Without a conspiracy, what is there? As time goes on, that is all people can remember, the sensationalism of all the stories associated with it. The truth of what happened to the buildings is relatively simple. :smile:
Canadian 9/11 Petition for Parliament
- Thread starter darkbeaver
- Start date
Agreed.
The research done by an international team of scientists (AE911Truth.orgAE 911 Truth) is the main reason in my view.
How many 100 storey buildings have had planes fly into them at top speed and strategically placed? :lol:
Not everyone that yammers on these threads is a direct descendent of Einstein! :lol:
I'm not surprised. That still doesn't answer the question. Why do conspiracy enthusiasts always omit facts that get in the way of what the want to believe.
Nobody but the conspiracy folks are saying that fire brought the buildings down but it is the conspiracy folks that cry that fire could not have brought the buildings down. Their logic falls flat before they even make it out of the gate.
Right, and how many of them actually know anything about explosives or controlled building demolition? There are lots of videos on the Internet showing controlled demolitions, none of the collapses on 9/11 look anything like a controlled demolition. There are some minor points of similarity, but realistically, that argument fails on simple observation of real controlled demolitions. Towers 1 and 2 clearly began to collapse at the level where the aircraft struck them, so you'd have to argue that the charges were wired in such a way that the collapse could have been initiated from any level. Building 7 began to collapse on the side where it was struck by debris from the collapse of towers 1 and 2, so you'd have to make a similar argument about that too. It soon gets too complex to be plausible.
And apart from that, what could a Canadian investigation realistically achieve anyway? It couldn't subpoena American witnesses or American documents, there's really nothing it could do but review information that's already public, so unless you've got evidence that Canadian officials were somehow complicit in this, it couldn't really go anywhere. This was a crime that took place in a foreign country, there's really nothing the Canadian government can do about it.
Last edited:
It would give the Canadian sheeple something to think about while the destruction of their not (so democratic and free)anymore country
can be planned and executed without nasty interruptions by the "chattering classes"............for one.
Because the internet didn't exist when Kennedy was shot.
It sure was. That's why the same crew found those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq...
Ironically, only two steel tube constructed towers have ever been erected, and both of them collapsed in flames....
Oops.... I stand corrected....
The Willis Tower : 233 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois :: Glass Steel and Stone
Two out of three is still some really nasty odds....
Dr. Steven Jones published a peer reviewed paper on the use of explosives at the WTC
YouTube - 9/11: EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY EXCLUSIVE Steven Jones Physicist 1 of 2.m4v
He certainly does have credentials.
Dr. Steven Jones published a peer reviewed paper on the use of explosives at the WTC
YouTube - 9/11: EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY EXCLUSIVE Steven Jones Physicist 1 of 2.m4v
He certainly does have credentials.
YouTube - 9/11: EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY EXCLUSIVE Steven Jones Physicist 1 of 2.m4v
He certainly does have credentials.
Dr. Steven Jones published a peer reviewed paper on the use of explosives at the WTC
YouTube - 9/11: EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY EXCLUSIVE Steven Jones Physicist 1 of 2.m4v
He certainly does have credentials.
Irrelevant to the question at hand. If I, a resident of Ottawa, have an issue with my local government, I won't propose to petition a neighbouring local government to deal with the issue, but would bring it up rather to the Provincial government, which does have at least one Ottawa MP present to defend its side of the argument.
Should I, a resident of Ontario, have an issue with, let's say, Ontario's separate school system, I won't propose to petition the government of Quebec or Manitoba to deal with it, since Ontario itself has no representation there and they have not jurisdiction over this province. Instead, I'd bring it up to the Federal government (if it's a federal matter) or the Supreme Court of Canada which represents all Canadians, including Ontario, and which does have jurisdiction over Ontario.
So likewise, if I have an issue with something the US government has done, why would I propose to petition the Canadian government which has nothing to do with it? Would it not make sense then to write a petition addressed to the UN General Assembly or the International Court of Justice instead, which do have representatives there so that they can have a fair chance to present their side of the story too?
Even if Canada could do something about this, how fair would it be to the US which has no MP in Ottawa for it to be able to explain its side of the story.
It's a matter of justice and jurisdiction here. If this were a petition to the UN or ICJ, I still don't know if I'd sign it, but would at least read it possibly. But if it's a petition to the government of Canada, then it might as well be a petition to the Government of Ontario, or Ottawa, or even the local Canadian Tire.
In like manner, by the way, I think Canada ought not to enforce pedophilia laws beyond its borders any more than the US ought to be allowed to enforce its embargo of Cuba beyond its borders. I'd even go so far as to say that if a US citizen going to Cuba from Canada should ever be arrested in by the US for that act, I'd argue that the Canadian government ought to make a diplomatic issue out of it on the grounds that the US is then imposing its laws onto Canadian soil.
That said, if the US has laws prohibiting so much as planning a trip to Cuba, and the courts can prove that that person did indeed plan the trip while still on US soil, then certainly it could be reasonable to charge him for that, but not for the actual act itself which would have occurred beyond US soil.
I suppose we could say the same about Canada introducing a law prohibiting so much as planning to commit pedophilia. Should anyone be proven to have planned it on Canadian soil, fair enough. But if he actually did it off of Canadian soil, then at most Canada should turn him over to the authorities in the country where the crime took place. It's not up to any country to impose its laws beyond its national boundaries, as that constitutes imperialism by definition.
Now going back to petitions, I suppose it could be reasonable to petition Canada to defend its legal sovereignty against foreign national laws being imposed onto Canadian soil, such as US restrictions on US citizens traveling to Cuba from Canada. This would be a legitimate concern of Canada's as it then touches directly on our own sovereignty.
By the way, I'm not necessarily saying that I believe in the conspiracy theories here. If anything, I lean more away than towards them seeing how difficult it would be to co-ordinate such a conspiracy without one single member of such a large group not having had any suspicions to report to the media.
What I am saying though is that, even if we give this conspiracy the benefit of the doubt, it still would not be up to Canada to decide.
Let's reverse the roles. Let's suppose Americans had some suspicions of some event in Canada and did not trust the Canadian government's assessment of the event. Would it be up to the US government to stick its nose so directly into Canadian affairs, or rather to go through the proper channels out of respect for the principle of equality between nations?
What I am saying though is that, even if we give this conspiracy the benefit of the doubt, it still would not be up to Canada to decide.
Let's reverse the roles. Let's suppose Americans had some suspicions of some event in Canada and did not trust the Canadian government's assessment of the event. Would it be up to the US government to stick its nose so directly into Canadian affairs, or rather to go through the proper channels out of respect for the principle of equality between nations?