Bernice: Attack him personally? I think not. Why do YOU insist on defending HIM when I point out he accepts fascist policies, and rejects capitalist ones, yet you don't defend ME when he points out that I accept some socialist policies?

Czuch: You're right, I don't get it. Since the time of Reagan, I've noticed how all that money has trickled down into the economy. lol

So if a guy says, "give me your money and I'll make sure it trickles back down to you, with some extra to boot," you gonna believe him? Yeah, I guess you do believe him. He's rich, he must be telling you the truth. lol

And the poor, of course, they'll get even more of it! That's why they're still so poor, and growing poorer. See the logic? Yes, you do.

Again, I point out the fact, which you have finally admitted, that you are not a capitalist. You don't believe in the free market. Why accuse me then of being a socialist? It is socialism either way, if by socialism you mean handouts. But if by "socialism" you mean handouts to the poor only, then you can call your kind of handouts "fascism."

(V): I read "Brave New World" some years ago & need to re-read it. It's around here somewhere. Some have argued its vision of the future as a "scientific dictatorship" is closer to reality than the "1984" scenario. It's true, science utilized as a Black Art is a real danger. But I think the two books are complimentary. "1984" does a great job of showing how mind control can work on a large scale. You see how many people love Big Brother already. lol

(V): That is very true, as long as the internet remains an unregulated information highway. It is a godsend.

And yes, that is precisely what I was referring to... :o)

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.

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.

(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.

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)

(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.

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.

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)

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: 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: 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.

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

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

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: No thanks. Not worth the time.

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....

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.

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

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: "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: 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)

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.

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

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: 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.

anastasia: You are right, that wouldn't be difficult at all. It is a prime example of how politicians "perform" for the public, while ignoring the obvious & going about their business of representing the money-lenders who bought them, not the voters who voted for them.

Pedro Martínez: I don't drink much these days, but I do admit that Budweiser was my beer of choice back in my party days. I know American beers don't compare to European ones, or so I've heard. Like Tuesday, I haven't really tried any. My brother says American beer is not in the same league with German.

Tuesday: :o)

Czuch: At least you are consistent. Ignore the questions/comments that challenge your worldview, especially the ones providing evidence...i.e., all those points I make that you can't answer. Instead, misrepresent something I have said, juxtapose it with something else I have said so as to seemingly provide a valid contradiction, etc. You aren't a serious debater. You don't seriously stand on "logic" in your so-called counterpoints. I still enjoy your posts, since they often provide me a "pretext" for discussing things that do matter, and that others will understand. :o)

Tuesday: Amen to that. Otherwise I'd have to ask the government for a handout to upgrade my membership. lol

(V): Those are strong and valuable traditions of protest. We have a tradition of protest also, I'm not sure how effective it is. Anything that will ensure the steady supply of tea-time (or in my case, tobacco & coffee) commodities, is worthy of any civil action, up to and including the overthrow of the government. lol

(V): I haven't seen the film, but sometimes fiction is an accurate reflection of reality, and sometimes reality is more bizarre than fiction. :o)

--A government document called "Vision for 2020", authored by the United States Space Command in February 1997, describes the "domination of the space dimension of military operations to protect U.S. interests and investments. Integrating Space Forces into warfighting capabilities across a full spectrum of conflict."--

Notice the domination of Space is not to protect Americans at home, but "U.S. interests and investments" abroad. This includes neutralizing the deterrence capabilities of foreign powers whom we choose to invade. Here it is:

http://www.middlepowers.org/gsi/docs/vision_2020.pdf

(V): "As for riots in the UK... We protest, usually peacefully... It's traditional."

Just wait till you run out of tea. Even Benny Hill won't get away. lol :o)

"Barack Obama Administration Continues US Military Global Dominance"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12350

Here's an interesting article on the campaign money Obama got from military sources (more than McCain), on Obama's continuation of the global agenda, and on the conflicts-of-interest within Congress, etc.

I didn't get this at Prison Planet so perhaps even my good friend (V) will not disparage the source. :o)

(V): Perhaps so, but the articles are quoting economists, officials & newspaper reports, not Prison Planet employees. :o)

Hey, at least you and I don't agree on everything. Or perhaps we do...and THIS is a conspiracy. lol

Czuch: "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?"

I missed this post by you. I just found it, rereading the board. You make a good point. You see a government of the people, and I see a government separate from the people. This is certainly a difference in our viewpoints.

We agree, however, that the government SHOULD be of the people, and not separate from it. My position is that our government leaders have their own, basically unified, agenda, which is not representative in nature but imperialistic, and also consists in so regimenting the people's lives that they become essentially slaves to a system which meets the needs of the dominant class. Naturally, keeping the "left" & "right" at each other's throats, without truly resolving issues one way or the other, is a reliable means of distraction.

Objection: Perhaps this establishes motive, but it is still impossible to believe American leaders would resort to such deceit & treachery, in actually carrying out a "false-flag" operation that would destroy American lives.

This is a natural objection, and a good one, at first glance. However, I will supply evidence in further posts which overrule it, demonstrating that American leaders will, and have, done such things in the past.

What these documents reveal, is that American leaders saw the "need" for a Pearl Harbor-like catastrophe, and recognized that such a catastrophe would promote their global agenda. This establishes motive.

Czuch: Ron Paul also denounced the Federal Reserve & the bail-out of the banks, i.e., the lack of Capitalist principles in the highest reaches of government. With one side of the mouth, Free Enterprise is tauted as the end-all be-all by corporate leaders & politicians. On the other side of the mouth, they refuse to be disciplined by the free market for their bad monetary decisions, but demand to be saved from its ravages.

Czuch: I voted for no one. The only one I seriously considered was Ron Paul, an extreme conservative, but a true one, who denounced America's imperial goals abroad.

Czuch: You are absolutely right, the people of America have no interest in ruling the world. But our leaders not only have a big interest in it, but a big financial stake in it. Because of the reluctance of the American people, Brzezinski (the so-called "liberal") and the Neo-Cons (the so-called "conservatives") recognized the need for a "new Pearl Harbor" to motivate the American people to get about the business of Empire-building. Naturally, they don't call it by that name. But the documents reveal (and many more besides), that Empire-building is what is actually taking place.

Czuch: Conspiracy agenda? Yes, that's what I allege. The PNAC document can be read online here:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Brzezinski's book can be purchased here:
http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261

Our ultimatum to Afghanistan can be found by googling. I missed the date: not June but July. The message to the taliban was: "accept our carpet of gold, or you will receive a carpet of bombs."

Yet, this is not a conspiracy in the sense that this information is not in the public domain. It is. Yet it is, ultimately, conspiratorial in its essence. And it is not reported on by the Mainstream Media.

Brzezinski, the Neo-Cons, and other "hate mongers" you allude to, are not small fish in a big pond. They are powerful people who control foreign policy.

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.

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.

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.