Vikings: Thank you....

Bernice: I am always getting things the wrong way round and left instead of right lmbo!

Artful Dodger: the court threw out the Pennsylvania case that was before the election siting that the prosecutor had no standing to sue, last I eard, Judge Roberts allowed California suits to go on as they were brought by legislators and had standing, but the last I heard anything was a couple of days before the inogeration

Mousetrap: with the intense heat melting the beams, the weight of the floors above the crash made the top floors fall on it then it was like a pancake theory the rest of the way down, imagine a brick dropping down on a three story card house, they are going to go straight down

Bernice: It was over budget, one of the cuts was in the asbestosis retardant that was around the main beams, they stopped using it somewhere around the 65th floor, not exactly sure which one

Mousetrap: think of the house of cards theory (poor quality materials).....it doesnt topple over it collapses in on itself.....

Bernice: I have not heard that one but it surprises me because I would have though poor quaility materials would have actually caused it to topple over and not vice versa. The better the material the less it would be inclined to topple. But then I am not an expert in construction.
It did look like a controled toppling though rather than a crash.

Did I or did I not read/hear somewhere that poor quality materials were used in the construction of the twin towers and that this contributed to the collapse in on itself instead of toppling over as expected?

I just have a feeling Ive seen that somewhere???

Jim Dandy: My bad. Now that it is buffering, I see it is an interview with Alex Jones, not Steven Jones. The first picture before buffering shows Steven Jones, the BYU professor I mentioned.

Jim Dandy: Thanks for the link.

Actually, that is not Alex Jones but Steven Jones. He is a BYU professor of physics, whose classroom documentary I own and is highly recommended. Jones is another conservative, a Republican and a lover of Ronald Reagan. That is really beside the point, except as evidence in favor of my contention that alternate theories about 9/11 are not merely a Left-wing political phenomenon.

The Usurper: Here is a fairly recent appearance of Griffen with Jones,Nov 08

http://video.google.ca/videosearch?q=David+Ray+Griffin%2Calex+jones&emb=0&aq=f#

Czuch: You seem to be assuming that all evidence is either equal or nonexistent. Therefore, all argument is really speculation that comes down to "he said, she said," and thus fruitless.

My argument is that evidence does exist, that some evidence is better than others, that human beings are naturally endowed with an ability to sift through evidence and make sense of the world.

The towers, for example, came down at virtually freefall speed, according to video evidence. That is evidence. This point then falls to architects, physicists, engineers, and the like to produce tests, make calculations, and come to conclusions about how that might or might not be possible.

However, even folks like you me have common sense. And common sense is one of our greatest assets, not to be undermined. How could these towers fall as if there were no resistance at all, as fast as a rock falls through space, when we both know that the massive steel columns and concrete of which the towers were constructed must apply some resistance?

Without considering anything else, just this one piece of video evidence, we can surmise that demolition rather than gravity is the better answer. For one thing, that is what controlled demolition does. And that is what unaided gravity does not, and never has before or since.

From there, we look at possible aids to gravity. We do some experiments & test the results. But really, common sense wins here, with those who choose to utilize it.

Artful Dodger: If the Rev you're referring to David Ray Griffin, he is not a fundamentalist, which means endtimes, Armegeddon, Israel, etc., are not subjects he dwells upon or considers important, at least in the fundamentalist sense...at least to be the best of my knowledge. If he did, I might think less of his analysis.

I defended Rosie simply because I noticed a few people here getting particular glee out of ridiculing her. If she riled you up, she can't be all bad. :o)

Alex Jones & David Ray Griffin have very little in common in terms of personality characteristics. Jones is outrageous, Griffin is reserved. Jones, as Jim Dandy says, tends to see conspiracies under every rock. Griffin focuses on 9/11.

I wouldn't be too hard on Alex, though. He uncovers a lot. As such he does more in the cause of truth than 99% of the journalists in America. And you will be more informed reading his website than watching Fox News or MSNBC.

Czuch: I don't equate a character flaw with hating George Bush. lol

My mother loves Obama and I sympathize with her but firmly disagree.

I think neither my mother, or Rosie, nor you, is a nutcase. I'll stick by my position on Rosie, in that courage and character are the hallmarks of her outspoken disdain of Bush.

Charles Martel: I'm pretty openminded,but Jones lost me a few years ago.Phil Shneider's story is one of the few I find may be legit,he was murdered a number of years ago

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3403113138974316606&hl=en

Jim Dandy: and these types are always fun to have around,, otherwise things would get boring!Jones and others are what sarcasm and eyerolling were invented for!

Artful Dodger: Alex Jones is a conspiracy theory freak, very much on the fringe.I used to get a kick out of him and his website (Prison Planet) but after awhile you learn he thinks everyone including Chef Gordon Ramsey is part of a grand plan of The New World Order.

Snoopy:


I dont know who is worse, a woman who begs for cash on a website after having 8 more kids on top of the 6 she already cannot afford... or the 2 publicists, who are going to reap a percentage of all the cash they can rake in for her celebrity!!!!

for these poor babies and there crazy mother

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032600/


she has her own web site asking for donations which is the same has begging

Artful Dodger:And Usurper, you'll be judged by the company you keep.  Alex Jones is a thug, Rosie a blowhard.  As for the Rev, I don't know about him but I think all this nonsense has a lot to do with religion and Israel and end times and Armageddon. 

The Usurper:um, Rosie O'Donnell's is a mental case.  She's a far left radical whacko.  Unthinking.  Illogical. 

The Usurper: Two of the alleged FEMA camps are right here in Washington.  One at the airport.  Yeah, hide it in plain sight.

And only the radical fringes see this FEMA threat and all the others are blind to it.

Not very convincing.  I building with a fence around it and barbed wire and a couple of army jeeps is not a concentration camp.  It's a warehouse.

Charles Martel: Didnt you hear??? Wall street bought on the rumor, and sold on the news, its a good sign! LMAO!

Yeah, thats so good, they bought the DOW all the way up to 8000, on the rumor.... yup, wall street really loves this package all right!

The Usurper:

She spoke her convictions & conscience and paid the price. That's a courageous human being and there aren't many like her

You call it courageous to make unsubstantiated accusations... i call it a sign of ignorance, and plain stupidity!

My suggestion would be to not align yourself too closely with a woman like Rosie. I would also guess that Rosie LOVES Obama!

Just because she happens to be on the same side of one issue with you, dont make the huge leap that she could even come as close to making a rational argument for her case as you have.

Rosie is a blow hard, loud mouth who hates George Bush.... she is nothing more than that and never will be! That she agrees with you on one issue, I agree too, the Donald Trumps hair looks stupid, but neither one of us should be using her to champion our fight.

the stimulus package includes 300 million for"green" golf carts.. what happened here?? I hope he does better, but if he has to dance the dance of pelosi and crew... the Dow only dropped 400 points on news of the stimulus being passed... i guess they weren't very stimulated.

The Usurper:

I have still honorably stood my ground & debated my point.


Not really... You have based your argument in documentations that debunk the official conspiracy. Then we have given you documents that debunk those debunkings.(I know, its not really a word)

But we have not debated any specifics fact for fact. From what i gather, if we do that, your argument will come down to something like, "well the government refuses to release those pictures" or something like that, right? Or, "its not likely that all 3 buildings would fall straight down like they did", right again?

It doesnt make any sense for us to get into a point by point debate, when in the end it comes down to evidence that nobody has?

Your best bet to win a conspiracy debate is to have someone, a live, real person, who was part of this vast conspiracy, an actual eye witness, and like Dan said, in a conspiracy of this magnitude, it would not be hard to find one. But lacking that, the best you have is a he said she said scenario, and that is giving your side a real lot at this point.

There's a woman of character...a real Great American (in Hannity's phraseology). She spoke her convictions & conscience and paid the price. That's a courageous human being and there aren't many like her. I'm glad to be on Rosie O'Donnell's side in this issue (I don't know much about her position specifically except that she raised legitimate questions & was basically fired over it) and she will be remembered & honored as one of the few who speak truth to power.

Artful Dodger: Folks here might try googling "fema camps" and see what comes up.

But who knows for sure? We have buildings which disintegrate by gravity & fire alone, on a single day in history only...and on the same day we have an airliner disappear entirely from the heat of its own fuel-fire...again, on a single day in history only.

So you might be right. Lack of evidence seems to prove things whereas clear evidence seems to disprove them. Maybe there are really no FEMA camps.

Alex can be noisy, and I think that is a drawback. Yet his boldness, as to his general character, is much needed & stands him in good stead. He is a fearless investigator & he is independant. Bottom line, he's pretty much right on the money with whatever he's shouting about.

was this man the author of TNP???........thats sounds terroristic to me..........whacko is very close me thinks but then am I following you AD because I dont really understand your politics, but some of the things he says are "over the top" in my opinion and just how much is original or is he like another person that occasionally frequents this board.....A CCp merchant?????

The Usurper:  cept there are no FEMA camps.  But seriously, Alex went over the line in that video.  Someone should have deck the loudmouth.  So much for the free speech he claims to support.  Just that he probably means his free speech.  And those that he disagrees with he'll just shout down (as he did nonstop in the video).  Rush is better behaved that that.

Artful Dodger: lol. That may just happen. The irony is that you think you're safe!

I gotta run. As always, I enjoyed....

Alex Jones is a bit whacked.

He's a big mouth thug.  At least in this clip he is.  Lock the nut up in a FEMA camp.   

Artful Dodger: Alex Jones is a pretty cool dude!

Artful Dodger: Actually, sir, you are correct! As far as it goes, that is....

Calling your debating opponent "irrational" or calling him "whacky" is roughly the same. And calling his argument "irrational" or "whacky" is also roughly the same.

The difference, the crucial one, is that applying these terms to your opponent does not logically strengthen your argument, as it does not bear on the evidence presumably culled to support it. It is therefore a diversionary tactic.

If I say that a man who says 4+4 = 5 is making an irrational statement, my position is borne out by the evidence. If I say HE is irrational, that may or may be so but it is not germain to the topic at hand and that in itself, true or not, cannot be construed as evidence that 4+4 does not equal 5.

My point is that you, in my opinion, do not use these terms in a matter conducive to healthy debate or with an aim to establishing the truth of any assertion you make, based on evidence you present. You rather use it out of anger and/or more precisely for purposes of intimidation, to in fact lessen the substantial quality of the debate, to make it harder for others to pick up the threads....and to let others know they can expect the same treatment should they disagree with you. This is, for example, what your hero O'Reilly makes a living at. And it is the first defense of most who vehemently support the official 9/11 conspiracy theory. :o)

Alex Jones MySpace

Wow, he says some pretty nasty things about Obama. 

The Usurper:  Don't be a whacko  

Artful Dodger: Just what I expected from one of those unthinking, irrational types. LOL :o)

Interesting pic of Alex Jones

I'm not making a statement as I don't know the guy.  But it is funny. 

<span>mine are right from the dictionary:

whacko - 20 thesaurus results       absurd, asinine, bedlamite, bonkers, cracked*, crackers, daffy*, demented, deranged, dopey*, flaky*, foolish, fried*, giddy, half-baked*, idiotic, inane, insane, in the ozone, lunatic, mad, mental*, nuts, nutty*, off the wall, out of one's gourd, ridiculous, screwy*, silly, simple, touched, unbalanced, unhinged*, unsound, wacky, whacko, witless

hmmmm, I like a few of these.  I see nutty is in there so that qualifies.  So "whacko" and "nutty" are legit. 

As for perjorative, anytime you use words with the intent of belittling or disparaging, you are using those terms in the perjorative.  Calling someone unthinking or irrational is not a compliment.  It might be more sophisticated, but using "unthinking" or "whacko" are in the same camp.  The camp of the stupid. 

The words whacko and nutty can be used perjoratively or not.  The same is true for unthinking and irrational.  All have perjorative connotations.  It's a matter of opinion which may be "worse" and certainly it's a matter of style.   I think you're splitting hairs.  It's like arguing that there is a polite way to tell someone they are stupid morons as opposed to just saying it outright.  I dunno, an insult is an insult.  But I like sounding like a hack sometimes.  So whacko and nutcases and the like will do it for me. 

Artful Dodger: My conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job is certainly not a priori. It may be wrong, but I didn't come to the table with it. It wasn't an assumption I made at the beginning of my investigation (which wouldn't really have been an investigation then, but rather an effort to reinforce my a priori position). I know my position appears to be an a priori one to you, perhaps, since I did come HERE with that conclusion already firmly entrenched in my mind. But that DOESN'T mean my mind can't be changed or that my position is unalterable. Or that I am unwilling to look farther, even to reassess my views in the light of new (or better-interpreted) evidence.

As a matter of fact, I did not believe 9/11 was an inside job when I began my investigation. It just seemed to too convenient (i.e., Bush might capitalize on 9/11, but not be complicit in it). And I didn't really plan to investigate.

One night I decided to take a look to see how the other half lives. I heard something about those who believe 9/11 to be Made in the U.S.A., and I decided to take a quick look. What I found, frankly, was surprising, as I've already expressed. So I felt I needed to investigate further. When I started, for example, I knew next to nothing about false-flag operations, or the history of them. We all have these vague ideas, but few spend the time to really look into things, etc.

Yes, I do accuse Bush of treason. Not only Bush, but my entire government, Democrats & Republicans, anyone who voted for the Patriot Act II, for example (it guts the Bill of Rights) or the Military Commissions Act of 2006...certainly anyone who waged war on false pretexts or was complicit in 9/11, as the Bush administration was at the time and many others are (Democrat & Republican) after the fact.

Artful Dodger: This is a much-better composed (i.e., rational rather ad hominem) argument on your part, than some of your previous posts.

I can't agree that arguing someone is "unthinking" or "irrational" is quite the same as calling them "nutty" or "whacko". After all, "unthinking" and "irrational" not only have established meanings in the dictionary but far less pejorative connotations.

Nevertheless, I appreciate you making a good argument of it. :o)

Czuch: You asked me:

"What now then, with Obama as President? Does he expose this, or has he only pretended to be everything that Bush wasnt?"

That is an excellent question! And my position is...that he has "only pretended to be everything that Bush wasn't."

Far from exposing this, he wants a troop buildup in Afghanistan. Why? Because Afghanistan must be stabilized so the long-delayed plans of Unocal to build an oil pipeline from Central Asia through Afghanistan through Pakistan can be finally realized. That's why we went to Afghanistan in the first place...to take matters about the pipeline into our own hands because the Taleban regime was too unstable.

In short, Obama works for essentially the same people that Bush works for. These people own large portions of the world and want the rest. To them it is a zero-sum game. They are psychopaths with no conscience. And that is Obama in my opinion...a polished psychopath doing the bidding of elites. He supported the first bail out, which was simply robbery of the poor & middle class to give to the same Wall Street thieves who had already robbed the nation into relative poverty.

Obama is not president by accident. If we had a true democracy or true republic, that might be possible. But what we have is an oligarchy with a facade of democracy/republicanism. Enough of the 'mob' (i.e., enough citizens) were so disgusted with the previous administration, and with the economy, etc., that the appearance of 'change' was necessary to keep the rabble in line. And that's what we have...the appearance of change.

The real issue here is power. Those who have it want to keep it, and want more of it, lest they lose what they have. And believe me, what you hear on the nightly news (whether it is Fox on the 'right' and MSNBC on the 'left') AINT the truth!

A good book on this is written by Webster Tarpley, called "Obama: The Postmodern Coup - Making of a Manchurian Candidate." Remember (I mentioned a few posts down) that Tarpley also wrote "9/11 Synthesis Terror: Made in the U.S.A." Tarpley has since expanded his Obama book by a couple-hundred pages and published it under the title: "Barrack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography." But I haven't read that one.

This brings up another point about the 9/11 question. It is not a Left-Right issue. For example, Alex Jones is one of the most conservative of talk show hosts (see his websites, prisonplanet.com & infowars.com). He supported Ron Paul for president (who, incidentally, I would have voted for had he been on the ticket..and I did NOT vote for Obama or McCain). Alex Jones has been exposing the truth about 9/11 for several years, alongside the truth about the illegality of our income tax, for example.

The Usurper:"To claim, as I and others do, that 9/11 was an inside job, does not mean that we assuredly know all details"

except for the detail that it was an inside job of which you lack all known details.  So you come to the table with an a priori assumption.  At least those that you quote do.  You claim to be interested only in the "facts" and an "honest investigation."  Why investigate?  Seems you have it sewn up.  It was an inside job.  Now if you can just find the evidence to support your "facts." 

And BTW, Arabs don't live in caves.  That's a favored tactic of the fanatics on the conspiracy as well, paint the Arabs to look like a bunch of dolts and that ought to put doubt in the people's minds that they could have pulled it off.

Ummmm, didn't the left always claim that Bush is  a dolt?  He can't complete a sentence and isn't too bright?  And yet he was able to be at the head of such an elaborate hoax?  sure.

The Usurper:  I'm not a big fan of Rush.   But do like Hannity but don't watch him much.  O'Reilly is my hero.      My favorite is Glenn Beck.  He used to work for CNN. 

BTW, ad hominem is a useful rhetorical style and many people use it.  I try not to direct it at the people I'm debating but at those they support  (much like you did below although more subtlety).  When I said "dumber than rocks" I was referring to the democrats in Washington (specifically) and the democratic party more generally -- the leadership. 

I don't think that is any different (an not nearly as bad) as you (and those that hold to your nutty views) when you accuse President Bush of treason.  That is what you are saying.  You've already come to your conclusion and you've no problem with throwing that accusation around.   So you'll excuse me if I don't feel too bad for saying your theologian and any other conspiracy theorists you admire are nut heads, whack jobs, fruit cakes, imbeciles.  I could go on.  

I do disagree with this, "irrational, yet effective (for unthinking people) tactic of Ridicule."  for a couple of reasons.  For one, I think ridicule can be effective when one is dealing with lemmings.  But a better point is how hypocritical the statement itself is.  While discrediting those that would ridicule others, you ridicule them for being unthinking and irrational.  So you have fallen into your own hole. 

Bwild: It's up to you. :o)

Czuch: What happened to flight AA77, if it did not crash into the Pentagon?

That's a good question. The short answer is, I don't know. That's what a real investigation (such as any criminal investigation) might reveal.

What we do know is that Flight 77 took off at 8:20am from Dulles airport in Washington, D.C., that radio contact was lost at 8:50, and that at 8:56 the transponder went off & the plane disappeared from the radar screen of the Indianapolis air traffic controller. We know that at 9:09 this same controller indicated that a plane may have crashed in Ohio (which VP Cheney went out of his way later on Meet the Press to say didn't happen).

Then at 9:25 (29 minutes after Flight 77 disappeared), the Dulles controller reported a fast-moving plane headed for Washington. The identity of this plane with Flight 77 was not made until later in the day. In fact, one of the air traffic controls at Dulles said, speaking of this new plane, quote: "The speed, the maneuverably, the way he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane."

To claim, as I and others do, that 9/11 was an inside job, does not mean that we assuredly know all details of the plot. Much could no doubt be discovered through independent investigation. What we do know is that the official theory does not conform to the available evidence, physical & circumstantial, across the board, that it simply cannot be true. Thus, it is a coverup. And the evidence to the contrary is very powerful indeed. For example, a mass of evidence indicates that the Twin Towers & WTC-7 were brought down by controlled demolition. But to believe al-Quada sneaked in and did the thousands of man-hours of wiring necessary...well, it beggars belief.

For my part, I do not choose to call anyone a "nut" or "whacko" who seriously believes that a group of Arabs in a cave made a plan, then crossed easily into the U.S. (some of them on the terrorist watch list, some with expired visas), boarded another plane, hijacked it & flew off-course for nearly an hour without being intercepted by the finest Air Force in the world (which had never before, and hasn't since, failed so miserably), then flew unimpeded into Washington air space, right to the heart of our civil-military establishment, and crashed into the unoccupied, newly renovated side of the Pentagon while the five batteries of missiles put in place to protect the Pentagon sat silent. But while I don't criticize those who believe this, I think if they would examine the issue it would be hard to continue believing it. And I think it reasonable to believe there is a better explanation.

Vikings:  I wonder how far something like that could go?  And wasn't that matter settled anyway?

The Usurper:if you told me it was dark outside at noon...should I argue?

Bwild: That's cute, but I notice you did not attempt a refutation of the point. :o)