Czuch: Yes, that's about right. They needed explosives because the planes & resulting fire weren't enough in themselves to bring the buildings down. And it is probable that no Arabs committed suicide. No Arabs appeared on the flight manifests released. Some planted information like a passport here or there served to identify them. Some of those indentified are still alive, according to news reports. They were patsies.

The Usurper: Where are the original flights and the passengers?

Artful Dodger: Good question. But we're speaking of "flight" here, not "flights," in the plural. See my post below....to know what happened to the plane and its passengers is a different question than knowing what did NOT happen to them.

The Usurper: We have two flights that few into the towers, one into the Pentagon, and one that crashed in Pennsylvania. So we have flights.

Artful Dodger: Sure we do. But the question I was asked is, What happened to Flight 77 if it didn't crash into the Pentagon?

The Usurper: I'm not sure you have proven flight 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon. Perhaps you have raised doubts, but proven? I wouldn't go that far.

Artful Dodger: 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.

The Usurper: Proof is what proof is. Not what you want it to be. Evidence can be bad or good. Proof shows something to be true. Evidence can be proof but only if that evidence is actually true. If bad evidence, it's isn't also bad proof; it's not any proof at all. So proof is not in the eye of the beholder. If the "proof" isn't true, then it's not really proof. The evidence must be sufficient to establish that a thing is true. Evidence is just an indication or a sigh. Proof establishes the truth of a thing. I won't get into word games. You have not proven a thing. You have raised some doubts, certainly some questions, and have made legitimate points.

Artful Dodger: No words games intended. Thanks for taking the time to look at the video.

The Usurper: That said, I think there are legitimate questions that haven't been answered properly. Lots of questions. It's enough to make a person want to say forget it. Not worth it. So many points of disagreement and seeming inconsistencies. It's not a slam dunk for either side and that's the problem. It's all subject to interpretations as we don't have indisputable proof. We have interpretative evidence and as we know from history, that can go in many directions. Makes ya wanna go

Artful Dodger: I agree it can be confusing. If it weren't, CoIntelPro wouldn't be doing its job. :o)

I personally think it's a slam dunk. But in any case, sometimes it is best to back off a subject, let things assimilate, approach it later. I do this all the time, maybe we all do.

At the same time, things stick in our minds and don't go away. Eventually we must return to them, because they nag at us.

I personally feel some stress when I make posts about 9/11 or any other subject deemed controversial. I am human, and I like to be liked. Sometimes I imagine how my posts are read, and it is depressing. I also prefer making people happy, not miserable or stressed.

But I push on, because stressful facts, whether about ourselves or about the world around us, cannot be avoided without doing damage to ourselves and/or others. More importantly, avoidance makes us easy prey.

The Usurper:If I witness a murder, it's not a slam dunk in a court of law.  It's solid evidence and will be enough to convict.  But it's not a slam dunk.  The opposition will try to discredit me, discredit what I say I say, and any number of other possible defense tactics.

But if I witness a murder, and get it all on tape - crisp and clear - then it's a slam dunk.  It's indisputable.  The accused can say, "I was defending myself" but the video shows the victim with his hands up etc.  The jury doesn't have to sort out the he said she saids, it's there on the video.  In most cases, where a video is involved, the defense seeks a plea because they recognize the case is lost.

If the case you make is beyond a reasonable doubt, then you could  claim a slam dunk.  But reasonable doubt is all over the place.  Neither side has a slam dunk.  Both sides have questions to answer.

Even full knowledge of events such as Pearl Harbor are not a slam dunk.  True it's a slam dunk that the Japanese attacks us, but many situations surrounding that attack are not fully know, even today.  Anytime you have reasonable doubt about an event, you don't have a slam dunk.  At best, you have a lay up shot with many obstacles in the way.  In a slam dunk, there's no opposition.  It's much like being alone on the court.

Artful Dodger: Good post with solid reasoning. I will re-phrase to say: I have seen enough evidence that, although I don't know all details of the plot, I am convinced that 9/11 was orchestrated & carried out by elements within the U.S. Government. And I believe that, were this evidence presented in a court of law, an impartial jury would arrive at the same conclusion.

Still, as you correctly say, many questions still do need to be answered, and many mysteries remain. An independent official investigative committee with subpoena power is needed, but unlikely to develop. Because of this lack, our best-case scenario for understanding 9/11, at the moment, seems to be more-or-less private investigation, piecing together of facts through newspaper reports, etc., and the general spreading of knowledge & information through unofficial sources.

Any investigation, official or unofficial, also needs to be scrutinized, both its results & its methods of arriving at them. No easy task, to be sure.

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.

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.

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): 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

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


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

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: 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.

(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....

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

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

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.

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

Artful Dodger: I did.

(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?

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.

(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?

(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

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??

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.

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.