The Usurper: some reference please....

In June 2001, American diplomats warned the Taliban that, if they did not cooperate with the Northern Alliance, and thus provide a stable environment for Unocal's projected oil pipeline, they would see bombs over Afghanistan "before the first snows fall in October." Between June & October, 9/11 happened. On October 7, American bombs began falling on Afghanistan. Now a map reveals that U.S. military bases line the exact route planned for a pipeline to extend from Central Asia, through Afghanistan & Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean.

The Usurper: Look, if your only objective here is to promote some sort of conspiracy agenda, then you are better of moving to another country....

In 2000, a group called PNAC (Project for a New American Century) issued a document called "Rebuilding America's Defenses." Project participants included Paul Wolfowitz, "Scooter" Libby, & William Kristol, among others. This was a Neo-Con document.

In this document, Brzezinski's imperial strategy was elaborated upon, in terms of a need to establish a "Full Spectrum Dominance" over the world, militarily speaking. This includes complete control over air, ground, land, space & information.

It was noted in the document that regime change in Iraq is required, and that removing Saddam Hussein provided a justifiable pretext, but was not the real reason. It also pointed out what Brzezinski had initially noted, that the money required for this grand project would not likely be forthcoming unless "a new Pearl Harbor" awakened the American people to danger from abroad. Many of the Neo-Cons contributing to this Project held key positions in the Bush administration.

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?

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...

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.

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: so, would you be defending , so far, 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

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

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

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.

Artful Dodger: Amen to that.

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!

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. 

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)