Vikings: In some cases that is true, that "you can succeed if you get educated and work hard," though less and less so lately.

O'Reilly said in the same quote:

"It's hard to do it because you have got to look people in the eye and tell them they're irresponsible and lazy. And who's going to want to do that? Because that's what poverty is, ladies and gentlemen."

Do you agree with this statement?

Bernice: Yes I do. :o)

So is it okay to denigrate the unter mensch?

Artful Dodger: The point is that O'Reilly defines poverty as laziness & irresponsibility, whereas your position is softer...that poverty is a result of laziness & irresponsibility only "in many cases".

"You know one of my favorite quotes on poverty comes from Benjamin Franklin. I love this quote: "We should make the poor uncomfortable and kick them out of poverty." I love that!"

The problem, Franklin didn't say that. He DID say:

"But poverty often deprives a man of all spirit and virtue: 'tis hard for an empty bag to stand upright."

And...

"The Poor have little, Beggars none; the Rich too much, enough not one."

And...

"The church the state, and the poor, are 3 daughters which we should maintain, but not portion off."

Should we maintain the poor, as Franklin suggests? Or should we kick them out of poverty, as Beck recommends?

Bernice: I am one of the poor ones, if that is what you mean.

But when you said, "if you that rich...", it sounded to me like you confused O'Reilly's statement with mine. Just as you evidently conflated Artful Dodger's post on the Holocaust with something I said (which I didn't).

What does "unter mensch" mean?

I am not discussing 9/11 (so far), so I am a little looser on the reins & misbehaving a little, perhaps. (Only a little).

But as to 9/11...stay tuned. :o)

Artful Dodger: O'Reilly said "Period", not "in many cases". It is another of those general, absolute kinds of statements, such as Rush Limbaugh's.

Artful Dodger: Bernice DOES need to work on her reading comprehension. This isn't the first post where she has missed the point or gotten confused over who said what, etc. Perhaps it is deliberate. But perhaps not. If not, maybe my post is too harsh, even if true. For that, I apologize.

Vikings: Another O'Reilly quote:

"It's hard to do it because you have got to look people in the eye and tell them they're irresponsible and lazy. And who's going to want to do that? Because that's what poverty is, ladies and gentlemen. In this country (USA), you can succeed if you get educated and work hard. Period."

Is that what poverty is, irresponsibility and laziness?

Bernice: I really enjoy reading your posts but you really ought to work on your reading comprehension. :o)

"Yes, I am part of the 1 percent of Americans that paid an astounding 40 percent of all federal income tax in 2006. According to recently released Internal Revenue Service figures, about 50 percent of my fellow Americans paid no federal income tax at all that year. My fellow 1-percenters and I covered for them. But for some it is still not enough.

President Obama and a Democratic Congress will likely dole out entitlements like free health care, child care and cash payments to anyone who falls under a certain income level, no matter their circumstances. That means people who drink gin all day will get some of my hard-earned money. Folks who dropped out of school, who are too lazy to hold a job, who smoke reefers 24/7 all will get some goodies in the mail from Uncle Barack and Aunt Nancy, funded by me and other rich folks."

And...

"[Y]ou would be taking money away from other people to give them money because they didn't pay tax in the first place.

And that's the redistribution of income that many working Americans don't like the Democrats for."

Do you agree with him?

Artful Dodger: It sounds like a pretty general statement to me...a settled opinion.

Vikings: I can't stand Chris Matthews. But I don't many Chris Matthews fans posting on here regularly, mostly Republicans who, I am assuming (yes, it is an assumption...am I wrong?) watch Fox News.

"I'm sick of...this so-called compassion for the poor. I don't have compassion for the poor."

What do you think?

"I have no compassion for the poor!"

What do you think of this?

Artful Dodger: Your first quote: "in brains under the influence of Fox News," is strictly accurate and not ad hominem insult.

Your second quote, "you boys trained like pet puppies", is ad hominem and you are correct. I'll have to watch myself. :o)

Rushed through and Congress didn't read final draft. Sure, that's what happened. Giveaway? You bet. Do we have representation in Congress? Surely not.

Yet, you guys are still in the Matrix. For example, same way with the Patriot Act, a far more damaging bill to our Constitution and the "freedom" you all seem to think the Repugs support. Draft was hot off the press, no one had time to read it.

And since when did the Repugs not take your money? They rob from the poor and give to the rich. I don't expect most of you to be able assimilate this fact in brains under the influence of Fox News.

Yes, old politics. From both parties. And they've sure got you boys trained like pet puppies.

Tuesday: lol. I'll bet.

Tuesday: I wish to God I had your wit.

Artful Dodger: lol

Artful Dodger: Thank you, Dan, for your gentlemanly remarks. And I also appreciate the welcome fact that, as strong as your opinions may be and as fiercely as you assert them, you nevertheless do not interfere with the posts of myself & others (as moderator), even when some of those posts have been firmly opposed to yours. For this, I commend you.

Bernice: To answer your questions:

1. Yes, I was a naughty boy a few years ago and a part of the KM scandal. As a matter of fact, I was the first to expose the scandal, and to publicly apologize for my part in it. I certainly am not, and never have been, a saint.

2. I do not believe I am trying to force my opinions on you either now or in the past. I am arguing a case, which is a type of persuasion, certainly. But my appeal is to facts and to evidence, not to a demand that you think like I do simply because I am a voice of authority (which I don't pretend to be).

3. I have said nothing about the Holocaust. Nor have I rendered an opinion on the little green men in my ashtray Dan alluded to. I am debating the truth about 9/11. I have also indicated my opinion on the assassination of President Kennedy, but that has not been my focus or the main topic of debate.

4. I am very much trying to "prove" my position on the 9/11 conspiracy, by appeals to logic, to common sense, to evidence contained in books, by providing links, by answering objections to the best of my ability, etc.

5. This morning I copied & pasted information on polls about the Kennedy assassination & 9/11. To the best of my immediate recollection, those are my only two copy-&-pastes, and I clearly indicated them as such. If I have pasted before, it should be clear. The vast majority of everything you have read in my posts are my own words.

6. I agree that my previous shinanigans with the KM does potentially damage my credibility. I wish that I had not behaved so badly, but I did. Nevertheless, there is nothing I am asserting in my 9/11 argument that cannot be verified through the links I have provided & others, or through your own independent research.

7. In the end, the truth about 9/11 does not stand or fall on my own qualifications as a debater, or on my moral character, which naturally is mixed. It stands on facts alone. And my KM experience, naughty & sometimes wrongfully hurtful to others as it was, does not disqualify me either from researching the facts about 9/11, reporting some of the results about my research here, or urging others to research for themselves what I consider to be the central political event of our generation.

Artful Dodger: I would prefer to look past your insults and tiresomeness to get to the heart of your objections, if I can, so that I can respond to them. :o)

Artful Dodger: "Not one shred of evidence"?

Actually, there is massive amounts of evidence that:

1. The invasions of Afghanistan & Iraq were fully planned before 9/11.
2. The goal was control of the oil in Central Asia by a permanent military presence there.
3. That the only ingredient missing was "a new Pearl Harbor" to galvanize the American people into enthusiasm for war & a willingness to finance it.
4. That pre-9/11 investigations by FBI agents into the alleged hijackers were obstructed from above.
5. That NORAD failed to follow Standard Operating Procedure on 9/11, essentially allowing the attacks to occur.
6. That the Twin Towers & WTC-7 came down by controlled demolition.
7. That Flight AA77 did not strike the Pentagon.
8. That Flight 93 was shot down by the military.
9. That the Pakistani ISI (which is connected closely with our CIA) and the Saudi Royal Family (these are our two so-called "Allies") were heavily involved in the implementation of the plot.
10. That many of the so-called hijackers are reported to be alive and well.
11. That the Bush administration strongly resisted an official investigation.
12. That further investigations of official complicity have been obstructed from high levels of government, including the FBI.
13. That the 9/11 Commissions Report contains numerous distortions & glaring omissions, and is a revisionist document at its worst.

Furthermore, each of these points can be subdivided, as evidence is supplied through news reports, eye-witness accounts, expert analysis from various fields, etc., to bolster them. And these are only the points that occurred to me now as I type.

Furthermore, this evidence is easily available to everyone, through the internet, through books & DVDs. The internet is a great source because there are exhaustive compilations of information gleaned from newspaper reports, magazine articles, interviews, etc.

The real issue with you, Dan (as I see it), is that you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that any of these sources of information has provided or can provide "a shred of evidence". And if it is not possible beforehand, then why bother to look at it? I would argue that that is an a priori argument which is prima facie untenable.

Incidentally, for those who are not opposed to "all the google searches", a google search on "evidence 9/11 is an inside job" is profitable.

And here are two links. The first is Patriots Question 9/11. There you can quickly & conveniently read what has been said against the official theory of 9/11 by...

160+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials
660+ Engineers and Architects
170+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals
350+ Professors Question 9/11
230+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members
190+ Artists, Entertainers, and Media Professionals

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/


The second link is One Dollar DVDs. Here the organization, Veterans for 9/11 Truth (of which I am a member), supplies a plethora of documentaries about 9/11 and other subjects at the affordable rate of a dollar a DVD.

http://www.v911t.org/21_DVDs_Truth.php

Tuesday: Thank you for recognizing my attempt to keep this debate civil. In my opinion, it is too important to be approached in any other way. If I am wrong, there are legitimate ways of convincing me and/or others. I agree that Artful Dodger is insulting and, yes, can be tiresome. Neither of these strengthen his position. That does not mean, in itself, that he is wrong, but he could certainly use a more able ally to help support his position. I really appreciate your post. :o)

Artful Dodger: The poll numbers are not an argument based on direct evidence of conspiracy. What they do indicate, however, is that a large and growing number of people, for some reason, doubt the official stories. Presumably this doubt is based on something, either rightly or wrongly. Your argument is that they are all mentally deranged, and we now have an epidemic new psychological disorder (a diagnosis not made by professional psychologists, however). My argument is that, the more one investigates, the clearer the picture becomes of government complicity in both the Kennedy assassination & the events of 9/11, which results in a continuous growth of awareness among the citizenry as information spreads.

By THOMAS HARGROVE
Scripps Howard News Service
More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll.
The national survey of 1,010 adults also found that anger against the federal government is at record levels, with 54 percent saying they "personally are more angry" at the government than they used to be.
Widespread resentment and alienation toward the national government appears to be fueling a growing acceptance of conspiracy theories about the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Suspicions that the 9/11 attacks were "an inside job" _ the common phrase used by conspiracy theorists on the Internet _ quickly have become nearly as popular as decades-old conspiracy theories that the federal government was responsible for President John F. Kennedy's assassination and that it has covered up proof of space aliens.
Seventy percent of people who give credence to these theories also say they've become angrier with the federal government than they used to be.
Thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East."

"Only 10 Percent Believe Oswald Acted Alone

(CBS) Thirty-five years after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, conspiracy theories and charges of an official government cover-up resonate with the American public, according to a new CBS News poll.

Most Americans still remain suspicious of the lone gunman conclusion of the Warren Commission Report and skeptical that the truth will ever be learned. Only one in 10 Americans believes that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. More than seven times as many think Oswald did not act alone.

The same large majority of Americans believes there was an official government cover-up. By 74 percent to 13 percent, the public thinks there was an official cover-up to keep the public from learning the truth about the assassination."

Artful Dodger: The second line of defense for those who eschew real debate, which is really an extension of the first line, is to accuse others who point out unpleasant truths of being insane or mentally ill. Again, it ignores facts & begs the question of what the evidence indicates. And it will be an effective strategy only insofar as its recipients have not informed themselves sufficiently on the subject under discussion...in this case the truth about 9/11. It will always be effective to admirers of Bill O'Reilly. lol

Bernice: I'm not preventing you from talking about Obama or anything else you'd like. :o)

Bernice: Most of my posts have been been specifically designed to answer objections that others have posted. None of my posts have been designed to please you. :o)

Tuesday: Thank you. :o)

An argument is made that, if 9/11 was an inside job, why have whistleblowers not exposed it? And since they haven't, 9/11 must not have been an inside job. It is also contended, in this argument, that whistleblowing is a fairly easy, straightforward procedure.

In answer, first a few questions:

1. How many years did the Manhattan Project operate to produce the Bomb, before the public became aware of its existence? And how many people were involved in the project?

2. How many decades did the NSA operate before it became public knowledge, even though its budget was far larger than the budget for the CIA?

3. How many decades did Operation GLADIO perform its clandestine functions in Western Europe, before it was exposed in a BBC Documentary in the early '90s? Have you even heard of Operation GLADIO?

Here are some further questions to consider:

4. How likely is it that the major news media, which are owned by a handful of corporations owned & operated by wealthy men with a clear stake in how news is reported (or not reported), would go out of their way to report on high crimes, from which they garner profits in multitudinous ways?

5. How likely is it that a Black Ops soldier, say one who helped plant explosives in the WTC, would step forward & confess, man of conscience that he assuredly must be?

6. How likely is it that a government official involved either in the planning or the events of 9/11, or else in its cover-up, will suddenly gain a conscience and expose himself or herself to prison, or worse?

Having asked these questions, a simple google search on 9/11 whistleblowers is nevertheless very profitable & revealing. Here are some examples:

1. 9/11 Investigation Spawns Whistleblower Movement (a response to the 9/11 Commissions Report)

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0904/091304c1.htm


2. Ming the Mechanic: 9/11 Whistleblower Fired (this is about Kevin Ryan, the head of the Environmental Health Laboratory Div. of Underwriter's Laboratory, which is the lab that originally certified the steel used in WTC construction)

http://ming.tv/flemming2.php/__show_article/_a000010-001420.htm


3. The Bombshell Memo: FBI Agent Coleen Rowley's Memo to FBI Director Robert Mueller

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020603/memo.html


4. Where are the 9/11 Whistleblowers? (an essay)

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/roberts/index.html


5. The Case of Sibel Edmonds, FBI Translator

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/01/25/on_fbi_whistle_blower_sibel_edmonds


6. Richard Andrew Grove, employee in the WTC & on the scene

http://www.freewebs.com/abigsecret/Grove.html


7. The 9/11 Whistleblowers (a whole slew of online interviews by Alex Jones, with the likes of Andreas Von Buelow, former German Defense Minister & Minister of Technology; Michael Meecher, former UK Environment Minister; FBI Special Agent Robert Wright; David Schippers, the prosecuting attorney in the Clinton impeachment trial; Sibel Edmonds, FBI Translator, etc. etc.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pages/230904_whistleblowers.html


The biggest obstacle, perhaps, in impartially weighing evidence about 9/11 is the deep-seated & well-founded fear of the terrible implications if 9/11, in fact, was an inside job. It would require us to reevaluate so many things about our worldview that we formerly took for granted. It would expose us to knowledge of a danger far greater than we previously suspected. Most importantly, it would call on us to take a stand against very powerful entities with a formidable arsenal of weapons, both technological & psychological.

Nevertheless, truth matters, and truth is truth. And it is through ignorance that people are enslaved. What's more, people matter...the 3,000 who died in the attacks, and the many more thousands who have died since & are still dying at the hands of those who used those attacks as a pretext for an imperial agenda.

Jim Dandy: My bad. Now that it is buffering, I see it is an interview with Alex Jones, not Steven Jones. The first picture before buffering shows Steven Jones, the BYU professor I mentioned.

Jim Dandy: Thanks for the link.

Actually, that is not Alex Jones but Steven Jones. He is a BYU professor of physics, whose classroom documentary I own and is highly recommended. Jones is another conservative, a Republican and a lover of Ronald Reagan. That is really beside the point, except as evidence in favor of my contention that alternate theories about 9/11 are not merely a Left-wing political phenomenon.

Czuch: You seem to be assuming that all evidence is either equal or nonexistent. Therefore, all argument is really speculation that comes down to "he said, she said," and thus fruitless.

My argument is that evidence does exist, that some evidence is better than others, that human beings are naturally endowed with an ability to sift through evidence and make sense of the world.

The towers, for example, came down at virtually freefall speed, according to video evidence. That is evidence. This point then falls to architects, physicists, engineers, and the like to produce tests, make calculations, and come to conclusions about how that might or might not be possible.

However, even folks like you me have common sense. And common sense is one of our greatest assets, not to be undermined. How could these towers fall as if there were no resistance at all, as fast as a rock falls through space, when we both know that the massive steel columns and concrete of which the towers were constructed must apply some resistance?

Without considering anything else, just this one piece of video evidence, we can surmise that demolition rather than gravity is the better answer. For one thing, that is what controlled demolition does. And that is what unaided gravity does not, and never has before or since.

From there, we look at possible aids to gravity. We do some experiments & test the results. But really, common sense wins here, with those who choose to utilize it.

Artful Dodger: If the Rev you're referring to David Ray Griffin, he is not a fundamentalist, which means endtimes, Armegeddon, Israel, etc., are not subjects he dwells upon or considers important, at least in the fundamentalist sense...at least to be the best of my knowledge. If he did, I might think less of his analysis.

I defended Rosie simply because I noticed a few people here getting particular glee out of ridiculing her. If she riled you up, she can't be all bad. :o)

Alex Jones & David Ray Griffin have very little in common in terms of personality characteristics. Jones is outrageous, Griffin is reserved. Jones, as Jim Dandy says, tends to see conspiracies under every rock. Griffin focuses on 9/11.

I wouldn't be too hard on Alex, though. He uncovers a lot. As such he does more in the cause of truth than 99% of the journalists in America. And you will be more informed reading his website than watching Fox News or MSNBC.

Czuch: I don't equate a character flaw with hating George Bush. lol

My mother loves Obama and I sympathize with her but firmly disagree.

I think neither my mother, or Rosie, nor you, is a nutcase. I'll stick by my position on Rosie, in that courage and character are the hallmarks of her outspoken disdain of Bush.

There's a woman of character...a real Great American (in Hannity's phraseology). She spoke her convictions & conscience and paid the price. That's a courageous human being and there aren't many like her. I'm glad to be on Rosie O'Donnell's side in this issue (I don't know much about her position specifically except that she raised legitimate questions & was basically fired over it) and she will be remembered & honored as one of the few who speak truth to power.

Artful Dodger: Folks here might try googling "fema camps" and see what comes up.

But who knows for sure? We have buildings which disintegrate by gravity & fire alone, on a single day in history only...and on the same day we have an airliner disappear entirely from the heat of its own fuel-fire...again, on a single day in history only.

So you might be right. Lack of evidence seems to prove things whereas clear evidence seems to disprove them. Maybe there are really no FEMA camps.

Alex can be noisy, and I think that is a drawback. Yet his boldness, as to his general character, is much needed & stands him in good stead. He is a fearless investigator & he is independant. Bottom line, he's pretty much right on the money with whatever he's shouting about.

Artful Dodger: lol. That may just happen. The irony is that you think you're safe!

I gotta run. As always, I enjoyed....

Artful Dodger: Alex Jones is a pretty cool dude!

Artful Dodger: Actually, sir, you are correct! As far as it goes, that is....

Calling your debating opponent "irrational" or calling him "whacky" is roughly the same. And calling his argument "irrational" or "whacky" is also roughly the same.

The difference, the crucial one, is that applying these terms to your opponent does not logically strengthen your argument, as it does not bear on the evidence presumably culled to support it. It is therefore a diversionary tactic.

If I say that a man who says 4+4 = 5 is making an irrational statement, my position is borne out by the evidence. If I say HE is irrational, that may or may be so but it is not germain to the topic at hand and that in itself, true or not, cannot be construed as evidence that 4+4 does not equal 5.

My point is that you, in my opinion, do not use these terms in a matter conducive to healthy debate or with an aim to establishing the truth of any assertion you make, based on evidence you present. You rather use it out of anger and/or more precisely for purposes of intimidation, to in fact lessen the substantial quality of the debate, to make it harder for others to pick up the threads....and to let others know they can expect the same treatment should they disagree with you. This is, for example, what your hero O'Reilly makes a living at. And it is the first defense of most who vehemently support the official 9/11 conspiracy theory. :o)

Artful Dodger: Just what I expected from one of those unthinking, irrational types. LOL :o)

Artful Dodger: My conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job is certainly not a priori. It may be wrong, but I didn't come to the table with it. It wasn't an assumption I made at the beginning of my investigation (which wouldn't really have been an investigation then, but rather an effort to reinforce my a priori position). I know my position appears to be an a priori one to you, perhaps, since I did come HERE with that conclusion already firmly entrenched in my mind. But that DOESN'T mean my mind can't be changed or that my position is unalterable. Or that I am unwilling to look farther, even to reassess my views in the light of new (or better-interpreted) evidence.

As a matter of fact, I did not believe 9/11 was an inside job when I began my investigation. It just seemed to too convenient (i.e., Bush might capitalize on 9/11, but not be complicit in it). And I didn't really plan to investigate.

One night I decided to take a look to see how the other half lives. I heard something about those who believe 9/11 to be Made in the U.S.A., and I decided to take a quick look. What I found, frankly, was surprising, as I've already expressed. So I felt I needed to investigate further. When I started, for example, I knew next to nothing about false-flag operations, or the history of them. We all have these vague ideas, but few spend the time to really look into things, etc.

Yes, I do accuse Bush of treason. Not only Bush, but my entire government, Democrats & Republicans, anyone who voted for the Patriot Act II, for example (it guts the Bill of Rights) or the Military Commissions Act of 2006...certainly anyone who waged war on false pretexts or was complicit in 9/11, as the Bush administration was at the time and many others are (Democrat & Republican) after the fact.

Artful Dodger: This is a much-better composed (i.e., rational rather ad hominem) argument on your part, than some of your previous posts.

I can't agree that arguing someone is "unthinking" or "irrational" is quite the same as calling them "nutty" or "whacko". After all, "unthinking" and "irrational" not only have established meanings in the dictionary but far less pejorative connotations.

Nevertheless, I appreciate you making a good argument of it. :o)

Czuch: You asked me:

"What now then, with Obama as President? Does he expose this, or has he only pretended to be everything that Bush wasnt?"

That is an excellent question! And my position is...that he has "only pretended to be everything that Bush wasn't."

Far from exposing this, he wants a troop buildup in Afghanistan. Why? Because Afghanistan must be stabilized so the long-delayed plans of Unocal to build an oil pipeline from Central Asia through Afghanistan through Pakistan can be finally realized. That's why we went to Afghanistan in the first place...to take matters about the pipeline into our own hands because the Taleban regime was too unstable.

In short, Obama works for essentially the same people that Bush works for. These people own large portions of the world and want the rest. To them it is a zero-sum game. They are psychopaths with no conscience. And that is Obama in my opinion...a polished psychopath doing the bidding of elites. He supported the first bail out, which was simply robbery of the poor & middle class to give to the same Wall Street thieves who had already robbed the nation into relative poverty.

Obama is not president by accident. If we had a true democracy or true republic, that might be possible. But what we have is an oligarchy with a facade of democracy/republicanism. Enough of the 'mob' (i.e., enough citizens) were so disgusted with the previous administration, and with the economy, etc., that the appearance of 'change' was necessary to keep the rabble in line. And that's what we have...the appearance of change.

The real issue here is power. Those who have it want to keep it, and want more of it, lest they lose what they have. And believe me, what you hear on the nightly news (whether it is Fox on the 'right' and MSNBC on the 'left') AINT the truth!

A good book on this is written by Webster Tarpley, called "Obama: The Postmodern Coup - Making of a Manchurian Candidate." Remember (I mentioned a few posts down) that Tarpley also wrote "9/11 Synthesis Terror: Made in the U.S.A." Tarpley has since expanded his Obama book by a couple-hundred pages and published it under the title: "Barrack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography." But I haven't read that one.

This brings up another point about the 9/11 question. It is not a Left-Right issue. For example, Alex Jones is one of the most conservative of talk show hosts (see his websites, prisonplanet.com & infowars.com). He supported Ron Paul for president (who, incidentally, I would have voted for had he been on the ticket..and I did NOT vote for Obama or McCain). Alex Jones has been exposing the truth about 9/11 for several years, alongside the truth about the illegality of our income tax, for example.

Bwild: It's up to you. :o)

Czuch: What happened to flight AA77, if it did not crash into the Pentagon?

That's a good question. The short answer is, I don't know. That's what a real investigation (such as any criminal investigation) might reveal.

What we do know is that Flight 77 took off at 8:20am from Dulles airport in Washington, D.C., that radio contact was lost at 8:50, and that at 8:56 the transponder went off & the plane disappeared from the radar screen of the Indianapolis air traffic controller. We know that at 9:09 this same controller indicated that a plane may have crashed in Ohio (which VP Cheney went out of his way later on Meet the Press to say didn't happen).

Then at 9:25 (29 minutes after Flight 77 disappeared), the Dulles controller reported a fast-moving plane headed for Washington. The identity of this plane with Flight 77 was not made until later in the day. In fact, one of the air traffic controls at Dulles said, speaking of this new plane, quote: "The speed, the maneuverably, the way he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane."

To claim, as I and others do, that 9/11 was an inside job, does not mean that we assuredly know all details of the plot. Much could no doubt be discovered through independent investigation. What we do know is that the official theory does not conform to the available evidence, physical & circumstantial, across the board, that it simply cannot be true. Thus, it is a coverup. And the evidence to the contrary is very powerful indeed. For example, a mass of evidence indicates that the Twin Towers & WTC-7 were brought down by controlled demolition. But to believe al-Quada sneaked in and did the thousands of man-hours of wiring necessary...well, it beggars belief.

For my part, I do not choose to call anyone a "nut" or "whacko" who seriously believes that a group of Arabs in a cave made a plan, then crossed easily into the U.S. (some of them on the terrorist watch list, some with expired visas), boarded another plane, hijacked it & flew off-course for nearly an hour without being intercepted by the finest Air Force in the world (which had never before, and hasn't since, failed so miserably), then flew unimpeded into Washington air space, right to the heart of our civil-military establishment, and crashed into the unoccupied, newly renovated side of the Pentagon while the five batteries of missiles put in place to protect the Pentagon sat silent. But while I don't criticize those who believe this, I think if they would examine the issue it would be hard to continue believing it. And I think it reasonable to believe there is a better explanation.

Bwild: That's cute, but I notice you did not attempt a refutation of the point. :o)