lit_schaeffer

The idea that there is a monolithic 'conspiracy theory' being proposed as an alternative to the official conspiracy theory is incorrect. I have no idea what happened on 9/11, nor do I ever expect to know. My main interest is in the continued apathy toward finding out. It has been pointed out that the U.S. government spent considerably more money investigating the challenger accident which killed less than 10 people than it did investigating the 9/11 attacks, which killed thousands. This is sadly not an isolated incident. The U.S. went into the Vietnam War based on the Tonkin Gulf incident, which we now know never happened. It went into the first Gulf War largely as a reaction to stories of atrocities fabricated by the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the U.S. It went into the second Gulf War based on WMD's which weren't there. In none of these cases was there any surprise or outrage on the part of the general population when these deceits came to light. They were so lightly reported most Americans probably still don't know about them. If andwhen the truth about 9/11 comes out, I doubt it will merit coverage on the front page of any American newspaper, if there are any left to report it. On another note, the following answer appeared to one of my previous posts: 'First of all, the towers didn't exactly collapse into their own 'footprint'. The collapse of all 3 towers was messy, and the collapse of WTC7 actually damaged several surrounding buildings. If it were being carried out by a 'controlled demoliton', it was a lot messier than any other controlled demolition." I don't mind being quoted, but being misquoted upsets me. I stated that building 7 fell into its own footprint, which if you watch the demolition, it clearly does. I made no claims regarding the other buildings.

It would be difficult to prosecute lawyers for giving legal opinions on torture used by the Bush administration to justify the practice. It would also be difficult to prosecute Bush and Cheney, at least for this particular abomination. I suspect that there are many things done by Bush and Cheney which will go unpunished, simply because there is no perceived benefit to doing so. This is not necessarily a bad thing, although it would be nice to see both Bush and Cheney in prison for vitiating their constitution, killing the citizens they were sworn to protect and generally behaving like cowboys. But if there is no general political will to go after Bush et. al, it won't happen.

If explosives were used, it was to immediately cause the collapse, not to fake a plane impact. I don't know that this happened. My point would be that we don't know what happened, and thanks to the destruction of the evidence, and the absence of any interest on the part of the American people or government in an independent inquiry, we probably never will. As to the remark about 'they asked me to join and i said no', is it realistic to think that the question to the future conspirator would be "hey, you want to help fake an attack on America and kill several thousand of your countrymen?" I doubt anyone would be aware of any plot until they were committed.

As soon as someone explains why building 7 at the WTC, which had not been hit by a plane, collapsed into its own footprint on September 11th, I will stop believing the 'officially unaccepted conspiracy theory' and start believing in the 'officially accepted conspiracy theory'. In the interval, a cursory look through the thread would seem to indicate that the initial premis of this thread, the discovery of thermitic residue, has been at least called into question, if not discredited.

In the immortal words of John Wayne: "Sure we took the land from the Indians, but they weren't using it anyway." I'm sorry the "Native People" were dispossessed by my ancestors. But I refuse to buy into this all-to-pervasive "white guilt" complex I'm supposed to have. I won't spend one second of my time in pointless hand-wringing over something that happened before I was born. The reason this is still an issue today is the incompetence of previous governments in not disposing of these "land claims" with one simple word - NO.

Mulroney put his ambition in front of the welfare of his country by recruiting separatists to run as Conservatives, almost single-handedly reviving them as a political force. Even though winning a contest over Martin and Chretien is like being voted "Most beautiful leper", to reward Mulroney with any distinction is distasteful. Perhaps they should have admitted that the crop of living Prime Ministers is so bad that any distinction is the lesser of evils.

No, he's a don't tax and spend republican, as amply illustrated by his mounting deficit. But why not? If the Republicans keep getting elected by mortgaging the future, and the U.S. electorate is too stupid or apathetic to call them on it, why should they stop?

By moving us into an era of sound-bite politics masquerading as responsible opposition, the Liberals are doing more to "Americanize" politics in Canada than Harper will. Bush is an idiot, almost everyone, likely including Harper, realize this. Nevertheless, he is the leader of the only remaining superpower, and our interests are much more in common with the U.S. than with the U.S.'s enemies.

A differnt case with the farmers. They have a real issue.

The politically correct crowd won't be happy until we find a surviving trilobite we can give all the land back to. Read history, look at the course of civilization. Land is lost and gained all the time. My concern is, who bungled the OPP response to this the first time. Either they underestimated the number and resolve of the protestors, or they failed deliberately under orders from the Liberal government. How are we supposed to trust the government to keep us safe if they can't even deal with a ragtag group of unarmed protestors?