Transferring the Political Debate to the B&Grill

[ClamRussel]

In regards to the paradigm of the NDP ruining our economy & the Liberals saving it ...may be possibly 'coloured' by the mainstream media and that our BC economy basically follows the same path as the Cdn economy overall check out this article:
http://thetyee.ca/Views/2009/04/23/BCEcon/

It lays it out from the So-Creds to the NDP to the Liberals and believe it or not the BC economy actually grew more under the NDP (3%) than the Libs (2.8% possibly 2.4% depending on the source). I'm basically of the opinion that when we're having tough times its easy to be the opposition and point fingers and when times are good a party looks like a bunch of geniuses. A bit like goaltending in hockey, proportionally far too much praise and blame depending on how things are going. The reality is much more benign.

[DavidPratt_]

LOOKING FORWARD TO MORE DISCUSSIONS AROUND POLITICAL DEBATES....
I'VE GOT SOME OPINIONS I NEED TO SHARE....
ABOUT THE MIDDLE EAST....THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN....BIKE LANES IN VANCOUVER....GREENPEACE....CHUBBY GIRLS WHO WEAR TIGHT CLOTHES AND SHOW THEIR BUTT CRACKS...
LET'S BRING IT ON....

DP

[Arachnid]

OK let's talk about Peak Oil.

Live in LaLa land all you want. Oil supply is not forever. Life will change. Get use to it aging Boomers gung ho young'ns.

What do subprime mortgages, Atlantic salmon dinners, SUVs and globalization have in common?
They all depend on cheap oil.
But from the depleting oil wells of the Middle East to the soaring cost of their unconventional replacements, like tar sands, the era of cheap oil is over, just as globalization has made the world economy ever more thirsty for the fuel.
Oil prices, of course, will still fall in the middle of a recession, just as they have recently, but they will never be cheap again.
The world isn’t about to run out of oil—it’s just running out of oil that we can afford to burn. And whether we move goods by air, ship, truck or rail, the global economy runs on oil.
Replace cheap oil with tomorrow’s triple-digit prices and all of a sudden the wheels of globalization get thrown into reverse. Distance will soon cost money, radically redefining both economic geography and global trade patterns.
Soaring transport costs suddenly change the entire economics of importing everything from cheap labour markets half way around the world. So much so that triple digit oil prices will soon breathe new life into our hollowed-out rust belts, and, in the process, bring long-lost manufacturing jobs back home.
The repatriation of factory jobs to Western economies will take place all the sooner when the cost of burning oil includes not only the price of buying the fuel but also the price for the carbon emissions it leaves in the atmosphere.
As the global economy implodes under the weight of triple-digit oil prices, local economies will suddenly re-emerge. And as our economy changes, so too will our oil-dependent, long-distance lifestyles.
From farmers’ markets to carbon tariffs, from the revitalization of manufacturing to the reconversion of far-flung suburbs back to the farmland that they once were, our future is going to, in many respects, resemble the now-distant past.
There is little we can do to prevent oil prices from returning to triple-digit levels. But those prices don’t necessarily have to be apocalyptic.
There is much that we can do to make sure that soaring oil prices don’t have the same devastating consequences on our economies as they have had during past recessions as well as during the recent one.
In order to insulate ourselves from even greater oil price shocks in the future, we must move from the hugely energy-intensive model of a global economy to the far more sustainable model of a local economy. And that means we must re-engineer our lives to adapt to the contours of a much smaller world.
While much could go terribly wrong in this transition, don’t be surprised if we find more than a few silver linings in the process. And don’t be surprised if the new smaller world that emerges isn’t a more livable and enjoyable world than the much larger one we are about to leave behind.

http://www.jeffrubinssmallerworld.com

Can't wait to see ol' 80's leatherface (sorry pants) pedalling his electric scooter up the hill after he forgot to plug it in...

[Island Nucklehead]

Can't wait to hear your views on Afghanistan DP, that'll be an enlightening piece of journalistic talent, I'm sure!

I'm sick of hearing about oil. Really, garbage commercials telling me a CAR commercial was made without a carbon footprint. Puke in my own lap. Gross.

I'm going to start a "Carbon cleanup" business. You can sell your "carbon credits" to me, and I'll do sweet F all with them (cept take your cash), nothing will happen and I'll be rich! Nothing Changes!!!!

[Arachnid]

Can't wait to hear your views on Afghanistan DP, that'll be an enlightening piece of journalistic talent, I'm sure!

I'm sick of hearing about oil. Really, garbage commercials telling me a CAR commercial was made without a carbon footprint. Puke in my own lap. Gross.

I'm going to start a "Carbon cleanup" business. You can sell your "carbon credits" to me, and I'll do sweet F all with them (cept take your cash), nothing will happen and I'll be rich! Nothing Changes!!!!

Sad, butt true. At least not until gas prices hit $3.00/l

And Electricity rates are 500% more than they are now.

Then, and only then people might change

Sustainability is not a new 'Green' marketing word it will become a religion (it already has for some) and something of substance after the great American Empire crumbles...

[Badfish]

I'm reading a great book called"Beyond The Bubble: Imagining a new Canadian economy" by James Laxer. A great section is on the transportation sector in Canada, past and present. Here's an excerpt I found particularly interesting:

The first mass age of the automobile in Canada came in the 1930s as provincial governments built the nations initial highways. It was not untill the 1950s, following decades of depression and war that the automobile became a means of transportation for most Canadian families. Over the space of a few decades, governments built superhighways and the trans-canada highway. Suburbs, relying on the automobile as the crucial form of transportation, exploded outwards from the cities. Urban density fell as city dwellers shifted from public transit to their cars. The public saw expressways as symbols of progress. One of them, the notorious Gardiner Expressway in Toronto, cut the city off from its lakefront. It was not untill the 1970s, not coincidentally a decade when the price of petroleum exploded, that city dwellers percieved the downside of expresswways that tore up neighbourhoods. In Toronto, public pressure stopped the building of the planned Spadina Expressway.

The initial era of skyrocketing petroleum prices lasted from 1973 to 1982. From 1982, when prices plunged,untill the early years of the twenty-first century, petroleum was once again cheap, and Canadians, in company with Americans, purchased vast numbers of SUVs, vans, pickup trucks and recreation vehicles, all vehicles with poor gas mileage. The rising price of petroleum during this decade, coupled with the bursting of the global property price bubble beggining in the United States and the onset of a global economic crisis, plunged Canadians into a new wolrd of transportation issues.

With an inefficient fleet of automobiles, poor public transit, an ailing rail system, and airlines plagued with a host of problems, Canada is woefully ill prepared for a transportation revolution. For a country whose vast size and low population have always made transportation a vital matter, the lack of planning by governments and industry to prepare for the dramatic changes in transportation has been flagrant, not to say negligent.

What Canada needs is an approach to transportation equipment industries that is integrated, not only so that sutos, rail and aircraft can play their roles effectively, but also so that the transportation sectors are developed in conjunction with the other major changes underway.Along with the economic crisis that confronts us, we are living in a time when the pressures of climate change and peak oil - the passing of the age of readily available petroleum on a scale sufficient to meet global needs - are forcing industrial societies to rebuild their cities along with their transportation systems and transportation equipment industries. Among the transformations we can anticipate in Canada and other industrialized countries are:

- the decline of the suburb and a return to the more densely populated urban patterns of earlier times
- the closing of centres of large metropolises to private automobiles, in favour of tramways, subways and taxis
- the elimination of air travel for distances less than 500 km in substantially populated regions and the replacement of short-haul flights by high-speed trains;
- The decline of truck transport for long routes and the rebuilding of rail lines to take up a much larger share of the shipment of freight; the demise of SUVs, recreational vehicles and cars with more than 4 cylanders; the long-term replacement of traditional automobiles by hybrids and zero emission vehicles.

After going into each sub-sector individually and discussing the economic realities of these changes, towards the end of the chapter he says:

What makes this a moment of immense opportunity for those who will seize it is that all of the vehicle manufacturers in the world are starting from scratch, just as their predecessors were at the beginning of the 20th century. The internal combustion engine, propelled by gasoline, transformed the worlds cities and the lives of billions of people. For the working people who built them and for the wage and salary earners who drove them, automobiles delivered mobility and freedom that the wealthiest people of a few generations earlier would have found unimaginable.

But the automobile in a time of global warming, peak oil, and choking cities now threatens the people of the world. Once a liberator, in it's present form it imprisons. This fundamental condition of our new century is understood all around the world.We are starting from scratch in the creation of the new personal vehicles - call them cars - that must be conceived alongside the other transportation modes of our time. We are starting from scratch with ideas for how to re-create our cities, shift from petroleum to other fuels, and sharply reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

This is just a tiny sampling of one chapter in the book, which I highly recommend. It goes on to discuss how Canada has the capital and technology to put itself in a position to take a leading role in this change.

Another great book is "Property and Prophets; The evolution of economic institutions and ideologies". It is a great sort of in-depth walk-through of how we got from feudalism, to mercantilism and early capitalism, to classical liberalist capitalism, onwards to our current neo-liberal dominated society. Along the way, alternatives are explored by taking a factual based look at history for these alternatives. Also a great read, and very helpful in understanding the current shit-storm we find ourselves in. Helps to see that Capitalism is by no means the "only way". for 99% of human existence we have lived as an egalitarian species, it is as only in the very recent past that this has changed, and is continuing to change. How we go on from here is up to all of us, if we wake up and begin to take the initiative as opposed to being led by massive multi-nationals and corrupt politicians.


...and just to really stir the pot, I don't see how anyone, when presented with the facts, can rationally tell me that Sept. 11 2001 was NOT an inside job. The official explanation, that jet fuel melted the internal structure of both buildings to the point they both colapsed into nice neat piles straight downward, has been demonstrated to be physically impossible. For starters, jet fuel does not burn at a high enough temp to melt the industrial-grade steel that was used in the construction of the two towers, let alone did it burn long enough to completely weaken the entire structure enough to cause the collapse. That is but one of many, many discrepencies between the official story, and reality. They have footage from several security cameras of local hotels, of the "plane" hitting the pentagon. Why do they only release 4 frames, from 1 angle, none of which show a airplane? If there's nothing to hide, why not just show us exxactly how it happened, remove all doubt? Why the secrecy? Because there's something theyre not telling us. I don't profess to know exactly what that is, but the US gov't is going to great lengths to keep a secret of some sort...

Discuss?

[Robert]

Did you ever follow/read/ listen to the work of Micheal Ruppert from those days? Maybe his book Crossing the Rubicon is still able to be had.

[Badfish]

Arachnid - a man after my own heart Although I'm not sold on "Carbon credits", I do agree with much in that quote of yours.

Robert - I don't know Micheal Ruppert, tho "Crossing the Rubicon" sounds familiar. brief summery?

Here's an interesting read from the CCPA:

So Whats a Green Job Anyways?

In the paper we start with an ecological economics perspective on what “sustainability” really means when it comes to climate change policies, and from that we consider implications for “green jobs”. These are both important concepts that in the course of prominent usage tend to get thrown around without much clarity. So, we try to fill in those containers with meaning.

One important implication is that we need to cut our fossil fuel habit by 2040, and reduce remaining greenhouse gases to near-zero by mid-century. That means we need a moratorium on new oil and gas developments unless 100% of the emissions can be sequestered underground forever. It means that people and governments should not waste time and money assuaging carbon guilt by buying offsets. And it means rethinking industrial policies that have been successful in economic terms, but now fly in the face of good climate policies.

[Robert]

Badfish, I just checked and he's got a page on Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ruppert

He's a fascinating man with a fascinating history. His family is CIA, and was recruited at one point with a "hot babe at the bar", became engaged, and this is who he first learned from of their involvement in dealing cocaine. Thankfully he went in another direction and later started a news website called "From the Wilderness". I first learned of him after the first few days of shock back in September, and has really opened my eyes. I was able to see him live in Vancouver a few years ago but reading Crossing the Rubicon is still on my bucket list. His knowledge is quite extensive and interesting to say the least.

hmm.. the site is still there, with some cached and updates. http://www.fromthewilderness.com/

[Island Nucklehead]

The automobile part was quite interesting, and it looks like a worthwhile read....

Call me a "sheep" but I'll take a stab at your 9/11 theories:

Popular Mechanics has done a great deal of work in debunking some of these theories:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842

Highlights:

Steel "Melting":

They note that Steel doesn't melt at the temperatures you mentioned, but at that heat it was entirely plausible that steel would lose up to 50% of it's structural strength.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

Controlled Demolitions:

Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

The Pentagon:

The only camera angle that hast been released by the US government was a camera meant to capture people's vehicles approaching one of the gates. That camera was set to something like one-shot every second or something, just enough to get a shot of the driver of the vehicle passing the checkpoint. At that rate of recording, there's no way it would have caught a good shot of a plane traveling so fast.


Missile hole?

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

Debris?

Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

I'll trust the scientists and experts on this one. The "Truthers" seem to search out random coincidences, irregularities, and one-off remarks taken out of context to push their tales. Loose Change was a catalyst for this. Dylan Avery (it's creator/producer) had originally planned to make a fictional film about a group of friends that uncover the "truth" behind 9/11, before trying to pass his idea off as fact. The guy is a proven idiot and goof, and it's really is sad that so many people have been caught up by the novelty of anti-Bush sentiment that is really behind the "truth movement".

Punks/Loose Change vs Popular Mechanics (they get their asses handed to them by real researchers) :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stVmEmJ666M&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1d0XEHahJ2Q&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_Fm3Zc7D8I&feature=related




Ultimately, this is a country whose highest levels of power have been unable to keep a corporate break-in at Watergate, a blow-job from an intern or the motives for a war in Iraq secret. Yet some people want to believe that there were tens of thousands of people ( air traffic controllers, victims families from flight 93, thousands of witnesses at the pentagon, hundreds of aides/public servants, credible researchers and scientists, intelligence analysts, military officers and countless experts) could hold fast on the true knowledge of the lie... sorry, just can't buy it as a rational thinker.

[ClamRussel]

Holy fuck people, you trying to get us all on the "no fly list" ...a few have ended up on there for less.


Actually Island, those Popular Mechanics articles are a bit on the questionable side themselves.

[Badfish]

Those popular mechanics articles have been throughly "de-bunked" , here are two links:

Debunking Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Lies"

Popular Mechanics Attacks Its "9/11 LIES"Straw Man

The article's approach is to identify and attack a series of claims which it asserts represent the whole of 9/11 skepticism. It gives the false impression that these claims, several of which are clearly absurd, represent the breadth of challenges to the official account of the flights, the World Trade Center attack, and the Pentagon attack. Meanwhile it entirely ignores vast bodies of evidence showing that only insiders had the means, motive, and opportunity to carry out the attack.

The article gives no hint of the put options on the targeted airlines, warnings received by government and corporate officials, complicit behavior by top officials, obstruction of justice by a much larger group, or obvious frauds in the official story. Instead it attacks a mere 16 claims of its choosing, which it asserts are the "most prevalent" among "conspiracy theorists." The claims are grouped into topics which cover some of the subjects central to the analysis of 9-11 Research. However, for each topic, the article presents specious claims to divert the reader from understanding the issue.

More important, it misrepresents skeptics' views by implying that the skeptics' community is an undifferentiated "army" that wholly embraces the article's sixteen "poisonous claims," which it asserts are "at the root of virtually every 9/11 alternative scenario." In fact much of the 9/11 truth community has been working to expose many of these claims as disinformation.

I wont go into more detail, as I just threw 9/11 as an aside of my earlier post, except to say this:

Look into who owns this major publication (Hearst Corporation, red flags right there), and who was behind the articles.

Following the publication of the article and its exaltation by the mainstream media as the final nail in the coffin for 9/11 conspiracy theories, it was revealed that senior researcher on the piece Benjamin Chertoff is the cousin of Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

This means that Benjamin Chertoff was hired to write an article that would receive nationwide attention, about the veracity of the government's explanation of an event that led directly to the creation of Homeland Security, a body that his own cousin now heads.

This is unparalleled nepotism and completely dissolves the credibility of the article before one has even turned the first page.

**EDIT** As I re-read, there's also this:

The article also makes no mention whatsoever of the numerous war games scheduled for the morning of 9/11 which confused air defense personnel as to the true nature of the attack as it unfolded, as is documented by the recent release of the NORAD tapes.

A section on the collapse of the World Trade Center fails to address firefighters and other individuals who reported numerous explosions before the towers fell, squibs of debris seen shooting out of the towers well below the collapse point, and the fact that the towers fell only slightly slower than absolute free fall.

That is one of the most amazing things, newttons law of gravity demonstrates that both towers, within min. of each other, collapsed in absolute freefall speeds. Why? 1 tower was hit less directy, an hour earlier. yet they both fell almost together during the morning shows. Not to even mention the "third tower", 47 stories, completely collapsed into itself, which wasn't hit by a plane, but apparently by falling debris, which then started a fire in that building, causing the same problems that happened in the first two towers. If this is true, it is the 3rd skyscraper in history to completely collapse from fire. The only other two in history? The twin towers. Skyscrappers in the 50s caught on fire, burned for hours, and only the top of the building deteriorated while the base remained in tact. Throw in the fact that the twin towers were specifically designed to withstand impact from an airline passenger plane, and that it was on the freakin' cover of their security training manual.... yea it just doesn't add up.

[Badfish]

A more credible link from the BBC on the third tower
9/11 third tower mystery 'solved'

The National Institute of Standards and Technology, based near Washington DC, is expected to conclude in its long-awaited report this month that ordinary fires caused the building to collapse.

That would make it the first and only steel skyscraper in the world to collapse because of fire.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology's lead investigator, Dr Shyam Sunder, spoke to BBC Two's "The Conspiracy Files":

"Our working hypothesis now actually suggests that it was normal building fires that were growing and spreading throughout the multiple floors that may have caused the ultimate collapse of the buildings."

However, a group of architects, engineers and scientists say the official explanation that fires caused the collapse is impossible. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth argue there must have been a controlled demolition.

The founder of the group, Richard Gage, says the collapse of the third tower is an obvious example of a controlled demolition using explosives.

"Building Seven is the smoking gun of 9/11. A sixth grader can look at this building falling at virtually freefall speed, symmetrically and smoothly, and see that it is not a natural process.

"Buildings that fall in natural processes fall to the path of least resistance", says Gage, "they don't go straight down through themselves."

Conspiracy theories

There are a number of facts that have encouraged conspiracy theories about Tower Seven.

* Although its collapse potentially made architectural history, all of the thousands of tonnes of steel from the skyscraper were taken away to be melted down.
* The third tower was occupied by the Secret Service, the CIA, the Department of Defense and the Office of Emergency Management, which would co-ordinate any response to a disaster or a terrorist attack.
* The destruction of the third tower was never mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. The first official inquiry into Tower Seven by the Federal Emergency Management Agency was unable to be definitive about what caused its collapse.
* In May 2002 FEMA concluded that the building collapsed because intense fires had burned for hours, fed by thousands of gallons of diesel stored in the building. But it said this had "only a low probability of occurrence" and more work was needed.

So much for not going in to detail.... sorry for the long read, but gotta support the facts Listen I'm not saying I know what happened, just that the official story does not add up. No way was this all done only by a handful of guys with boxcutters from a cave in Afghanistan alone, without any outside help at all. I just don't buy it. anti-truthers always point to the lack of evidence of the conspiracies, how about the lack of evidence of the official story?

As for punks getting thier ass handed to them, I watched your youtube videos and he sure doesn't get his ass handed to him, he raises a ton of points, none of which are disputed very well, imo. In regard to the secuirty camera shots, I was refering to the security cameras on hotels in the surrounding area that were all immediately confiscated.

And Robert: Ahh see I do know of From The Wilderness, was a great website. Another I liked was Guerrilla News but it seems to have disapeared. www.gnn.tv

[Island Nucklehead]

Ultimately, I think "each to their own". Some people refuse to believe that the US intelligence services (CIA, NSA and FBI) couldn't put the pieces together in time (or even pick up the phone and talk with one another), and the bits they did know about (possibility of terrorists targeting domestic airlines and using them as weapons) weren't believed or seriously considered by an inept Bush administration.

As for punks getting thier ass handed to them, I watched your youtube videos and he sure doesn't get his ass handed to him, he raises a ton of points, none of which are disputed very well, imo.

I'm not sure how many debates you've watched or been a part of. But sneering, laughing, and calling someone a "liar" without adding any shred of evidence, while your opposition takes apart nearly every one of your points with evidence provided by research done by experts in the field, generally means you lose.


I love a good Gwynne Dyer piece, it's a highly thoughtful read, he makes too much common sense of things sometimes:

I don't think that Tenet,
Rice, Powell et al. would have deliberately plotted the deaths of thousands
of Americans. I don't believe even Dick Cheney would have done that. And I
note that there has been no inexplicable wave of sudden deaths among junior
intelligence analysts in Washington.

At least
ten thousand people were in on it. They had to be, or it couldn't have
worked. And more than five years later, not one of them has talked.

Nobody has got drunk and spilled their guts. Nobody has told their
spouse, who then blabbed. Not one of these ten thousand accomplices to
mass murder has yielded to the temptation for instant fame and great wealth
if only they blow the whistle on the greatest conspiracy in history. Even
the Mafia code of silence is nothing compared to this.

In normal times you wouldn't waste breath arguing with people who
fall for this kind of rubbish, but the makers of "Loose Change" claim that
their film has already been seen by over 100 million people, and looking at
my e-mail in-tray I believe them. It is a real problem, because by linking
their fantasies about 9/11 to the Bush administration's deliberate
deception of the American people in order to gain support for the invasion
of Iraq, they bring discredit on the truth and the nonsense alike.

You almost wonder if they are secretly working for the Bush
administration.

[ClamRussel]

Never understimate government, case in point "the Manhattan Project," which was on a far larger scale than 4 runaway planes. Estimates are that over 150,000 had to keep this a lip-tight secret and somehow they managed to pull it off.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project

You don't really think they're as incompetent as they come off do you?

Also keep in mind that name calling goes both ways, do you think "truther" is a flattering term? The weird thing is I find both the truthers and the media choir boys to be equally annoying. Neither of them seems to address the core issues in this controversy. The fact is the original official story is actually a conspiracy theory if you think about it and wasn't backed up with any evidence. Instead faces & names were flashed all over network television and print media.

Here's some food for thought, explain this:

Number of Days after event that an independent investigation was ordered

Sinking of the Titanic--------------6
JFK assassination-----------------7
Challenger disaster---------------7
Pearl Harbour--------------------9
Events of 9/11------------------441

Myself I could do w/o the moronic chants of "9-11 was an inside job!" but also w/o the idea that if you don't accept the official story you're an asshole & a traitor. That said, this is one anomaly I would like clarified up in a rational manner. How can that be explained? How could it even go beyond a week w/o an investigation?!? Think about that....a year & a half.