Political Talks Archive

1st page | 2nd page | 3rd page | 4th page | 5th page | 6th page | 7th page | 8th page | 9th page | 10th page | 11th page | 12th page | 13th page | 14th page | 15th page | 16th page | 17th page | 18th page | 19th page | 20th page | 21th page | 22th page | 23th page | 24th page | 25th page





Subject:
Re: !! Architects and Engineers expose cover-up and request new 9-11

investigation !!

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:06:17 -0400

Organization: Cornell University

Lines: 687

Sender: hhh3(at)cornell.invalid

















jcon wrote:

> On Mar 27, 3:03 pm, Henry <9...(at)insidejob.gov> wrote:

>> http://911research.wtc7.net



> Note "donate" button in upper right corner



>> http://www.911truth.org



> Note "support" link in *two* locations near the top,

> just so you don`t miss them.



>> http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html



> The "store" link at the top promotes 911 truth

> related items - like freeze dried spaghetti (huh?)



> Nice to see they`ve got their priorities straight.



Nice to see that neither you nor anyone else has

been able to refute even one claim by any of the

hundreds of highly qualified experts who have volunteered

their time and risked monetary and career retribution

- even death threats - from radical freedom hating

extremists and kooks. Their honesty, courage, integrity,

dedication, hard work and long hours are motivated only

by their devotion to truth, freedom, justice, and

humanity.

OTOH, The liars, thieves, torturers, mass murderers,

war criminals and terrorists behind the 9-11 attacks

are motivated by greed, hate, and power. Ever wonder

who benefits from the 700 MILLION U.S. taxpayer dollars

wasted each *DAY* in Iraq?



http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21



"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And

there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to

take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons

who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of

warfare or morality."

-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.

http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm



http://www.commondreams.org/

http://thirdworldtraveler.com/



"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things

that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.



"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,

or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is

not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable

to the American public."

-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)



Don`t let bu$h do to the United States what his very close

friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...





http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2006/070906insidejob.htm



A 28-year CIA career man and a former skeptic of alternative 9/11

explanations has gone further than ever before in voicing his

convictions that the attacks bore the hallmarks of an inside job and

the three buildings in the WTC complex were brought down by controlled

demolition.



Bill Christison is a former senior official of the CIA. He was a

National Intelligence Officer and the Director of the CIA`s Office of

Regional and Political Analysis before his retirement in 1979. Since

then he has written numerous articles on U.S. foreign policies.



In Christison`s recent article, Stop Belittling the Theories About

September 11, he afforded credibility to the notion that "significant

parts" of the official 9/11 story were false and after careful

research he concluded that the twin towers and building 7, "were most

probably destroyed by controlled demolition charges placed in the

buildings."







http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/11/overwhelming-majority-of-credible.html



MILITARY LEADERS



Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan

(Col. Ronald D. Ray) said that the official story of 9/11 is "the dog

that doesn`t hunt" (bio)



Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" space defense program in both

Republican and Democratic administrations, who was a senior air force

colonel who flew 101 combat missions (Col. Robert Bowman) stated that

9/11 was an inside job. He also said:



"If our government had merely [done] nothing, and I say that as an

old interceptor pilot?I know the drill, I know what it takes, I know how

long it takes, I know what the procedures are, I know what they were,

and I know what they?ve changed them to?if our government had merely

done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of

9/11, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead

Americans would still be alive. [T]hat is treason!"



U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director, decorated with the

Purple Heart, the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal (Capt. Daniel

Davis) stated:



"there is no way that an aircraft . . . would not be intercepted

when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders,

or stop communication with Air Traffic Control ... Attempts to obscure

facts by calling them a `conspiracy Theory` does not change the truth.

It seems, `Something is rotten in the State.` "



President of the U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board, who also

served as Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer and as a member of the

Pentagon`s Quadrennial Defense Review, and who was awarded Distinguished

Flying Crosses for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service

Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals (Lt. Col. Jeff Latas) is a

member of a group which doubts the government`s version of 9/11



U.S. General, Commanding General of U.S. European Command and Supreme

Allied Commander Europe, decorated with the Bronze Star, Silver Star,

and Purple Heart (General Wesley Clark) said "We`ve never finished the

investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused

the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to

me. I`ve seen that for a long time."



Air Force Colonel and key Pentagon official (Lt. Colonel Karen

Kwiatkowski) finds various aspects of 9/11 suspicious. She also said:

(at page 26):



"I have been told by reporters that they will not report their own

insights or contrary evaluations of the official 9/11 story, because to

question the government story about 9/11 is to question the very

foundations of our entire modern belief system regarding our government,

our country, and our way of life. [However], questioning the official

story is also simply and fundamentally American."



Lieutenant colonel, 24-year Air Force career, Vice Chancellor for

Student Affairs at the Defense Language Institute (Lt. Colonel Steve

Butler) said "Of course Bush knew about the impending attacks on

America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed

this war on terrorism."



Two-Star general (Major General Albert Stubbelbine) questions the attack

on the Pentagon



U.S. Air Force fighter pilot, former instructor at the USAF Fighter

Weapons School and NATO?s Tactical Leadership Program, with a 20-year

Air Force career (Lt. Colonel Guy S. Razer) said the following:



"I am 100% convinced that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were

planned, organized, and committed by treasonous perpetrators that have

infiltrated the highest levels of our government ....



Those of us in the military took an oath to "support and defend the

Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and

domestic". Just because we have retired does not make that oath invalid,

so it is not just our responsibility, it is our duty to expose the real

perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it

is, how long it takes, or how much we have to suffer to do it.



We owe it to those who have gone before us who executed that same

oath, and who are doing the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan right

now. Those of us who joined the military and faithfully executed orders

that were given us had to trust our leaders. The violation and abuse of

that trust is not only heinous, but ultimately the most accurate

definition of treason!"



U.S. Marine Corps lieutenant colonel, a fighter pilot with over 300

combat missions flown and a 21-year Marine Corps career (Lt. Colonel

Shelton F. Lankford) believes that 9/11 was an inside job, and said:



"This isn`t about party, it isn`t about Bush Bashing. It`s about

our country, our constitution, and our future. ...



Your countrymen have been murdered and the more you delve into it

the more it looks as though they were murdered by our government, who

used it as an excuse to murder other people thousands of miles away.



If you ridicule others who have sincere doubts and who know factual

information that directly contradicts the official report and who want

explanations from those who hold the keys to our government, and have

motive, means, and opportunity to pull off a 9/11, but you are too lazy

or fearful, or ... to check into the facts yourself, what does that make

you? ....



Are you afraid that you will learn the truth and you can`t handle

it? ..."



U.S. Navy `Top Gun` pilot (Commander Ralph Kolstad) who questions the

official account of 9/11 and is calling for a new investigation, says

"When one starts using his own mind, and not what one was told, there is

very little to believe in the official story".



The Group Director on matters of national security in the U.S.

Government Accountability Office said that President Bush did not

respond to unprecedented warnings of the 9/11 disaster and conducted a

massive cover-up instead of accepting responsibility



Additionally, numerous military leaders from allied governments have

questioned 9/11, such as:



Canadian Minister of Defense, the top military leader of Canada (Paul

Hellyer)



Assistant German Defense Minister (Andreas Von Bulow)



Commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy (Anatoli Kornukov)



Chief of staff of the Russian armed forces (General Leonid Ivashov)



INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS



Former military analyst and famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg recently

said that the case of a certain 9/11 whistleblower is "far more

explosive than the Pentagon Papers". He also said that the government is

ordering the media to cover up her allegations about 9/11. And he said

that some of the claims concerning government involvement in 9/11 are

credible, that "very serious questions have been raised about what they

[U.S. government officials] knew beforehand and how much involvement

there might have been", that engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or

psychologically beyond the scope of the current administration, and that

there`s enough evidence to justify a new, "hard-hitting" investigation

into 9/11 with subpoenas and testimony taken under oath.



A 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and



personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan

and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the

Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials

(Raymond McGovern) said ?I think at simplest terms, there?s a cover-up.

The 9/11 Report is a joke?, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was

an inside job.



A 29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and

former Director of the CIA`s Office of Regional and Political Analysis

(William Bill Christison) said ?I now think there is persuasive evidence

that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration

and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. ... All three [buildings

that were destroyed in the World Trade Center] were most probably

destroyed by controlled demolition charges placed in the buildings

before 9/11." (and see this).



20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer, the

second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, and former

CIA clandestine services case officer (David Steele) stated that "9/11

was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war", and it was

probably an inside job (see Customer Review dated October 7, 2006).



A decorated 20-year CIA veteran, who Pulitzer-Prize winning

investigative reporter Seymour Hersh called "perhaps the best

on-the-ground field officer in the Middle East?, and whose astounding

career formed the script for the Academy Award winning motion picture

Syriana (Robert Baer) said that"the evidence points at" 9/11 having had

aspects of being an inside job .



The Division Chief of the CIA?s Office of Soviet Affairs, who served as

Senior Analyst from 1966 - 1990. He also served as Professor of

International Security at the National War College from 1986 - 2004

(Melvin Goodman) said "The final [9/11 Commission] report is ultimately

a coverup."



Professor of History and International Relations, University of

Maryland. Former Executive Assistant to the Director of the National

Security Agency. Former military attaché in China. 21-year career in

U.S. Army Intelligence (Major John M. Newman, PhD, U.S. Army)

questions the government`s version of the events of 9/11.



The head of all U.S. intelligence, the Director of National Intelligence

(Mike McConnel) said "9/11 should have and could have been prevented"



9/11 COMMISSIONERS



The 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials lied to the

Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false

statements, yet didn`t bother to tell the American people (free

subscription required).



Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton)

now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political

considerations.



9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I don`t believe for a minute

we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that

people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate

should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first

draft" of history.



9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to

suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our

version . . . We didn`t have access . . . ."



9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with

the false statements we were getting"



Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission,

stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now

compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story

because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House

wants to cover it up".



The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) who led the 9/11

staff`s inquiry, said "I was shocked at how different the truth was from

the way it was described .... The tapes told a radically different story

from what had been told to us and the public for two years.... This is

not spin. This is not true."

SCIENTISTS



A prominent physicist with 33 years of service for the Naval Research

Laboratory in Washington, DC (Dr. David L. Griscom) said that the

official theory for why the Twin Towers and world trade center building

7 collapsed "does not match the available facts" and supports the theory

that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition



A world-renowned scientist, recipient of the National Medal of Science,

America`s highest honor for scientific achievement (Dr. Lynn Margulis) said:



"I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the

glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and

a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken."



The former head of the Fire Science Division of the government agency

which claims that the World Trade Centers collapsed due to fire (the

National Institute of Standards and Technology), who is a Ph.D. in

mechanical engineering, with more than 25 years experience in fire

research and its applications, and is a professor in the Department of

Fire Protection Engineering at the University of Maryland (Dr. James

Quintiere), called for an independent review of the World Trade Center

Twin Tower collapse investigation. "I wish that there would be a peer

review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think

all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would

really like to see someone else take a look at what they`ve done; both

structurally and from a fire point of view. ... I think the official

conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable."



Former Director for Research, Director for Aeronautical Projects, and

Flight Research Program Manager for NASA`s Dryden Flight Research

Center, who holds masters degrees in both physics and engineering (Dwain

A. Deets) says:



"The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled

horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind

explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Centers

on 9/11].``



A prominent physicist, former U.S. professor of physics from a top

university, and a former principal investigator for the U.S. Department

of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects (Dr. Steven E. Jones)

stated that the world trade centers were brought down by controlled

demolition



A U.S. physics professor who teaches at several universities (Dr.

Crockett Grabbe) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down

by controlled demolition



An expert on demolition (Bent Lund) said that the trade centers were

brought down with explosives (in Danish)

A Dutch demolition expert (Danny Jowenko) stated that WTC 7 was imploded



A safety engineer and accident analyst for the Finnish National Safety

Technology Authority (Dr. Heikki Kurttila) stated regarding WTC 7 that

"The great speed of the collapse and the low value of the resistance

factor strongly suggest controlled demolition."



A 13-year professor of metallurgical engineering at a U.S. university,

with a PhD in materials engineering, a former Congressional Office of

Technology Assessment Senior Staff Member (Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn), is

calling for a new investigation of 9/11



A Danish professor of chemistry (Dr. Niels Harrit) said, in a mainstream

Danish newspaper, "WTC7 collapsed exactly like a house of cards. If the

fires or damage in one corner had played a decisive role, the building

would have fallen in that direction. You don`t have to be a woodcutter

to grasp this" (translated)



A former guidance systems engineer for Polaris and Trident missiles and

professor emeritus, mathematics and computer science at a university

concluded (Dr. Bruce R. Henry) that the Twin Towers "were brought down

by planted explosives."



A professor of mathematics (Gary Welz) said "The official explanation

that I`ve heard doesn`t make sense because it doesn`t explain why I

heard and felt an explosion before the South Tower fell and why the

concrete was pulverized"

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS



A prominent engineer with 55 years experience, in charge of the design

of hundreds of major building projects including high rise offices,

former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former

member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council

(Marx Ayres) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by

controlled demolition (see also this)



Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss

university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on

9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition

(translation here)

Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas (and see this)



Dennis Kollar, structural engineer, of West Bend, Wisconsin



Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (retired)



Haluk Akol, Structural Engineer and architect (ret.)



William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont

Technical College



An architect, member of the American Institute of Architects, who has

been a practicing architect for 20 years and has been responsible for

the production of construction documents for numerous steel-framed and

fire-protected buildings for uses in many different areas, including

education, civic, rapid transit and industrial use (Richard Gage)

disputes the claim that fire and airplane damage brought down the World

Trade Centers and believes there is strong evidence of controlled

demolition (many other architects who question 9/11 are listed here)



LEGAL SCHOLARS



Former Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special Investigations, U.S.

Department of Justice under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan;

former U.S. Army Intelligence officer, and currently a widely-sought

media commentator on terrorism and intelligence services (John Loftus)

questions the government`s version of 9/11.



Former Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation; former

Professor of Aviation, Dept. of Aerospace Engineering and Aviation and

Professor of Public Policy, Ohio State University (Mary Schiavo)

questions the government`s version of 9/11.



Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, Champaign;

a leading practitioner and advocate of international law; responsible

for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the

American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons

Convention; served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International

(1988-1992), and represented Bosnia- Herzegovina at the World Court,

with a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in Political

Science, both from Harvard University (Dr. Francis Boyle) questions the

government`s version of 9/11.



Former prosecutor in the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of the

U.S. Justice Department and a key member of Attorney General Bobby

Kennedy?s anti-corruption task force; former assistant U.S. Attorney for

the Northern District of Illinois (J. Terrence "Terry" Brunner)

questions the government`s version of 9/11.



Professor Emeritus, International Law, Professor of Politics and

International Affairs, Princeton University; in 2001 served on the

three-person UN Commission on Human Rights for the Palestine

Territories, and previously, on the Independent International Commission

on Kosovo (Richard Falk) questions the government`s version of 9/11.



Bessie Dutton Murray Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus and

Director, Center for Human Rights, University of Iowa; Fellow, World

Academy of Art and Science. Honorary Editor, Board of Editors, American

Journal of International Law (Burns H. Weston) questions the

government`s version of 9/11.



Former president of the National Lawyers Guild (C. Peter Erlinder), who

signed a petition calling for a real investigation into 9/11. And see

petition.



Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Troy University; associate

General Counsel, National Association of Federal Agents; Retired Agent

in Charge, Internal Affairs, U.S. Customs, responsible for the internal

integrity and security for areas encompassing nine states and two

foreign locations; former Federal Sky Marshall; 27-year U.S. Customs

career (Mark Conrad) questions the government`s version of 9/11.



Professor of Law, University of Freiburg; former Minister of Justice of

West Germany (Horst Ehmke) questions the government`s version of 9/11.



Director of Academic Programs, Institute for Policy and Economic

Development, University of Texas, El Paso, specializing in executive

branch secrecy policy, governmental abuse, and law and bureaucracy;

former U.S. Army Signals Intelligence officer; author of several books

on law and political theory (Dr. William G. Weaver) questions the

government`s version of 9/11.



Famed trial attorney (Gerry Spence) questions the government`s version

of 9/11.



Former Instructor of Criminal Trial Practice, Boalt Hall School of Law,

University of California at Berkeley 11-year teaching career. Retired

Chief Assistant Public Defender, Contra Costa County, California 31-year

career (William Veale) said:



"When you grow up in the United States, there are some bedrock

principles that require concerted effort to discard. One is the

simplest: that our leaders are good and decent people whose efforts may

occasionally warrant criticism but never because of malice or

venality... But one grows up. ... And with the lawyer`s training comes

the reliance on evidence and the facts that persuade... After a lot of

reading, thought, study, and commiseration, I have come to the

conclusion that the attacks of 9/11 were, in their essence, an inside

job perpetrated at the highest levels of the U S government."



MEMBERS OF CONGRESS



Current U.S. Senator (Patrick Leahy) states "The two questions that the

congress will not ask . . . is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush`s

watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did

they allow it to happen?"



Current Republican Congressman (Ron Paul) states that "we see the [9/11]

investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and

no real explanation of what went on"



Current Democratic Congressman (Dennis Kucinich) hints that we aren`t

being told the truth about 9/11



Former Democratic Senator (Mike Gravel) states that he supports a new

9/11 investigation and that we don`t know the truth about 9/11



Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed

Services Committee, and who served six years as the Chairman of the

Military Research and Development Subcommittee (Curt Weldon) has shown

that the U.S. tracked hijackers before 9/11, is open to hearing

information about explosives in the Twin Towers, and is open to the

possibility that 9/11 was an inside job



FAMILY MEMBERS AND HEROIC FIRST RESPONDERS



A common criticism of those who question 9/11 is that they are being

"disrespectful to the victims and their families".



However, half of the victim`s families believe that 9/11 was an inside

job (according to the head of the largest 9/11 family group, Bill Doyle)

(and listen to this interview). Many family and friends of victims not

only support the search for 9/11 truth, but they demand it (please

ignore the partisan tone). See also this interview.



Indeed, it has now become so clear that the 9/11 Commission was a

whitewash that the same 9/11 widows who called for the creation of the

9/11 Commission are now demanding a NEW investigation (see also this video).



And dying heroes, soon-to-be victims themselves, the first responders

who worked tirelessly to save lives on and after 9/11, say that

controlled demolition brought down the Twin Towers and that a real

investigation is necessary.



PSYCHIATRISTS AND PSYCHOLOGISTS



Finally, those who attack people who question the government`s version

of 9/11 as "crazy" may wish to review the list of mental health

professionals who have concluded that the official version of 9/11 is false:



Psychiatrist Carol S. Wolman, MD



Psychiatrist E. Martin Schotz



Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke

University Medical Center, as well as Radiology, at Duke University

Medical Center D. Lawrence Burk, Jr., MD



Board of Governors Distinguished Service Professor of Psychology and

Associate Dean of the Graduate School at Ruters University Barry R.

Komisaruk



Professor of Psychology at University of New Hampshire William Woodward



Professor of Psychology at University of Essex Philip Cozzolino



Professor of Psychology at Goddard College Catherine Lowther



Professor Emeritus of Psychology at California Institute of Integral

Studies Ralph Metzner



Professor of Psychology at Rhodes University Mike Earl-Taylor



Retired Professor of Psychology at Oxford University Graham Harris



Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Nebraska and

licensed Psychologist Ronald Feintech



Ph.D. Clinical Neuropsychologist Richard Welser



THOUSANDS OF OTHERS



The roster above is only a sample. There are too many Ph.D. scientists

and engineers, architects, military and intelligence officials,

politicians, legal scholars and other highly-credible people who

question 9/11 -- literally thousands -- to list in one place. Here are a

few additional people to consider:



The former director of the FBI (Louis Freeh) says there was a cover up

by the 9/11 Commission



Former air traffic controller, who knows the flight corridor which the

two planes which hit the Twin Towers flew "like the back of my hand" and

who handled two actual hijackings (Robin Hordon) says that 9/11 could

not have occurred as the government says, and that planes can be tracked

on radar even when their transponders are turned off (also, listen to

this interview)



Perhaps "the premiere collapse expert in the country", who 9/11

Commissioner Timothy Roemer referred to as a "very, very respected

expert on building collapse", the head of the New York Fire Department`s

Special Operations Command and the most highly decorated firefighter in

its NYFD history, who had previously "commanded rescue operations at

many difficult and complex disasters, including the Oklahoma City

Bombing, the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, and many natural disasters

worldwide" thought that the collapse of the South Tower was caused by

bombs, because the collapse of the building was too even to have been

caused by anything else (pages 5-6).



Former Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford,

and Carter (Morton Goulder), former former Deputy Director to the White

House Task Force on Terrorism (Edward L. Peck), and former US Department

of State Foreign Service Officer (J. Michael Springmann), as well as a

who`s who of liberals and independents) jointly call for a new

investigation into 9/11



Former FBI agent (Robert Wright) says "The FBI, rather than trying to

prevent a terrorist attack, was merely gathering intelligence so they

would know who to arrest when a terrorist attack occurred."



Former FBI translator, who the Department of Justice`s Inspector General

and several senators have called extremely credible (free subscription

required) (Sibel Edmonds), said "If they were to do real investigations

we would see several significant high level criminal prosecutions in

this country. And that is something that they are not going to let out.

And, believe me; they will do everything to cover this up". She also is

leaning towards the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job.







http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/05/structural-engineers-question-collapse.html



Structural Engineers Question Collapse of the World Trade Center

One of the arguments that government apologists have used in trying to

prop up the official story of why the World Trade Centers came down on

9/11 is that no structural engineers have questioned the government`s

version of events. However, that is now changing.



The following structural engineers have now publicly challenged the

government`s account of the destruction of the Trade Centers on 9/11:



Hugo Bachmann and Jörg Schneider, both emeritus professors in

structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (translation

here)



Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (retired)



Joseph M. Phelps, MS, PE. Structural Dynamicist (ret.), Charter Member,

Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil

Engineers



Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas



William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont

Technical College



When considered along with the other prominent scientists who question

9/11, it becomes impossible for any thinking person to accept at face

value the government`s version of the destruction of the World Trade

Center.



More experts who who have used science and hard evidence to prove

demolition:



http://journalof911studies.com/



Still more engineers and experts who explain why the Bush regime`s

magic fire theory is physically impossible.



http://ae911truth.org/



Another one:



http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/TwinTowers.shtml



And quite a few more:



http://911proof.com/10.html



More yet:



http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html



And a couple hundred more:



http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html















Next Topic

SUBJECT: Re: !! Architects and Engineers expose cover-up and request new 9-11
GO >>>

From: Henry
Subject: Re: !! Architects and Engineers expose cover-up and request new 9-11
investigation !!
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:07:20 -0400
Organization: Cornell University
Lines: 143
Sender: hhh3(at)cornell.invalid








Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:



http://911blogger.com/node/14549

> Flaming bunch of paranoid buffoons too lazy to check
> their facts.

Speaking of being too lazy to check your "facts", do
you still stand by your claim that, "Absolutely nobody
in the structural engineering community seems to find
the collapse difficult to believe"? There are over 300
members of http://www.ae911truth.org alone. Some of your
kook lies and rants are very silly, blatant and easily
exposed. Welcome back - it`s always good to have another
Bush/Cheney parroting conspiracy kook reveal its "knowledge"
of the "facts"...
I noticed that you were unable to refute any of the
facts, research or evidence cited by the over 300
experts who have joined Architects and Engineers for

9-11 Truth http://www.ae911truth.org
If there`s one thing consistent with Bush parroting
magic fire/Super Arab cartoon conspiracy kooks it`s
their inability to address the facts, defend their
impossible fairy tale, or cite any qualified references
to support their childish fantasies.


http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/05/structural-engineers-question-collapse.html

Structural Engineers Question Collapse of the World Trade Center
One of the arguments that government apologists have used in trying to
prop up the official story of why the World Trade Centers came down on
9/11 is that no structural engineers have questioned the government`s
version of events. However, that is now changing.

The following structural engineers have now publicly challenged the
government`s account of the destruction of the Trade Centers on 9/11:

Hugo Bachmann and Jörg Schneider, both emeritus professors in
structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (translation
here)

Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (retired)

Joseph M. Phelps, MS, PE. Structural Dynamicist (ret.), Charter Member,
Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil
Engineers

Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas

William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont
Technical College

When considered along with the other prominent scientists who question
9/11, it becomes impossible for any thinking person to accept at face
value the government`s version of the destruction of the World Trade
Center.

More experts who who have used science and hard evidence to prove
demolition:

http://journalof911studies.com/

Still more engineers and experts who explain why the Bush regime`s
magic fire theory is physically impossible.

http://ae911truth.org/

Another one:

http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/TwinTowers.shtml

And quite a few more:

http://911proof.com/10.html

More yet:

http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html

And a couple hundred more:

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html





--

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.911truth.org
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html


Here`s what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html

On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm

Ever wonder who benefits from the 700 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21

"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

Don`t let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...


Next Topic

SUBJECT: Re: !! Architects and Engineers expose cover-up and request new 9-11
GO >>>

From: Henry
Subject: Re: !! Architects and Engineers expose cover-up and request new 9-11
investigation !!
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 09:36:23 -0400
Organization: Cornell University
Lines: 78
Sender: hhh3(at)cornell.invalid








Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:

> When somebody makes a really moronoic assertion
> about experts agreeing with them it`s worth maybe
> one post to explain to them that they`ve just said
> something really stupid.

Speaking of exactly that, do you still stand by
your claim that "Absolutely nobody in the structural
engineering community seems to find the collapse difficult
to believe"? Here are a few hundred experts who say
it`s impossible. Your lies are very silly blatant, and
very easily exposed.
Can you cite even *one* expert who can explain how fires
could have caused the massive steel frames of WTC7 or the
towers do suddenly disintegrate and drop at free fall
speed? Just *one*? Yet?


http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/05/structural-engineers-question-collapse.html

Structural Engineers Question Collapse of the World Trade Center
One of the arguments that government apologists have used in trying to
prop up the official story of why the World Trade Centers came down on
9/11 is that no structural engineers have questioned the government`s
version of events. However, that is now changing.

The following structural engineers have now publicly challenged the
government`s account of the destruction of the Trade Centers on 9/11:

Hugo Bachmann and Jörg Schneider, both emeritus professors in
structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (translation
here)

Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (retired)

Joseph M. Phelps, MS, PE. Structural Dynamicist (ret.), Charter Member,
Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil
Engineers

Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas

William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont
Technical College

When considered along with the other prominent scientists who question
9/11, it becomes impossible for any thinking person to accept at face
value the government`s version of the destruction of the World Trade
Center.

More experts who who have used science and hard evidence to prove
demolition:

http://journalof911studies.com/

Still more engineers and experts who explain why the Bush regime`s
magic fire theory is physically impossible.

http://ae911truth.org/

Another one:

http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/TwinTowers.shtml

And quite a few more:

http://911proof.com/10.html

More yet:

http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html

And a couple hundred more:

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html




Next Topic

SUBJECT: Re: !! Architects and Engineers expose cover-up and request new 9-11
GO >>>

From: THe Older Clown
Subject: Re: !! Architects and Engineers expose cover-up and request new 9-11
investigation !!
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 09:47:19 -0400
Organization: Cornell University
Lines: 335
Sender: hhh3(at)cornell.invalid








The Older Clown wrote:

> toilet cleaner


We`re not interested in what you do for a "living", you
demented, uesless, thick headed, old clown. This thread is
about 9-11 and the hundreds of highly qualified experts who
have proved that the Bush regime`s magic fire/super Arab
cartoon conspiracy theory is physically impossible. Do try
to keep up.



http://911blogger.com/node/14549

I`d like to thank the Older Clown for not only helping
to keep this great thread alive, but also for so clearly
demonstrating the severely challenged "intellect" of a
typical Bush parroting magic fire cartoon conspiracy kook.
Couldn`t have done it much better myself.

One way to identify an ignorant, helpless, and confused
Bush parroting cartoon conspiracy kook, is by its tendency
to spew childish lies, drivel, or =simply= obsess over
its betters when it`s challenged to think or address the
evidence. At the low end of this group of clowns are those
who spew their childlike idiocy and lies while hiding behind
their killfiles. The older clown and Petie "I`m not psychotic
at all" Roehling operates at that level. Pitiful, but at least
slightly amusing.
Now, back to the facts and evidence:

The only explanation for an array of interconnected
steel box columns measuring over four feet by two
feet with five inch thick walls suddenly disintegrating
and falling thought itself following the path of most
resistance - after it had been stripped of its load -
is controlled demolition. That`s also the only explanation
to can account for the molten metal observed in the rubble.
If you`ve got another theory, structural engineers and
other experts all over the globe would love to hear it.
So would I....

Core remnant disintegration:

http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/New_Spire/
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/spire/The%20Strange%20Collapse%20of%20the%20Spire.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDVap83AEmc

Core photos and facts:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1cons1.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html


Here are some photos of WTC4, which was much closer to the towers
than WTC7, and was completely gutted by severe fires and partially
crushed by heavy impacts.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc4des1.html

This photo of WTC4 really demonstrates the incredible strength of
steel framed buildings.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/bjh/14.jpg

Here are some photos of WTC5 & 6 after the tower demolitions.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzpo1.html


WTC7 was a tall narrow 47 story steel framed skyscraper.
It was not hit by a plane.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture1.jpg

This illustration shows the location of the various WTC buildings
as well as the range of debris impact.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/collateral.html

Here are photos of WTC7`s "inferno".

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc7fire1.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc7.html

Here is a video of WTC7`s picture perfect controlled demolition.

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg

Here are more videos of WTC7`s demolition.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html

We`re still waiting for followers of the "official" conspiracy
theory to provide us with a logical explanation other than
controlled demolition for the fact that the buildings closest to
the towers remained standing, while WTC7`s massive hurricane
resistant steel frame suddenly disintegrated and dropped at virtual
free fall speed and perfect symmetry. Limited, isolated fires can
not possibly cause such a failure. In fact, no steel framed building
has ever collapsed due to fire. Not one. Ever. Controlled demolition
is the only possible cause of WTC7`s free fall speed and symmetric
drop. Even Bush`s FEMA was forced to admit the following:

"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building
to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel
on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis
has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research,
investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."

More expert analysis on the demolition of WTC7 can be found here:

http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html

This is what happens to steel framed buildings exposed to raging
infernos for hours on end.

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html

As you can see, these steel framed structures suffered gradual
deformation, but nothing even remotely close to a total symmetric
and free fall speed collapse - and those fires were far hotter
and of much longer duration than the small, isolated fires in
WTC7.


Twin Towers:
The massive reserve strength designed into the steel frames of
the towers could not possibly have been overcome by the force
of gravity alone. The fact that it was exceeded to such an
extreme degree that the undamaged steel frame offered no
measurable resistance, proves conclusively that the lower
structures were destroyed before being impacted by the upper
structures.

From:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060327100957690

"The Twin Towers and Why They Fell
It would help to begin with an accurate description of the WTC towers
in terms of quality of design and construction. In July of 1971, the
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award
judging the buildings to be "the engineering project that demonstrates
the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest
contribution to engineering progress and mankind."3 Others noted that
"the World Trade Center towers would have an inherent capacity to
resist unforeseen calamities." This capacity stemmed from the use of
special high-strength steels. In particular, the perimeter columns
were designed with tremendous reserve strength whereby "live loads on
these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.

More on the incredible strength of the towers can be found here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

"There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even
greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings.
According to the calculations of engineers who worked on the Towers`
design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well
as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and
the building would still be strong enough to withstand a
100-mile-per-hour wind. 3"

The massive steel frames of the towers were far too strong to
collapse only under their own weight. That`s been proved through
physics, and that`s why no other steel framed buildings have ever
collapsed that way unless they were demolished. See Gordon Ross`
research paper on momentum transfer here:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf

As common sense would dictate, even if all the perimeter and
core columns near the top of the tower were somehow destroyed
simultaneously so that the top 20 stories or so dropped onto the
remaining undamaged frame, after some bending and compression,
the collapse would have stopped, or the upper block would have
fallen off to the side. Gordon Ross proves that with physics.

The official conspiracy requires us to believe that falling
directly =through= the massive undamaged steel frames, including
the 47 interconnected central core columns:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

provided little more resistance than air. This is proved by
the fact that debris falling outside the towers hit the ground
about the same time as the debris falling through the towers.
Making the government`s conspiracy theory even more implausible,
is the fact that the steel at the top of the towers was over
ten times lighter and thinner than the undamaged steel in the
lower section. Look at the massive core column cross section in
the bottom photo.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

The official conspiracy theory says that crushing 47 of those
columns, all interconnected with even more steel, =and= destroying
all the perimeter columns, =and= "pancaking" all the floors, and
stairways, produced about the same kinetic friction as falling
though air. That, of course, is not physically possible.

Observe the rotating and disintegrating block on the South
Tower.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp4.html

Notice that the corners are curved, as the block`s internal
destruction is already taking place. If it had not been destroyed
through demolition, it would have continued to rotate and fall off
the building as an intact block. Also, notice that the block is
tilting towards the corner where it was impacted. The opposite
corner was undamaged by impact or fire, as proved by photo
evidence.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp1.html

As the top section of that tower is rotating, the high strength,
fire resistant perimeter columns on one side of the building are
being compressed, and on the opposite side, where the building
was not damaged by fire or impact, the weight above them is greatly
reduced.
Why do you think the undamaged steel perimeter frame with reduced
weight above it is exploding and collapsing at the same rate as
the fire and impact damaged side that has most of the weight of the
rotating block on it? Seems more than a little odd, doesn`t it? Here`s
some information on the perimeter columns.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html

Now watch this video:

http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/wtc-2_explodes.avi

That`s not gradual bending and buckling of an over heated steel
frame. Those are huge explosions not unlike those we see in a
controlled demolition. Keep in mind that this is at the onset of
the collapse, so nothing is falling quickly at this point.

More good information on 9-11 can be found here:

http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html



http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/Sudden_collapse_initiation_impossible.pdf

9/11 and the Twin Towers:
Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible
By Frank Legge, PhD (Chemistry) and Tony Szamboti, Mechanical Engineer
23 Dec 2007

Numerous arguments have been presented that the Twin
Towers at the World Trade Centre could not have
collapsed in the observed manner due to the cause
asserted in the NIST report, namely damage from plane
impact and fire. 1 The bases of these arguments include
the rapidity and symmetry of collapse, 2 the adequacy of
the steel supports, 3 and the finding of incendiary
residues in the dust. 4 It has also been argued that the
initiating event in the official explanation, the sudden
collapse of one storey, 1 could not have occurred because
the steel was not hot enough. 5 This argument is based on
data set out in the NIST report itself. There is another
argument, as will be described here, that is based simply
on the behaviour of hot steel under load. No calculations
are involved and no knowledge of the temperature of the
steel is required.
In the official explanation the collapse occurs in two
stages. In the first stage one storey, damaged by plane
impact and fire, suddenly collapses. This allows the
section of the tower above to fall freely down and hit the
lower section. In the second stage the energy of this
impact is said to be sufficient to cause the top of the
lower section to disintegrate. This material adds to the
falling mass and further impacts cause disintegration to
continue in a rapid sequence all the way to the ground.6
Let us consider the situation just prior to the first stage.
There are some damaged columns, some fire, and a claimed
ack of fireproofing. Given the substantial safety factor
in the building design, the number of damaged columns is far
too few to put the buildings at risk without the fire. This
is elaborated on in the NIST report and elsewhere.1, 7 We
will ignore the fact that according to the physical evidence
data within the body of the NIST report, and contrary to its
conclusion, the steel did not get very hot. We will assume
the strongest case for the official theory: the fire was
uniform over the whole area and very hot. The fire has to
heat the steel, which takes time. Eventually the steel gets
hot enough that it cannot carry the load in the initiating
storey. It starts to sag. At this point there has been no
disruption of the columns, other than that caused by the
plane impact, hence most of the columns are still attached
to the floors above and below and are continuous, passing up
and down into other storeys, giving the columns rigidity. The
length of the columns between attachments is too short for
buckling to occur. 8 Failure must therefore be by compression.
As the steel sags two things will happen: the columns, as
they shorten, will become wider, which is obvious; and the
inherent strength of the steel will increase, which is not
obvious. It is well established however that the yield
strength of steel increases as the degree of distortion
increases. This tendency increases with rising temperature
and is pronounced at the temperatures required for collapse,
as can be seen in the graph below. 9 For both of these
reasons the initial sag cannot be catastrophic but will be
very slow and the rate will depend on the rate of heat input.
A rising temperature will be needed to offset both the
significant increase in yield strength and the slight
increase in cross-section area, if collapse is to progress.
It is clear therefore that the upper section should only
have moved down slowly and only continued to do so if
additional heat was supplied. A slow, protracted, and
sagging collapse was not observed however with either tower.
As observed in videos of both tower collapses, the upper
sections suddenly start to fall and disintegrate.10 In the
case of the south tower, initially a lean of the upper
section developed but within the first second this turned
into a rapid collapse with upper section disintegration,
just as was observed with the north tower. It appears
therefore that the official concept of a free fall collapse
of the upper portion through the initiation storey, due to
heat effects from fire, is a fantasy. If the temperature
did become high enough for collapse to occur it could not
have happened in the observed manner. 9 In particular it
could not have been sudden and thus could not have produced
the velocity, and hence the momentum and kinetic energy,
upon which the official story depends for the second stage
of collapse. In contrast, all observations are in accord with
the use of explosives in a timed sequence.
The case that the NIST report must be corrected is confirmed.
If this report is not corrected the suspicion will remain
that its purpose was not so much to inform as to deceive.




Title: Obama repeats campaign lies at HRC dinner, crowd goes wild.
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 17:46:42 +0000
Author: garychapelhill

hrcnoLast night Obama went to the HRC gala fundraiser (minimum $225 a plate) and gave the same speech he has been giving to the gays since 2007.

He said he is committed to ending DADT, even though he has done nothing to indicate that this lie is anything but that, a lie.  He has been prodded by legislators to halt discharges while they can end the discriminatory ban through legislation.  But he refuses to do so.  Not because of fear of losing political capital (overwhelming majorities of all stripes oppose the ban), but because he is a bigot.

Obama went on to praise himself for being willing to sign a bill passed recently by the house that includes adding gays to hate crimes statutes.  What he didn’t mention is that the amendment was shamefully tacked on to a defense policy bill with bipartisan support that has nothing to do with hate crimes.   Even so, I’ll believe its passage when I see it.  It has gotten this far on several occasions only to get lost in conference with the Senate.  Regardless, Obama has done nothing to speed this important legislation along.  He wants us to celebrate the fact that he simply won’t be an obstruction.

He also took credit for lifting the travel ban for people with HIV/AIDS, even though the ban is still in force.  Furthermore,  it was repealed by law and signed by George W. Bush before he left office.  For some reason, the Obama administration just hasn’t gotten around to actually implementing it. I’m guessing that he’s saving it up for the next time he comes to our community hat in hand.

Then there is the struggle for marriage equality that is heating up in states like Maine.  Once again people will be given the opportunity to legally oppress their fellow citizens  by repealing gay marriage there.  Gaybots were hoping Obama would at least voice his encouragement and moral support in the matter.  They also thought he would congratulate them for our likely success in legalizing gay marriage in the nation’s capital.  He did neither.  And I don’t know why it should come as any surprise.  Obama has admitted that he is a religious bigot whose beliefs keep him from supporting gay marriage.  He doesn’t think “God is in the mix”.  I guess it’s just their audacity of hope…

So why did Obama go to the HRC?  Well, for one it was to reward the HRC and gay media for a job well done.  They’ve been working overtime to advocate on his behalf to members of their own community.  They continue to provide him cover for his bigotry in return for  the power and privilege that access to the White House delivers.  But make no mistake, they’re not doing it for anybody but themselves.  They could care less about the real LBGT grassroots community that continues to languish in second class citizen status.  They are motivated by nothing more than pure selfishness.  Obama also came for the money.  He may feel superior to us, but that certainly doesn’t preclude him from taking our money whenever he can get his hands on it.  And finally, what better way to upstage the March for Equality than to give a speech to the HRC the night before.  Your average Joe or Jane Sixpack (who may be favorable to gay rights, but grossly uninformed on Obama’s betrayal of the LBGT community) is likely to think to themselves, “What a bunch of whiny, petty ingrates”.  And that’s exactly what Obama wants.

All in all I’d say the night was a win-win situation for everyone involved, except the vast majority of us gay and lesbians at home who are denied our basic civil rights yet again.


More on: http://garychapelhill.wordpress.com/2009/10/11/obama-repeats-campaign-lies-at-hrc-dinner-crowd-goes-wild/







Car modding | Automotive | Engine | Ferrari





Powered by Lv501.com