Except that cartoons like this one are on topic.  

(V):That's old news.  Who cares.  Not even funny as he's out of office now.  Mines funnier.

The Usurper:To create terror?

The Usurper:lazy, it's the afternoon  (I'm still in my PJ's tho)  ;)

Czuch:

Czuch:Totally.  I like the sheep touch in the photo.  A fitting statement. 

Czuch:


Check this out:

(V):See what I mean?  Because you couldn't stay with the point, we're now discussing the bombing of Dresden! 

(V):If it's clear, it should be simple for you to clarify and explain. 

(V):Why not just clarify your comments instead of all this dance around.

(V):Quoting the prime minister is fine in context.  It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

(V): You've been given the opportunity to clarify the connection you've made.  Go for it.  Quoting Churchill is nonsense.  We're talking about 911. 

(V):It's an entirely different topic.  It had nothing to do with Czuch's post.  That's why he's scratching his head.  What you said made no sense at all.  It's even less clear now.  You never addressed the question directly.  You went off into something completely different. 

(V):Bingo. 

Czuch:I'm glad you caught that as well.  I read it and just went

(V):Humor us.  How is it "like" Dresden?

Czuch:WTC7 had major structural damage.  That structural damage put a high degree of stress on supports for the building.  They began to weaken.  The question is:  Did that structural damage put enough stress on support points so that they eventually gave way.  The fires clearly didn't do it.  Falling chunks of buildings 1 and 2 ripped into building 7.  The fires may have contributed to structural weakness but weren't the main factor.

(V):No, you twisted my words into meaning something I didn't say.  And now you hide behind "stating my opinion" which is dishonest.  I NEVER said it was moronic to honor vets.  NEVER.  You apparently are choosing to ignore the point of my post.  Since I'm the one making the point, YOU don't get to decide what the purpose was.  If you don't get it (and you don't) then ask for clarification.

But even now you won't try to get clarity on what I said.  You will simply excuse yourself from responsibility for your obvious misunderstanding. 

Bwild:  Well I sure aint' goin down there! 

Bwild: lol, that horse won't die.  But feel free to ask another question and if people go that way, fine with me.  I seriously doubt that we'll solve 911 even in my lifetime.  I'll ask God when I get to heaven as He had the best view of all.

The Usurper:  Much better.  The "I am convinced" gives more credibility to your viewpoint.  When someone says that something is a "slam dunk" or "clearly" or "right before our eyes" then I take it another way.  When put in those terms, it's an offense.  It's like saying the other person doesn't see what is obviously true.  Or isn't smart enough.  Or something.  But "I am convinced" makes me wonder what it was that convinced you to your view and creates an interest in seeing the evidence (just the facts, not the interpretation).

For example:  Building 7.  Nothing you have said so far (up until a few days ago) grabbed me.  But the web site with the 52 scholars reports did grab my attention a bit.  And so I've looked at a number of youtube building (intentional) implosions and then the falling of wtc7.  I also looked at as many huge skyscraper fires as I could find.  And questions were raised in my head.   Then I read the "debunking" sites to get the other side.  So now I have questions.   I have some ideas I want to pursue.  I know that if I visit a conspiracy site, I'll get their one sided view.  If I visit a debunking site, I'll get their one sided view.   The scholar site is the best I've seen and I've only read a few pages so far. 

Enough of that.  I'm not convinced of a conspiracy but I do think there are too many unanswered questions floating out there.

The Usurper:If I witness a murder, it's not a slam dunk in a court of law.  It's solid evidence and will be enough to convict.  But it's not a slam dunk.  The opposition will try to discredit me, discredit what I say I say, and any number of other possible defense tactics.

But if I witness a murder, and get it all on tape - crisp and clear - then it's a slam dunk.  It's indisputable.  The accused can say, "I was defending myself" but the video shows the victim with his hands up etc.  The jury doesn't have to sort out the he said she saids, it's there on the video.  In most cases, where a video is involved, the defense seeks a plea because they recognize the case is lost.

If the case you make is beyond a reasonable doubt, then you could  claim a slam dunk.  But reasonable doubt is all over the place.  Neither side has a slam dunk.  Both sides have questions to answer.

Even full knowledge of events such as Pearl Harbor are not a slam dunk.  True it's a slam dunk that the Japanese attacks us, but many situations surrounding that attack are not fully know, even today.  Anytime you have reasonable doubt about an event, you don't have a slam dunk.  At best, you have a lay up shot with many obstacles in the way.  In a slam dunk, there's no opposition.  It's much like being alone on the court.

The Usurper: That said, I think there are legitimate questions that haven't been answered properly. Lots of questions. It's enough to make a person want to say forget it. Not worth it. So many points of disagreement and seeming inconsistencies. It's not a slam dunk for either side and that's the problem. It's all subject to interpretations as we don't have indisputable proof. We have interpretative evidence and as we know from history, that can go in many directions. Makes ya wanna go

The Usurper: Proof is what proof is. Not what you want it to be. Evidence can be bad or good. Proof shows something to be true. Evidence can be proof but only if that evidence is actually true. If bad evidence, it's isn't also bad proof; it's not any proof at all. So proof is not in the eye of the beholder. If the "proof" isn't true, then it's not really proof. The evidence must be sufficient to establish that a thing is true. Evidence is just an indication or a sigh. Proof establishes the truth of a thing. I won't get into word games. You have not proven a thing. You have raised some doubts, certainly some questions, and have made legitimate points.

The Usurper: I'm not sure you have proven flight 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon. Perhaps you have raised doubts, but proven? I wouldn't go that far.

The Usurper: We have two flights that few into the towers, one into the Pentagon, and one that crashed in Pennsylvania. So we have flights.

The Usurper: Where are the original flights and the passengers?

(V): Yes, moronic. But you have twisted the meaning into another of your stawmen. So I won't waste my time explaining it again.

(V):I know they can be removed.  Why should the government pay for it?  Just another example of rewarding irresponsible people when they do stupid things.

(V):You don't do so in an emergency economic stimulus package.  That's moronic.

Czuch:That's right.  Reward irresponsibility.  That's the way they have always rolled. 

Czuch:Yeah, what could I be thinking.  All those tattoo stores will bring in money (yours and mine)to pay for removal of tattoos from people too stupid to realize that tattoos are permanent.  Hmmm.   That sounds fair.

Houston just tried to pass a bill where they would use tax dollars to help elevate credit card debt for those that have over spent.  It was killed but the dems tried to sneak it past the people.  The Republicans rallied and killed that stupid bill.  I don't have any credit card bills because I always pay it off.  Why should I help out some moron who maxed out ten cards?

Democrats again. 

Obama says that the government must sacrifice some worthy priority for which there are no dollars.  Fine.  But what they say is one thing.  Right after that he proposes additional spending (money we don't have) for the cure of Cancer.  Double speak.  National Health Care reform can't wait?  Until we have the money?  How many trillions in debt does this guy think we can't make before he ruins the country?


Obama is getting a new fleet of new helicopters.  Hmmmm, 11.2 Billion dollars.  Yeah, like one isn't enough.

But the topper is when he said he "is proud that we passed a recovery plan that is free of earmarks."

Really?  He's either lying or he's stupid.  Neither choice is good.

There's language in this "recovery package" that requires the Transportation Security Administration to buy 100,000 uniforms from U.S. apparel makers (more that three million of tax dollars).  That's an earmark folks.

Three billion in extra transit money.  Another earmark. 

Fifty million for habitat restoration in the San Francisco Bay area.  Another earmark.

1.2 million for products from these companies:  General Electric, L-3 Communications and Reveal Imaging Technologies. (Msnbc.com is a joint venture of Microsoft and NBC Universal, which is a GE company.)

Earmarks.

There's the 189 million provision for Filipino World War II vets, most of which don't live in the US.  Another earmark.

This is supposed to be emergency legislation. 


So what's up with the 2 billion for battery research?  Emergency legislation?  Maybe Obama is just redefining earmarks.  Kinda like Clinton did with "is."

There 800 million for carbon capture projects.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.  It's a duck. 

That's just a start.  It's pork, no matter what.  200 thousand dollars for tattoo removal?  Seriously, if that's not an earmark, what is it?

Nothing surprises me anymore.  Change we can believe in?  All we'll have left is change in our pockets and it won't be that much.

Czuch:Politicans ignore these facts because they are more interested in power than they are in actually helping people.  BOB (BarakOBama) says he'll cut the deficit in half.  Big woop.  He just doubled it so that basically means he's going to do nothing about it. 

He also makes promises and then breaks them right off.  And lies.  In his speech he claims that "no earmarks" could be found in the stimulus package.  What a crock.  That's a bold face lie and only an idiot will not see through it.  Unbelievable. 

The Usurper:I'll read one a week and get back to you. 

I'm off to supper and Bible study.  We're studying economic collapse, Armageddon, and if Obama is the anti Christ. 

Czuch:Hush!  I'm winning the debate! 

The Usurper:No evidence?

Is not Silverstein's use of a common phrase in controlled demolition, "to pull it," not circumstantial evidence?

No it's not.  You are speculating on what he mean and in the context of the entire conversation, "pull it" doesn't sound to me like "blow it up."  They were talking about the inability to control the fire and the fact that the building was unstable.  Enough people had died fighting 911 as it was.  Pull it!  Get them out of there.  It's just a building!  That's what he meant.

He was the building's owner, after all. Is not foreknowledge of 7's immanent collapse also circumstantial evidence?

No.  They knew it was going to fall because the fires were out of control, it was structurally damaged to the point where it was clearly unstable, and the fire fighters testified they heard creaks and moans from within. 

Indeed, they knew exactly where to put the perimeter.

Yeah, they are professionals and have experience fighting tall building fires.  These guys study this stuff all day long.

But where do firemen get experience with total collapses of this nature?

Safety parameters are standard when fighting out of control fires.  Based on the building size, lean ratio and other factors, they can determine what is a safe distance and what is not. 

How could they, when such a collapse is unique in history?

They could because even I could have established a safe perimeter.  They have standards they follow.  But if I were there, I could have done it.  It's not that hard to imagine.  The building is unstable.  How far away should we move?  Well, depending on the building height, it would be easy to establish a reasonable perimeter plus a safety cushion.  

Is not pulverized concrete direct evidence of explosives?

No.  The concrete was weakened due to intense fire and heat and by sheer weight of the building collasping in on itself, it's not questionable that the concrete was pulverized.

Is not molten metal in the sub-basement direct evidence? Are not the speed & type of collapse direct evidence?

I don't know why it would be.  There are several explanations for this.  One is the intense heat. 

Is not the presence of sulphate in the dust direct evidence?

Not if parts of the building had that substance on it.  I'm not an expert but I read somewhere that some construction material did in fact contain sulphate.

Are not the dust-clouds themselves direct evidence?

Of course not.  When a building falls, you're gonna get dust clouds. 

Are not the squibs direct evidence?

There were none.  This is a strongly debated point.

Is not the silence of the 9/11 Commission on this incredible event, at least indirect evidence of a desire to hide by ommission, facts not supportive of the official theory?

No.  Unless of course they included every other building but left out 7.  Then I'd wonder why. 

Or are all these questions improperly insinuating in the very nature of things?

You can ask all the questions you want but simply asking a question doesn't mean that your conclusion necessarily follows.  Look, I don't trust the government any further than I can throw them.  But I also don't trust that men could remain silent on a conspiracy of such magnitude.  It's just not possible.  Someone always talks.  Always.

The Usurper:In other words, no resistance is met with anywhere, at any point in the collapse, by any portion of the building. Only if the columns are simultaneously severed, would this seem to be possible.

I really don't think you can tell this for sure from the video.  It's not that clear.  At any rate, the building was severely weakened by the time of the collapse.  So it's not unreasonable for it to have fallen as it did. 

True perhaps, but the questions I asked seem fairly forthcoming, non-manipulative, to me.

When you call a quote a "confession," that is manipulative.

For example, it is a fact that the 9/11 Commission ignored WTC-7 in its report. Why? Do you consider that an invalid, or immaterial, question?

I don't consider that an invalid question.  I wouldn't mind knowing why they didn't report on WTC7.  Perhaps there is a reasonable explanation for that.

I submit that none of my questions "are on the order of "When did you quit beating your wife." "

Fine, then they are on the order of "When did you quit kicking your cat." 


As to Silverstein's statement, how could the phrase "pull it" (a recognized term for using explosives to demolish a building by "pulling" out its supporting columns) be construed as saying, "the building is going to collapse"?


Pull the plan, pull the firefighters, who knows?  And pull it has to do with a non explosive way of falling a building.  They use cables and they fall an unstable building when there is danger of that building of falling onto other buildings. 


The case of WTC-7 really is "only a small part of a much larger picture." So the other side of what you say about this is also true, which is that, even if 9/11-Truthers are wrong about bldg. 7, this doesn't invalidate their arguments in other areas.

What I am saying is that if they were right about building 7, that would prove nothing towards all the  other events on 911.  WTC7 is likely the strongest case you have.  Clearly, the twin towers fell very much UNLIKE a explosive takedown.  The building crumbled.  I've seen the science on this and it's more than a reasonable explanation.  You can't wire buildings like that to fall without hundreds of experts.  Sorry, you can't keep that many people quiet, not even with the threat of death.

Yes, the firefighters established a perimeter. They knew it was going to fall. They were told it would fall. Yet NIST itself cannot explain why it fell, and admits as much.

I could have told you it was gonna fall just by looking at it.  It was totally unstable.  No way was that building going to remain standing.  And just because NIST can't explain why it fell doesn't mean it was blown up.  Sheesh....

The Usurper:Well, I'll try to find the one I spend the most time on.  Here's one I quickly looked at:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/06/wtc-7.html

I read this entire thing

I've seen many others but these are the ones I found in my history.  I also read some proconspiracy sites as well. But to be honest, they seem to try to lead one down the path to their conclusion and that turns me off. 

The Usurper:Isn't he a Texas Republican?  I rather like him too.  Huckabee is my fav.  The smart ones never get elected.  Only the smooth talkers. (with the exception of Regan.  A great American President!)

Czuch:Where the heck have you been?  I've had to fight off the libs all by myself!  And I had protect you in your absence!  ;)

The Usurper:I just watched a number of videos of the fires of surrounding buildings, read the quotes of the firemen, and watch the building collapse.  I can honestly say, that I didn't see anything that makes me wonder why that building fell.  I saw many things that made me wonder how on earth it was still standing.

Subject: Questions to ask...
1. If Larry Silverstein admitted WTC 7 was "pulled"
(i.e., demolished), why did this confession not make it into the 9/11 Commission Report?

First, you are not asking a question here.  You are drawing a conclusion.  You can't know for certain what he meant by "pulled."  I heard a firefighter use that same terminology.  And Silverstein didn't make the decision to "pull it."  The fire chief said they couldn't save it.  It was an inferno (I saw the fires) and had HUGE holes in it.  That building was doomed and everyone knew it.  The press knew it.  They were waiting for it to fall and it didn't just freefall.  It took over 13 seconds to fall.  You could see where it started and it collasped in on itself.  They've analyzed that fall and it's consistent with the official story.  The debri field is consistent with the offical story.  And the testimony of the firefighters, both writtin and those caught on tape, are consistent with the offical story.  From what I've read (in the last two hours) and seen on various sites including youtube, that building had been hit by one of the towers and seriously weakened.  The firefighters were pulled out and they established a safety parimeter.  That is a fact of the record.  I don't know, it just isn't as convincing when you look at all the facts.

3. Why did NIST not address at all the prima facie evidence of explosives,

Because there is no evidence for explosives.  That's why. 


6. How could a building, any building, collapsing as a result of fire damage, fail at every point simultaneously,

It didn't.  It collapsed in on itself and the collapse began at the penthouse.  You can see it happening.  Also, the building had a 20 story hole in it.  The fires were raging and the heat was unbearable (testimony of firefighters).  It's structure was weakened by a number of contributing factors.  NOT JUST FIRE. 


Anyone can come up with a series of questions about any event and word those questions in such a way as they draw a suspicious eye.  You call Silversteins "pull it" a confession.  That's clearly worded to bias the question and is a bit disengenuious.  Some of your questions are on the order of "When did you quit beating your wife."  Worded in your question (some of them) are hints at the answer. 

I'm totally unconvinced.  There are certain things I cann't get past.  Even before reading your questions, questions of my own were formulated and those call into question this whole theory of yours.  And reading your questions don't help.  They read like  conclusions and to me that is a sticky point.

Even if I could be convinced to be skeptable on WTC7, that building's collasp alone does not account for the events of 911.  If WTC7 was the only thing under consideration, I might be more skeptable about the "offical" story.  But it's only a small part of a much larger picture.  The conspiracy view just doens't read consistency to me.  It reads more like radicalism and science fiction with alot of James Bond mixed in.

The Usurper: Now on to your 911 ideas.  The only area where I am even slightly interested is in the question of building 7 and how it collapsed.   It indeed does look (to an untrained eye) that it was brought down by explosives (much like we've seen on TV when witnessing an expert demolition.

But just because it appears that way to me, doesn't mean that it must have been that way.  Circumstantial evidence aside, what hard evidence do they have that the building was brought down by explosives?  I think the answer to that is none.  It's just a gathering of circumstantial evidence and speculation that fuels the theory.  If there were truly a "smoking gun" then you'd have something.  But now all you seem to have is a good debate. 

When all is said and done, I arrive at this:  even the experts can't agree on this one.  And if they can't agree, then an art teacher and part time musician from small town USA isn't going to figure it out either. 

The Usurper:
I may faint.  Now I can't use it against you anymore! 

You will see from some of my earlier posts that I was the ad hominem king and it did not go over well for me!  lol

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

article here

The Usurper:Unless the topic is old news and they've "been there, done that."  In that case, what's the interest in going over a battle already fought?