TOO MANY SUSPICIOUS ANOMALIES ABOUT 9/11

TOO MANY SUSPICIOUS ANOMALIES ABOUT 9/11 (THIRD REVISION,6/24/09)
By Robert Halfhill

There are many unanswered questions about the official conspiracy theory that an
Islamic terrorist organization, headquartered in Afghanistan, sent 19 men with box
cutters to infiltrate the United states to hijack four planes and wreak appalling
destruction by crashing them into buildings.
The first question about the official story is that since the World Trade Center had
already been attacked by terrorists once before in 1993, and it remained the one place
where a successful terrorist act would make the greatest impression, why was there no
attempt to guard the WTC or prepare defenses? I remember thinking in 1993 that the
terrorists had to only be successful once while we had to be successful every time.
Second, the U.S. government received at least eleven warnings from foreign
intelligence services about Al Qaida's plan for a big attack on the United States before
they struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Again, why were no counter measures
prepared?
Third, the Minneapolis FBI tried to obtain approval from the FISA Court to look at
Zacarias Moussaoui's computer after he was arrested for being in the country illegally.
But as Minneapolis FBI agent Coleen Rowley testified to a Senate hearing, the National
FBI Office even rewrote the Minneapolis Office's request to FISA so it failed to be
approved.
Fourth, the Phoenix FBI Office had noticed the large number of Middle Eastern men
enrolling for flight training. Someone from the Phoenix Office pointed out to the
National Office that a plane could be used as a weapon.
Fifth, there is the mind boggling incompetence of both the civilian air traffic
control systems and the military North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD). The
civilian air traffic control system's radar can detect a plane going off course
immediately, as soon as it deviates from its flight plan. Boston Air Traffic Control
detected American Airlines Flight 11 going off course as soon as it deviated from its
flight plan at 8:14 A.M. on September 11, 2001. But it did not notify several other air
traffic control centers until 8:25 A.M., eleven minutes later. And it did not notify
NORAD until 8:40 A.M. The two F-15 Eagles that were eventually scrambled from Otis Air
National Guard Base in Falmouth, Massachusetts, which was 153 miles northwest of the
World Trade Center and which had a top speed of over 1875 miles per hour, could have
reached the WTC in seven minutes with more than enough time to intercept AA 11 if the
F-15's had been in the air soon after 8:14 A.M or even 8:25 A.M. However, 11 hit the
North Tower of the World Trade Center at 8:46 A.M. If NORAD had been informed and had
the F-15's in the air soon after AA 11 was detected going off course at 8:14 A.M., there
would have been far more than enough time to intercept it.
At 8:41:32 A.M., there was a suspicious radio transmission from United Airlines Flight
175 which sounded something like "everyone stay in your seats." Boston Air
Traffic Control informed NORAD that UA 175 had been hijacked at 8:43 and there would have
been more than enough time for the two F-15"s, which were air borne by 8:52 A.M. to
intercept UA 175 before it hit the South Tower at 9:02:54 A.M. That is there would have
been more than enough time if the two F-15's had not been flying at only 23.9% of their
top speed!
AA 77 hit the Pentagon at 9:37 A.M. At their top speed, the two F-15's could have
intercepted AA 77 twenty-four minutes before it hit the Pentagon.
At 9:55 A.M., United Airlines Flight 93 went of course near Cleveland and began a 135
degree turn over Ohio and Northern Kentucky. It crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania
at 10:06:05 A.M.
If the police officer pursuing fleeing criminals drove her or his squad car at only
23.9 percent of the car's top speed, the most probable conclusion would be that the
officer intended to let the criminals escape. Human stupidity can account for a lot and
even mount to civil or even criminal negligence. But when there is a series of one
incredible, mind boggling stupidity after another, there has to be a malign intent to
bring about the opposite of what officials are supposedly trying to achieve, in this case
to ensure that the hijackers succeed. But there's more!
Six, why did the government officials ship most of the steel from the World Trade
Center out of the country, even though it is a felony to remove evidence from a crime
scene. In the October 6, 2005 issue of NEW CIVIL ENGINEER, Dave Parker writes in
"WTC Investigators Resist Call For Collapse Visualization" that nearly all the
WTC steel was shipped out to Asia and melted down for recycling.
Seven, Why did the Bush Administration fight against having public hearings on 9/11
for nearly 18 months although public hearings on Pearl Harbor were held within weeks
after the event? 9/11 hearings were not held until the relatives of those killed at the
World Trade Center and the Pentagon exerted enough lobbying pressure to force the
hearings to be held, and even then, only one-tenth of the questions they submitted were
answered. And eight, why did the government not even allow the visitors to the site of
the World Trade Center to even take photographs of the ruins and why did the government
confiscate photos and videos of the attack on the Pentagon? Could both seven and eight
be part of an attempt to hide evidence of government complicity?
In his editorial, "Selling out the Investigation," in the January, 2002 FIRE
ENGINEERING, William Manning wrote that "Fire Engineering has good reason to believe
that the 'official investigation' blessed by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency)
... is a half baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces
whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure."
Manning also criticized the investigation in another editorial, "The Twisted Brush
of 9/11 Politics" in the September, 2004 FIRE ENGINEERING.
Robert Berhinig, P.E. states in "Protecting the Foundation of Fire-Safety,"
in the July/August, 2002 IAEI (International Association of Electrical Inspectors, the
definitive magazine for electrical inspectors) that "the FEMA report states further
that until the attack on the WTC, no protected steel framed buildings had been known to
collapse as a result of a fire." Yet on 9/11, after steel framed buildings had been
around for over a hundred years, since the late 1800's, three protected steel framed
buildings, WTC 1, 2, and 7, had collapsed, supposedly because of fire.
Three of the experts who testified before the House Committee On Science May 1, 2002
Hearing On the Collapse of the World Trade Center said the there had NEVER BEFORE been a
collapse of a protected, steel framed building because of fire. Dr. W. Gene Corley,
American Society of Civil Engineers and Chair of the Building Performance Assesment Team
reviewing the WTC disaster said on page 76 of the hearing record that "prior to
these events, no protected steel frame structure, the most common form of large
commercial construction in the United States, has ever experienced a fire-induced
collapse." Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology said on page 103, "The Twin Towers and WTC 7 are the only
known cases of total structural collapse where fire played a significant role." So
we have here an admission by a spokesperson for NIST that allegedly accounted for the
collapses that fire had never before brought about such a collapse of a protected, steel
framed building. And Dr. Jonathan Barnett, Professor of Fire Safety Studies at the
Worcester Polytechnic Institute said on page 133, "Up until 9/11, we never had a
collapse of a protected steel building." On page 163 he said, "This was the
first time we had the collapse of a protected steel structure." Dr. Bement said on
page 169, "... there have been instances where buildings have had major fires that
have burned to completion without the buildings collapsing." And on page 172, Dr.
Barnett said of the partial collapse of WTC 5, "But building 5 was a normal building
and it had a fire and it had a major collapse. This has never happened before."
The August 25, 2007 issue of SCIENCE NEWS had an article about the
collapse of the World Trade Center on pages 122 - 24 entitled FIRE INSIDE: STRUCTURAL
DESIGN WITH FIRE SAFETY IN MIND by Carolyn Berry. The paragraph in the first column on
page 124 is particularly significant in evaluating the NIST computer simulation of the
collapse of WTC 7:"The NIST simulation, like all models of building failures to
date, couldn't follow the 9/11 collapses through to the end. No computer is yet powerful
enough to follow the chaotic sequence of events that ensues when components break apart
and a building falls, but this is where research is headed."
In other words, the much vaunted NIST simulation which purported to dispose of the
arguments of we conspiracy theorists didn't actually demonstrate how fire caused the
buildings to collapse; they just waved their hands when the computing power currently
available had took them as far as it could and said: "This is far enough; the
buildings collapsed somewhere about here." Of course we all know we have accounted
for how the buildings probably collapsed once we have gone this far. It HAS to be the
probable explanation because the only alternative explanation is those NUTTY, WACKO
CONSPIRACY THEORIES! We know a priori that that CAN'T be true!
I might as well add the statement in the same SCIENCE NEWS article of Allen Hay, chief
fire safety officer of the New York City Fire Department, about WTC 7. "We just
expected it to burn out -- we didn't expect it to fall down." "It's the only
building I know in New York City to ever collapse (strictly) from fire."
But I want to return to the repeated Congressional testimony that a protected, steel
framed building have NEVER BEFORE collapsed because of fire. And never afterwards
either. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, we have a purported fact about the behavior of
protected, steel framed buildings in fire that dare not be true again!
There are many other suspicious anomalies about 9/11. Only a few are, nine, all three
World Trade Center buildings collapsed at nearly free fall speed,i.e. almost as fast as
it would take an object dropped from one of the WTC building's roof to reach the ground.
The resistance of the massive steel columns and concrete would have slowed the fall
considerably if it had been a matter of the floors pancaking and falling on the floors
below. And ten, fire would have unlikely to have been equally intense at every point in
the buildings so that every point failed simultaneously and they fell onto the surface
area they stood on, i.e. on to their footprint. Eleventh, although fire had never caused
the girders in protected steel framed buildings to become ductile or loose sufficient
strength to result in a building collapse, pools of molten steel remained at the bottom
of the wreckage for 100 days.
Although molten metal at ground zero was a constant feature of media accounts in the
days following 9/11, there have since been widespread denials of the presence of molten
metal in the ruins of the World Trade Center. Or if the presence of molten metal is
admitted, it is claimed that the metal was molten aluminium from the planes, although the
press accounts at the time specifically said it was molten steel and pictures of the WTC
ruins show the metal as bright red, characteristic of molten steel, whereas molten
aluminium has a silvery color. Some have even proclaimed that the TV pictures of ground
zero were taken in different wave lengths of light to explain away why the molten
aluminium looked like molten steel. However since the television pictures we normally see
all show objects as being the same color we normally see them, it is difficult to
understand why the video photos of the World Trade Center alone were photographed at a
different wavelength than the wave length normally used by TV cameras. This seems
particularly difficult since all the other objects we see in photos of ground zero have
the same colors we normally see such objects as having. The extent to which ad hoc
hypotheses are resorted to to explain away pictures of molten steel is mind boggling!
And when what was widely reported in the press and accepted as true is denied a few
months later by seemingly intelligent people as well as by self professed experts, it
reminds us of George Orwell's 1984 in which once the official news accounts changed,
people would forget the previous news accounts!
So it is instructive to consider an official report of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology in which they cite numerous first hand reports of molten steel
in the ruins of the World Trade Center while resorting to irrelevancy after irrelevancy
and ad hominem after ad hominem in an attempt to discredit these first hand reports. The
NIST report is in ordinary type while my interpolated comments are in capital letters for
ease of distinguishing fron the text of the NIST report.
Molten Metal
Workers Reported Molten Metal in Ground Zero Rubble Reports of molten metal in the
foundations of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers are frequently noted in
literature of proponents of theories that the buildings were destroyed through controlled
demolition. The most widely publicized report is one by American Free Press reporter
Christopher Bollyn citing principals of two of the companies contracted to clean up
Ground Zero. The president of Tully Construction of Flushing, NY, said he saw pools of
"literally molten steel" at Ground Zero. Bollyn also cites Mark Loizeaux,
president of Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, MD, as having seen molten steel
in the bottoms of elevator shafts "three, four, and five weeks" after the
attack.
Although reports of molten steel are consistent with the persistent heat at Ground
Zero in the months following the attack, we find the American Free Press report suspect
for two reasons. First, Tully Construction was one of four companies awarded contracts by
New York City's Department of Design and Construction to dispose of the rubble at Ground
Zero, and CDI was subcontracted by Tully and was instrumental in devising a plan to
recycle the steel. The involvement of Steve Tully and Mark Loizeaux in the destruction of
the evidence of the unprecedented collapses would seem to disqualify them as objective
reporters of evidence.
RH - WHEN THE FEMA REPORT SAYS STEVE TULLY AND MARK LOIZEAUX WERE INVOLVED "IN
THE DESTRUCTION OF THE EVIDENCE," IT IGNORES THE FACT THAT IT SAID IN THE
IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING SENTENCE THAT TULLY WAS HIRED BY THE CITY OF NEW YORK TO DISPOSE OF
THE EVIDENCE. (TULLY HIRED LOIZEAUX AS A SUBCONTRACTOR.) ALTHOUGH NEW YORK HIRING THEM
TO DISPOSE OF THE EVIDENCE CASTS SUSPICION ON THE NEW YORK CITY GOVERNMENT, AND THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR ALLOWING NEW YORK TO DISPOSE OF THE EVIDENCE, HOW COULD THIS BE
USED TO DISCREDIT TULLY AND LOIZEAUX WHEN THE VERY GOVERNMENT OF WHICH FEMA IS A PART
ALLOWED A SUBORDINATE GOVERNMENT, THAT OF NEW YORK CITY, TO HIRE THEM TO DISPOSE OF THE
EVIDENCE?
SECONDLY, WE HAVE AN ADMISSION BY FEMA THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS DISPOSED OF AND THAT
THERE WAS SOMETHING WRONG IN DISPOSING THE EVIDENCE.
THIRD, THE ONLY WAY THEY HAVE OF DISCREDITING TULLY AND LOIZEAUX'S FIRST HAND REPORT
IS NOT TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE THAT THEIR REPORT WAS MISTAKEN BUT TO RESORT TO AN AD HOMINEM.
EVEN IF THEY HAD DISPOSED OF THE EVIDENCE WITHOUT BEING HIRED BY NEW YORK, THAT IS NO
REASON TO ASSUME THEY WERE NOT TELLING THE TRUTH IN THEIR FIRST HAND REPORT.
INSTEAD OF TRYING TO DECIDE WHETHER PREVIOUS WRONG BEHAVIOR INFLUENCES THE TRUTH OF
FACTUAL TESTIMONY, OR WHETHER ALLEGATIONS THAT THEY MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE, FALSIFIED THEIR
FACTUAL TESTIMONY AND THUS INVALIDATED THEIR ARGUMENTS, WHY NOT JUST CUT TO THE CHASE AND

CONCENTRATE ON THE CREDIBILITY OF THE FACTUAL TESTIMONY OR THE VALIDITY OF THE ARGUMENTS?
Interestingly, CDI was also hired to bury the rubble of the Murrah Building in the
wake of the Oklahoma City Bombing. That Loizeaux stood trial on charges of illegal
campaign contributions casts further doubt on his credibility. 1
R.H. - WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE OF LOIZEAUX'S COMPANY, CDI, BEING HIRED TO DISPOSE OF THE
RUBBLE OF THE MURRAH BUILDING IN OKLAHOMA CITY TO WHETHER HIS TESTIMONY ABOUT THE WORLD
TRADE CENTER WAS TRUTHFUL?
POINTING OUT LOIZEAUX'S STANDING TRIAL ON CHARGES OF ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS IS
ANOTHER AD HOMINEM. THE FEMA REPORT DOESN'T EVEN SAY WHETHER HE WAS CONVICTED, BUT EVEN
IF HE HAD BEEN, IT WOULD NOT PROVE HE WAS NOT BEING TRUTHFUL IN HIS TESTIMONY ABOUT
MOLTEN STEEL AT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER.
FEMA'S STOOPING TO THESE SHODDY AD HOMINEM TACTICS, A FALLACY THAT WAS DISCUSSED IN
THE ELEMENTARY LOGIC COURSE I TOOK AS A COLLEGE SOPHOMORE, RAISES ADDITIONAL SUSPICIONS
ABOUT FEMA'S REPORT. WHAT ARE THEY TRYING TO HIDE IF THEY HAVE TO RESORT TO SUCH
DESPICABLE AD HOMINEMS?
A second reason to doubt this molten steel report is the fact that it has been used by
Bollyn and others to support the dubious theory that the collapses were caused by bombs
in the Towers' basements.
R.H. - YOU DO NOT ASSUME THE THEORY IS WRONG, I.E.. "DUBIOUS," AND THEN
ARGUE THAT THE FACTUAL REPORTS ARE THEREFORE FALSE. YOU FIRST HAVE TO PRODUCE
INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE THAT THE FACTUAL REPORTS ARE FALSE. THE TRUTH OF A THEORY IS
DETERMINED BY THE TRUTH OF THE FACTUAL STATEMENTS CITED AS EVIDENCE FOR IT; YOU CAN'T USE
THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE THEORY IS TRUE OR FALSE TO DEDUCE THE TRUTH OR FALSITY OF THE
STATEMENTS OF FACT CITED AS PART OF THE EVIDENCE FOR IT.
Corroborating Reports
There are reports of molten steel beyond those cited by American Free Press. Most of
these have come to light as a result of a research paper by Professor Steven E Jones,
which has stimulated interest in the subject of molten steel at Ground Zero. *
A report by Waste Age describes New York Sanitation Department workers moving
"everything from molten steel beams to human remains." 2
A report on the Government Computer News website quotes Greg Fuchek, vice president of
sales for LinksPoint Inc. as stating: In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker
would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten
steel 3
A Messenger-Inquirer report recounts the experiences of Bronx firefighter
"Toolie" O'Toole, who stated that some of the beams lifted from deep within the
catacombs of Ground Zero by cranes were "dripping from the molten steel." 4
A transcription of an audio interview of Ground Zero chaplain Herb Trimpe contains the
following passage: When I was there, of course, the remnants of the towers were still
standing. It looked like an enormous junkyard. A scrap metal yard, very similar to that.
Except this was still burning. There was still fire. On the cold days, even in January,
there was a noticeable difference between the temperature in the middle of the site than
there was when you walked two blocks over on Broadway. You could actually feel the heat.
It took me a long time to realize it and I found myself actually one day wanting to
get back. Why? Because I felt more comfortable. I realized it was actually warmer on
site. The fires burned, up to 2,000 degrees, underground for quite awhile before they
actually got down to those areas and they cooled off.
I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped,
beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat. So this was the kind of heat
that was going on when those airplanes hit the upper floors. It was just demolishing
heat.
A report in the Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine about recovery work in late
October quotes Alison Geyh, Ph.D., as stating: Fires are still actively burning and the
smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten
steel. 6
A publication by the National Environmental Health Association quotes Ron Burger, a
public health advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, who arrived at Ground Zero on the evening of September
12th. Burger stated: Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of
ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that
disaster. 7
An article in The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah
describing an speaking appearance by Leslie Robertson (structural engineer responsible
for the design of the World Trade Center) contains this passage: As of 21 days after the
attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running. 8
A member of the New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing was at Ground Zero from
September 22 to October 6. He kept a journal on which an article containing the following
passage is based. Smoke constantly poured from the peaks. One fireman told us that there
was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool
the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots.
9
The book American Ground, which contains detailed descriptions of conditions at Ground
Zero, contains this passage: ... or, in the early days, the streams of molten metal that
leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole. 10
A review of of the documentary Collateral Damage in the New York Post describes
firemen at Ground Zero recalling "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten
steel." 11
This construction photograph shows the foundation of South Tower in the foreground,
with the foundation of the North Tower in the left background. The foundations were seven
stories deep.
R.H. - HERE WE HAVE 11 INDEPENDENT REPORTS CITED BY FEMA OF MOLTEN STEEL IN THE RUINS
OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, EVEN IF THE AD HOMINEMS FEMA RESORTED TO IN AN ATTEMPT TO
DISCREDIT TULLY AND LOIZEAUX'S TESTIMONY WERE VALID ARGUMENTS, THIS WOULD DO NOTHING TO
DISCREDIT THESE ELEVEN INDEPENDENT TESTIMONIES ABOUT MOLTEN STEEL AT GROUND ZERO.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Most of the press reports compiled here were gathered by other researchers, including
Matthew Everett, the author of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and 9/11: A Scandal Beyond What Has
Been Seen Before; David Ray Griffin; and the author of posts such as this on
georgewashington.blogspot.com.
R.H. - AGAIN IT IS AN AD HOMINEM TO ASSUME THAT SINCE THESE FACTUAL REPORTS ARE CITED
BY PEOPLE THAT THE FEMA REPORT CLAIMS TO BE DISCREDIBLE, IT PROVES THE FACTUAL REPORTS
ARE NOT CREDIBLE, EVEN IF FEMA HAD PROVED THAT THE CITERS ARE DISCREDIBLE, WHICH IT HAS
NOT.
I HAVE PREVIOUSLY EXPLAINED WHY YOU CANNOT ASSUME A THEORY IS FALSE AND USE THAT
ASSUMED FALSITY TO ASSUME THE FACTUAL REPORTS CITED AS PART OF THE THEORY'S EVIDENCE ARE
FALSE AND THAT THE ARGUMENTS CITED TO SUPPORT THE THEORY ARE INVALID.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. Fire Power: It Took Three Lawyers to Stop the Destruction of CDI Inc., The Daily
Record, 10/7/00
2. D-Day: NY Sanitation Workers' Challenge of a Lifetime, WasteAge.com, 4/1/02 [cached]
3. Handheld app eased recovery tasks, GCN.com, 9/11/02 [cached]
4. Recovery worker reflects on months spent at Ground Zero, Messenger-Inquirer.com,
6/29/02 [cached]
5. The Chaplain's Tale, RecordOnline.com, [cached]
6. Mobilizing Public Health, Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine, [cached]
7. The scene at Ground Zero, NEHA.org, [cached]
8. WTC a Structural Success, SEAU News, , page 3
9. Ground Zero, 12/01 [cached]
10. American Ground, , page 32
11. Unflinching Look Among the Ruins, NYPost.com, 3/3/04

page last modified: 2006-12-28
END OF NIST REPORT

And twelve, although an ordinary building collapse would produce chunks of broken
concrete, the steel, concrete and asbestos in the three World Trade Center buildings was
mostly converted to a fine dust which flowed out from the WTC through the streets of
Manhattan in the manner of the pyroclastic flows produced from volcanoes. And thirteen,
although the buildings were not even observed to move at all when the planes crashed into
them, nearby geological observatories detected seismic tremblors as if there had been
massive explosions at ground level when the buildings collapsed. And while WTC 7 had not
even been struck by a plane, all the phenomena previously mentioned accompanied its
collapse also. And fourteen, while the Environmental Protection Agency said that the air
around the World Trade Center was safe to breathe after 9/11, we now know that our
government lied yet again because of all the deaths from asbestosis and other respiratory
diseases among both the humans and dogs who were involved in the WTC cleanup. And
fifteen, while it is standard procedure for the secret service to hustle the President
away from the scene immediately whenever there is a hint of danger, George Bush remained
in the Florida elementary school reading "The Pet Goat" for nearly half an
hour, even though there was supposedly no assurance that there would not be an attempt to
crash a plane into the school.
And although the Bush Administration attempted to ship all the steel from the World
Trade Center to China and Korea, some of the steel girders were saved by 9/11
investigators. And the massive amounts of metal in the dust which surged out from the
WTC collapse provided additional metal for investigators to study. Brigham Young
University Professor of Physics, Steven E. Jones obtained some of the metal containing
dust after he had published his first paper about 9/11 online in November, 2005.
Janette Mackinlay had returned to her apartment on the fourth floor of 113 Cedar Street,
which was about 100 meters, or 328 feet, away from the South Tower, about a week after
her apartment had been flooded with dust, to clean up. She had saved some of the dust in
a plastic bag and mailed some of it to Jones after he published his first paper online.
Later, he traveled to MacKinlay's new residence in California and obtained a second
sample of WTC dust in the presence of other scientists.
In his subsequent online paper, "Revisiting 9/11, 2001 -- Applying the Scientific

Method," Professor Jones reported that the dust contained clear traces of thermate.
Thermate is an explosive used to melt and cut steel in controlled building demolitions.
It is a well mixed powder of iron, aluminum and sulfur. The sulfur lowers the melting
point of iron, or steel, and cuts right through it. Sometimes other metallic powders are
mixed in to fine tune the characteristics of the explosives. Doctor Jones found all of
these substances in the dust.
And recently, Jones and others have found microscopic particles of unignited thermate
in the World Trade Center dust.
David Heller, who has degrees in physics and engineering, makes many of the same
points Dr. Jones made in Heller's article, "TAKING A CLOSE LOOK; HARD SCIENCE AND
THE COLLAPSE OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER," in the June 18, 2007 GARLIC AND GRASS.
After he states that the collapse of all three World Trade Center buildings was a
controlled demolition brought about by pre-planted thermate explosives, he states that it
would seem impossible for Al Qaida to preplant the explosives, especially since WTC 7
housed the offices of the FBI, CIA, and OEM(Office of Emergency Management). But he says
that recently he learned that President George Bush's brother, Marvin Bush, is a part
owner of the company that provides security for not only the World Trade Center
buildings but also both United and American Airlines, the two airlines whose planes were
hijacked on 9/11. He also pointed out that the owner of the World Trade Center, Larry
Silverstein, had received a $3.55 billion insurance settlement after 9/11 and was suing
for an additional $3.55 billion on the grounds that the airplane crashes into the Twin
Towers constituted two separate incidents.
However, regardless of Silverstein's motives, it is unlikely that he could have played
a major role in planting the explosives in the building containing the offices of the
FBI, CIA and OEM. Only the United States government could have carried that off and
Silverstein, at most, could have played no more than a subsidiary role.
The final step in a criminal investigation is asking who had the motive to do the
crime. Whose poll numbers shot up into the stratosphere after 9/11 and who gained the
popular support to enable the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, abolish habaeus corpus
and, at least, the de jure power to lock anyone up for life without a trial or even
telling them why they were being imprisoned? Only the neo cons and the Bush
Administration, although Bush may be only a front man and Dick Cheney the real power
behind the throne. It was the neo con Project for a New American Century who proposed
that the U.S. seize the lands where the world's dwindling supply of oil is located and
who were quoted in NEWSWEEK as saying that the American people may need a new Pearl
Harbor to wake them up.
But if enough people realize in time just how bad our government is, we can counter
them before it is too late.

http://halfhillviews.greatnow.com (SITE NOW BANNED ON AOL)
*Write AOL to complain, here: aolaccessibility@aol.comaolaccessibility@aol.com, or call
1-888-212-5537.

http://RedLavenderInsurgent.blogspot.com

TWO PARTY DUOPOLY

This article was originally a comment on an article by Cindy Sheehan on OpEdNews in which she discusses her "late life epiphany" that both the Republicans and Democrats are part of the same war party and discusses the Democrats recent vote for appropriations to fund the U.S. wars in Iraq, afghanistan, and Pakietan.

.
TWO PARTY DUOPOLY
By Robert Halfhill

It was predicted that the last presidential campaign was going to cost a billion dollars. Without spending hundreds of millions, a candidate cannot let the majority of voters know that he or she even exists. And the only way to get that kind of money is to go to those that have that kind of money. And the people who have that kind of money are not just contributing to political candidates as a hobby. They are unlikely to fund any candidate who won't legislate to promote their interests. Since both the Democrats and the Republicans are funded by the same wealthy interest groups, it is not surprising that there is so little difference between the two parties

Thus it was the majority of Democrats who voted for the Taft Hartley Act in 1947, meaning that the act would have passed even is all those big, bad Republicans had been magically removed from Congress. Taft Hartley outlawed secondary boycotts so, it there was a strike at a particular plant, the workers in other unions could no longer support the strike by refusing to make deliveries to that plant. The outlawing of secondary boycotts is a major reason for American labor's decline from representing over a third of the American workforce in the 1940's to its present anemic state of representing only a few percent of American workers.

Although the introduction of U.S. troops in Vietnam began under Eisenhower with several hundred American troops serving as "advisers" to the forces of the Diem regime, Kennedy, who many liberals considered so promising, increased U.S. forces to several thousand, which Johnson escalated to the point of having 500,000 troops in Vietnam. It was as if the ruling class assigned to the two parties the task of carrying out an imperialist invasion of Vietnam and the two parties handed off the task of escalating the invasion to each other through their successive administrations. It seemed that way, that it was as if, because it was.

Bill Clinton promised to end the ban on Gays and Lesbians in the military and admit the Haitian boat people as refugees into the United States. Instead, he gave us Don't Ask, Don"t Tell, which resulted in even more Gays and Lesbians being thrown out of the military. ACT UP had to picket Clinton's every public appearance for months before he let some of the Haitians who were dying of AIDS into the United States on medical parole. Clinton did keep one of his promises however; he ended wellfare as we know it. So we can all breathe a sigh of relief that Dole or Bush, Sr. didn't beat Clinton. If either of them had won the presidency, THEY WOULD HAVE ENDED WELLFARE AS WE KNOW IT!!!

Barack Obama is turning out to be as big a disappointment as Kennedy-Johnson, Carter, and Clinton. He has yet to end the ban on Gays and Lesbians in the military, legalize medicinal uses of marijuana and ramp back the war on drugs. The war on drugs was given to us by both the Democrats and Republicans and has led to two millions Americans being currently in prison, not to mention those who are on probation or parole. Enough Democrats may vote with the Republicans to keep publically funded health insurance from passing Congress, leaving us with the same failed health care system we currently have. And the Obama Administration just gor over a hundred million dollars through Congress for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

However, the ruling class in this country have quite cleverly arranged to have two ruling class parties, one, the Democrats, slightly -- only SLIGHTLY -- less evil than the Republicans. But this slight difference enables the advocates of voting for the Democrats as the lesser evil, even after you have pointed out all the evil we have received from the Democrats, to argue that things would be much worse under the Republicans. This fear of how much worse things would be under the Republicans, causes all the liberals who are desperately clinging to the Democrats with there lesser evil strategy, to hysterically attack you once you point out the flaws in their stategy, terrified of the doom they imagine befalling them if you cause enough people to abandon their lesser evil stategy and cause the sky to fall. And since both the Democrats and Republicans are financed by the ruling class, it is no accident that the organizations who advocate supporting one of these parties, even if only lesser evil support, have the larger email lists, etc.

It is time for us all to stop and reflect. The difference in evil between the Republicans and Democrats is no where near great enough to justify all the time, effort, and money liberals have expended on electing Democrats. Remember how the Kennedy Administration, which liberals compared with Camelot, ended in the disaster of Vietnam. Remember all the hopes liberal had for the Clinton Administration and how that turned out. Now Obama seems on the way to disappointing us again, and, if we invest the same hopes in whatever Democratic administration follows Obama, we will be likewise disappointed and no nearer to our goals. And we will continue to be disappointed by the Democrats until we stop letting the Democrats frighten us with the big, bad, Republican wolf if we don't vote for them, bite the bullet, and begin the hard work of building a viable third party alternative.

Robert Halfhill


by rhalfhill (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 326 comments [3 hidden, 0 flagged]) on Saturday, Jun 20, 2009 at 1:51:15 PM

http://halfhillviews.greatnow.com (SITE NOW BANNED ON AOL)
*Write AOL to complain, here: aolaccessibility@aol.com, or call 1-888-212-5537.

http://RedLavenderInsurgent.blogspot.com

THE FUTILITY OF SUPPORTING THE LESSER EVIL

This article started out as a comment about an article by Michael Collins on OpEdNews predicting the demise of the Republican Party. Since the comment ended up as an analysis of how the ruling class, or the class of those with money, maintain their control of this society, how they have kept the electorate bouncing back and forth between their two parties, the futility of supporting the Democrats as the lesser evil, and how the Green Party caved in to the pressure to support the lesser evil in 2004, I decided it deserves publication as a stand alone post.
Robert Halfhill

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GREATER AND LESSER EVIL TOO SLIGHT TO JUSTIFY ALL THE EFFORT EXPENDED ON ELECTING THE LESSER EVIL
BY ROBERT HALFHILL


What is so discouraging to so many of us is that the majority of the public shows no sign of being able to remember, when the Republicans have been so bad that they have swung in desperation and disgust to the Democrats, how just one or two presidential terms ago, the disappointing performance of the Democrats had caused the majority of them to swing to the Republicans.

Clinton had been so disappointing that many of us finally were willing to consider supporting a third party and vote for Green Party candidate Ralph Nader. At one point it looked like Nader would even receive 10% of the vote. The Democrats were able to cut that back to between 4 and 5% percent with their last minute barrage of hysterical predictions that we were going to "throw our vote away" and "elect Bush." After Bush was appointed by the Supreme Court, the Democrats deluged us with hysterical accusations that we "had got Bush elected." Most people seem to have forgotten that Bush had not received the majority of the popular vote and it turned out that he had not even won the majority of the electoral vote when the long predicted media recount of the ballots was released. The media distorted the results of their recount by headlining "Bush wins," but, on closer examination, it turned out that under every scenario in which the ballots have been recounted under uniform standards, Gore had won. How is this as an example of how ruling elites determine how the press distorts the news?

Five Neanderthal buffoons in the robes of Supreme Court Injustices ordering us to stop counting votes and appointing Bush was actually no different than five military generals conducting a coup and appointing Bush.

And since in Florida, the Republicans had outsourced the task of purging the voter rolls of felons to private companies, and the low bidding companies were naturally the ones who cut corners by only compiling lists of those who had been CHARGED with felonies, without checking further to see if they had also been CONVICTED, the Democratic Party apologists cannot even retreat to their backup charge that the Nader voters were only one of the reasons, though not the only reason, for Gore's defeat. Given how the Republicans systematically disenfranchised voters from groups likely to vote Democratic, the Democrats cannot even say Nader voters were a contributing factor to Gore's loss to Bush, since the record makes it clear that if the Republicans had needed more votes to win, they would have simply stolen them.

But since the press had convinced most people that Bush had won, the majority believed the hysterical charge that those of who voted for Nader had elected Bush. Even enough Greens had caved under the pressure by 2004 to cause the Green Party to reject Nader in favor of "safe states" candidate David Cobb. "Safe states" means you only make a serious attempt to campaign in states where the polls predict the Democrats are sure to win, a covert form of lesser evilism since you don't make a serious attempt to campaign in states where there is a danger the Democrats will lose to the Republicans.

But to return to my main theme, those who advocate voting for the Democrats as the lesser evil were able to convince most people that Nader supporters had "elected Bush." The electorate had become even more disgusted with Bush by 2004 and it had first seemed that the Democrats had won by a comfortable margin. But over the post midnight hours of the night, the press reported that the vote had swung back to Bush. It has been extensively documented by Robert Kennedy, Jr. and others how a surplus of voting machines in Ohio had been allocated to Republican leaning, predominantly white, suburban precincts, which left inner city, predominantly Black, Democratic leaning precincts with an acute shortage. The new electronic voting machines left no auditable paper trail of ballots, so no real recount could be conducted. The FREE PRESS later verified that the electronic vote count had been sent through a computer in Tennessee to alter the tally to produce a Republican win. Nevertheless the press managed to convince most people that Bush had won.

The explanation for Obama and the Democrats win in 2008 by contributors to OEN has been that the electorate had swung so markedly to the Democrats in the last month or so of the election that the Republicans did not steal enough votes and that the Democrats would have won by an even greater margin if it had not been for the Republican theft. I am not certain about this explanation since, if you are sending the election tally through a computer in the middle, you can alter the results by whatever amount you need to win in the final hours, or even seconds, before the final tally. A more plausible explanation to me is that whatever interest group that could influence the press to falsely report that Bush has won the majority of the electoral votes in 2000, and to falsely report despite all the evidence to the contrary that Bush had won in 2004, had decided that they simply didn't dare to pull off another election theft in 2008, given the mounting disgust with the Republicans.

And you can clearly find the evidence that there is a class that rules this society if you stop to consider that a candidate cannot even obtain enough media coverage to even let the majority of voters know that he or she even exists unless she or he has hundreds of millions of dollars to purchase media coverage. The only way you can raise that large an amount of money is to go to those that have that large an amount of money. And they are not likely to contribute to candidates who do not support the same policies that they support. They are not just contributing to political candidates as a hobby, In that sense there is a ruling class, although not in the sense of some secret group that meets at Bohemian Grove or Skull and Bones.

The result of all this history is that Obama and the Democrats now have the presidency and the majority of Congress and, afters nearly six months in power, they are disappointing us in all the ways that Michael Collins outlined. But this is not the first time the Democrats have disappointed us, nor is it the first time one of the two major parties have seemed on the verge of extinction. I remember that the Republicans seems headed for extinction after their and Nixon's disgrace in Watergate and the ensuing Democratic sweep of Congress. But after the disappointing performance of Jimmy Carter, it was as if Watergate had been erased from the minds of the majority of the electorate and, a scant six years after Watergate, the voters swung back to Reagan and the Republicans, who gave us the deregulation that contributed to what could still become the Second Great Depression. After another twelve years of Reagan and Bush, Sr., the electorate swung back to the Democrats and Clinton, who "ended welfare as we know it." What a short time ago would have been considered the ultimate reactionary measure by Democrats and liberals and a major step in dismantling the New Deal was given to us by a Democratic president.

And it was the majority of Democrats who voted for the Taft Hartley Act in the years immediately following World War II and, by outlawing secondary boycotts, took away one of labor's major gains from the New Deal. With secondary boycotts, not only could striking employees refuse to provide their labor to the struck enterprise but workers in other unions could refuse to make deliveries to the struck facility. It is primarily Taft Hartley that led to labors decline from representing over a third of the American work force in the later 1940's to its present anemic position of representing only a few percent of American workers. And the majority of Democrats voted for it. So it would still have passed even if all those big bad Republicans had been magically removed from Congress.

And as for Kennedy and Johnson, I still remember a Democratic Party activist in 1968 telling about how he had told a Goldwater supporter -- "You vote for Goldwater and in a few months, we'll be in Vietnam!" A few months later, he ran into the Goldwater supporter again who told him, "You know you were right. I did vote for Goldwater and we are in Vietnam!"

However, despite this long record of evil from the Democrats, it would be a mistake to say that there is NO difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. The ruling class has to keep the lesser evil LESSER in order to bait the trap enough to draw the majority of voters into supporting it. On some individual issues, the Democrats may even turn out to be the GREATER evil. But OVERALL, when all issues are considered, the Democrats have to be slightly the lesser evil for the trap to keep working at all.

But on the other hand, the mistake that advocates of continuing to support the Democrats as the lesser evil make when they hysterically predict how much worse things will be if we "throw away our vote" and let the greater evil Republicans win is that the difference in evil if not great enough to justify all the time, energy and money liberals spend on getting Democrats elected. Surely the disappointing record of the Democrats over the last 65 years since World War II should be enough to convince us that if we waste another six decades on electing Democrats, we will not be significantly further towards achieving a just society at the end of those decades. If we ever want to achieve anything significant, our only recourse is to ignore the slight improvements blandished by the lesser evils and the hysterical, overwrought predictions of how much worse things will be if we "throw away our vote" and elect the greater evil, bite the bullet, and devote the energy we have been wasting on getting Democrats elected to building a third party. Think of what could be achieved if we devoted all the time, energy, and money liberals have expended on electing Democrats to building a genuine, progressive alternative. It is hard to see how we could do worse than what has been gained from the Democrats.

What the examples of the Federalists and Whigs do prove however is that one of the major parties can go extinct and be replaced by another. However the examples of the Federalists and Whigs have been cases one of the ruling class greater evil parties becoming extinct and being replaced by another. Whether the Republicans are due to become extinct yet is difficult to say since they seemed just as close to extinction after Watergate but yet survived,

Another discouraging fact is the non reaction of the American people after the Supreme Court coup and installation of an illegal government for the first time in our history in 2001. By contrast, the Serbian people took to the streets en masse after Milosevic tried to steal the election. But unlike the Serbians, Americans have never lived under an open military dictatorship whereas the Serbians have lived under both Nazism during World War II and over forty years of Stalinism after the second World War. They thus knew what unpleasantness could result from letting a government get out from under Democratic control. I hope the majority of Americans can wake up without having to endure a Nazi or Stalinist -- or a Christian Taliban -- dictatorship. And similarly, one reason there has not been a revolution in this country since the one against the British is that, no matter how impoverished and unpleasant living conditions have been for many people in this country, they have never up to now become as bad as in other countries. I hope the majority of the American people can wake up before they have to endure mass starvation and penury.

I referred earlier to the fact that a candidate could not even inform people that he or even existed without hundreds of millions of dollars to purchase media coverage. The development of the Internet provides the potential that small parties and ordinary people can get enough media exposure to have a chance to be heard amidst the media colossi. The Internet leads to another problem however since it opens up space for hundreds of millions and eventually billions of people to be heard. Since no one can attend to more than a few of these many posts, the potential still remains for the result to be a few privileged sources on which most people depend for their information. However, the Internet does open up the possibility that an ordinary poster can seamlessly make the progression from a few to many people who attend to him or her without having to get over the discontinuity of having to purchase a major newspaper or television station in order to jump from having a small scale to a mass audience. The Internet thus has the potential of leading to the same mass democratization that the introduction of the printing press led to. This gives some reason to hope that we can one day attain a society without a ruling class in which all people can live comfortably.

Robert Halfhill




http://halfhillviews.greatnow.com (SITE NOW BANNED ON AOL)
*Write AOL to complain, here: aolaccessibility@aol.com, or call 1-888-212-5537.

http://RedLavenderInsurgent.blogspot.com

OUR ACTIONS CAUSED BUT WE ARE STILL DOING WHAT WE WANT TO DO

OUR ACTIONS CAUSED BUT WE ARE STILL DOING WHAT WE WANT TO DO
BY ROBERT HALFHILL

Try this thought experiment. If our desires were merely physical processes in the brain and the outcome of what we decided to do was merely the outcomes of what these conflicting desires, i.e physical processes, impelled us to do, as determined and mathematically calculable as the sum of forces moving an object in different directions results in the object moving in a certain direction, then we would still think we were acting according to what we decided to do and would think we were acting on free will.

If our actions were completely random, i.e. if the results of our conflicting desires were random and could not be predicted from the desires we had, we would still think we were acting freely or had free will, though with no way to predict what we would do next, we would be worried about what we might do.

Whether the outcome of our conflicting desires were causally determined and predictable, or non causally determined and random, or somewhere in between with our actions being partly caused and partly random, we would still think we were doing what we freely decided to do. And we would still think we were doing what we freely desired whether these desires were merely physical processes in our brain or something non material.

When people are confronted with the idea that our actions are causally determined and predictable, they think it is like being confined to move down a narrow track in a certain direction and that they could not deviate no matter what they wanted or desired. Since their experience is obviously not like this, they reject the contention that their will is not free as an offense to common sense and contrary to direct experience. But of course, if what they wanted to do was the result of previous causes, their desires could not be other than what they were and it would still seem like they were acting freely, by free will.

In fact, there is no difference in our experience between a world in which our actions are causally determined and a world in which they are "free," and since there is no difference, I conclude that this free will is a meaningless concept. Though I started out this argument by saying IF our actions WERE determined, this was merely a way to get readers to see that everything would seem the same even then. Our actions ARE determined by previous causes, we eat because there is a physical process in our brains which IS the desire for food or hunger, and this physical process was brought about by a physical process in our stomachs and the rest of our bodies, which... Causal determination does not mean we can't do what we want to do so there is no reason to concern ourselves further. And if there is someway in which quantum indeterminancy on the microscopic level of electons and other particles introduces a degree of non causality and randomness in the actions of our bodies on the macroscopic level, it still seems like we are acting freely, in fact there is no way to see how things would seem any different if we WERE not acting freely. Hence there is no meaning to this cincept of not acting freely and we need not worry about it even though our actions ARE causally determined with perhaps a little indeterminancy because of quantum uncertainty.

I also want to deal with the concept that our having a self means that there must be something immaterial. I am aware of being aware of sensations, desires, emotions, thoughts, ect and I am aware of being aware of these things. I can infer that other people have this same awareness through their behavior. But there is no reason to conclude that this awareness or consciousness must be nonmaterial. The existence of a self is another idea that got thrown into this mishmash but, after disentangling the confusion, there is no proof left for anything nonmaterial.

Robert Halfhill rhalfhill@juno.com RobertHalfhill@gmail.com

IT NEITHER PICKS YOUR POCKET NOT BREAKS YOUR LEG!

IT NEITHER PICKS YOUR POCKET NOR BREAKS YOUR LEG!

To highlight the issue of same sex marriage, it might be best to quote Mary Liz
Holberg, the arthor of the House companion bill to then State Senator Michelle
Bachmann's bill to put a state constitutional amendment to limit marriage to a man and a woman on the ballot. On April 6, 2006, as the House was preparing to vote to not require a referendum of Hennepin County voters on the bill to impose an 0.05% stadium tax on Hennepin County, Holberg said as the House was preparing to enable all Minnesota to enjoy having a new stadium while legislating that only Hennepin County residents pay for it: "You may have the votes to pass this (Hennepin County only tax) but that won't make it right."
Similarly, from 1607 to 1865, the majority of the inhabitants of this country had the power but not the right to impose slavery on African Americans. But that didn't make it right. They had the power during segregation, and still do to to some extent, to deny African Americans equal rights. But that didn't. and doesn't make it right. The majority of Americans had the power to inter Japanese Americans in camps during World War II. But that didn't make it right. The Majority of Germans had the power to exterminate the majority of European Jews from 1933 through 1945, But that didn't make it right.
So too the majority of Minnesota citizens may have the power to keep the Legislature from passing a same sex marriage bill this year. BUT THAT WON'T MAKE IT RIGHT!
Another issue that must be highlighted is that the behavior that is legally sanctioned is best limited to behavior that harms other people. We have laws against murder, rape, assault and robbery because, if someone murders, rapes, assaults or robs you, you are
harmed. But two people of the same sex can have erotic relations and it effects you in no way. Even if the idea of erotic relations with a member of the same sex repulses or disgusts you, the solution is simply for you to not have erotic relations with a member of your own sex. To quote Thomas Jefferson, it neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg.
This standard of harm to others MUST be the standard for the criminal law or else
society is confronted with a situation in which the different religious and ideological groups can only come to blows in a fight to seize control of the state in order to force their views on everyone else. And this limit on the law includes both outlawing the behavior of a group we dislike and passing discrimatory laws against them, such as denying them the right to get married.
And lastly, one has to wonder about and look askance at a religious group that
continually lobbies against a group whose behavior does not hurt them in any way. WHY CAN'T THEY LEAVE THE REST OF US ALONE?
Robert Halfhill
2700 Park Avenue, Apt 1401
Mpls, MN, 55407

http://halfhillviews.greatnow.com (SITE NOW BANNED ON AOL)
*Write AOL to complain, here: aolaccessibility@aol.com, or call 1-888-212-5537.

http://RedLavenderInsurgent.blogspot.com

"CONFESSIONS: OF "WITCHES" TO INQUISITION PROVES TORTURE DOESN'T WORK

Robert Halfhill
2700 Park Avenue, Apt 1401
Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55407-1038
Phone: 612-870-8026
Email: rhalfhill@juno

May 22, 2009

Star Tribune
425 Portland Avenue
Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55488-0002

Those who are arguing that torture obtained vital information and "saved American
lives" need only consider the truthfulness of the "confessions" obtained by the Medieval Inquisition. We all know that the accused witches "confessions" to flying through the air and having erotic encounters with the Devil were false and given only to stop the torture. The "confessions" given under "enhanced interrogation at Guantanomo are equally useless and are not even admissible in court to prosecute the alleged terrorists.
The United States prosecuted the Japanese interrogators who water boarded captured American soldiers during World War II as war criminals. Whether water boarding is a war crime has already been settled under American law so it onlyremains to prosecute those federal officials who approved it. This includes George Bush and Dick Cheney.
And since it has now come out that prominent Democrats, such as Nancy (Impeachment off the table) Pelosi knew along with the Republicans about these war crimes, surely it is well past time for Americans to transfer their allegiance to a fresh start with a new third party.

Robert Halfhill


http://halfhillviews.greatnow.com (SITE NOW BANNED ON AOL)
*Write AOL to complain, here: aolaccessibility@aol.com, or call 1-888-212-5537.

http://RedLavenderInsurgent.blogspot.com