Michael Hardner

You're welcome. Come again.

The only heart you can claim to know is your own.

Even if you think that your political opponents are inhuman psychopaths (which is pretty much what you're saying here) you need to invent a conscience for them and pretend its real if you want to debate political issues, because at least some of his followers do have consciences and are intelligent. If you think your opponents are inhuman, then why discuss anything with them at all ?

I guess the idea that he's acting out of his convictions is just not a possibility here ?

Also: Lebanon's problems are well known, but should a responsible country be allowed to invade a neighbouring nation without comment from the UN ? That's what Iraq did in 1990. These systems of governance have to be set up with the understanding that dissent exists and there is no such thing as a shining truth that will prevail. It's about process and what works.

The point is, though, that a counter-argument can't happen unless someone is willing to make it. I realize that this issue is very sensitive to people, but are we so afraid of our own worst impulses as a society that we can't even allow such things to be discussed ? Aren't there only adults in the bar ?

Your argument is incredibly weak. Basically, you're saying the entire UN should be dismantled because the nations with money and power don't get their way. Is this how assemblies work on the national level ? No. There are many problems with the UN, but dismantling it could lead to more global warfare, and given recent experiences the US and Europe will be less likely to intervene. Rather than destroy the UN, I think they should reform it - keep what works, rework what doesn't work.

Insults don't help the argument, people. This is MapleLeaf, not Rabble or FD.

I stand corrected. This does, though: "As I pointed out above, it would add very little to the existing plan at great risk to blow up a single, much smaller building. The idea that this was the 'cherry on the desert' of terror for that awful day, that the day wouldn't have been terrifying enough without WTC 7's collapse is completely ridiculous. "

Here for one: "Now, how many times more complicated would it be to infiltrate the security/maintenance staff of buildings, secure explosives, and plant them there without suspicion ? They would need to start working on that months or years ahead of time in order to get familliar with the setups in these buildings. They would need to secure explosive materials whose movements are monitored by authorities, or otherwise smuggle them in. Each of these steps would have a risk of discovery associated with it." And on other posts in other threads, and in my last post. I followed the links, and all there is there is coincidence. Marvin Bush was on the board of directors to a company that supplied security systems to WTC. So what ? George Bush Sr. was director of the CIA, too. There are likely dozens of more links between the Bush family and what happened that day. Does this mean that GWB knew about 9/11 ? Of course not.

Not anywhere near as much as the ROC. Sorry, I meant to say that Quebec has a common language with each other and seperate from the rest of North America. Well, how many examples would you like ? Israel ? Armenia ? Look, Leafless, you were the one that asked the question. What's YOUR answer then - what IS wrong with the ROC ? No. I'm saying that there's a different cultural topology to the rest of Canada - it's more of a mix, and more integrated with the US. Quebec is the 'outsider' in NA and in Canada, which forments feelings of independence. I have no idea where this came from.

Again, this explanation seems to be offered more out of a lack of other explanations. As I pointed out above, it would add very little to the existing plan at great risk to blow up a single, much smaller building. The idea that this was the 'cherry on the desert' of terror for that awful day, that the day wouldn't have been terrifying enough without WTC 7's collapse is completely ridiculous. Were you calm and unimpressed until that building collapsed ? I wasn't. They were skilled enough to hit the highest skyscrapers in NYC, yes. I have already explained why there couldn't be a motive to carry out such an act. I don't think WTC 7 was demolished, no. If you have evidence to the contrary, you may present it but 'there's no other explanation' isn't an explanation. You're evading the question. The answer is that it would be many, many times more complicated. I see. So the twin towers were rigged as well. That operation would be many times more complicated, even, than rigging tower 7. I haven't got enough experience in watching detonated buildings fall, but I guess my answer would be yes. There were investigations done. What kind of forensic investigation do you refer to ? FEMA and the American Society of Civil Engineers looked into the collapse and examined the damage on site, and at the landfill site to which the remnants were carried.

I never get this problem, Auguste. It might be your connection, ie. Shaw, Rogers, what have you.

They have many things that the ROC doesn't have: Examples: a common language, a common culture, a common religion, a history, a sense of 'outsiders' that are perceived to interfere with their affairs, and a land that they've settled and developed all their own. On this last point, people might move from BC to Ontario to Alberta and still be in 'Canada', but there is only one Quebec if you get my meaning.

Agreed. We were never a 'people', and as a 'nation' we were always an assemblage of folks from other places. Again, agreed. There's no kind of realistic threat that would force us to 'fight' in the way that we think of these things.

I think that that has already started to happen, in the way we think of 'places'. And I also think it's more natural. The administrative heirarchy that leads from local government all the way up to national doesn't matter as much as how we represent 'places' in the collective mind.

Or maybe the buildings fell due to some unknown reason such as damage from falling debris. No, they couldn't, as they weren't skilled pilots. To the contrary, the plots succeeded because they were so simple. All they required was a handful of people, and knowledge of the protocols and customs of American airspace security. The lynchpin in the plan was the fact that it was a longstanding practice to wait hijackers out until their demands were heard. They realized then that any hijacker could use a plane as a weapon. All they needed to do was get the planes. Now, how many times more complicated would it be to infiltrate the security/maintenance staff of buildings, secure explosives, and plant them there without suspicion ? They would need to start working on that months or years ahead of time in order to get familliar with the setups in these buildings. They would need to secure explosive materials whose movements are monitored by authorities, or otherwise smuggle them in. Each of these steps would have a risk of discovery associated with it. Sometimes there's a mundane explanation for something, but we just don't have access to it, so everything appears mysterious. Do you remember the Bermuda Triangle mystery ? It's the same thing here, except that the proponents malign real people in perpetuating the myth.

That doesn't sound like a problem at all to me, but rather a reason why nationalism isn't needed any more. I have read that 'nations' as such were only created in the last 400 years or so, and came out of the standardization of language. If so, that would further justify the idea that it's a fake construct.

This is a ridiculous assertion. Why would they complicate their plan, and multiply the risk so much just to make a 'consistent' attack ? It's even more absurd if the assertion is that ONLY WTC 7 was demolished by explosion.

Charles, You are correct in that no one is exactly sure why that building fell. But some things will necessarily remain unexplained. If there's a sensible conspiracy theory as to how this whole plan unfolded so that someone could pull down that particular building I have yet to hear it.

Thank you, Geoffrey, and we should also add 'too new'. How can a country that's only 130 years or so old compete with countries that have been around for thousands of years ? And why feel more loyalty to a country, anyway, than to a region or local area ? The answer is that tribal loyalty and pride is programmed into our biology, which makes us prone to exploitation by those who use these things to their own ends. Nationalism only works when it's drummed into our heads and repeated by everyone around us.

There are hardly any acredited engineers that subscribe to the theory that the planes didn't bring the buildings down. The most famous report, quoted early on, was written by an economist I believe.

Argus - I guess you'll have to forgive us as we expect better behavior from a supposedly responsible state than criminals.

Gost, That's somewhat akin to burning down your restaurant in the hopes that the new rebuilt one will be twice as popular. Far too risky. Rue, The press didn't run with it because IT'S NOT TRUE. GWB's cousin sat on the board of directors of a company that provided security systems to the WTC and left the board a year before 9/11. This is so far a stretch from saying that he 'ran security' or somesuch as to be a lie. The same crowing voices that decry the lying and cover-ups that supposedly happen have absolutely NO QUALMS about doing those things themselves. These tactics include slandering good people, accusing people whom they don't know of murder and cover-up and making fun of victims of 9/11. Left-of-centre voters need to speak up about the 9/11 conspiracy types as they are a pox on the house.

Not exactly. You could have some kind of self-regulating body such as the Comics Code authority when they formed in the 1950s. All parties would agree to fund a neutral body that would police the group.