1
Tyson Schwartz
Pseudo-Science source analysis essay
Drake 207
10/26/09
These Are the Answers, Mr. Sheen. These Are the Answers.
On March 20, 2006, an article entitled “Actor Charlie Sheen Questions Official 9/11
Story” was released on a website known as prisonplanet.com. The article was written by the
website’s creator Alex Jones, a talk radio host and political filmmaker, and Paul Joseph Watson,
who contributes to the website. In the introduction, we read that actor Charlie Sheen is joining
others who are questioning the official report pertaining to the events of the September 11
attacks, and that Sheen, like others, is calling for a “truly independent investigation” into the 9/11
attacks. Readers will take note that the web page is designed so that the advertisements and links
to other stories that coincide with the political theme of the website. These products include
DVD copies of films that Mr. Jones has made with regards to the 9/11 attacks.
Through this essay, I will discuss what makes this article persuasive. I will discuss the
claim of the article. Although never plainly stated, the main claim is that it is probable that the
9/11 attacks were staged by the government. I will discuss the reasons given for this claim, and
also the implied arguments of the article and its’ claim. I will also show how there is evidence
that disproves the argument, as well as the logical fallacies associated with the implied
arguments made within the article.
The author moves quickly to build the credibility of Charlie Sheen. In the first paragraph
the names of several “highly credible figures” such as “former presidential advisor and CIA
analyst Ray McGovern, the father of Reaganomics and former Assistant Secretary of the US
2
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.” The author does not say that Sheen himself is an expert
in this field; however, these names are included with the sole purpose of making the reader
mentally align Charlie Sheen with these other public figures, many of which were or are
involved in politics.
There is a strong emotional appeal to this issue and this article. Several photographs of
the massive destruction are included. This is strong in persuasion because many Americans can
remember exactly what they were doing that morning, and seeing the explosions and destruction
on television. The act of including these photos acts to recall these memories and emotions.
Also, a photo of George W. Bush is included, working to create a feeling of distrust of how the
Bush Administration reported the official story of the events, particularly when one of the names
of those in the previously included list of public figures was involved in the Bush
Administration. Lastly, a quote from Charlie Sheen is included towards the families of the
victims, “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.” The author uses this to make an
appeal to the reader’s compassion. Sheen feels that he is representing all the families of the
victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and is in search of answers.
This article appeals to one who has an extreme distrust of the Federal government,
particularly those not satisfied with the official 9/11 report. Visitors of this website will notice
automatically that the site is custom tailored to this particular value. Every advertisement, story,
3
and photo works to appeal to those who have an extreme distrust of the government. For
example, there are advertisements for an Alex Jones film entitled “Martial Law 9/11: Rise of the
Police State.” Which is a film that argues that the events of 9/11 where staged by the
government and the military.
As discussed earlier, the claim of the article is that it is probable that the events of 9/11
were staged. The first reason given supporting this is that the buildings appeared to have
exploded in a controlled demolition. The article provides a link to the personal testimony of a
man by the name of Mike Pecoraro. Mike was working in the 6th sub basement of the North
Tower on the morning of the attacks. He and his co-workers were told by the Assistant Chief
Engineer that, “the Assistant Chief did not know what happened but that the whole building
seemed to shake and there was a loud explosion.” Mike and his co-workers were told of an
explosion, and then related this, ““They got us again,” Mike told his co-worker, referring to the
terrorist attack at the center in 1993. Having been through that bombing, Mike recalled seeing
similar things happen to the building’s structure. He was convinced a bomb had gone off in the
building.”
Secondly, we have Charlie Sheen’s own words, "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'?" and continues, “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 also questions the
destruction of Building 7, the adjacent building that fell on 9/11 that was not hit by a plane: “If
there’s a problem with building 7, then there’s a problem with the whole thing.”
4
These statements implicitly argue that if the buildings appeared to be brought down in a
controlled demolition, then the government staged the events. This relies on the seemingly
organized manner of the destruction, and Sheen’s own words concerning Building 7. In Sheen’s
assumption about Building 7, his error is his assumption that if building 7 appeared to have
fallen by a controlled demolition, and the Twin Towers fell in a seemingly organized manner as
well, then the collapse of all the buildings was caused by a controlled demolition. This is an
affirming the consequent fallacy because Sheen is making faulty connections between these
different premises.
In response to these allegations of a controlled demolition, the magazine Popular
Mechanics did a study of the evidence entitled “Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report.”
Evidence was examined and experts in this field were consulted in order to provide explanations
for the fall of the towers as well as the other events of 9/11 that have been scrutinized by those
questioning the official story.. The National Institute of Standards and Technology released this
information to the Popular Mechanics study: “The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris
sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel
— and fiery destruction throughout the building.” This statement continues, “Burning fuel
traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused
extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators
slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames
came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of
Maryland and a NIST adviser.
A similar observation was made in the French documentary "9/11," by Jules and Gedeon
Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he
5
saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film.” This intense blast of heat eventually
weakened the structure of the building, “Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt
steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't
need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength.” As for Building 7, the study
shows that fire and debris caused great damage to the structural integrity of the building, and
“kinks” were caused in the roofline, which eventually led to the building’s collapse.In my
opinion, this provides a detailed explanation of how the buildings collapsed, as their very
foundations were weakened by the burning jet fuel and this gave way for the towers to collapse.
The second reason given was that George W. Bush was not carried away to a safe
location upon learning of the events, because he stayed in the classroom where he was reading to
children. Also we read “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.”
We see that the underlying argument here is that if President Bush was not carried away
to a safe spot, then 9/11 was a planned event. The statement that Bush allegedly knew of the
events and did not seek to protect himself is the only type of backing that Sheen gives for the
argument. This is illogical because this does not further the argument made by Sheen in any
way, and is merely an attack on President Bush. This is simply a non sequitur fallacy, based on
the extremity of the implicit argument.
The next explicit reason found in the article is that it is probable that 9/11 was staged
because the official report of the Pentagon attack does not match the evidence we have. Sheen
says “Show us this incredible maneuvering, just show it to us. Just show us how this particular
6
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." Sheen continues, “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.” Sheen
also claims that little to no wreckage was found at the scene.
This implies that if the report regarding the Pentagon attack doesn’t match the evidence,
then the 9/11 attacks were staged. The reasoning here is faulty because the conclusion doesn’t
follow its premise, basically in its assumption that since they believe we haven’t found much
evidence, the event was staged. There is very convincing evidence to support the other side of
the argument. In this same Popular Mechanics study we read this testimony of the first
structural engineer to arrive at the scene. He describes his experience on the scene, and how it
was definitely an airliner that hit the Pentagon. “Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first
structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency
response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE
Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the
building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the
tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed
up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of
uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?" In addition, a photo of
the airliner wreckage is given as visual proof. I again feel this is a valid rebuttal because the
testimony is that of an expert, and the photographic proof is given. I also ask, where did all the
passengers go if it was not flight 77 that hit the pentagon?
7
The last explicit reason given to support the claim is that the Bush Administration had
plans to go to war just days before 9/11, because we had 44,000 of our troops and 18,000 British
troops in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, and that the Administration’s war plans called for a
“catastrophic and catalyzing event-like a new Pearl Harbor.” The implied argument here is that
if the Bush Administration had war plans ahead of time, then 9/11 was staged in order to justify
war. We read this quote from Mr. Sheen: “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.” Sheen also said of the plans, “emblematic of the arrogance of this administration.”
This is nothing more than an ad hominem fallacy, because the attack is towards Bush and his
administration, and doesn’t address the issue itself. Sheen and the author use the documented
war plans, but instead of making any kind of reasonable argument, the information is used to
make outrageous assumptions. Why would President Bush stage a massive terrorist attack on
American soil, taking the lives of many, to further war plans? This is very extreme. The lack of
credibility in this field and the personal attacks on President Bush distract from any progress the
argument could make.
Through this essay I have evaluated the article’s claim, the explicit reasons and implicit
reasons of the argument, provided evidence in behalf of the opposing side’s story, and identified
why the article is flawed in its assumptions. I have also included my own evaluations of the
validity of the argument. I feel that this article is written in a way that attempts to persuade the
reader in an unethical way, because of the personal attacks made within it, and its extreme
implicit arguments.
8
When the facts and evidence are looked at, and when we analyze Sheen’s logic and the
author’s logic, we find that the idea of the government’s involvement with 9/11 crumbles in the
implicit reasons and the fallacies in the assumptions made by those involved.
9
Works Cited
“Actor Charlie Sheen Questions Official 9/11 Story” PrisonPlanet.com, Alex Jones and
Paul Joseph Watson. March 20, 2006
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/200306charliesheen.htm
The Editors. “Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report” Popular Mechanics, March
2005 issue <http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html>
“First Hand Accounts of Underground Explosions in the North Tower” PrisonPlanet.com,
November 28, 2004
<http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/281104undergroundexplosions.htm>