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?

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

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

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. 

And here are 52 peer reviewed scientific articles:

Journal of 9/11 Studies

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

Read this illustrated paper by a BYU physicist:

"Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely
Collapse?"

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

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.

Czuch:Hush!  I'm winning the debate! 

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: 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)

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

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

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

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....

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

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.

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

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.

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????

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?

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.

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


...and he gave a great speech as well

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.

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

Gentlemanly? I think not.

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

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."

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



ROFL

(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!

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

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): 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: 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): 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)

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.

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

You almost make me feel sorry for the rich man, until I remember he only paid 1 to begin with.

The Usurper: I'm well aware of the rules of Karma through reincarnation (or transmigration as some old Christians use to call it)

As said, this is a world designed for education.

As for a long time... ... depends. Since the evolution of the internet, it's much harder for people to hide things from the public.

Czuch: And what the Republicans did when in power, that's why your national debt is so high.

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


... and you are complaining?

Czuch: Ah, so handouts you are not opposed to, and you don't really believe in free markets at all. Thanks for clarifying your position.

The Usurper: corporations are the biggest recipients of government handouts (and therefore evade true market competition)



Without corporate hand outs our price for gas here would be $8 a gallon instead of the $2 it is right now.... what the "tax the rich" liberals dont understand is that when the government pays them to keep our gas prices down, most of the money does come from the rich, and the poor, who dont pay any taxes, dont end up paying anything to get lower oil prices...

BUT, if instead, the government didnt give these hand outs, and we let the market be free, gas prices would be $8 for everyone, including the poor people!

Talking for a true free market, then complaining when some company sends jobs to china???? Or is it only a free market with protection that you want?????

Liberals.... say one thing, mean another... want one thing ask for another....

Trickle up economics??? really???

"Who among us would ask our children for a loan, so we could spend money we do not have, on things we do not need?"



That is exactly what the libs in Congress are doing right now!!!

(V): Ah yes, Dune is a terrific book. Little did the emperor realize he had such tough desert folk to contend with, and he could never have predicted the rise of the Kwisatz Haderach! The point is well taken. Governments DO fear "a strong people, people that think, being able to see through" smoke & mirrors to the truth of the matter. That is why, ultimately, I am an optimist. It may take a long time, but those who oppress sow the seeds of their own doom. And we all (maybe not in this lifetime) reap what we sow, for better or worse.

The Usurper: Oh I remember.. Also books like Brave New World where people are grown not born. And that you are grown to be a certain class (Alpha, Beta, etc) you had no chance to improve yourself. You were as bred.

One book I remember had the USA government fake a UFO crash so accurately that it does as they want and takes the peoples minds of the countries mess. ... civil war being round the corner.

In Dune, the emperor used the Atreidies enemies to get rid of the Duke and to exterminate a threat to his own power. But if you've read it, you'll know that there was a small matter of the locals being rather..... numerous then thought. And through hardship and the nature of their world they were naturally defiant and a strong people.

That's what Governments fear, a strong people, people that think, being able to see through the 'political rant', see the signs of 'being lied to' or 'less then truthful'. We've had so many recent events in British politics where MP's have been shown up over various things like fraud, deception, etc.. that the people are starting to really question what an MP is allowed in terms of 'expenses', especially when it comes to what it is for. One MP got caught paying his son (who was at uni at the time) £200K+ in wages and said he worked in his office... But the uni was accross the country so it was impossible. The real insult was that he had only to pay back a small part of the fraud!!!

One day... we'll have enough, and the MP's better beware that day. We might have some music and a little fireworks display.

Czuch: My reply to your question seems to be missing from this board. I posted & read my post. I'm not saying Art removed it. But it isn't here...unless I've overlooked it (don't think so). I find this very curious. Perhaps some political topics are too sensitive.....

Did I mention folks ought to read "1984"? :o)

(V): You got it! "V for Vendetta" is a window into the truth. That's a great movie. It is one reason I liked you before you ever posted. lol

That is also one of the themes of Orwell's great book, "1984" (as I'm sure you know!). That is, the government leaders counted its own population as the real enemy. Occasionally bombs flew in from "somewhere," to let the people know there is an enemy out there and the government is providing protection. And to justify domestic repression & oppression, the curtailment of civil liberties, etc.

Artful Dodger: No evidence?

Is not Silverstein's use of a common phrase in controlled demolition, "to pull it," not circumstantial evidence? He was the building's owner, after all. Is not foreknowledge of 7's immanent collapse also circumstantial evidence? Indeed, they knew exactly where to put the perimeter. But where do firemen get experience with total collapses of this nature? How could they, when such a collapse is unique in history?

As to direct evidence:

Is not pulverized concrete direct evidence of explosives? Is not molten metal in the sub-basement direct evidence? Are not the speed & type of collapse direct evidence? Is not the presence of sulphate in the dust direct evidence? Are not the dust-clouds themselves direct evidence? Are not the squibs direct evidence?

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? Or are all these questions improperly insinuating in the very nature of things?

I encourage you to look more deeply than you have so far, as I also will continue to do. And I humbly submit to you, that a statement, and a considered statement, are two different things.

The Usurper: Almost like the script from "V for Vendetta", where the ultra conservative UK government creates a bio weapon to which they have a cure. But instead of using it on other countries they use it on the UK people in 3 places to create fear so that the 'high chancellor' gets the power and authority to do what he wants. Prosecution of anyone who disagrees or annoys him.. Gays, Muslims, any minority is picked on, vanished (via black bagging and taking away) .... Torture is fine, firing squads are fine.

Unfortunately America can't help as they are in the midst of a civil war.