speaking of stalkers............................ anyways. The Canadian Gun Registry is a direct result of the Quebec near succession in 2000. Pierre held them off admirably for awhile.
1995? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Quebec_referendum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Quebec_referendum http://www.canadianembassy.org/government/guncontrol-en.asp
There's quite a difference between saying : And I don't know if it's the thread starter's title but it's kinda misleading. Anyway, we've all come across those numerous articles which give some spin to poll results and even to the question initially asked.
Guys I have had time in the industry and believe me what I say..............the only people in Canada who do outbound polls with any statistical relevance use telemarketers. Outbound telemarketers are split into 3 groups. 1/ university and HS students working from 6-10. 2/ new immigrants. 3/ homemakers and people doing 2nd jobs. the economy is doing well so number 3 usually peters out to nothing. The students are idealists and the way the Canadian government does immigration, new immigrants to Canada are usually fron the Indian subcontinent and Asia. When a poll is done and it says "do you prefer coke to pepsi" they call out and at the end of the night they may have 7 responses for 45 calls. We then call known good numbers, friends and relatives. Well the poll we have here is one of those, a statistical anomaly. The students called other students at the end of the night and the new immigrants called other new immigrants and we are left with a skewered poll that is basically asking a bunch of liberal 17-19 year olds and new immigrants to comment on US foreign policy.
yeah, that thing that flew over Arlington was actually a missile painted to look like a plane problem with the loony conspiracy theories is they neglect the damning evidence of such things as thousands of eyewitnesses and a small mountain of evidence...but feel free to engage in the idiocy, bigman....
why did building 7 collapse why did the towers fall in on themselves where is the footage of a 747 hitting the pentagon, that frame with the plane is conveniantly removed, and how did a barely trained akmed fly 2 feet off the ground into that building anbd make the planes wings dissapear on contact?
It is not a complete mistery. It was due to the heat damaging the metal structure of those buildings. http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/ *** And a truck came to dump thousands of airliner debris on the lawn. You gotta say, it was a well organised plot. Anyway, there's a passenger list, it musn't be difficult to check with their relatives. That would be a little bit difficult to hide all of them.
Yes, a very well organized plot that, despite involving thousands of people, has been kept a secret for five years. This from a government who, as of late, couldn't even throw a surprise birthday party without someone leaking it to the press.
That and also the fact that the towers main support was built into the outside of the buildings. Besides look at the point of impact on the second strike. It hit right near the corner, and lower then the first plane. As for WTC 7, I find it peculiar that it collapsed the way it did. Straight down. Now the fact is that the building was burning for hours unchecked, also it took severe damage from the collapse of the Twin Towers.
Maybe they don't have to worry about defense when they lack the shotty foreign policy the US has? And maybe we'll be on our knees for their oil sands in 40 years, or at least the next middle eastern country we invade. And maybe we should be thanking them as our substitutes in the fight against Al Qaeda while we're busy in Iraq. http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/09/20/jones-afghan060920.html
Care to explain what Foreign Policy provoked 9-11? Why were we attacked? Bin Laden hated us for establishing a base in Saudi Arabia. Of course, this base was established because the Saudi government was begging us to come defend them from Sadam and evict him from Kuwait. We conducted a just and world-wide approved war then. Radical muslims then attacked us for being on their soil. I guess are policy at of helping other nations lead them to hate us. I guess it is faulty. At least now they hate us for a good reason.
Wow! I thought the real conspiracy was right-wing blogs printing that people actually believed this stuff. Guess I was wrong. I can accept that other people disagree with my opinions on the US, its foriegn policy, and the war on terror. This is the US. We can disagree and still be Americans. But saying planes did not hit the buildings....that is pure idiocy.
I actually completely agree with this section of your post. We left an unfinished job there and I believe we will pay a severe price for this in the future.
but npo building in history has EVER collapsed due to fire, i remember that ************ old tower block in spain that burnt for days and diddnt collapse plenty of physicists on each side argue diff things just an independant inquiry would be nice, id be happy to say im wrong if its proved to me properly
From what I have read on the web, WTC7 not only burned for hours, but took severe structural damage from the collapse of the 2 towers as well. So it wasn't just the fire that took that building down.
Did someone pour tens of thousands of gallons of jet fuel onto the fire in Spain to increase the temperature & reduce the strength of the steel beams? Feel free to fund your own investigation. I'll just say you're wrong, for no charge, & suggest you read some meaningful analysis, not internet drivel, if that's not too hard.
what meaningful analysis is this? meaningness internet drivel that isnt funded by fox? surely the best unbiased source of news ever why are high positioned pysics professors questioning it u really think jet fuel ablaze would melt the sheer framework of the building?
How about the National Institute of Standards and Technology. I personally think their 3 year long investigation is sufficent. Their Findings: "Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower." http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm Thousands of people were watching the first tower burn after the first plane hit it. These people watch as a second plane hit the second tower. They saw it. They say it happend. Study over. How about you prove to me how all of these people are wrong? How many explosive devices would the bad government guys have to had placed in both buildings to cause them to collapse? It takes four thousand to collapse a building 1/4 the size of ONE of the towers. How long would it have taken? And nobody found out? And if they did, they were bribed? How much money would you have to be paid to continue to cover-up the fact that 3,000 Americans were killed. Not only that, but everyone who figured out what was going on took the bribe. No one came forward. Pure idiocy. People saw what happend. The watched with their own two eyes.
Also, when those planes hit, the sheer kinetic energy of the impact was enough to violently shake and move the entire building.