The Usurper:  Much better.  The "I am convinced" gives more credibility to your viewpoint.  When someone says that something is a "slam dunk" or "clearly" or "right before our eyes" then I take it another way.  When put in those terms, it's an offense.  It's like saying the other person doesn't see what is obviously true.  Or isn't smart enough.  Or something.  But "I am convinced" makes me wonder what it was that convinced you to your view and creates an interest in seeing the evidence (just the facts, not the interpretation).

For example:  Building 7.  Nothing you have said so far (up until a few days ago) grabbed me.  But the web site with the 52 scholars reports did grab my attention a bit.  And so I've looked at a number of youtube building (intentional) implosions and then the falling of wtc7.  I also looked at as many huge skyscraper fires as I could find.  And questions were raised in my head.   Then I read the "debunking" sites to get the other side.  So now I have questions.   I have some ideas I want to pursue.  I know that if I visit a conspiracy site, I'll get their one sided view.  If I visit a debunking site, I'll get their one sided view.   The scholar site is the best I've seen and I've only read a few pages so far. 

Enough of that.  I'm not convinced of a conspiracy but I do think there are too many unanswered questions floating out there.

Bwild: lol, that horse won't die.  But feel free to ask another question and if people go that way, fine with me.  I seriously doubt that we'll solve 911 even in my lifetime.  I'll ask God when I get to heaven as He had the best view of all.

Artful Dodger:heaven, huh? lol

Bwild:  Well I sure aint' goin down there! 

Artful Dodger: Great post, Art. Some of the articles on that scholar site are pretty compelling. One other site you might consider looking at when you have time is:

http://www.historycommons.org/

This website uses only Mainstream sources of information, but with a world-wide net. It contains searchable timelines of events & topics, 9/11-related & other. It is this website which first caught the attention of David Ray Griffin (after looking at other websites and being unmoved), and caused him to realize some things didn't add up. He is not your typical conspiracy theorist.

But regardless of that, the website is very informative.

Artful Dodger: Not twisted anything..... Stated my opinion. Just as you stated your opinion about helping out Vets that fought in WWII.

The Usurper: It might explain why so little resources were sent to Afghanistan to get Bin Laden. If he was caught and as would happen put in court....

Just an opinion though, but if I was Pres at the time I would have sent enough troops and resources to implement a take and hold policy in Afghanistan.

Eg take an area, leave troops to hold it, then go on and take another area over, and so on.

(V): There is even evidence that we allowed Bin Laden to escape into Pakistan. And before 9/11, in July or August, while Bin Laden was reportedly on our most wanted list, and a 5,000,000 reward offered for his capture, there are reports he had inpatient treatment for 2 weeks in an American hospital in Dubai for dialysis (sp), was treated by an American physician and met with the local CIA agent.

Add to this that the FBI, on its website, when listing Bin Laden as a wanted criminal, does not list the events of 9/11 among the crimes he is wanted for. When asked why not, the FBI response was (paraphrase): "Because we have no hard evidence linking Bin Laden to the events of 9/11."

The Usurper: I got about half through the video..that was enough for me...my thoughts are since nothing like 9-11 had happened before OR since...HOW do we know HOW the plane would have exploded or what it would or would not have left behind...all those goofy lil things that clip was pointing out...windows still being intact,spools of cabel still laying there...ummm,so what?? When a tornado passes through it can level 16 homes and leave one standing perfectly...it can rip the walls off of a house BUT still leave a kitchen towel laying perfectly on the counter top....is THAT a conspiracy too? stupid government made tornados...I think people are reading way to much into stuff with 9-11 as far as conspiracy..HOW do you know just how the twin towers should have fallen when they had never fallen before....nobody ever did a mock test and said,hey!! lets slam some planes into them and SEE how they would fall....just in case it were ever to happen.....come one....ya need to move on already with this one.

anastasia: I would only say that airplanes & buildings are not tornadoes. Broad experience & study teaches us the characteristics of tornado destruction, along with its destructive unpredictability as a defining characteristic. The same broad experience & study teaches us that the destruction around plane crashes & falling buildings are not so unpredictable. If everything were as unpredictable as you seem to suggest, we'd have no basis for science or understanding anything. I appreciate your comments, but can't agree with the reasons for your conclusions.

The Usurper: resulting fire weren't enough in themselves to bring the buildings down


But why did they have to come down at all??? It seems like a lot of extra work and risk to plant demolitions... wouldnt flying two plane loads of people into the buildings serve the purpose you are talking about just fine like that?

Czuch: It's like when the USA bombed Dresden (sp) with fire bombs, it was not necessary but they did it.

The Usurper: Proof, as ever, is in the eye of the beholder. Some will be persuaded, others not. But even if evidence merely raises doubts, that is a good start because it leads people to question things more critically. That in itself is a closer step towards discovering & understanding truth, i.e., reality, or how things are, or what really happened.


Cant the same be said for the most commonly held truth of the events as well?

The Usurper: I personally think it's a slam dunk.


You could have been a big help on the OJ jury....

(V): It's like when the USA bombed Dresden (sp) with fire bombs, it was not necessary but they did it.



....ummmm..... its not like that at all....

(V): Just an opinion though, but if I was Pres at the time I would have sent enough troops and resources to implement a take and hold policy in Afghanistan.



No, you wouldnt have, because you would have been up to your neck in a huge conspiracy and cover up, and getting bin laden would have been the last thing you wanted to do

I think a significant percentage of the population has lost the faith. Why else would they have voted for Obama and the collectivists? 52% of the voters have declared they are not capable of achieving success on their own. 52% have offered up their freedom for the "wealth" of government handouts. 52% have declared their desire to confiscate the money of those that work and strive to better themselves.

I would say to these people, you do not deserve your freedom. You have traded freedom for the illusion of security. I would say other things to you, but Samuel Adams said it much better over 200 years ago:
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and my posterity forget that you were our countrymen." Samuel Adams

To the rest of us, including myself, I am not sure we deserve freedom either. The next few years will tell. Will we stand and fight the collectivists, or will we just allow ourselves to be swallowed up as the last remnants of a once great idea?

I don't know about you, but I think the 48% have a lot of fight left in us!

(V):No, you twisted my words into meaning something I didn't say.  And now you hide behind "stating my opinion" which is dishonest.  I NEVER said it was moronic to honor vets.  NEVER.  You apparently are choosing to ignore the point of my post.  Since I'm the one making the point, YOU don't get to decide what the purpose was.  If you don't get it (and you don't) then ask for clarification.

But even now you won't try to get clarity on what I said.  You will simply excuse yourself from responsibility for your obvious misunderstanding. 

Czuch:WTC7 had major structural damage.  That structural damage put a high degree of stress on supports for the building.  They began to weaken.  The question is:  Did that structural damage put enough stress on support points so that they eventually gave way.  The fires clearly didn't do it.  Falling chunks of buildings 1 and 2 ripped into building 7.  The fires may have contributed to structural weakness but weren't the main factor.

(V):Humor us.  How is it "like" Dresden?

Czuch:I'm glad you caught that as well.  I read it and just went

Artful Dodger: You said it was moronic to do it as part of an emergency situation to boost the economy.

.... From what I've read, the USA has never given the Vets a penny, and now your current Pres is correcting that mistake. Maybe he could have made it as part of a another bill or announcement but he didn't.

So what?

(V):Bingo. 

Artful Dodger: The Dresden fire bombing was not necessary. And essentially killed up to 40,000 civilians as the fire storm consumed the city.

As Churchill said after the raid....

"It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land… The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing. I am of the opinion that military objectives must henceforward be more strictly studied in our own interests than that of the enemy.
The Foreign Secretary has spoken to me on this subject, and I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction, however impressive."

(V):It's an entirely different topic.  It had nothing to do with Czuch's post.  That's why he's scratching his head.  What you said made no sense at all.  It's even less clear now.  You never addressed the question directly.  You went off into something completely different. 

Artful Dodger: Nope.

(V): You've been given the opportunity to clarify the connection you've made.  Go for it.  Quoting Churchill is nonsense.  We're talking about 911. 

Artful Dodger: Quoting the Prime Minister of the UK during WWII is nonsense... mmmmmm

(V):Quoting the prime minister is fine in context.  It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Artful Dodger: Maybe, maybe not.... That depends on your view on who was responsible for 911.

(V):Why not just clarify your comments instead of all this dance around.

(V): It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed.


Okay, I see your point a bit more clearly now... but it still isnt relevant.

I am asking how, demolishing the WTC buildings with explosives after flying planes into them, put any more terror into the people of the US than simply flying the planes into them and not doing the demolition???



If the point of this day was for our government to create fear for the purpose of making it easier and more acceptable for them to perpetrate some other, more horrific actions in the name of imperialism, why take the extra risk of planting demolitions and exploding these buildings on top of flying planes into them??? For that matter, wouldnt it have been easier to just explode the buildings, without having to fly planes into them first? It wouldnt have been too hard to explain that as terrorism and get just the same results?

Bush had to be a genius to mastermind this whole plot, with the elaborate details of having these guys come here and take flight training classes, just as a distraction to the truth, and having Muslims enter the airport and leave "clues" behind in their cars etc ... pure genius... if nothing else, how you can call Bush a dolt and at the same time give him credit for such an act?

Artful Dodger: maybe because I've different perspectives being British and as Czuch keeps saying "a liberal" then to a repub. To me it's clear, not a dance.

(V): The USA??? .. how convenient you forgot Air Marshall Arthur "Bomber" Harris, only Britain's advocate of bombing civilian targets including Dresden. this make you guilty of purposely twisting historical events for your own agenda, which is obviously hating the USA. Its ok to hate, but you shouldn't be so blatant about it as to twist facts

Its like the WMD... we know saddam had them because we saw he used them before.....

We saw 2 planes fly into the WTC buildings, but instead of flying a third one into the pentagon, they used a missile instead, and just used the third hijacked plane as a rouse, to throw us off their tracks, and then mysteriously ditched it in the ocean somewhere! Brilliant!

Then they used the fourth plane as a rouse to make us think they were also going to hit the white house, but they didnt want to ruin that building, like the pentagon, it was too valuable to ruin, so they faked a crash into Penn. and they even had people on the plane make phone calls to their loved ones saying how they were going to try to take over the plane, again another brilliant rouse thought up by Bush to make it seem even more realistic! Brilliant!

Czuch: Maybe it wasn't Bush.. maybe it was some deep agency in the USA, kinda like when the CIA were dealing in drugs during the Vietnam war.

Charles Martel: Nope, I remember Bomber Harris, and not everyone agreed with him, in fact may British people and military were against area bombing of cities.... But the fact remains it was USA planes that did the raid.

(V): Should we look up how many British lancaster bombers were used at night??

539,, is the red paint symbolizing blood still on his statue??

Charles Martel: I know loads were used.... including 1000 bomber raids.

But from what I have read it looks like a lack of intelligence or the giving of such to Harris was a significant point. As he had not the clearance to know about ULTRA.

(V):If it's clear, it should be simple for you to clarify and explain. 

(V): Maybe it wasn't Bush

Well according to Usurper, it was not just Bush but most of the government and now including Obama, and how many more that are backing it and not one leak yet?

Charles Martel: I'm not sure.... but it had to be guarded for a while as much hatred in the forms of graffiti was sprayed on the statue.

Some modern day people consider him a war criminal due to his policies.

Artful Dodger: I did.

So maybe Dresden was not a good example of pure USA evil

(V):See what I mean?  Because you couldn't stay with the point, we're now discussing the bombing of Dresden! 

Charles Martel: Did I say evil? I said a mistake, not needed. An error down to humans thinking badly.

Artful Dodger: Nope, I was sticking to the point, just using examples. Everyone else started going off on one.

Artful Dodger: Thats my fault

(V): No, your original point was that it was not needed except to promote more fear and terror....but not really necessary to win a war.