No you don’t have it right.
The leftists are wrong in immediately focusing on a government conspiracy. There are no facts that point to a conspiracy by government.
What is controversial is the manner in which WTC 7 fell. There were no airplanes flying into WTC 7. Scientific American attempted an engineering explanation but it is not perfect. There are other engineering explanations that point to a controlled demolition.
Insurers and their legal firms hired engineering firms to investigate the manner in which the WTC buildings failed. There was a large debate and argument over how the stuctures could fall as they did. They wanted to know how to contruct for the future as well and what might be done to other buildings that were insured. Insurers were worried that other high rises could fall or be attacked. Yhey want to know how to assess premiums and so on.
I know there was a great engineering argument because I happen to know an attorney that was on the claims case.
But where Sheen and others are wrong is to point to a ‘government’ conspiracy. There are no facts that I have ever seen or heard about that even hint at a government conspiracy.
Where Sheen is right is that we need an investigation into WTC 7. Much as we had an investigation for the Space Shuttle Challenger, we need a commission to investigate WTC 7, not because of any ‘conspiracy’ but because it is a mystery that has not been put into focus.
So there is an ongoing debate.
I do not recall the 9/11 Commission investigating WTC 7. In fact I am told the Commission failed to mention the total collapse of WTC 7.
Forget Rosie. She is a bad spokesperson for anything. If it were Richard Feynman (if he were still alive) saying that we need to investigate WTC 7, then many of us would be more united.
What facts do the left have? They have the same facts as the rest of us who have read up on the subject. Where they are wrong is in connecting the facts.
Here are some facts:
1. No steel-framed high-rise building has ever collapsed due to fires.
To melt steel, there has to be very high and intense heat, and it would have to be pervasive on all floors. This issue in regards to WTC 7 was addressed in an article in Scientific American but it is still speculative. They reason that the weight of one floor collapsing onto the floor underneath had a cascade effect that explains the collapse. On the other hand the collapse was very symmetric which gives creedence to a controlled demolition. Demolition engineers have seen a film of the collapse and have reviewed the engineering drawings, I am told they are skeptical of any conclusions, meaning the engineering jury is still out and may not be able to deliver a verdict.
2. There were prior to 9/11 several scheduled building evacuations in WTC 7 for hours at a time.
Those that claim there was never any time for demolition explosives to be placed without people seeing this activity are rebutted by the conspiracists that there was indeed time.
What it means to me is that a controlled demolition theory cannot be ruled out of the basis on time and opportunity. It does not mean there was any such explosives installed, it only means the explanation of ‘not enough time’ does not dismiss the conspiracy theory. It’s like an alleged murderer without an alibi, having no alibi does not mean the charged suspect is not innocent, it just means that it is harder to prove innocence without an alibi.
3. There was an abnormal amount of shorting of the stock market just prior to 9/11.
Actually there was an unusual amount of put option volume the week preceding 9/11 in UAL stock. This conspiracy theory has been pretty much put to bed but there are still some interesting leads that have not fully been vetted.
Here is a good rebuttal:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp
Snopes is sometimes a little too quick to jump to conclusions for my taste. But I happen to believe they are correct on this issue. The stock market has many strange associations generated every day. The unusual pattern of put volume in this case seems to be tied to reasonable explanations.
Besides, stock market transactions are very traceable in most every case. If Al Quaeda or anyone could find a way to make money in the market and not be traced, every mafiosi in the world would be beating a path to their doorstep.
There are many other issues that need to be vetted.
My point is that the 9/11 Commission Report was poorly crafted and researched. It was too politicized and it misled the public. For example, Sandy Berger.
So I think we should give Sheen a pass and say to him, “Ok, let’s get those questions investigated more officially” but at the sametime ask him to tone down all the conspiracy charges that have no sound basis.
Those on FR that posted that Sheen sees no further profit in associating with the film are I think correct.
Michael Moore made $55 million on ‘Fahrenheit 911’. Al Gore I believe made $60 million with his ‘An Inconvenient Truth’. I think others in Hollywood are looking for more ‘provocateur’ documentary film profits. I suspect Sheen and others were thinking they could cash in on WTC conspiracy peddling. But perhaps the public is already weary of such peddling especially as Gore’s global warming theory is crashing. So perhaps Sheen is seeing a change in the public mood for these kinds of political sensationalizing projects. He may be looking at a great backlash.
I just mostly find it funny that the same ones who call W stupid also think he masterminded some complicated plot on 9/11. Lastly as far as the shorting in the market. UAL was and still is in trouble and OBL probably made a few extra $$$ on the deal. I would if I was him. I just find it difficult to believe that the same people who give us a completely screwed up Government everyday can pull something this complicated off. Katrina anyone?