Artful Dodger:Could you stop with the banana argument please? LMAO..you go boyeee!!

anastasia:

Artful Dodger: I wouldn't expect you to be convinced, even if you were an eyewitness. But others read this board. Maybe just one person, somewhere, will watch that video and his/her eyes will be opened. Maybe that person won't even post here about it. Maybe there will be more than one. The truth is getting out. I just do what I do, let the chips fall....

The Usurper:  That's where we differ.  You see it as having one's eyes opened and I see it as having one's mind manipulated.  Any good lawyer can do that and in fact does so for a living.  A good lawyer can get a guilty man off and a good prosecutor can get an innocent man behind bars.  Proof that a convincing argument, complete with all its "evidence," doesn't mean the thing they propose is true.  Just convincing.  In the case of your position, I am neither moved by your arguments nor your so-called evidence.  So in my view, if you succeed at getting someone to believe as you do, then you will have succeeded in getting someone to believe something that simply isn't true. 

Artful Dodger: Sure, I know that's your view. :o)

WTC 7 collapse: 3 short clips

September 11, 2001 at 5:20 pm

http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html

Do your eyes deceive you? Or is this controlled demolition?

It is officially claimed that raging fires brought this 47-story skyscraper down. You be the judge.

The Usurper: fine, we will be the judge.  But when we reject your claim you will continue harping on it anyway.  Do you think you are the first one to bring this to our attention?  Not.

The Usurper: You sound like an Indian who has seen the northern lights for the first time....

Czuch: Yeah, I'm gullible. How obvious it is to anyone, that that building burned down suddenly in 6.5 seconds! :o)

Czuch: It is also pure coincidence that George Bush's brother & first cousin - Marvin Bush & Wirt Walker III - were heads of the company providing WTC security. How gullible can I be?

The Usurper: All you have to find are a couple of the guys who worked on the explosives.  They had to be experts in that sort of thing and those guys aren't a dime a dozen.  Where are they all?

Artful Dodger: That's what a real investigation might discover.

But there are more coincidences. The fact that 3 high-rise steel-frame buildings collapsed totally due to fire that day, for the first & last time history - pulverizing into dust measured in microns - is no doubt the biggest coincidence of them all. I imagine insurance companies rewrote their policies at breakneck speed.....

Add to this, the fact that NORAD failed to intercept those flights, having routinely intercepted 67 of them previously that year (& averaging over 100 intercepts a year), and we have the makings of a new theory of the universe:

The Coincidence Theory

The Usurper:It would take hundreds and hundreds of people to pull off this alleged conspiracy.  And people ALWAYS talk.  There's not one insider that's talking and that smells. 

Artful Dodger: Here's a good article that discusses exactly your objection:

Would A 9/11 Conspiracy Have Been Too Big To Keep Quiet?

http://www.opednews.com/populum/print_friendly.php?p=not_sh_george_w_071210_would_a_9_2f11_conspir.htm


Interesting reading. I just found it myself.

The Usurper: that is interesting, but isn't it supposition?

The Usurper:He should have cited Mission Impossible too.  Those guys really could fool everybody!  Really.  A Tom Clancy novel.  I'm sold. 

Bernice: Yes, the article is suppositional in the same way that the objection is suppositional. The objection runs thus:

Suppose 9/11 was a U.S. government conspiracy. How, then, could so many people be kept quiet? Or, why has no one come forward?

The article then asks (again supposing for the sake of argument that 9/11 was a U.S. conspiracy), is this objection a reasonable one?

Yet, although the question itself is suppositional, nevertheless the article does provide relevant evidence to back up his assertion that such a cover-up is possible, nor is it unprecedented.

The Usurper: I would rather wait for real proof.

Bernice:I don't mind an investigation (another one) but the thing is, the conspiracy guys have already drawn their conclusions.  They have already figured it all out.  They aren't simply asking questions, they are stating things as facts and conclusions.  I'm not being told to "consider this" or that but I'm being told, "believe this" or that.  And what a lot of these conspiracy fold do is to pound you with a huge amount of information over and over and over again.  I guess they want to wear down one's resistance or something.  For me it's simple: Give me something solid.  Conjecture isn't proof.  Questions or doubt isn't proof.  I don't just want the smoking gun, I wanna see the gun and then talk tot he guy who pulled the trigger.  They have nothing but theory - all day long. 

That and the fact that on the one hand they call Bush an complete idiot, and then they turn around and treat him like he's a mastermind genius when it comes to pulling off the impossible!  Wow!

Oh and Obama must be in on it too.  And all of congress.  And on and on and on.

Bernice: Proof is in the eye of the beholder. The question is, how much evidence, and of what kind, will convince a person of the truth of a particular assertion? It differs. The other question is, upon whom does the burden of proof lie? That also is debatable.

To me, for example, the collapse of WTC 7, which displays all the characteristics of a planned implosion (very strong evidence), puts the burden of proof on defenders of the official version of events, to demonstrate how a different theory better accounts for what we observe on video.

It is also revealing, to me, that the 9/11 Commission did not so much as mention WTC 7's collapse in its Report.

The Usurper:WTC7 isn't the whole story of 911.  So even if someone was convinced that it was explosives that took that building down, that part of the story alone doesn't go anywhere to explain the rest. 

Artful Dodger: I agree with you. That event alone poses unanswered questions, but does not make a case. A proper case is based on cumulative evidence, of many kinds, which must take into account other events of 9/11, events leading up to it, and events following it. It also must explain motive, means & opportunity for the crime alleged. It is this cumulative evidence, so vast if one really looks into it, that convinces me and many others that the official story can't be true, and that the alternative theory must be.

The Usurper:  Well, you'll have to wait for my response cuz I'm off to bed.   If you make a conspiracy nut of me, I'll sue. 

Artful Dodger: lol. You won't get much, I'm broke! Have a good sleep.

Artful Dodger: No... I just showed that your statement was false and was very much nonsense.


And what is the Republican core philosophies? What are these idols?

Bernice: They've been peeled to show the flesh as you do in cooking.

EOS?? Earth orbit steady?

(V): Show the flesh?....still look nothing like bananas......and EOS mean END OF SUBJECT or STORY.........I didn't realize you were so...so....so?....ah what the hell.....

For interested inquirers, the single best book I have found is: The New Pearl Harbor, by David Ray Griffin.

It was published in 2004, and Griffin does not draw certain conclusions therein, only presents a broad assortment of accumulated evidence, organizes it and asks pertinent questions concerning it. His approach is very even-keeled, which I think makes his book even more devastating.

Subsequent developments did eventually lead Griffin to conclude, personally, that the government was indeed complicit in 9/11. But he did not make this conclusion in The New Pearl Harbor. He concluded only that a more thorough investigation is needed.

The book can be purchased here:
http://www.amazon.com/New-Pearl-Harbor-Disturbing-Administration/dp/1566565529

Bernice: Still they were cut up ladies fingers. I know what EOS means. EOS

Bernice: It?

Tuesday: and when we morphed from gen chat they said it wouldnt last in here, but we are one of the most active boards on here!

Analyists: New Era Of Chaos Has Taken Hold
http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysts-new-era-of-chaos-has-taken-hold.html

(Has to do with the worldwide economic meltdown. The continued nationalization of banks by the Obama administration is further progress towards a Fascist state in America.)

Urban Warfare Drills Linked To Coming Economic Rage
http://www.prisonplanet.com/urban-warfare-drills-linked-to-coming-economic-rage.html

(1984 is three-quarters arrived. Once the internet is "regulated," it will be virtually complete.)

U.S. Regulators Stand Ready With More Bank Capitol
http://www.prisonplanet.com/us-regulators-stand-ready-with-more-bank-capital.html

(More money out of our pockets to the greedy Wall Street boys. As if we have it to spare. Can anyone say Heil Obama?)

The Usurper:I have to agree that a national bank is a very bad idea and we will regret it very soon. 

Artful Dodger: I'm glad we agree on this. What our government is doing is neither Liberalism nor Conservatism, in the American sense of those terms. More like steps taken towards Totalitarianism. It has metamorphosized into a whole new monster.

The Usurper:The founding fathers were totally against a national bank and for good reasons.  This is nothing more than a grab for power.  They are not helping out the folks here, they are setting us up. 

The Usurper: What our government is doing is neither Liberalism nor Conservatism,

You have to be kidding us???? Obama was the most liberal senator.... this is exactly what liberals have been itching to do, and Obama was your man....Trying to distance yourself from him and his policies, especially so soon after the inauguration, that just doesnt cut it!

Artful Dodger: Amen to that.

Czuch: You are mistaken. I did not vote for Obama. Yes, most liberals see "hope for change" in his election. They are sadly mistaken also. One by one, he has reneged (or is doing so) on every pledge he made to those liberals. A Manchurian candidate.

The Usurper: Thats right, you voted for mickey mouse instead....

The Usurper: and more to the point.... he is acting exactly as a liberal, even if you voted for him or not!

The Usurper: One by one, he has reneged (or is doing so) on every pledge he made......ummm,as does every other politician....they ALL tell ya what ya wanna hear,then they get into office and do what they want anyways

anastasia: so, would you be defending , so far, or not?

In 1997, Zbigniew Brzezinski published his book, "The Grand Chessboard." In it, he argued that, in order for America to control the world, it must control Eurasia, specifically China & Russia. But, in order to control China & Russia, it must first control Central Asia, with its vast oil reserves. Brzezinski pointed out that Americans have no stomach for Empire, and are not naturally willing to make the financial & other sacrifices necessary for an imperial project. What might tip the scales, however, he suggested, would be an event along the magnitude of Pearl Harbor, to galvanize American citizens into action. Brzezinski was no Neo-Con. He previously worked for Carter, and has been Obama's closest advisor.

anastasia: Agreed. They do, rather, what their masters tell them to do. Obama is only the latest incarnation of this process. America hasn't been a nation of the people, by the people, for the people, for quite some time.

The Usurper: Problem is, america is not a government, but a people, and the people of america have no interest in ruling the world, and it is only an absurd concept made up by hate mongers like this guy who perpetuate this kind of theory...

The Usurper: well, i have to admit that i was writing that last post at the same time you were, and it is astounding to me... maybe that is the difference we share, you see a government separate from the people, and I am naive enough to still see a government of the people?