On Conspiracy, War, and Bush

So first of all, I'm at the university right now. And I'm not typing notes. Why? I've decided I won't type notes unless they're incredibly confusing. The slip has begun. Soon I'll be kicking puppies, and harassing old people.

So a friend of mine sent me a link to a video the other day. I no longer have the URL, but basically what it was, was a 40 minute compilation of all the evidence people have that 9/11 was a controlled demolition. Much of this comes from 911truth.com (or something). Some of their argumetns that stood out to me were:

A plane has actually flown into one the towers before, but the tower did not collapse.

If all three buildings collapsed because of internal fire, it would be the first three times in history towers have collapsed due to fire. All three "first times" on the same day.

Building 9 (or was it 7) collapsed hours after the twin towers, and some argue that it didn't fall due to structural damage caused by the twin towers, since it was the only other building to fall, and was not the closest. Building 9 (0r 7) was also where alot of CIA data was stored for some reason.

Parts of the building had burned at 2 500 degrees (not sure if it's ferenheit or celsius). Jet fuel burns at 1 500. A common demolition chemical burns at the required 2 500.

It was a well thought out, and put together video, and it makes me wonder. But I have to wonder. How many planes have THEY flown into buildings like that?

It reminded me of the video where people claimed that it was a missile, and not a plane, that flew into the pentagon. It's an interesting thought, but I'm not sure I buy it just yet. I'll have to be satisfied with my mantra of "I'll know the truth someday."

I was going to make this a longer post, but I've got to meet with my faculty advisor in 10 minutes. I'll edit the rest of this post in after the meeting (probably after I get home, at 1:30ish)

In a nutshell: War is inevitable. Torture isn't as uncommon as we'd like. Bush isn't a bad president, and where the heck is Harper?

EDIT:

Alright, so I'm off for the day. Let's start with War. Why does every get thier underwear in a bunch when war comes around? Because war isn't plesant. Should we be upset at war? Yes, of course. People die, whether it's theirs or ours, life is lost. So we're in agreement so far?

I can't really get too deep into this, because I'm honestly not sure how to say what I'm feeling right now. Other than, we can dislike a war all we want, but as long as your elected government is around, you have to deal with their decisions. If they decide to go to war, and you don't like it, have a quiet protest.

One thing that really bothers me is when you read a newspaper, or read the news, and a father or mother of a killed soldier is protesting the war, or when people inform us that "so-and-so" the killed soldier didn't want to be in the war.

Soldiers fight wars. It doesn't matter if they like the war or not. I'm a student, I have to do assignments. If I fail, would I protest "We shouldn't be learning English anyways!" Different situation, I know, but you get the drift.

I was very impressed with the televised funeral of one Canadian soldier I saw. I forget her name, but she was the first female Canadian soldier killed in a very long time. Her father stated that he disagreed with the war, or somthing with that nature, but went on to say that his daughter thought it was nessecary. He made it clear that it was her choice to become a soldier, whatever the cost. THIS is a very good attitude, ESPECIALLY for somebody who just lost a daughter.

I'm just sort of rambling here. I can't form a coherent work of literature, so I'm just sort of doing the best I can.

Now Bush: Don't get me wrong. He's not the best president ever. I never said he was. However, he is certainly not the worst. What the heck did Bill Clinton do after all? Besides that.

I belive Bush is genuine, though. Why is that? It's not because he looks so good on TV, because he absolutely doesn't. It's actually exactly the oposite. He screws up while speaking. He seems real to me. Not as confidence-inspiring as other presidents, but he does what he's supposed to do: lead his country. And he really hasn't done too bad, I don't think. You can't say the War in Iraq was a mistake, because we havn't been around long enough to look back through history and determine that. You can't say 9/11 was his disaster, because honestly if anybody knows it, nobody is telling. You can't say the Katrina screw-up was his fault. Things failed at the bottom, and the domino effect continued the action upward. And then Bush gets the blame.

I have to say, I have respect for anyone who takes controll of a country like the 'states. So diverse, so powerful. If anything happens badly they stare straight at the President. But when good things happen they're proud that "America Did It!"

And speaking of George Bush, I haven't seen his brother Stephen Harper recently. I don't have a TV, and the only newspaper I've read recently is The Muse. I like Harper. He doesn't seem as genuine as George Bush, but that's probably because he's a crazy introvert. I have incredible respect for the fact that he can stand with men like Bush, born into the elite, taking a few extra steps, and leading a country. Harper came from the middle class. He was like me. That's inspiring.

EDIT2: A Rex Murphy commentary on conspiracy theories. Related to the 9/11 stuff I mentioned at the beginning of the post.