Artful Dodger: I don't believe my criticism of Czuch is ad hominem, because it is true that he does ignore challenging points and he does misrepresent the positions of others. If you like, I could provide a list of things I've directly asked him, or points I've made directly to him, that he ignored, while at the same time trying to trivialize my position by distorting it. And I, for my part, always try to answer him honestly. I may miss something, but never intentionally so.

Nevertheless, I will do my best not to focus on his methods, and try instead to the keep the facts, questions, and challenging of assumptions coming.

As to 9/11, over the last year and a half I've read many books & many articles both on & offline, and I've watched many videos/dvds, short & long. My conviction on the matter did not spring up over night. I expect no one to take my word for anything. But I do believe that truth has its own power. I might present a piece of evidence here that gets someone to thinking...."can that be right?" or, "that's a good point, I hadn't thought of it." If so, it doesn't mean they believe me on my word. But they may pick up another piece of information somewhere else. Eventually, they may decide the question merits serious personal inquiry. And only this serious inquiry, which they themselves initiate, ought to convince them one way or the other.

If I think Czuch, or you, or anyone else, has made a good point, I acknowledge that. I've noticed you also acknowledge points I make, sometimes. But apparently no point I've ever made, about anything, has Czuch found worthy of acknowledgment. Maybe that's the way he really feels about every statement I've made. Or maybe he feels it is unmanly to acknowledge an opponent in debate. I don't know for sure, but I suspect it is the latter.

Artful Dodger: Ok, but my point is that, if someone does these things, it is evident they are not seriously debating issues.

The Usurper:You are missing the point.  Maybe Czuch doesn't acknowledge your points because he doesn't agree with any of them.  That's a possibility. 

That's beside the point of my post to you.  Challenging a person's debating tactics seems legitimate to me.  So if someone twists what you say, then it's right that you should set them straight.  When people do twist things, they are often building up straw men arguments and those are easily to point out. 

But to say that the other isn't a serious debater addresses the person and not the argument.  Also your statement as to his use of logic is questionable as well (on the same grounds). 

I only point this out because  when you first came on here, you stood on the fact that you were all about a "gentlemanly" debate.  Others commended you for not throwing insults.  Now you are throwing insults (and have in other posts as well) and I can't help but wonder, where are those critical voices now?  And why the change in you?  Is it a sign of frustration?

For the most part, when I read your posts (on 911) I don't get the impression that you want us to consider your points and come to our own conclusion; but you want to tell us what we should think (apparently because you've done all the thinking for us or something like that).

The Usurper:Unless the topic is old news and they've "been there, done that."  In that case, what's the interest in going over a battle already fought?

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

article here

Artful Dodger: After a quick shower, I see your point better, and it is a good one. It is more appropriate to say, "you are not seriously debating the issues," which stick to the argument, than to say, "you are not a serious debator," which accuses the person. I stand corrected.

The Usurper:
I may faint.  Now I can't use it against you anymore! 

You will see from some of my earlier posts that I was the ad hominem king and it did not go over well for me!  lol

Artful Dodger: Thank you for pointing out the flaw in my reasoning, on the point in question. We all stand in need of a little "adjustment" from others, now and then. :o)

The Usurper: Now on to your 911 ideas.  The only area where I am even slightly interested is in the question of building 7 and how it collapsed.   It indeed does look (to an untrained eye) that it was brought down by explosives (much like we've seen on TV when witnessing an expert demolition.

But just because it appears that way to me, doesn't mean that it must have been that way.  Circumstantial evidence aside, what hard evidence do they have that the building was brought down by explosives?  I think the answer to that is none.  It's just a gathering of circumstantial evidence and speculation that fuels the theory.  If there were truly a "smoking gun" then you'd have something.  But now all you seem to have is a good debate. 

When all is said and done, I arrive at this:  even the experts can't agree on this one.  And if they can't agree, then an art teacher and part time musician from small town USA isn't going to figure it out either. 

Artful Dodger: "apparently because you've done all the thinking for us or something like that"

Having studied an event like 9/11 as I have (and I still continually study it), it is hard to come online, to a place where others haven't looked into it as I have, nor seen the materials I have seen, and know where to begin.

To me, it is an urgent issue. It is the pretext for an imperial agenda which has moved the American people to action; and, if my position on 9/11 is correct, it is the event which exposes the wickedness in high places as no other.

It is not my intention to do anyone's thinking for them. I've done a lot of research that I attempt to share. Again, it is hard to know where, or how, to begin. I will admit that I opted for the "shock treatment" approach here. I stated my conclusion, without indicating the research I'd done that led me to it. I do try to present evidence, a little at a time, that hopefully will catch someone's attention. I also recommend books & websites of those who have done more research than I, or who can otherwise explain things better than I....be more thorough, etc. All books are not equal, and all websites are not equal. But there are some extremely good ones, in both categories.

It is never easy to get across unwelcome news, no matter what approach one takes. What the Old Testament prophets had to say was not very pleasing to many Israelites, for an example. They were the Chosen people and Israel-Judah the Chosen nation(s). Many of us have felt the same way about America today.

So, please believe me when I say that, while my convictions are strong, I nevertheless desire that you and others look carefully into the matter for yourselves. It is the only possible way to firmly develop your own convictions, whatever they turn out to be. The question is monumental. And my honest opinion is that, no one can examine this evidence & conclude that the government's account of 9/11 is not fabricated, or that it is not complicit, unless some a priori assumption stands in the way of his/her reasoning powers. Yet that is only my opinion, and I am ever open to debate.

Artful Dodger: In a case like WTC 7, one cannot avoid examining the opinions, in detail, of the so-called experts themselves. An opinion written by a scientist does not therefore make it scientific. Some are scientists-for-hire, who prostitute themselves. The government surely has the means of providing this kind of "expert opinion," if it is in its interest to do so. So again, one cannot avoid research, and using his/her own judgment.

The collapse of WTC 7 displays all the signs of controlled demolition. It collapsed into its own footprint. It fell at nearly freefall speed. "Squibs" can be seen shooting from lower floors. It imploded, i.e., the middle fell first, and the walls caved inward.

On the other hand, there is no evidence that the building was a raging inferno, as claimed. Quite the contrary. It hadn't even been hit by a plane. Add to this, the historical truth that every building collapsing this way, before & since, has done so as a result of controlled demolition, and never as a result of fire. Controlled demolition also pulverizes the concrete, whereas fire never has, in any other case. Nor does fuel fire, or other common fires, create molten, liquid steel, which was found weeks later still running beneath WTC 7. But explosives do burn hot enough to do this.

Scientific experiments, in trying to get buildings to collapse by fire, have shown they do not. Even NIST admits its experimental attempts failed to produce a collapse. NIST also admits its theory about WTC 7's collapse has "only a low probability of success."

But there is more evidence. Fireman testify they were told it was going to collapse before it did. Silverstein, the building's owner, basically admitted on camera the building was brought down by demolition. All of these facts are available to those who research the issue. In short, a broad examination of evidence provides enough information for a rational conclusion on this question. The many different "opinions" of experts, can rightly be seen then as a smokescreen designed to cause confusion, or better, to convince idle observers who do not look into the matter for themselves, but take expert opinion as gospel.

Artful Dodger: Correction on the NIST quote. It should read..."has only a low probability of occurrence."

1. If Larry Silverstein admitted WTC 7 was "pulled" (i.e., demolished), why did this confession not make it into the 9/11 Commission Report?
2. Why did the 9/11 Commission, supposedly leaving no stone unturned, fail to even mention the collapse of a 47-story building in NYC on 9/11?
3. Why did NIST not address at all the prima facie evidence of explosives, and instead simply endeavor to come up with an alternate, less likely theory, based on fire?
4. Why was eye-witness testimony about molten metal beneath WTC-7 (and also beneath the Towers), entirely ignored?
5. Why was firefighter testimony not even read into the record, much less written into the final report?
6. How could a building, any building, collapsing as a result of fire damage, fail at every point simultaneously, so as to produce no resistance in its downward plummet, precisely in the manner controlled demolition is carefully wired to accomplish?
7. What amount of energy does it take to pulverize a whole skyscraper-full of concrete? Can gravity alone supply this energy?
8. Why was WTC-7 wreckage withheld from examination? This was widely protested by leading publications, including that of the Firefighter's association. One never removes forensic evidence from a crime scene. Yet this evidence was immediately sold to the Far East for scrap metal, etc.
9. Why, nevertheless, was sulphate discovered in the dust, an ingredient added to explosives to make them burn hotter?

These are all reasonable questions, and all have answers. None of the answers, so far, exonerate the U.S. government from culpability in the 9/11 attacks. The fact that most of these pertinent questions have been completely ignored, as if they didn't exist, is further evidence of duplicity on the part of the U.S. government.

The Usurper: All I am saying is that you believe the US government is complicit in 9/11 including congress and Obama now and everyone else... but you also support a liberal agenda that includes socializing everything (socializing means making the government more responsible for everything)

Dont you see any kind of contradiction here?

There are a thousand things I haven't even touched upon here. A forum like this is naturally limited. Only one or two strands of the cable supporting my position have even been discussed....

The Usurper: I already dont like much our governments involvement in our lives, and i would like to see less, not more in our future, having said that, I dont believe a lick of what is said about the 9/11 conspiracy, and if I was like you, I would want them out of my life even more that I already do

The Usurper: I could provide a list of things I've directly asked him, or points I've made directly to him, that he ignored, while at the same time trying to trivialize my position by distorting it



sure go ahead... be my guest....

hey everyone... the government sucks, now lets give them more of our money and rely on them even more than we do....

Czuch: No thanks. Not worth the time.

The Usurper: No thanks. Not worth the time.

The Usurper: LOL... its not worth your time to prove your comments against me???

The Usurper:


Not worth your time time to defend the fact that you hate our government, yet still support its newly found support for socialism?

Czuch: If I asked you what is on the dark side of the moon, or what is the price of eggs in China, you'd respond with.....

"My point is, I want less government. You want more!"

If I point out that your position is inconsistent, i.e., you want more of some kinds of government, you ignore that and say:

"You just want more government, and I want less!"

When I tell you that Ron Paul was my preferred candidate, you say....

"What a liberal! it is LESS government we need, not MORE!"

So then I ask you to explain further what you mean, i.e., do you mean less handouts to the poor, or less handouts to big business? do you mean smaller governmental departments, including the Dept. of Defense?

Your answer....

"See what I mean? You're a liberal who wants more government, I'm a conservative who wants less!"

(sigh....)

Czuch: Not worth my time to waste it pointing out self-evident truths about your posts. To try to convince YOU? lol Hardly...

The Usurper:I just watched a number of videos of the fires of surrounding buildings, read the quotes of the firemen, and watch the building collapse.  I can honestly say, that I didn't see anything that makes me wonder why that building fell.  I saw many things that made me wonder how on earth it was still standing.

Subject: Questions to ask...
1. If Larry Silverstein admitted WTC 7 was "pulled"
(i.e., demolished), why did this confession not make it into the 9/11 Commission Report?

First, you are not asking a question here.  You are drawing a conclusion.  You can't know for certain what he meant by "pulled."  I heard a firefighter use that same terminology.  And Silverstein didn't make the decision to "pull it."  The fire chief said they couldn't save it.  It was an inferno (I saw the fires) and had HUGE holes in it.  That building was doomed and everyone knew it.  The press knew it.  They were waiting for it to fall and it didn't just freefall.  It took over 13 seconds to fall.  You could see where it started and it collasped in on itself.  They've analyzed that fall and it's consistent with the official story.  The debri field is consistent with the offical story.  And the testimony of the firefighters, both writtin and those caught on tape, are consistent with the offical story.  From what I've read (in the last two hours) and seen on various sites including youtube, that building had been hit by one of the towers and seriously weakened.  The firefighters were pulled out and they established a safety parimeter.  That is a fact of the record.  I don't know, it just isn't as convincing when you look at all the facts.

3. Why did NIST not address at all the prima facie evidence of explosives,

Because there is no evidence for explosives.  That's why. 


6. How could a building, any building, collapsing as a result of fire damage, fail at every point simultaneously,

It didn't.  It collapsed in on itself and the collapse began at the penthouse.  You can see it happening.  Also, the building had a 20 story hole in it.  The fires were raging and the heat was unbearable (testimony of firefighters).  It's structure was weakened by a number of contributing factors.  NOT JUST FIRE. 


Anyone can come up with a series of questions about any event and word those questions in such a way as they draw a suspicious eye.  You call Silversteins "pull it" a confession.  That's clearly worded to bias the question and is a bit disengenuious.  Some of your questions are on the order of "When did you quit beating your wife."  Worded in your question (some of them) are hints at the answer. 

I'm totally unconvinced.  There are certain things I cann't get past.  Even before reading your questions, questions of my own were formulated and those call into question this whole theory of yours.  And reading your questions don't help.  They read like  conclusions and to me that is a sticky point.

Even if I could be convinced to be skeptable on WTC7, that building's collasp alone does not account for the events of 911.  If WTC7 was the only thing under consideration, I might be more skeptable about the "offical" story.  But it's only a small part of a much larger picture.  The conspiracy view just doens't read consistency to me.  It reads more like radicalism and science fiction with alot of James Bond mixed in.

Czuch:Where the heck have you been?  I've had to fight off the libs all by myself!  And I had protect you in your absence!  ;)

The Usurper:Isn't he a Texas Republican?  I rather like him too.  Huckabee is my fav.  The smart ones never get elected.  Only the smooth talkers. (with the exception of Regan.  A great American President!)

Artful Dodger: Fair enough. What are your sources, so that I can examine them myself, be proven wrong or else prepare an intelligent rebuttal?

Artful Dodger: Ron Paul is an old-time conservative. Strip the government bare! But I admire his consistency, because he recognizes that corporations are the biggest recipients of government handouts (and therefore evade true market competition), and that the government's agenda abroad is anti-democratic & imperialistic.

The Usurper:Well, I'll try to find the one I spend the most time on.  Here's one I quickly looked at:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/06/wtc-7.html

I read this entire thing

I've seen many others but these are the ones I found in my history.  I also read some proconspiracy sites as well. But to be honest, they seem to try to lead one down the path to their conclusion and that turns me off. 

Artful Dodger: Every website has a point to make, pro or con. Each one tries to present itself as a voice of balance & reason. Sometimes it is hard listening to the other side.

Thanks for the links. I'll look into it. It might take me more than two hours to look, not to mention gather materials of my own, if necessary. :o)

Artful Dodger: You should check out his website. As I said, I admire his consistency, and I also agree with a tremendous amount of what he has to say.

Artful Dodger: Your first point is that you "watched a number of videos of the fires of surrounding buildings." It is true, buildings close to WTC 7 had bigger fires than it did. Why didn't they collapse also? But you argue that "It's structure was weakened by a number of contributing factors." Nevertheless, how did those factors cause it to collapse with the speed it did, and in the way it did? You say it wasn't "simultaneous." The phrase here ought to be "virtually simultaneous." 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.

"Anyone can come up with a series of questions about any event and word those questions in such a way as they draw a suspicious eye."

True perhaps, but the questions I asked seem fairly forthcoming, non-manipulative, to me. Are they suggestive? In one sense, yes. They point out strange anomalies. But these are anomalies that must be addressed. And couched within the questions are true statements of fact. 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 submit that none of my questions "are on the order of "When did you quit beating your wife." "

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"? Was the building going to "pull" itself? Or was the decision made to have the building pull itself down?

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. However, my conviction at this point, is that they are correct here also.

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'm glad you saw this bit of evidence, that everyone knew a fall was immanent.

These are only some preliminary remarks. I will look at your websites. I will also provide some links for you. Perhaps together we can at least learn more about the collapse of WTC-7 than anyone else on Brainking! :o)

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.

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.

(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.

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)

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.

(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.

"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!!!

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???

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.

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?

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: 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.