Czuch: Simple Czuch, do as we do in the UK. The tax is included in the price of the petrol. So in the end, it's how much you use that is the deciding factor in how much tax you pay on petrol.

(V): That is very true, as long as the internet remains an unregulated information highway. It is a godsend.

And yes, that is precisely what I was referring to... :o)

The Usurper: Ah, so handouts you are not opposed to



I dont mind some hand outs when they trickle down, and actually help the economy... I dont think hand outs to the poor really stimulate the economy

but you guys advocate against helping big oil companies, which would have the effect of costing poor people more than the rich

(V): And in the long term the plans by your present admin is to reduce this debt.



I cant wait to see that feat of magic.... with record spending greater than the new deal, not sure how he plans on reducing the debt at the same time? It will have to be huge tax increases, I guess? Thats sure to stimulate the economy.....

Wall St. isnt partisan, and you can see what they think about Bams plans

The Usurper: Give the rich man 6 bucks, so he will charge us 2 instead of 8? lol

You just dont get it do you? The 6 bucks comes from all the rich people you hate, so that the poor people only have to pay 2 bucks for gas!!!!!

Yes, the oiul company hardly loses, but have it your way and we all pay the 8 bucks at the pump, both the rich man and the poor man

(V): we have plenty of taxes already included in our gas prices...

(V): Since the evolution of the internet, it's much harder for people to hide things from the public.


Much harder to hide things except the biggest government conspiracy cover up ever!

Czuch: Much harder to hide things except the biggest government conspiracy cover up ever



ROFL

(V): I read "Brave New World" some years ago & need to re-read it. It's around here somewhere. Some have argued its vision of the future as a "scientific dictatorship" is closer to reality than the "1984" scenario. It's true, science utilized as a Black Art is a real danger. But I think the two books are complimentary. "1984" does a great job of showing how mind control can work on a large scale. You see how many people love Big Brother already. lol

Czuch: You're right, I don't get it. Since the time of Reagan, I've noticed how all that money has trickled down into the economy. lol

So if a guy says, "give me your money and I'll make sure it trickles back down to you, with some extra to boot," you gonna believe him? Yeah, I guess you do believe him. He's rich, he must be telling you the truth. lol

And the poor, of course, they'll get even more of it! That's why they're still so poor, and growing poorer. See the logic? Yes, you do.

Again, I point out the fact, which you have finally admitted, that you are not a capitalist. You don't believe in the free market. Why accuse me then of being a socialist? It is socialism either way, if by socialism you mean handouts. But if by "socialism" you mean handouts to the poor only, then you can call your kind of handouts "fascism."

The Usurper: Hitler is/was the greatest controller of minds in the world.

The Usurper: Greg, why do you insist on attacking him personally? I thought you didn't lower yourself to that level?

Gentlemanly? I think not.

Bernice: Attack him personally? I think not. Why do YOU insist on defending HIM when I point out he accepts fascist policies, and rejects capitalist ones, yet you don't defend ME when he points out that I accept some socialist policies?

The Usurper: Sure, no hand outs to anyone then? Fine with me.. my point is that you say you want to help the poor and you say you want to stop handouts to the big evil oil companies, yet doing one hurts the other

Or... you want to stop the hand outs to oil, make gas prices rise, and then give money to the poor to buy the gas????

What then for me in the middle class? (well really, I am not even in the middle class according to most liberals) I dont get a hand out and I am now paying huge gas prices, that makes me poorer, until i am poor enough to get money for gas too, and soon enough you have more people getting money than there are people to take it from... then what???? How has that helped the economy then? Once you have cut the big boy down to size, and given enough money away to make everyone middle class (thats the goal right?) then what? how do you sustain a system with everyone in a middle class?

Bernice: He certainly was a mind controller par excellence. I'm glad Bush Jr. didn't have his charisma. I hope Obama doesn't. Hitler didn't have the market cornered on mind control. His example has not been forgotten, by those who wish to follow in his footsteps.

Bernice: Hitler is/was the greatest controller of minds in the world.


...and he gave a great speech as well

Czuch: My point is that giving money to the big oil companies doesn't help the poor or the economy in general, it hurts it. It's a smoke screen. It's sheer robbery by those who don't NEED it.

Yes, stopping ALL handouts (Ron Paul's answer) would be far better than the system in place now, because it would even the playing field. A lot of these big boys would go under. A lot of folks who are poor now would rise. You say you believe in competition. Be consistent then!

But with the system we have now, it would be more effective, not to mention more ethical, to give the money to the people who NEED it, and thereby stimulate the economy from below.

The Usurper: Okay, im with you then, for the most part.... but you even said yourself, either we give them money for 2 dollar gas or we dont give them money for 8 dollar gas, either way they make the same money?

But it really does help the poor, by keeping gas prices lower..... and lower gas prices helps the whole economy as well, cheaper to ship goods results in lower prices for everything, more spending power, economy humming along?


As far a stimulating the economy from below... well i am as skeptical of that as you are of trickle down... the good news is we will find out soon enough, as the big experiment of change is already in motion....


also with this increased spending to the low income at record levels, how do we decrease the deficit too?

So... we give the poor people so much money that their increased spending stimulates the economy to the point that someone has the ability to hire those poor people to work at the gas station or the local grocery store and then these people can stop collecting and start contibuting, and then a lot of the baby boomers die, so this once poor person gets a proimotion and makes room for another poor on welfare to get a job too and soon enough, humming economy and fewer poor and more money to pay off the debt, ahhh can anyone say kumbayah????

Czuch: I'm pretty skeptical of Obama's program myself, or of his "good will." A lot of that money "looks" like its going to the poor, but is actually more handouts to the rich....more trickle down. But some of it may help the poor, which is good in itself. I think his real aim is encouraging austerity, the tight belt-buckle, for the American people in general, all for the "greater good." He calls it sacrifice. But the defense budget won't be cut, so the imperial mission is still front-and-center. Will his modifications of the economy work? I don't think so.

Czuch: lol It worked under Roosevelt! It certainly can be no less effective than what we have now!

The Usurper: From what I remember seeing, a lot of the stimulus package goes straight to welfare and food stamps and programs like that?

I was personally happy when it first got proposed, huge spending on infrastucture I could support, high speed cable and a new road out front and the jobs it would create to make it happen... it surprised me a bit because that really is more of a trickle down formula than trickle up, but it seems like instead, i can fly to LA and take a really fast train to vegas... no high speed internet for me i guess?

Czuch: Yes, a lot of it is trickle down. But as you say, the infrastructure is what is actually needed, and would create jobs. The food stamps, etc., are also needed. But the most important single factor that's needed, and won't be addressed, is the giant defense budget that robs us all blind while havoc in the rest of the world.

Czuch: I didn't word that entirely correctly. I meant the defense budget needs to be drastically cut, and our imperial agenda ended.

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: Im pretty sure the defense budget is due to be cut as well, although we are pretty much trading Iraq for Afghanistan and people dont realize, that even without either of those, it still costs a lot of money to keep a military in ready... doing military training in alabama or having troops in Iraq, its not as much a difference in cost as most people realize. Its still soldiers and feeding them and arming them....

i wrote this before reading you most recent post before this one

Artful Dodger: Give it up Art.... how you got sucked in this far, really????

Artful Dodger: Welcome back Dan! Nice of you to pop in with such an awful post! lol :o)

Czuch: Art's just getting warmed up! He loves a good mystery as much as the next man. You ought to climb aboard, there's plenty of room. :o)

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.

Czuch:Hush!  I'm winning the debate! 

Artful Dodger: Nice post. Actually, many people have talked. People in the FBI, people in the FAA. Even people in the military, but the records of their speech was erased (i.e., ignored) by the 9/11 Commission. There have been additionally many "slips of tongue" disapproving the official theory. And WTC-7 is not by any means the strongest leg of the argument. It is one leg, pretty strong I think. But not even the tip of the iceberg.

Read this illustrated paper by a BYU physicist:

"Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely
Collapse?"

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf

And here are 52 peer reviewed scientific articles:

Journal of 9/11 Studies

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

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. 

Artful Dodger: Get back with me on what you discover. lol

Artful Dodger: Winning?

I'll admit you're doing your damndest (sp), though how you transform a collapse showing ALL the obvious signs of controlled demolition into a "routine" collapse by fire which breaks many laws of physics, is a wonder to me.

But this debate is healthy for both of us. Everyone else just has to suffer through it. lol

The Usurper: bloody hell....isnt it a pity that I would be dead before I was able to read your first link....48 pages...and about 10,000 links with perhaps another 100,00 pages ROFLMBO.......

you dont expect me to believe that you have read all of that and gone into all the links and their links ad infinitum do you?

I've been using the wrong word. Just going back over some papers, the word is "thermite."

Bernice: No, I haven't read them all. I'm good, but I'm not Superman. The first link I gave, to the article by the BYU physicist, is a good place for you to start. :o)

Czuch: I'm glad we can see eye-to-eye on something...or at least be in the same ball park.

Peer Review: a process used for checking the work performed by one's equals (peers) to ensure it meets specific criteria.

Peer Review: the evaluation of creative work or performance by other people in the same field in order to maintain or enhance the quality of the work or performance in that field.

Now this:

"116th Peer-reviewed Paper Published in Journal of 9/11 Studies: 'The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis' "

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090117234838631


Yeah, this stuff is pretty heady. I guess some think all these scientists, architects, engineers, etc., publish papers refuting the government's conspiracy theory for fun.

Czuch: Nahhh We all now about Bush and the lies over Saddam's WMD's.

That cover up has already been blown.

As for petrol taxes.. obviously not enough tax.

Bernice: I disagree, I recon Stalin controller was the greatest of modern times followed historically by the RCC before the reformation. And as a group controlling people, telling big lies.... Some of the modern Christian movements in America, who put business and the use of fear, above the truth and God.

After all.. If they told the truth.. they wouldn't get their limos.

The Usurper: A modern example would be McCarthyism (sp) from the early period after WWII, where anyone with even the remotest connection to the communist party was persecuted. Bad hysteria based on all communism being bad.

...... Even though just a few years before, they were our brothers in arms against Hitler and we were supplying them with essential supplies through which many sailors died from U-boat attacks as we knew if Russia fell, Hitler would have only the west to concentrate on.

I still remember pictures of the two sides meeting when they'd over run Germany and Berlin and the joy and comradeship shown by all soldiers for their fellow soldier at the joy of defeating the Nazi menace.

(V): You're absolutely right. And now the same McCarthy-style mindset that hunted for Commies in the old days is looking for Muslim terrorists & their sympathizers today. Going back further into European history, we had the Inquisition torturing witches and, in the Protestant movement, Calvin burning "heretics" at the stake. I think I see a pattern here....

(V): Speaking of bad Commies.....

If you get a chance, you might look up that BBC documentary that aired in 1992 (I think), on Operation GLADIO.

This was a clandestine NATO operation, headed by U.S. Intelligence. It remained secret almost 4 decades, before being exposed.

After WWII, NATO left secret "stay-behind" units throughout Western Europe, ostensibly to sabotage a Soviet invasion, but actually what they did in the ensuing decades was carry out false-flag terror operations against their own citizens, in places like Italy. It was done wherever the communist movement seemed to be gaining ground through democratic processes, and included the kidnapping & murder of high officials on occasion.

So...what we have in this case, is the Anti-Communist West killing its own citizens & blaming the Communists...classic false-flag at its best. Naturally, the U.S. media didn't report on this documentary.

The Usurper: Yeah I remember the Witch killings thanks to King James here, all over misuse of certain scripture and really not looking at the contexts that said scripture were about.

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" was about gold digging females that use their body to entrap a man into making them pregnant and making the man marry him out of duty rather then love. And being as a loveless marriage is against how a marriage is defined by God (A union of two souls) it is an abomination against the institute of marriage and God.

The other scripture that comes to mind is one about the misuse of 'spiritual', 'psychic' and natural 'magic' such as knowledge of herbs, etc. Such stuff is not to be used except for it's purpose to heal, which is recognised by healers and Wiccans alike. It is not to be used for self gain, and certainly not for some of this stuff we have today like "Most Haunted", psychic lines to find your true love, etc.

That is misuse and against the rules and regs and common sense of genuine gifted people. Not the 'money greedy ones'.

And don't forget the wonderful Reformation wars, which still (I believe) holds the record for deaths caused by it, some 40 million or so.... directly and indirectly from consequences like the break down of infrastructure and famine.

The Usurper: It wouldn't surprise me that they would do that. During the Northern Ireland troubles, British Intelligence were feeding secretly loyalists with info on the name and addresses of certain people they were worried about who were either active in the IRA or supporters..... They didn't live long after the info was passed on, and our Gov could deny anything to do with it.

(V): "Have you heard of the luck of the Irish..." (singing) -- John Lennon, one of my heroes. Another is William Blake, the great romantic poet who decried the abuses of Church & State during the Industrial Revolution.