The Usurper: resulting fire weren't enough in themselves to bring the buildings down


But why did they have to come down at all??? It seems like a lot of extra work and risk to plant demolitions... wouldnt flying two plane loads of people into the buildings serve the purpose you are talking about just fine like that?

anastasia: I would only say that airplanes & buildings are not tornadoes. Broad experience & study teaches us the characteristics of tornado destruction, along with its destructive unpredictability as a defining characteristic. The same broad experience & study teaches us that the destruction around plane crashes & falling buildings are not so unpredictable. If everything were as unpredictable as you seem to suggest, we'd have no basis for science or understanding anything. I appreciate your comments, but can't agree with the reasons for your conclusions.

The Usurper: I got about half through the video..that was enough for me...my thoughts are since nothing like 9-11 had happened before OR since...HOW do we know HOW the plane would have exploded or what it would or would not have left behind...all those goofy lil things that clip was pointing out...windows still being intact,spools of cabel still laying there...ummm,so what?? When a tornado passes through it can level 16 homes and leave one standing perfectly...it can rip the walls off of a house BUT still leave a kitchen towel laying perfectly on the counter top....is THAT a conspiracy too? stupid government made tornados...I think people are reading way to much into stuff with 9-11 as far as conspiracy..HOW do you know just how the twin towers should have fallen when they had never fallen before....nobody ever did a mock test and said,hey!! lets slam some planes into them and SEE how they would fall....just in case it were ever to happen.....come one....ya need to move on already with this one.

(V): There is even evidence that we allowed Bin Laden to escape into Pakistan. And before 9/11, in July or August, while Bin Laden was reportedly on our most wanted list, and a 5,000,000 reward offered for his capture, there are reports he had inpatient treatment for 2 weeks in an American hospital in Dubai for dialysis (sp), was treated by an American physician and met with the local CIA agent.

Add to this that the FBI, on its website, when listing Bin Laden as a wanted criminal, does not list the events of 9/11 among the crimes he is wanted for. When asked why not, the FBI response was (paraphrase): "Because we have no hard evidence linking Bin Laden to the events of 9/11."

The Usurper: It might explain why so little resources were sent to Afghanistan to get Bin Laden. If he was caught and as would happen put in court....

Just an opinion though, but if I was Pres at the time I would have sent enough troops and resources to implement a take and hold policy in Afghanistan.

Eg take an area, leave troops to hold it, then go on and take another area over, and so on.

Artful Dodger: Not twisted anything..... Stated my opinion. Just as you stated your opinion about helping out Vets that fought in WWII.

Artful Dodger: Great post, Art. Some of the articles on that scholar site are pretty compelling. One other site you might consider looking at when you have time is:

http://www.historycommons.org/

This website uses only Mainstream sources of information, but with a world-wide net. It contains searchable timelines of events & topics, 9/11-related & other. It is this website which first caught the attention of David Ray Griffin (after looking at other websites and being unmoved), and caused him to realize some things didn't add up. He is not your typical conspiracy theorist.

But regardless of that, the website is very informative.

Bwild:  Well I sure aint' goin down there! 

Artful Dodger:heaven, huh? lol

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.

man....come on with the conspiracy.....havent we kicked that horse to death yet???
I'm wondering what our British friends think about our "chosen one" sending back that bust of Churchill??

Artful Dodger: Good post with solid reasoning. I will re-phrase to say: I have seen enough evidence that, although I don't know all details of the plot, I am convinced that 9/11 was orchestrated & carried out by elements within the U.S. Government. And I believe that, were this evidence presented in a court of law, an impartial jury would arrive at the same conclusion.

Still, as you correctly say, many questions still do need to be answered, and many mysteries remain. An independent official investigative committee with subpoena power is needed, but unlikely to develop. Because of this lack, our best-case scenario for understanding 9/11, at the moment, seems to be more-or-less private investigation, piecing together of facts through newspaper reports, etc., and the general spreading of knowledge & information through unofficial sources.

Any investigation, official or unofficial, also needs to be scrutinized, both its results & its methods of arriving at them. No easy task, to be sure.

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.

Artful Dodger: I agree it can be confusing. If it weren't, CoIntelPro wouldn't be doing its job. :o)

I personally think it's a slam dunk. But in any case, sometimes it is best to back off a subject, let things assimilate, approach it later. I do this all the time, maybe we all do.

At the same time, things stick in our minds and don't go away. Eventually we must return to them, because they nag at us.

I personally feel some stress when I make posts about 9/11 or any other subject deemed controversial. I am human, and I like to be liked. Sometimes I imagine how my posts are read, and it is depressing. I also prefer making people happy, not miserable or stressed.

But I push on, because stressful facts, whether about ourselves or about the world around us, cannot be avoided without doing damage to ourselves and/or others. More importantly, avoidance makes us easy prey.

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

Artful Dodger: No words games intended. Thanks for taking the time to look at the video.

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.

"Aspire to be like Mt. Fuji, with such a broad and solid foundation that the strongest earthquake cannot move you, and so tall that the greatest enterprises of common men seem insignificant from your lofty perspective. With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things happening near to you."

Miyamoto Musashi

Artful Dodger: Proof, as ever, is in the eye of the beholder. Some will be persuaded, others not. But even if evidence merely raises doubts, that is a good start because it leads people to question things more critically. That in itself is a closer step towards discovering & understanding truth, i.e., reality, or how things are, or what really happened.

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.

Artful Dodger: Sure we do. But the question I was asked is, What happened to Flight 77 if it didn't crash into the Pentagon?

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.

Artful Dodger: Good question. But we're speaking of "flight" here, not "flights," in the plural. See my post below....to know what happened to the plane and its passengers is a different question than knowing what did NOT happen to them.

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

Czuch: Yes, that's about right. They needed explosives because the planes & resulting fire weren't enough in themselves to bring the buildings down. And it is probable that no Arabs committed suicide. No Arabs appeared on the flight manifests released. Some planted information like a passport here or there served to identify them. Some of those indentified are still alive, according to news reports. They were patsies.

Czuch: Why do I have to show you such evidence? It is obvious no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. That is enough Reality to disprove the official theory, and to prove that official theory is disinformation, a cover-up of real events.

If we all agree that "Sam" is missing, and I point to a spot and say, "Look, Sam's not there!" it doesn't mean I have to know where Sam IS to know he isn't THERE. But if somebody insists on telling me he is there where I'm pointing, I know it is a lie.

The Usurper: that was interesting and I agree with Czuch.....where is the real plane?

okay, so... they got these arabs to commit suicide to help the US government start a war in the middle east?

They faked a few planes being hijacked, put a missile in the pentagon , demolished 3 buildings with explosives after flying planes into two of them (btw why did they have to actually demolish the buildings with explosives after they flew planes into them?) anyway, the fbi the cia the president congress and others including obama know all about this, but because its for some greater world domination plan, everyone in the loop is keeping it hush hush??? Sound about right?

The Usurper: Very interesting indeed, great speculation, but far from proving any reality.... now you have to show me the evidence of where the real plane went to???

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/pentagon.htm


Watch this short video...and awake to Reality.

"Political Ponerology is a study of the founders and supporters of oppressive political regimes. Lobaczewski’s approach analyzes the common factors that lead to the propagation of man’s inhumanity to man. Morality and humanism cannot long withstand the predations of this evil. Knowledge of its nature – and its insidious effect on both individuals and groups - is the only antidote."

http://ponerology.com/

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

could be a goose tho..ya know,they are kind of similair ;)

awesome: very true...sorry :)

Czuch: i never bitched about it when bush was in office....I'm in it for the long haul,Chuckie...I'm 36 right now...I don't plan on touching any of my investments untill I'm in my 60's

anastasia:

no, I'm awesome, he's Czuch.............

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

Artful Dodger: Perhaps your Pres is just doing the right thing now for those vets after them being ignored all this time.

.. That's moronic??

As for the removal of tattoos.. Maybe it'll put some people in a better situation to get a good job, rather then being victimised for being 'kids'. Kids do do stupid things ya know, you must remember that. It's part of growing up.

anastasia: I know you wouldnt be so silent about it if Bush was president right now

Czuch: I'm glad YOU know so much about MY portfolio...your awesome!

(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: If they allow you in, you'll have to show reason to be able to stay for ever, otherwise you are just another tourist.

(V): I will move to the UK and let you take care of me

Artful Dodger: Tattoos can be removed....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ic7X8LKADsg

Watch the video.

Artful Dodger: And Bush did what to the national debt? Spending billions and billions on a war that shouldn't have taken place.. at least maybe not in the form taken... If had thought, they could have done a sneaky war, which would have cost less in money and lives.

And what about some of those people who got contracts to rebuild Iraq, hasn't there been investigations into some over basically ripping off the American Government aka The USA population?

You don't reward those who fought along side you in WWII... that's disgraceful.

Czuch: Having two 100% mortgages... what happens if you lose your job? We are in a recession.

With negative equity

The Usurper: So you must believe then, that Bams plans are working according to plan, since wall st cronies are losing billions every day? If wall st did good under Bush, and evryone hated him, then under Bam, wall st should be doing bad, a good sign that socialism is working?

Czuch: Ahhh but some companies are offering 0% credit for two years or more on certain items like furniture over here. If one was clever, one would pay off the item in under those two years or so.

"Maybe it is a bit different with business.... but my advice is if you cant pay cash fro it, you cant afford it or it is more than you really need."

Have you really been following what has gone on re the banks? They've been lending and borrowing from each other, making very dodgy unthought investments all on the hope that the boom period would not end. Well it does, always.

They've been making bad loans to people, knowing that if the boom failed it would be the people that would suffer, bad mortgages.. no-one should ever get a 100% mortgage, people over here have always been advised (or as was in the past) to save a percentage first before buying a house, and most banks then insisted that had a deposit.

But greed set in, popularised by the banks, etc.

Here's a sobering analysis of Obama's speech from a fellow Progressive:

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/177585-Obama-s-Address-to-Congress