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

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?)

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.)

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!

Bernice: It?

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

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

(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.....

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

EOS?? Earth orbit steady?

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?

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

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: 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: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. 

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.

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.

The Usurper: I would rather wait for real proof.

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

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

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: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: 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: 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?

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?

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

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

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.

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

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?

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

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: 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....

anastasia:

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

(V):  Could you stop with the banana argument please?  Who cares.  It has nothing to do with this board.  sheesh.  My statement was a nonsense statement and NOT meant to be taken seriously (I was avoiding using logic with humans as you suggested).  You took a yellow banana and turn it into sour grapes.  Enough already!

The Usurper: You'll never convince me.  I'm not even mildly convinced.  You put too much faith in the Bush administration.  

(V): They are not Lady fingers as we grow them....thewy dont even look like bananas.....and as I said below EOS.

http://comps.fotosearch.com/comp/FDC/FDC101/yellow-sugar-bananas_~923823.jpg

The Usurper: Those who are wise, advice strongly against extremes. They are dangerous and quite easily get out of control. As the Jedi say... once you start on the path of the dark side... .... ...

Ridge: We were wrong to torture

"America's first homeland security secretary has accepted some criticisms of the US "war on terror" made in a recent report by legal experts.

Tom Ridge told the BBC that the report's attacks on extended detention and torture were justified. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7903516.stm

"Mr Ridge, who was appointed to the new post of homeland security secretary after the 11 September, 2001 attacks on the US, said the ICJ was on "solid ground" in its commentary "with regard to torture and sustained detention without due process"."

Artful Dodger: Core philosophies... Idols that maybe outdated and certainly from aspect.... illegal and sinful?

What are these philosophies?

Artful Dodger: ..... And if someone has been 'made' that for them to take responsibility is impossible. I'm afraid it's an offshoot of western philosophy Blame, blame, blame.

The Eastern style is better, fix the problem and not the blame, find out what's gone wrong and fix it.

.... anyway, how are you going to fix those who's ability to take responsibility is either eradicated or so far diminished that they are incapable of taking responsibility? They blame the government, the opposition, x, y, z!!

The Usurper: the Bush administration lied to get us into war with Iraq.

As far as I know it was congress that voted us into Iraq? A president doesnt have the authority to act without congress approval?

The Usurper: We also knew he had not replenished his supply.

That simply is not true... yhes there were inspections, but he also denied access to many places as well...

My theory is that Saddam was more affraid of his enemies knowing that he did not have any WMD, than he was of the UN thinking he might..... hahahah to bad for him, he was right, except he underestimated the USA, if anything it was a good deterent for any other UN resolution breakers out there facing serious consequences...

The Usurper: Osama bin Laden did not mastermind or carry out 9/11. The U.S. government did.


A little thing called a confession maybe????