An old sketch which I progressed a bit more. now back to work

I confess that lately I have read some bits and pieces about democracy and power, and perused some conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theory is really an amazing categorisation - to be associated with it has the same sort of consequences as association with marijuana or homosexuality. This practise of research, done by people of various levels of qualification driven by scepticism, forms a bridge between sanity and insanity.

Well I don't think so, but that's just what it means. Like "heretic" combined with "pot-head".

After reading somethings, I currently hold 2 opinions where I previously had none:

1. Our democracy in the West seems to consist of nothing more than taking a vote, every few years.

Why do we have to vote people in? Why not simply have a body which does the doing, and the public can vote in the ideas instead. Did the British public really decide to star a war in Iraq? Of course not, nobody thinks that. I should think most would prefer to have of those military billions spent our side of the border. People have accepted that the government went to war for their own reasons, and are basically okay with it. Remember, the definition of a democracy is that the people control the government.

What's more, nowadays, everyone knows the military deployment was started on false pretences. The people in power said, "Okay you caught us, we made up some BS about what's in Saddam's arsenal so you would let us go and rough up his country". And since then people have been killed. Again, the public is pretty okay with it - willing even to give the lives of their family to the cause. Disquieting.

I hear on the news that we must finish the job in Iraq, we cannot leave yet - but I have no idea what the job is, only that it's not about getting rid of Saddam Hussein, or about dismantling his dangerous weapons, or about bringing Bin Laden to trial for his attack on new york, or about Al qaeda. Consider that these have variously been offered as justification for sending the military into another country and killing things, but have turned out not to be the justification. There has been no justification so far, for the death of many people. Not accidental death - if you're sending the people that comprise the army somewhere, you acknowledge danger, risk, possibility of death, but deem the cause worthy enough to send them in anyway.

I think our level of democracy is pretty pathetic, and would at least expect all national decision-making to be televised, interactive and inclusive. Surely with all the revolutionary advancements in communications over the years we are now far better equipped to achieve the democratic ideal of a country run by the population, and surely we would have made some advances in this direction? In a healthy democratic country I would expect to be making decisions about how things are run about once or twice a month maybe. Some decision making I wouldn't take part in, some I would, some the car mechanic would, others the shop owner would.

At the moment, once in a blue moon, you have are given the minimal choice to make between two guys, both marketing the hell out of themselves, pretending to be likeable, who will say anthing to get your vote, and who will do whatever they deem necessary when they are in power. Why are they even there? Why do we take for granted that a country necessarily requires such an alarming concentration of power?

Here's a relevant article: Times Online. My angle is that the government has a will separate to that of the public - which it acts upon. Public opinion is an obstacle, but it essentially can be bought or manufactured via PR companies.

2. Now for the real conspiracy theory stuff, September the 11th.

If you take the well-known footage of the world trade centre attack at face value, you will see that the buildings are undergoing something that resembles a controlled demolished.

You've probably seen a controlled demolition on TV before. It's appears to be the same occurrence.

Officially, fuel from the crashed planes burnt the building to the ground. The fire weakened the steel structure and 110 stories of steel and concrete fell to the ground at the speed of gravity in 15 seconds.

You've probably seen a burning building on TV before. I will say it definitely does not look like a burning building.

Here is another building. It wasn't hit by aeroplanes - burning debris from the twin towers started two small fires on one side of the building, which caused it to collapse. The occupants have been evacuated due to the fire, so it's easy to watch. What do you think? Normal burning building (official) or normal demolition (crackpot conspiracy theory): Video.

It is alleged that, if the official story was true, it would be the only occasion in history that a burning steel framed building just collapsed into the ground and vaporised.

I am interested in the ideas anyway - legitimately or not I don't know. If you've been piqued by the matter, Google has plenty to offer your curiosity. There are theories about London bombings too, but I haven't read it properly.

I'm not in a position to draw conclusions. However I will say one thing: In reading the theories, I have seen the raw material that serves as the starting point. Forget the theory, the facts alone are enough to raise serious questions.

Well put together conspiracy documentary on the WTC: Link.