The Big Guns...

As many of you are aware, this blog is not intended to reach as many readers of the last nor is it as versatile. Instead this is a more personal one. I will from time to time use said blog as a journal for mundane bullshit and petty bitching, but I will also use it to bring out the big guns.

What do I mean by this? Well, quite simply put: the subject matter that isn't meant for mass consumption due to its inherent controversy; more so than the last blog where our opinions were just injected into news paper excerpts. I am talking about talking about subjects that have been condemned by those who fear to question official party lines: the dreaded conspiracy theories.

Now I am not talking about just any stupid theory like "we really didn't land on the moon" or the "The Doors was a CIA mind control project" theory. Those are just lame and unimportant. In fact, I am not really talking about theories at all, rather asking the questions that need to be asked and have not been answered. For example it is no secret that nearly 50% of New Yorkers believe that Bush was complicit in the 9-11 attacks or at the very least allowed it to happen. Some would call this conspiracy theory bullshit just as they would dismiss my observation that provisions for a standing army are not in the U.S. Constitution under the same umbrella.

What I want to avoid are the harebrained speculations like: The planes that crashed into the WTC towers were radio controlled, or the pentagon was hit by a missile. I don't care about speculation, what I do care about are reputable quotes, video evidence, financial ties, and above all: asking the right questions. That is how a debate is framed, and as those challenging the establishment's story, we must operate in this fashion. An example of a legitimate question:

We all have seen and believe the reason the North & South WTC towers fell due to jet liners being slammed into them, but why did WTC Building 7 collapse when it had not been hit by planes nor had burning jet fuel injected into it? Furthermore, why isn't building 7 even mentioned in the 9-11 Commission Report?

These are pertinent questions that naturally lead to other questions and best of all, you don't come off as a nut for asking these questions. Now the implied answer to this question is that building 7 was brought down via controlled demolition. Now can I back that "speculation" up? I don't have to, I let the owner of the WTC do that for me:

"I remember getting a call from the, uh, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'You know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it.' Uh, and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

--Larry Silverstein, owner of the World Trade Center

When you "pull" a building, that is the industry term for a controlled demolition. Question: How long does it take to set up a controlled demolition?

Answer: Anywhere from a few weeks to months depending on the size and shape of the structure to be pulled.

This of course begs the ultimate question: If it takes weeks and sometimes months to set up charges for a controlled demolition, then how could the building be pulled without fore-knowledge of the 9-11 attacks?

Of course, you don't have to ask your opponent that. Let them ask themselves that, and see if they have an answer that isn't some crazy conspiracy theory.