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 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, 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.”
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 GedeonNaudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he 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 detailedexplanation 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.
Thenext 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 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?
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.
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.
Works Cited
“Actor Charlie Sheen Questions Official 9/11 Story” PrisonPlanet.com, Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson. March 20, 2006
The Editors. “Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report” Popular Mechanics, March 2005 issue <
“First Hand Accounts of Underground Explosions in the North Tower” PrisonPlanet.com,
November 28, 2004
<