The Usurper: I must be honest here.....I watched the first 15 minutes but didn't have time to watch the rest (1 1/2 hours)....1 hour44 mins 54 secs in total

If you are trying to prove something give us something that the average busy working stiff has time to contemplate.

That isnt fact....it is a story "Based on an Idea" by Gruppo Zero???? did I read that right?.....who the hell is he and what is his claim to fame? or have I got it all mixed up?

But one thing I did see/hear in the first 15 minutes was that the towers were built to "withstand place crashes" now that is interesting....why would someone do that....Not knowing New York at all...is there an airport VERY near?
because if there isnt???

not looking to get into a debate here on truth/fiction...just a query.

Bernice:Tall skyscrapers in NY are built to withstand plane crashes, a small plane hit the empire state building many years ago. but the twin towers did not have the heat retardant that the original specs. called for because of the cost going over budget during building.

Vikings: well there you go...you learn something everyday....I didn't know about the small plane hitting the empire state building...thanks for enlightening myself and anybody else that didn't know that.

Bernice:There are probably some shorter videos on youtube that can satisfy your questions I would think.  How reliable those videos are is an open questions.  Suffice it to say, the topic of 9/11 is fast approaching this specific guideline and will likely be declared a dead horse soon:

* Learn to let go - don't keep harping on about the same thing, or harking back to previous arguments.

Some of the other "topics" presented here really fall under a single heading (One World Government).  At least it seems to me that this is the reoccurring theme.  Topics can only be addressed for so long before they get tedious and boring.  Unless there is a high interest in a particular topic, I see no value in revisiting old arguments again and again. 

Artful Dodger: Learn to let go - don't keep harping on about the same thing, or harking back to previous arguments.

This will soon be a blank board if this rule is enforced

Czuch: If people on the board want to continue the discussion, fine.  But most of the time it's not a discussion. 

As for "Learn to let go - don't keep harping on about the same thing, or harking back to previous arguments."   I've seen enough links on the 9/11.  Enough is enough.  If people want links, they can go back and read the ones already posted.  No new ones, ad nauseum, are needed. 

If on the other hand there is an ongoing discussion where people are engaged in a conversation, that's different. 

Artful Dodger: We have less than 10 regular contributors here.... only reason to enforce this is to silence Usurper, no?

Czuch: "We have less than 10 regular contributors here.... only reason to enforce this is to silence Usurper, no?"

Looks like it's about time for me to bow out of here. I've seen it coming for awhile. Thanks for seeing it too.

"I know this will kill you to hear... but thats exactly how it is supposed to be, right? That we pay other people to take care of this crap so we can enjoy our lives at the end of the day?"

Actually, it is not supposed to be that way, at least according to Thomas Jefferson, who said: "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." His point is that, however we might like it to be, at the end of the day we are personally responsible for securing our freedom, and if we neglect this duty or attempt to leave it to others, the price we pay will be the loss of freedom we took for granted.

The Usurper: so thats it then???? Im taking my ball and going home??? If I cant post 9/11 links, then im outta here?

Czuch:No one said you can't post links.  In fact, I just said that if the people here want to discuss a certain topic, like 9/11, then discuss it.  But flooding the board week after week with more of the same isn't a discussion.  And telling people they need to wake up etc doesn't invite dialogue. 

As I said before I posted those guidelines, I gave it a lot of thought.  I looked at other forums and read their guidelines.  I took the ones that best fit here, and compiled them into one.   They are fair and they are reasonable. 

I also underlined guidelines to stress the fact that they aren't hard and fast rules, but only strong suggestions. 

It's really quite simple what I'm asking the board to do.  Make and argument.  Stick to one thing at a time.  Invite dialogue and consider the idea of others.  Be friendly about it.  Don't lecture.  Don't be condescending.  Don't bloviate. 

You aren't going to change the world here.  Like you said, there are maybe 10 regulars.  So keep that in mind when you post.  It's no one's "duty" to warn the world of the impending danger of things to come.   That' not the purpose of this board.  It's a discussion board.  And it's for everyone. 

As for the 9/11 discussions.  Personally I'm all for it if people participate.  But it's not the ONLY thing that could be of interest.  As for use of links/quotes.  Here is what I have suggested:

*Quoting other sources is fine but do so in the context of your own argument.

*Don't flood the board with quotes.  Quotes should support the argument you are making, not BE your argument.

*Keep the amount of quoted material down to a minimum.   The rule of thumb is "less is  better."  If an entire post is quoted material, it might get deleted.  Again, make your own arguments.

You'll find these kinds of guidelines on most forums.  The purpose is to keep discussions moving forward.  In the context of one's argument, links and quotes are more than acceptable.  I think it's pretty clear what is meant by all of guidelines I've posted.

Bernice: This statement hits the nail on the head with respect to convincing anyone about anything.  You have to have something you can chew on to get you started.  Glenn Beck calls it "The One Thing."  What is the "One Thing" about 9/11 that is worth thinking about? 

Most of the long videos (and they are worth watching if one has the time) give you so many details that it's enough to make your head explode.  Some of the ideas presented are connected to other "circumstantial evidence" and without the connection, they don't seem important.  But you don't need all the information at once to be convinced that "something is up."  You need "The One Thing."  The "One Thing" is like putting a stone in one's shoe.  It's there to irritate to the point that you have to deal with it.  Just a small stone is needed.  It is meant to be bothersome to the point that the person has to find that stone, and deal with it once and for all.

For me, the one thing is how the towers fell, and how building 7 fell.  In the history of skyscraper fires, never before 9/11 or after, has any building fallen due to fire.  The towers crumbled.  It's important to understand the construction of the buildings to see how this seems impossible.  You don't have to know the answer, you only have to arrive at the question: Why did the towers fall in the way that they did and why does WTC7 look exactly like a professional demolition?

In 2005, a skyscraper (In Madrid) burned for over 20 hours!  And after the fire burnt out, the skyscraper was still standing.  In fact, in any skyscraper fire, the building always stayed standing.  Only the towers fell.  Why?  Forget the official explanation, I want to know the science of it. 

Since the structural integrity of the lower part of the towers had 100% its strength, why did the buildings crumble all the way to the ground?  Each tower had a huge reinforced steel core that stretched from the top to the bottom of the building.  How did this huge core simply crumble.  It should have been left standing.

Finally, the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a plane.  One scientist said that if a plane were to hit the building, it would be like putting a hole into a steel reinforced netting.  Only the area around the hole would be compromised.  The rest of the netting remains at 100% its stength. 

That's the stone in my shoe.  That's my "One Thing."  And what is my conclusion?  Simply this:  Something's not right with the picture.  There's more to this story than we are being told.  If I can't get past why and how the building fell in the way that they did, that alone can be enough to make me start to question the rest of the story.

BTW, just because I have questions doesn't mean that there is in fact a conspiracy.  It could simply mean I don't know enough about the facts of building construction, particularly the construction of the towers or WTC7, to make any kind of judgment at all.  And in the end, my doubts prove NOTHING.  For example, just because fire has never brought down a building doesn't mean it's not possible. Some experts say it is possible.  Others disagree.  Some experts who have studied the 9/11 tragedy for years have concluded that the towers fell due to fire.  Other experts say this is impossible.  It could very well be that the official story is the correct one. 
;)

Artful Dodger: To me, its like stopping terrorism, you have to get them 100% of the time, they only have to get it right once,

To prove bush and cheney and the rest of the US government committed 9/11, you have to prove it 100%, it cannot be one doubt here and one doubt there, if it really went the way you say it went and the whole thing was an inside job including a huge cover up, it should be easy, like domino's, once one leg falls so does the rest, something like this would have crumbled long ago if there were any shred....

Czuch:This is exactly the problem with the entire conspiracy theory.  It's really just a bunch of doubts packaged together and sold as one thing.  Kennedy was killed in 73 and people are still debating it.  9/11 will suffer the same fate.  Unless something besides reasonable doubt surfaces.  And it's just as you say; a series of doubts doesn't necessarily add up to anything. 

Artful Dodger:

JFK was killed in 1963, I think....

awesome:Thanks for that.  You're right, it was Nov 22 1963.