death. Sickened by the cruelty of it, Charlie immediately turned it over to the FBI, but in reality what he’d seen was "Flower of Flesh and Blood," the first installment in the Guinea Pig series of well-produced fake snuff films. According to the San Francisco Chronicle:

“The FBI confiscated Sheen's tape and proceeded to investigate all involved […] the Japanese [producers] took this time to release ‘Guinea Pig Two: The Making of Guinea Pig One,’ revealing the technical sleight of hand in all its bone-cracking glory. After viewing this film, the FBI backed off and dropped the investigation.” [2]


Sheen (left) closely analyzed the video evidence (right), and found no sign of airplane debris.

Now after 9/11, Sheen’s legendary video analysis talents were needed again, and his conclusions as aired with Jones earned him the praise of the movement. On March 22, just two days after the interview, CNN’s Showbiz Tonight ran coverage of Sheen’s “9/11 shocker.” The show was remarkably open and uncritical of his astonishing comments, and the self-congratulatory response from the Truth community is telling. 83% of respondents in the show’s poll supported Sheen enthusiastically, despite Free Republic’s efforts to get their readers to vote against it. [3] The show helped bolster the impression that the movement was winning, but of course I’d guess about 75% of the people even viewing this segment were Truthers to begin with, tipped off in advance to tune in and show their support.

The people who run the "Factivism" website were inspired enough to create the tribute site Bravocharlie911.com, giving visitors a chance to praise (or less often curse) the actor. The Factivism website was having technical troubles when I visited on November 5, but clarified that they were also behind Oprah911.com, a website to urge Oprah Winfrey to bring 9/11 Truth to her massively-watched daytime talk show. In September 2006, that venture was dropped after Oprah's lawyers sent “Yossarian” at Factivism “a bunch of really nasty letters demanding that I cease and desist. So much for Oprah.” By this time, Bravocharlie911 had “served its purpose,” or at least ran out of things to say, and had been pulled as well with no word on legal maneuvers. [4] The Factivism site itself went down, set to “return shortly,” by the time I went back to look for more info two days later.

I drew a small measure of conciliation knowing even a comfortably famous person could share my suspicions from the very beginning. But to convey his doubts, Sheen was clearly drawing on the confused arguments of the IPS/Loose Change pedigree, no doubt scored at another Hollywood party. Of all the people to call on in the celebrity world, Mr. Can’t-tell-fact-from-fiction is the one that pops to the top.

(Thanks to fellow "Charlie" and total freak the Bizarre Alien for this "hot street tip")

Sources:
[1] Jones, Alex and Paul Joseph Watson. “Actor Charlie Sheen Questions Official 9/11 Story.” Prison Planet. March 20 2006.
[2] Mikkelson, Barbara and David P. Snopes.com. “A pinch of Snuff.” Last Updated October 31 2006.
[3] “CNN Poll Ends At 83% In Support Of Charlie Sheen.” Prison Planet March 27 2006
[4] Yossarian. “Bravo Charlie, Exit Stage Left.” Factivism. September 2006. (link still broken? original url: http://www.factivism.com/story.php?title=Bravo-Charlie-Exit-Stage-Left)

DAVID LYNCH, LOOSE CHANGE, AND 9/11 QUESTIONS

TROUBLING QUESTIONS FROM A MAKER OF TROUBLING FILMS
Adam Larson
Caustic Logic/The Frustrating Fraud
December 20 2006

I’m a long-time fan of legendary director of psychological cult thrillers David Lynch. I never have seen Blue Velvet all the way through, but loved what I saw, and have also appreciated his work on The Elephant Man, Lost Highway, Mulholland Drive, and his old TV show you may remember, Twin Peaks. Wild at Heart in underrated and over-hated, Dune wasn’t right on mark but not bad either, and I recently saw his surprisingly bizarre 1977 classic Eraserhead. I’ve always felt a vague connection with Lynch, who grew up at least partly here in Spokane, which may have helped him visualize the world of Twin Peaks and other ventures. Spokane is the hub of an area many here call the “Inland Empire” so you can understand my disappointment to learn that his latest film INLAND EMPIRE (his first all-digital film and set for release soon) is about LA, not Spokane.

David Lynch, troubled by the 9/11 disinfo witout even seeing it as disinfo

It’s not the only disappointment Lynch has handed me lately. He paused in his crusade for transcendental meditation recently to come out as a 9/11 skeptic, which many found instantly encouraging. In a December 3 interview he cited the documentary Loose Change as having loosed this change in his own mind. His Dutch interviewer, apparently at Lynch’s request, showed a several-minute clip – one of the better stretches - of the New York demolitions and the coverup of the flight data recorders, both more compelling cases than the average Loose Change tripe. She asked if he found their case convincing, and to his credit he seemed mildly skeptical: “Its not so much what they say, it's the things that make you look at what you thought you saw in a different light […] you don’t have to believe everything in the documentary to still have questions”

But he comfortably cited precisely their evidence with apparently no independent research. He cited the three collapses in New York as being rather suspicious, especially given Silverstein's "pull it" quote (supposedly de-bunked now). He also called on three bits of flawed evidence at the Pentagon:

“And Those things for me, that bother me, is the hole in the Pentagon being too small for a plane, the lawn isn't messed up, and the government's not showing the plane hitting when many cameras photographed it.”

I love Lynch’s works and he himself seems like a cool and smart guy, but he’s stepped on my turf here and I must put in my two bits. I’ve already explained why the video is totally wrong on the entry wound, and just posted on the unmarked "pentalawn" issue. As for the hidden video, that is worth attention, but should not be slapped down alongside those other two without first reading my post on the issue.

Some will praise Lynch’s bold move, others will wonder if the mental illness and confusion of his films has rubbed off on him and clouded his thinking with paranoia. I would say his paranoia is right on mark and of the "heightened state of awareness” variety so needed in our country. But something - perhaps a transcendent meditative stupor or perhaps celebrity isolation – keeps him from taking it all seriously enough to check his facts first. I like to think these are the reasons for his boosting Loose Change rather than a conscious collusion with the disinfo campaign.

REYNOLDS AND ROBERTS, REVISIONIST REPUBLICANS

THE PALEOCON REBEL ALLIANCE HERE TO SAVE THE DAY
Adam Larson
Caustic Logic/The Frutrating Fraud
December 29 2006

Interestingly enough, among the throngs of those willing to publicly question the official 9/11 story and offer a MIHOP alternative, some are former Republican Party functionaries, or people with suspicious links to same. All have credentials and the ability to cite their GOP affiliations to dodge charges of obvious partisan politics, although at least two fall into the decreasingly subtle rift between the Bush administration “neocons” and disgruntled traditional conservatives. One who shares this view and the most direct Bush-9/11 Truth link is Morgan Reynolds, who had been the chief economist for the Department of Labor in George W’s first term, 2001-02. He explained in an interview and follow-up e-mail with the LibertyForum website:

“I had no idea what the Bush bunch was really like when I went to Washington in 2001. I didn't know then what I know now: neocons, O-I-L, etc. It was one part personal, one part ideological and one part adventure when I showed up for work at DOL on Sept. 4, 2001, exactly one week before 9/11." [1]

"No planes" Reynolds back in his days with team Bush

The circumstances surrounding the end of his tenure at DoL in 2002 is unclear. He later admitted a delayed realization of what was happening; "I must admit that I was slow to catch on to the emerging fascist state.” Reynolds has written for the Lew Rockwell website since late 2003, opposed to the Cheney-led neoconservatives. It wasn't until 2005 that he came out explicitly about his inside job suspicions. In June he published a piece stating that “if demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11,” which he believes to be the case, “then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling.” He also cited the difficulty in getting the science straight, since “explosives and structural experts have been intimidated in their analyses of the collapses of 9/11.” [2]

Reynolds buys the Frustrating fraud whole-heartedly, noting the “absence or near-absence of conventional airplane wreckage” at the Pentagon crash site. Actually he said “at each crash site,” incredibly pointing to evidence that there were no big planes at all involved in the attacks. How we all saw what didn’t actually happen is left unexplained – perhaps holographic illusions or simply computer graphics on the tee-vee and the power of myth retroactively convincing the eyewitnesses. In March 2006 he declared triumphantly “the WTC demolitions are proven and the official 9/11 airliner tales are proven hogwash.” [3]

Countering the accounts of those who saw an American Airlines jet hit the Pentagon, he reminded us that “physical facts trump witnesses’ contradictory testimony every time.” This is true, but as I see it, the physical evidence here both trumps and verifies the eyewitness stories, which are really not very contradictory. Yet Reynolds comfortably stakes his reputation on the summation that “what we are left with is an overwhelming case against the Flight 77 theory.”

Soon on Reynolds’ heels came another “paleoconservative” former Republican economist: Paul Craig Roberts, who served as Assistant Treasury Secretary under president Reagan in 1981-82, a noted architect of "Reaganomics," a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal and author of "The New Color Line" (1995) and “The Tyranny of Good Intentions” (2000). A crusader against judicial activism, in the 2000 election he called for the arrest of the Florida Supreme Court that tried to overturn Bush’s “victory” there. [4]

P.C. Roberts: Crusader for stolen elections and 9/11 Truth

But at about this same time Roberts also started writing a daily syndicated column on conservative/libertarian lines that within short order was churning out hundreds of articles flaying the Bush agenda. He said he hasn’t changed his political ideology but “just can’t respect a party leadership who doesn’t respect the truth.” The ruling “Jacobin” neocons (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, et al), their disastrous Iraq policy and their possible role in 9/11 were the basis for his repeated calls for the impeachment of President “Darth Dubyous.” Roberts took a more solid line with 9/11 than Reynolds had, getting less involved overall in the mechanics. But he did at least write in June 2005 “I know many qualified engineers and scientists have said the WTC collapsed from explosives. In fact, if you look at the manner in which it fell, you have to give their conclusions credibility.” [5]

Roberts and Reynolds supported Bush in 2000 and worked for him in 2001, respectively. Both later came to blame the people around Bush for not just allowing but carrying out the 9/11 attacks (or at least, apparently, the demolitions that capped them off). Both came to oppose Bush from the Republican right, and neither came out strongly about their 9/11 suspicions before his narrow 2004 election, waiting until after his second inauguration to drop their bombshells. For what it's worth, both broke their stories within two weeks of each other and both via kooky 9/11 conspiratainment reporter Greg Szymanski (see sources below), possibly a sign of some co-ordination.

I can't say all this proves anything, but it is well worth noting, particularly in Reynolds' case. Some take his bold stand in denying not only the official story but even the very planes we saw as a sign that he truly believes his stance and is willing to put it all on the line. Thus he lends credibility to a theory of dubious factual legitimacy. In fact it's possible that back there in the shadows a deal was made, and he feels so free to make incorrect statements becuase he's beeen granted advance immunity - and probably even some reward - so long as he pushes the stupid cases and not the dangerous ones. The possibility can be neither proved nor ignored.

Sources:
[1] Reynolds, Morgan. Interview conducted June 30, 2005. Liberty Forum.
[2] Greg Szymanski. “9/11 INSIDE JOB: Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D” American Patriot Friends Network. Jun 12, 2005.
[3] Reynolds, Morgan, PhD. "We Have Some Holes in the Plane Stories:: Part II of a reply to Jim Hoffman."
March 5 2006
[4] Roberts, Paul Craig. “Enabling Act for the Judiciary?”LewRockwell.com. November 27, 2000
[5] Szymanski, Greg. “Former Asst. Sec. Of Treasury Under Reagan Doubts Official 9/11 Story: Claims Neo Con Agenda Is As 'Insane As Hitler And Nazi Party When They Invaded Russia In Dead Of Winter.'” Prison Planet. June 24 2005.

CARTMAN’S 9/11 SHOCKER

SOUTH PARK TAKES ON THE TRUTH MOVEMENT
Adam Larson
Caustic Logic/The Frustrating Fraud
November 2006 (re-posted January 1 2007)

The crush of news on 9/11 truth wing nuts could not forever escape their due lampooning by Trey Parker and Matt Stone and the crass kids of South Park, who took the movement on in an episode aired October 11 2006. Bitingly satirical as always, the Truth Movement thus far seen was embodied by the portly, obnoxious, and borderline evil Eric Cartman. His initial crusade, dismissed by his friends as retarded, blamed Bush and the Jew-run corporations for the attack. But after closer investigation, Cartman presented for show and tell a “shocking powerpoint report on the truth… behind the 9/11 attacks,” pointing the finger squarely at his friend Kyle “who stood the most to gain from 9/11 […] who was nowhere to be found the morning the towers fell […] who dropped a deuce in the urinal.”

Screenshot: Cartman delving into the Pentagon honeypot for his “shocking powerpoint report”

Cartman was able to succinctly sum up the Frustrating Fraud: “we were told the Pentagon was hit by a hijacked plane as well. But now look at this photo of the Pentagon. The hole is not nearly big enough. And if a plane hit it, where’s the rest of the plane?” To make it funny enough for South Park, they had to change not one bit of the ridiculous charges, just boil them down and have Cartman say them.

The final conclusion of the episode revealed that the Bush administration itself was pushing the conspiracy theory to keep the world scared of them and to seem in control of the situation, which of course they weren’t. Investigator Mr. Hardly, summing up the case cracked by his nitwit sons, said “all the 9/11 conspiracy websites are run by the government. The 9/11 conspiracy is a government conspiracy.” Indeed, a play-acted activist with 9/11 Truth.org explained the whole “false flag” operation to Stan and Kyle before all three were arrested and taken to the Oval Office. With his whole cabinet standing behind him, Bush insisted on taking the blame, and to keep their role in 9/11 secret, “killed” the Truther in front of the kids (“just one more leak to fix”). Bush then bragged of the plot by his “all knowing and all powerful” cabal, summing up their reasons with evil genius zest: control of "the American sheeple" to get more war, oil, and money. To convince the kids, the President elaborated on the mechanics of the attack:

“Quite simple to pull off really. All I had to do was have explosives planted in the base of the towers, then on 9/11 we pretended like four planes were being hijacked when really we just re-routed them to Pennsylvania then flew two military jets into the World Trade Center filled with more explosives and then shot down all the witnesses on Flight 93 with and F-15 after blowing up the Pentagon with a cruise missile. It was only the world’s most intricate and flawlessly executed plan ever… ever.”

The episode’s allegation, while meant as satire to deflate the sense of purpose driving the Truthers, may be nearer the truth than Parker and Stone realize. Whatever its intentions, the episode proved that the movement had somehow been devolved to the point that elementary school kids made of a few bits of digitized construction paper could tear it to shreds with satire – entwined no less with the mystery of the urinal turd. Not a promising omen for our long-term prospects.

When finally the jig was up, the cartoon Bush admitted to Stan and Kyle he didn’t carry out the attack, but “one fourth of the population is retarded. If they want to believe we control everything with intricate plans, why not let them?” It’s a good point; what kind of government hatches such convoluted plans to achieve their objectives? That would be silly. In this case it may be that they hatched a deceptively simple plan to get those planes flown in as close to the official story as possible – and encouraged the raising of row upon row of intricate straw men to conceal the real deal. The red herrings distractions and honeypot traps planted after and, more tellingly, before the attack, are themselves evidence that the truth is being covered up; the alleged (and possibly real) government conspiracy to create the cartoonish 9/11 conspiracy is one of concealment and misdirection, which in turn is evidence of the government’s heavy-as-lead original 9/11 conspiracy – it was at best allowed and at worst staged.

And to avoid any troubles with Comedy Central, let me take this opportunity to state that this episode is hilarious and should be purchased for top dollar from the website or whatever. I've never seen toilet humor come across so well as via Mr. Mackey over the PA. And I'd also like to note the possible relevance a turd in the urinal conspiracy theme that keeps coming up as a distraction in the episode. Some have taken this as an allegory for the crap conspiracy theories put in the space reserved for... piss ones? Anyway, the janitor tasked with cleaning up the mess is a "Mr. Venezuela," which is funny considering Jimmy Walter's ill-advised sojourn to Venezuela to urge Hugo Chavez to open a 9/11 International Inquiry to prove, among other things, Walter's belief in the Frustrating Fraud. It's not clear what happened down there in Spring '06, but I haven't heard of any such urinal scrubbing.