Artful Dodger: "apparently because you've done all the thinking for us or something like that"

Having studied an event like 9/11 as I have (and I still continually study it), it is hard to come online, to a place where others haven't looked into it as I have, nor seen the materials I have seen, and know where to begin.

To me, it is an urgent issue. It is the pretext for an imperial agenda which has moved the American people to action; and, if my position on 9/11 is correct, it is the event which exposes the wickedness in high places as no other.

It is not my intention to do anyone's thinking for them. I've done a lot of research that I attempt to share. Again, it is hard to know where, or how, to begin. I will admit that I opted for the "shock treatment" approach here. I stated my conclusion, without indicating the research I'd done that led me to it. I do try to present evidence, a little at a time, that hopefully will catch someone's attention. I also recommend books & websites of those who have done more research than I, or who can otherwise explain things better than I....be more thorough, etc. All books are not equal, and all websites are not equal. But there are some extremely good ones, in both categories.

It is never easy to get across unwelcome news, no matter what approach one takes. What the Old Testament prophets had to say was not very pleasing to many Israelites, for an example. They were the Chosen people and Israel-Judah the Chosen nation(s). Many of us have felt the same way about America today.

So, please believe me when I say that, while my convictions are strong, I nevertheless desire that you and others look carefully into the matter for yourselves. It is the only possible way to firmly develop your own convictions, whatever they turn out to be. The question is monumental. And my honest opinion is that, no one can examine this evidence & conclude that the government's account of 9/11 is not fabricated, or that it is not complicit, unless some a priori assumption stands in the way of his/her reasoning powers. Yet that is only my opinion, and I am ever open to debate.

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. 

Artful Dodger: Thank you for pointing out the flaw in my reasoning, on the point in question. We all stand in need of a little "adjustment" from others, now and then. :o)

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

Artful Dodger: After a quick shower, I see your point better, and it is a good one. It is more appropriate to say, "you are not seriously debating the issues," which stick to the argument, than to say, "you are not a serious debator," which accuses the person. I stand corrected.

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?

The Usurper:You are missing the point.  Maybe Czuch doesn't acknowledge your points because he doesn't agree with any of them.  That's a possibility. 

That's beside the point of my post to you.  Challenging a person's debating tactics seems legitimate to me.  So if someone twists what you say, then it's right that you should set them straight.  When people do twist things, they are often building up straw men arguments and those are easily to point out. 

But to say that the other isn't a serious debater addresses the person and not the argument.  Also your statement as to his use of logic is questionable as well (on the same grounds). 

I only point this out because  when you first came on here, you stood on the fact that you were all about a "gentlemanly" debate.  Others commended you for not throwing insults.  Now you are throwing insults (and have in other posts as well) and I can't help but wonder, where are those critical voices now?  And why the change in you?  Is it a sign of frustration?

For the most part, when I read your posts (on 911) I don't get the impression that you want us to consider your points and come to our own conclusion; but you want to tell us what we should think (apparently because you've done all the thinking for us or something like that).

Artful Dodger: Ok, but my point is that, if someone does these things, it is evident they are not seriously debating issues.

If I think Czuch, or you, or anyone else, has made a good point, I acknowledge that. I've noticed you also acknowledge points I make, sometimes. But apparently no point I've ever made, about anything, has Czuch found worthy of acknowledgment. Maybe that's the way he really feels about every statement I've made. Or maybe he feels it is unmanly to acknowledge an opponent in debate. I don't know for sure, but I suspect it is the latter.

Artful Dodger: I don't believe my criticism of Czuch is ad hominem, because it is true that he does ignore challenging points and he does misrepresent the positions of others. If you like, I could provide a list of things I've directly asked him, or points I've made directly to him, that he ignored, while at the same time trying to trivialize my position by distorting it. And I, for my part, always try to answer him honestly. I may miss something, but never intentionally so.

Nevertheless, I will do my best not to focus on his methods, and try instead to the keep the facts, questions, and challenging of assumptions coming.

As to 9/11, over the last year and a half I've read many books & many articles both on & offline, and I've watched many videos/dvds, short & long. My conviction on the matter did not spring up over night. I expect no one to take my word for anything. But I do believe that truth has its own power. I might present a piece of evidence here that gets someone to thinking...."can that be right?" or, "that's a good point, I hadn't thought of it." If so, it doesn't mean they believe me on my word. But they may pick up another piece of information somewhere else. Eventually, they may decide the question merits serious personal inquiry. And only this serious inquiry, which they themselves initiate, ought to convince them one way or the other.

anastasia: You are right, that wouldn't be difficult at all. It is a prime example of how politicians "perform" for the public, while ignoring the obvious & going about their business of representing the money-lenders who bought them, not the voters who voted for them.

awwwwwwwww.......aint love grand :)

The Usurper:You aren't a serious debater. You don't seriously stand on "logic" in your so-called counterpoints.

I thought you were against ad hominem arguments.  I also thought you were the one that called for letting the arguments speak for themselves. 

BTW, having evidence is meaningless if it's not credible or acceptable.  In a trial, lawyers are always trying to discredit the other's submitted evidence.  Some evidence stands up to close scrutiny, some does not.  So simply claiming you provided "evidence" isn't enough.  It has to take us some where.  And spare me the repeat; I know the evidence takes you somewhere.  But it's got to do more than that.  How long have you looked into this 911 stuff?  If a long time, then why do you expect people to "take your word for it" and accept everything you say on face value?

If you've only looked at it a short time, that is worse.  That simply shows that you fall for something without really checking into it in a deep and meaningful way.

Keep the facts coming.  Keep the questions coming.  Challenge assumptions.  But don't do the very thing you have criticized in others:  "to the man" attacks. 

Pedro Martínez: I don't drink much these days, but I do admit that Budweiser was my beer of choice back in my party days. I know American beers don't compare to European ones, or so I've heard. Like Tuesday, I haven't really tried any. My brother says American beer is not in the same league with German.

Tuesday: :o)

Czuch: At least you are consistent. Ignore the questions/comments that challenge your worldview, especially the ones providing evidence...i.e., all those points I make that you can't answer. Instead, misrepresent something I have said, juxtapose it with something else I have said so as to seemingly provide a valid contradiction, etc. You aren't a serious debater. You don't seriously stand on "logic" in your so-called counterpoints. I still enjoy your posts, since they often provide me a "pretext" for discussing things that do matter, and that others will understand. :o)

Tuesday: Try this or this one (the real Budweiser). Some of the best beer brands this Earth has ever seen. :)

Tuesday: Yes, American beer IS quite disgusting.

Quote of the Day

"You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline -- it helps if you have some kind of a football team, or some nuclear weapons, but at the very least you need a beer."


--Frank Zappa

so I just saw on the news that yet another bank is spending the bail out money by sending it's CEO's and clients to Beverly HIlls and throwing parties and crap for them.....here is my question..instead of the polaticians going on the TV bitching about the banks not being responsible...why don't they just say...well,then,we are taking the money back..HOW difficult would THAT be?? unreal!

Czuch: You read my post wrong. I said the opposite. I'm all for revolution if necessary if the government goes to far. Several have gone on in the past by popular movement because those at the top didn't give a damn, except about themselves.

Not entrust, empower. Give the people the ability back that has been diminished by those with personal agenda's or fears that misused the tribe instinct to fill their own void with the false pretence that they are right.

And FYI I'm for less government intrusion, certain matters fine. But excuses are being made here in the UK to introduce more, rather then facing the truth.

... Actually some politicians recognise the truth, but others like spending!!

We've lived with propaganda for so many years... telling us "them" or "it", when if the people had actually the chance from both sides to sit down with a few beers and talk maybe we would have an "we".

Someone help me understand the logic of liberals like Usurper who have such disdain for the integrity of our government yet support us giving them more of our money and support more and more government into the control of our lives????

(V): not sure why you would want to entrust more and more power and money to a government that has the potential to abuse its power????

Long live the people???? Why not entrust the people more then???

The Usurper: It was a case of soldiers trained from birth to fight and kill without mercy the enemy. If an enemy used a civilian as a shield, tough for the civilian!!

Then the fighting moved from earth to places of value in space, moons, planets all for profit and greed.

... And man being man invents lovely things like planet killers the size of a small round BBQ...

... But in the plot, they don't allow for Kurt Russell

The Usurper: Damn right!! If the government ain't doing it's job, or tries to employ bully boy techniques to dominate it's people rather then govern for the people. It's time for them to be removed.

Long live the people!!

Tuesday: Amen to that. Otherwise I'd have to ask the government for a handout to upgrade my membership. lol

(V): Those are strong and valuable traditions of protest. We have a tradition of protest also, I'm not sure how effective it is. Anything that will ensure the steady supply of tea-time (or in my case, tobacco & coffee) commodities, is worthy of any civil action, up to and including the overthrow of the government. lol

(V): I haven't seen the film, but sometimes fiction is an accurate reflection of reality, and sometimes reality is more bizarre than fiction. :o)

The Usurper: It's like a script from the film "Soldier"

The Usurper: We run out of tea... NeVeR.

Anyways, it's usual for people to have a protest or two in the summer, or in certain cases all year round.. eg the major London airports wanting more runways.

.... One group bought a plot of land in the site of the one of the proposed and sold small squares over the internet. Truckers doing go slow convoys down motorways over fuel prices, millions descending on London to protest against GWII and it's legality.

Petitions are a favourite, sometimes national newspapers run some in cases of particular public interest and eye.

We tend to remind our government who they work for.

--A government document called "Vision for 2020", authored by the United States Space Command in February 1997, describes the "domination of the space dimension of military operations to protect U.S. interests and investments. Integrating Space Forces into warfighting capabilities across a full spectrum of conflict."--

Notice the domination of Space is not to protect Americans at home, but "U.S. interests and investments" abroad. This includes neutralizing the deterrence capabilities of foreign powers whom we choose to invade. Here it is:

http://www.middlepowers.org/gsi/docs/vision_2020.pdf

(V): "As for riots in the UK... We protest, usually peacefully... It's traditional."

Just wait till you run out of tea. Even Benny Hill won't get away. lol :o)

"Barack Obama Administration Continues US Military Global Dominance"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12350

Here's an interesting article on the campaign money Obama got from military sources (more than McCain), on Obama's continuation of the global agenda, and on the conflicts-of-interest within Congress, etc.

I didn't get this at Prison Planet so perhaps even my good friend (V) will not disparage the source. :o)

*chomp, chomp*

dogs ear.....

(V): Perhaps so, but the articles are quoting economists, officials & newspaper reports, not Prison Planet employees. :o)

Hey, at least you and I don't agree on everything. Or perhaps we do...and THIS is a conspiracy. lol

The Usurper: Our labour gov has had to rescue various banks. The banks even tried saying sorry for all this mess........ It was rather a pathetic attempt seeing as they wouldn't take responsibility for their actions leading to this credit crises.

As for riots in the UK... We protest, usually peacefully... It's traditional.

I get the feeling that "Prison Planet" is a little too filled of conspiracy theories.

Czuch: "well, i have to admit that i was writing that last post at the same time you were, and it is astounding to me... maybe that is the difference we share, you see a government separate from the people, and I am naive enough to still see a government of the people?"

I missed this post by you. I just found it, rereading the board. You make a good point. You see a government of the people, and I see a government separate from the people. This is certainly a difference in our viewpoints.

We agree, however, that the government SHOULD be of the people, and not separate from it. My position is that our government leaders have their own, basically unified, agenda, which is not representative in nature but imperialistic, and also consists in so regimenting the people's lives that they become essentially slaves to a system which meets the needs of the dominant class. Naturally, keeping the "left" & "right" at each other's throats, without truly resolving issues one way or the other, is a reliable means of distraction.