Daniel Bland's Open Letter to Charlie Sheen:

DB Head Shot Charlie_Sheen.2jpg

Let me begin by expressing my gratitude and respect for your honorable decision to turn up the heat on this evil conspiracy which has invaded our country from within our own borders. You are a very brave man, and deserve the respect of every true blooded American citizen!

I started blogging this year on 7/7, and my intention was to share with my family, friends, and the entire world the fact that we have been deceived by an nearly inconceivable evil conspiracy. Tonight I watched the History Channel’s 9/11 Conspiracy Hit Piece, and I began to get angry as I watched their propaganda! Their distortion of the truth disturbed me so deeply that, God had to calm my soul by sending me the vision of how we can finally settle this debate………..ONCE AND FOR ALL!

When people tell lies, they often end up getting caught because of the inherent human need to tell more and more lies to cover up the original lie. I know this because I was a bad liar as a child, and this is one of the main reasons I always got busted. Since I could never get away with being a liar, there is no reason the same shouldn’t apply to the true conspirators behind the 9/11 False Flag Attack, the worst domestic attack in the history of our great nation.

I believe the Flight 93 story will prove to be the lie that will finally awaken America, it serves the true conspirators well since they felt the need to make movies about their big lie. I have seen an abundance of troubling information regarding this flight, and I will re-post some of it at the end of this letter. The biggest reason I have such a hard time with the “official” Flight 93 story, is because I have never seen photographic or video evidence of another plane crash in history where there was absolutely NO visible aircraft debris remaining. This crash was so powerful that it destroyed a huge metal airliner, yet driver’s licenses magically survived unscathed? Red bandanas worn by the “Muslim” hijackers miraculously survived a crash that completely demolished a HUGE metal airliner? Seriously? Aren’t bandanas traditionally made of cotton? It’s a miracle they survived the inferno! Maybe they were fireproof bandanas only used by elite “Muslim” hijackers?

Beyond these issues, I have also seen a video which allegedly shows satellite imagery of the Shanksville crash site from 1994 where the long scar in the ground pre-dated 9/11/01 by at least seven years, and possibly much longer. What about the strange passenger phone calls from Flight 93, especially those of Cee Cee Lyles and Mark Bingham? How did they identify all the passenger's remains when multiple first responders reported seeing absolutely no signs of human remains at the crash site?

Let’s get this straight, the crash completely destroyed the entire metal plane and left absolutely no sign of human remains, yet driver’s licenses and cotton bandanas magically survived to support the “official” government backed conspiracy theory.

As you are probably well aware, the Flight 93 flew directly over the greater Cleveland area before turning around, or so the story goes. There were multiple witnesses who reported two planes grounded at the Cleveland Airport, and at least one brief media report (later retracted) that Flight 93 landed at the Cleveland Airport. Many people believe the NASA building at the Cleveland Airport was a crime scene on September 11, 2001.

As we begin to connect the dots of Flight 93, we find a story which reads eerily similar the Operations Northwoods/Mongoose documents which remained classified “Top Secret” for many years, but were declassified in 1997 and are now available for anyone to read on-line at archives.gov. The declassified documents contain senior level military planning to conduct false flag terror attacks inside the United States as a pretext to invade Cuba. Here is an excerpt from the memos which were drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and signed off on by the chairman, Lyman Lemnitzer in 1962………

b. We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. We could arrange to cause such incident in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both. The presence of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack. The nearness to Havana or Santiago would add credibility especially to those people that might have heard the blast or have seen the fire. The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to "evacuate" remaining members of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.

All this evidence, plus much more, has been readily available to the general public for many years. Once I discovered the truth behind 9/11, I thought my family and friends would join me in demanding justice on behalf of the victims of the attacks, especially once I began sharing all the evidence with them. However, they remain unconvinced which means they need just a little more proof. Mr. Sheen, if you will accept my “Open Letter” into your 9/11 Contest, I will use the $14,000.00 prize money as a down payment of a Boeing 757-222 that we can crash straight into the ground to recreate the Shanksville crash site. We can fill it full of jet fuel, and use remote control technology to fly it straight into the ground at full throttle. Once people see the crash wreckage, the remaining "official story" supporters will immediately realize that they have believed a terrible lie for eight plus years.. Hey, it’s nothing to be embarrassed about because I remained duped for over seven years myself.

The US Government spent $175,000,000.00+ to investigate the Columbia disaster where we tragically lost the lives of seven astronauts. Yet they only spent $15M to investigate the worst homeland attacks in the history of our country? The 9/11 Attacks claimed the lives of nearly 3,000 innocent Americans. That tragic morning has led us to spend trillions of dollars on wars, trillions of dollars in financial bail-outs, and we've sat idle as the constitution is being shredded before our eyes. Given all that, flying a jet into the ground seems like bargain! Where are our priorities? Mr. Sheen, you and I both know the government will not fund this exposure of their involvement in the attacks, so it will be up to us. Our investment will be a small price to pay for putting an end to this evil system of greed based tyranny, and future generations will remember you as a True American Hero!

To summarize, let's work to recreate the Flight 93 crash scene, with an open and honest experiment to determine whether we can create a second magical plane disappearing act by crashing an identical plane into the ground at full speed. This will settle the debate once and for all, and America can finally reunite! It will be much cheaper than the Columbia Investigation, and they can't hide this information under the guise of "national security". What do you say, Mr. Sheen?

Let’s drive a stake jet into the ground and see what happens.

"Ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country."

-JFK

Let the awakening begin!!!!!

Daniel Edd Bland III
www.BlandyLand.com

Here are some of the more interesting videos regarding Flight 93:

Just because the Delta flight did actually land in Cleveland, does not mean that Flight 93 didn't land there also? When were the transponders turned off?

Daniel,

Welcome on board - as of 7/7!

Just keep pushing ahead.

Every little bit - and big bit - helps!!

Thanks Mokeyboy!

Those of us who know the truth must find the best way to lead a mass awakening. If anyone else has any ideas, please share. Victory is close. I guarantee it!

The truth is contagious. Start spreading it!

Daniel Edd Bland III
www.Blandy:and.com

have to disagree with your points of emphasis

Charlie -- if you're reading --

So little airtime is given to challenging the 9/11 cover up that I suggest you highly refine and rethink your major points. For example, I have heard both you and your father make a fuss about Silverstein's "pull it" comment, which most likely referred to pulling the firefighting operation, and so is an out-of-context mistaken claim. It's certainly not conclusive of an admission of guilt (why would he admit such a thing on TV?), and is disputed by Silverstein himself in his press release.

Rather, HARD EVIDENCE is what you need to focus on, and particularly hard evidence which is INDISPUTABLE. That level of argument is what is missing in most of the debate which reaches the airwaves.

Here is a list of facts which I believe are indisputable, although some people may argue with a handful of them (out of a list of 70 entries).

The crucial thing is that named whistleblowers can be mentioned and brought into the discussion. Force corporate hack reporters to mention people like Sibel Edmonds, Colleen Rowley, Harry Sammit, John O'Neill, Robert Wright -- there are more than a few FBI agents on our side.

More shocking is the Saudi Arabian connection, with hard evidence collected by FBI surveillance connecting Saudi agents to the actual hijackers. This exposes a cover-up that is rising to the level of high-treason. Even Senator Bob Graham admitted this reality, and then Phillip Zelikow squashed the 9/11 Commission and produced a Big Lie about no foreign government sponsorship.

If foreign government sponsorship was admitted to, then high treason becomes clear. But -- it already IS clear. The fraud of the 9/11 Commission is also clear. These are issues that can be substantiated in black and white.

Look into Michael Springmann from the State Department as well -- "Visa Express" was a program that allowed Jihadis to obtain US visas through a Saudi US embassy, even after US State Department officials DENIED the visas to "unqualified applicants." Springmann charges that the embassies are run by the CIA, and that this was stnadard practice. He made official complaints about it.

How did every single one of the hijackers get US visas?

Who gave them the visas?

What repurcussions happened?

What are these people doing right now?

Other mainstream news stories that have long disappeared ties several of the hijackers to US military bases and training programs. The military language school in California had some of them. Two of the hijackers listed thier addresses on their drivers licenses at a Florida military base!

Talk about cover-up. Where's that investigation?

Charlie -- always rely on hard facts, hard evidence, and claims that cannot be challenged and interpreted half a dozen ways.

Shout about the victim's families lawsuit against the Saudi government and the evidence they obtained linking the Saudi government to the hijackers. 6000 family members signed on, only to have their own government's "Justice Department" (sic) side with the sponsors of the hijackers, the Saudi royals!!!!

This is reality, undisputable, in the major press, and should make most Americans vomit with disgust, calling for impeachment proceedings and a shut down of the executive branch!

URGENT ACTION NEEDED: CONTACT THE OBAMA WHITE HOUSE AND JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND NOTIFY THEM OF BUSH'S TREASON RELATED TO THE 9/11 ATTACKS (SAMPLE)

"pull it"

For example, I have heard both you and your father make a fuss about Silverstein's "pull it" comment, which most likely referred to pulling the firefighting operation, and so is an out-of-context mistaken claim. It's certainly not conclusive of an admission of guilt (why would he admit such a thing on TV?), and is disputed by Silverstein himself in his press release.

When one considers the full context of the quote it is obvious that he got careless (for whatever reason) and slipped up and admitted that the building was pulled. Don't forget that never had a steel framed skyscraper collapsed due to fire alone (and remember that NIST now blames fire alone - not debris damage - for the destruction). He has tried to spin the quote "and they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse" into making it appear that it was so obvious that the building would collapse, so the firefighters were "pulled" out and then they watched the building collapse as expected. However this makes no sense on multiple levels. First, all firefighting operations in that building ended around noon. Secondly, Chief Daniel Nigro said that he never spoke to Silverstein that afternoon. Finally it makes the most sense that if he were speaking about pulling firefighters out of the building, he wouldn't have said "pull IT." He would have said "pull them," "pull out the firefighters," "pull the contingent of firefighters," etc. Why? Well, given the first part of Larry's statement, where the clear subject of the sentence and the paragraph is THE BUILDING, it would be most logical that the word "it" in this context referred to the building. The case for this conclusion is especially strong when one is reminded that "pull it" is indeed a demolition term, as confirmed by Controlled Demolition Inc. by phone to a member of the movement, and this, coupled with the fact that the building DID come down like a demolition, the words "and they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse" are in all likelihood referring to pulling the building.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

Obvious vs Provable

Remember when Larry claimed it was the North Tower antenna that destroyed WTC7?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtPC0W4HII8

I think he was deliberately talking crap, so people can think 'Oh, that's just crazy Larry, don't mind him'.

That there were no firefighters in the building is the most convincing argument that he wasn't referring to them (if you ignore that the buildings *were* blown up etc.), but it is not proof itself, as he's off his trolley.

Bullshit.

I addressed all of your points in the linked article (and numerous times since).

It should be quite obvious, even to you, that this is not an appropriate claim to make the case to a general mass media audience as it is completely inconclusive, requires an interpretation by the listener, and is disputed by the speaker himself. Getting into an argument about it is completely counterproductive and makes us look frankly stupid.

"When one considers the full context of the quote it is obvious that he got careless (for whatever reason) and slipped up and admitted that the building was pulled."

That's your interpretation. The word used is "collapse." A collapse is not a demolition. Collapse implies natural forces at work, gravity.

"First, all firefighting operations in that building ended around noon. "

You, and those who push this bogus argument keep restricting the firefighting operation to "in that building." There was a large firefighting operation OUTSIDE the building all day long, and they ran away from the destruction at 5:20, or has that never clicked?

Chief Daniel Nigro said that he never spoke to Silverstein that afternoon.

The conversation never names the person on the other end of the phone. This could be an indication that he didn't remember, or he didn't know, or that the conversation was fictional. It does not, however, stand as an admission of guilt. There were hundreds of fire "chiefs" on the scene that day.

"Well, given the first part of Larry's statement, where the clear subject of the sentence and the paragraph is THE BUILDING,"

No, it wasn't. The conversation was arguably about "loss of life." The relvant lives are the responders.

"The case for this conclusion is especially strong when one is reminded that "pull it" is indeed a demolition term, as confirmed by Controlled Demolition Inc."

Silverstein is a landlord, and does not work for a demoliotion company. Or is this news to you?

"coupled with the fact that the building DID come down like a demolition,"

There's the rub. Given that, his alleged admission to same is what is nonsensical. You are simply hearing what you want to hear to get a "gotcha" quote.

the words "and they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse" are in all likelihood referring to pulling the building.

I already pointed out that the word is "collapse." As the official explanation is a collapse from fire, this is consistent with the official storyline.

It is also known that firefighters were told to run away at the last moments, and so that is likely why Silverstein felt the need to try and explain this as an order to "pull" the operation.

I'll say it again, in case Charlie Sheen drops by:

It should be quite obvious, even to you, that this is not an appropriate claim to make the case to a general mass media audience as it is completely inconclusive, requires an interpretation by the listener, and is disputed by the speaker himself. Getting into an argument about it is completely counterproductive and makes us look frankly stupid.

Now, I'm done.

URGENT ACTION NEEDED: CONTACT THE OBAMA WHITE HOUSE AND JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND NOTIFY THEM OF BUSH'S TREASON RELATED TO THE 9/11 ATTACKS (SAMPLE)

Take

the money and take out full page ads in all small town newspapers.
Information to the obvious is our best weapon.