The 9/11 Post 11807


Having complained of people posting off topic, it seems a reasonable solution to give an opportunity for people to discuss the topics I am banning from other threads – of which 9/11 seems the most popular.

I do not believe that the US government, or any of its agencies, were responsible for 9/11. It would just need too many people to be involved. Someone would have objected. There are some strange and dangerous people in America, but not in sufficient concentration for this one. They couldn’t even keep Watergate quiet, and that was a small group. Any group I can think of – even Blackwater – would contain operatives with scruples about blowing up New York. They may be sadly ready to kill people in poor countries, but Americans en masse? Somebody would say it wasn’t a good idea.

I asked a friend in the construction industry what it would take to demolish the twin towers. He replied nine months, 80 men, and 12 miles of cabling. The notion that a small team at night could plant sufficient explosives embedded at key points, is laughable.

The forces of the aircraft impacts must have been amazingly high. I have no difficulty imagining they would bring down the building. As for WTC 7, again the kinetic energy of the collapse of the twin towers must be immense.

I admit to a private speculation about WTC7. Unfortunately in construction it is extremely common for contractors not to fix or install properly all the expensive girders, ties and rebar that are supposed to be enclosed in the concrete. Supervising contractors and municipal inspectors can be corrupt. I recall vividly that in London some years ago a tragedy occurred when a simple gas oven explosion brought down the whole side of a tower block.

The inquiry found that the building contractor had simply omitted the ties that bound the girders at the corners, all encased in concrete. If a gas oven had not blown up, nobody would have found out. Buildings I strongly suspect are very often not as strong as they are supposed to be, with contractors skimping on apparently redundant protection. The sort of sordid thing you might not want too deeply investigated in the event of a national tragedy.

Precisely what happened at the Pentagon I am less sure. There is not the conclusive film and photographic evidence that there is for New York. I am particularly puzzled by the much more skilled feat of flying that would be required to hit a building virtually at ground level, in an urban area, after a lamppost clipping route – very hard to see how a non-professional pilot did that. But I can think of a number of possible scenarios where the official explanation is not quite the whole truth on the Pentagon, but which do not necessitate a belief that the US government or Dick Cheney was behind the attack.

In my view the real scandal of 9/11 was that it was blowback – the product of a malignant terrorist agency whose origins lay in CIA funding and provision. Also blowback in a more general sense that it was spawned in the nasty theocratic dictatorship of Saudi Arabia which is so close to the US and to the Bush dynasty in particular. As with almost all terrorist activity, I do not rule out any point on the whole spectrum of surveillance, penetration and agent provocateur activity by any number of possible actors.

But was 9/11 false flag and controlled demolition? No, I think not.

(Now I have given full opportunity to discuss 9/11 here, any further references on other threads will be instantly deleted).


Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

11,807 thoughts on “The 9/11 Post

1 13 14 15 16 17 134
  • angrysoba

    “The term is new to me but the principle is straightforward. You linked to a video that shows how it can be used to bring down a building by disloging all the columns on one floor in uinson to initiate a collapse and let gravity do the rest. I linked to another video that shows how even when the basic technique of dislodging all the columns is employed (in the Hackney case they removed all the columns on a two-storey section simultaneously) it doesn’t necessarily work”

    It doesn’t matter that demolitions don’t necessarily work. The point in my posting of verinage is that they CAN.

    I could say that someone getting hit by a speeding car won’t necessarily die but citing examples is not sufficient to prove that someone can’t die if hit by a speeding car.

  • angrysoba

    “I think that bringing up “verinage” in the context of the WTC collapses is a bit of an own goal for your non-demolition theory because such a collapse would result in an initial jolt (not observed at the WTC) and because such strong steel-framed structures would resist the collapse sufficiently to stop it from proceeding all the way to the bottom.”

    Where do you get this idea from? The verinage demolitions don’t show such “jolts”. Maybe they do slow down but the collapse of the towers weren’t exactly the same as the examples in the videos.

    It is highly impractical to use exact ananlogies with the Twin towers because you would need to build new ones and attempt to inflict the same damage using a plane.

    Of course, even if you did Truthers could still claim that it was rebuilt using pre-planted explosives/thermite.

    “You are quite wrong to say that “‘we’ didn’t hear any detonations of explosives” unless you are referring to the royal ‘we’ of you and Larry. I saw and heard some on video”

    Then you won’t mind re-posting the video of the audible explosions.

  • angrysoba

    “We English learn young to keep a stiff upper lip. We don’t show our feelings as freely as you Yanks ?” it’s not the done thing ?” but we do have them. Apart from Angrysoba, that is, but then again he’s got a few pints of Scottish highlander blood in him.”

    Irish actually.

  • Larry from St. Louis

    “Irish actually.”

    Maybe we can get Tim to chart out for us his understanding of how stiff people keep their upper lip according to tribe (or tribal blood).

    Of course, it won’t really work as he’s already stated that my mentioning the recovery of my friend’s head “grossed him out.”

  • angrysoba

    “A debate ensued. I said, the twin towers couldn’t have been done by Muslims. It wasn’t the mindset of a Muslim to cast aside the fear that Allah might count such an attack as murder.”

    Well, fine but there are plenty of people who call themselves Muslims who will blow up, for example, crowds of people watching volleyball tournaments.

    There are plenty of people who call themselves Christians who will blow up wedding parties.

    Your reasoning doesn’t mean that Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed weren’t behind the 9/11 attacks.

  • angrysoba

    Angrysoba: “Once the first floor gave way it fell to the next story, which was unsurprisingly no more able to support the weight of the descending upper stories and so on, down to the ground.”

    Tim Groves :”Unsurprising for you, perhaps, but shocking for almost everyone who watched it live including Peter Jennings and Dan Rather, if I remember correctly. So why didn’t the collapse end with the descending upper stories sitting on a pile of rubble? Please go on. This is fascinating.”

    It IS unsurprising that the floor below that at which the collapse began wasn’t appreciably stronger than the floor above it.

    Do you really think that a floor designed for people to walk on was designed to hold the weight of a ten to fifteen story block of steel and concrete? No? Then it was unsurprising that each successive floor was no less able than the one above it to hold that weight.

    I think you’re reading with a broad brush and not taking any time to absorb what I am actually saying and instead responding to what you think or hope I am saying.

  • angrysoba

    Also, the verinage technique shows that the building is NOT left with a big block sitting on a pile of rubble. The upper stories also smash to pieces. You did watch that video, right?

  • Larry from St. Louis

    One thing on thermite that has never been explained to me by trooferdom:

    Thermite is an incendiary, not an explosive. It is used to destroy horizontal surfaces. That is, a thermite grenade is used to destroy the engine block of a vehicle by pulling the pin and walking away. The super-heated material drips down into the structure to render the structure useless. So … the remnants of thermite reactions would be immediately apparent … we would see splatter patterns and drip patterns. However, we see exactly none. Truthers will find a neatly cut column and claim that that’s evidence of thermite, but that’s exactly the opposite of what thermite does (and, in fact, those cuts were most likely caused by the steelworkers using oxyacetylene torches after the fact).

    The thermite claim has always been very weird – but the truth movement started with it, and by golly they don’t seem able to jump off that wagon.

  • angrysoba

    “Have you considered that there has never been any controlled demolition like what took place at the Twin Towers? ”

    I agree with you. There has never been a controlled demolition like the one you think happened at the World Trade Center.

    Now, how does that help your argument?

  • nobody

    Hullo Craig,

    As much as I’d like to post my comment here, it’s too late and besides this place is infested with obvious shills here for no other purpose than to make the conversation so disagreeable everyone sensible leaves.

    So I slung my comment over at my place where I thought it might amuse the regulars. It’s called ‘Craig Murray’s Mental Horse’. If anyone here wants a read, just click the moniker below. Oh, and it’s got pretty pictures too.

  • Jaded.

    Ok, the final whistle has been blown and it’s game over for the shills. They tried hard, but despite a lot of huff and puff could make no meaningful penetration. You lost fair and square kiddos. Any after match pitch protests will be frowned upon. Take defeat gracefully. 😉

  • angrysoba

    Just been watching some of that Hardfire episode. Tony Szamboti’s getting a bit angry.

    Ronald Weick asks: “Are you saying the explosives were primed to go off at the exact impact sites?”

    Szamboti: “No, just above.”

    Weick: “But surely the planes would have set off the explosives”

    Szamboti: “Now you’re using the argument from incredulity!”

    Weick: “But demolition experts say this is absurd!”

    Szamboti: “Now you’re using the argument from authority.”

    And on and on…

    Szamboti DOES admit that there is a problem of no audio evidence. Fortunately Tim is about to rescue him by showing some videos of audible explosions.

  • Tim Groves

    “Where do you get this idea from? The verinage demolitions don’t show such “jolts”. Maybe they do slow down but the collapse of the towers weren’t exactly the same as the examples in the videos.”

    You never passed your physics O level, did you? Conservation of momentum, etc. When the supports are pulled the upper stories begin falling at an acceleration of about 9.8 metres per second per second. When they hit the lower stories, they transfer some or all of this momentum and so make a rapid deceleration. This is the “jolt”.

    I often think that if you would stop trying to prove your conclusion by grabbing at whatever “evidence” appears superficially useful and rejecting anything that doesn’t, and instead took a course in basic physics includng mechanics, materials science and structural engineering, you would make more progress.

    “It is highly impractical to use exact ananlogies with the Twin towers because you would need to build new ones and attempt to inflict the same damage using a plane.”

    Precisely my point. But if you are going to be picky, WHY DO YOU INSIST ON INFLICTING half-baked INEXACT analogies on us? Why are you allowed to make analogies between the WTC destructions and “verinage” demolitions when we’re not?

    “Then you won’t mind re-posting the video of the audible explosions.”

    Right after Larry posts documentation and still photos of “the head”.

    “Irish actually.”

    Sam thing. You’re all denizens of the Celtic fringe. Me too, actually.

    “It IS unsurprising that the floor below that at which the collapse began wasn’t appreciably stronger than the floor above it.”

    It WAS suprprising that the towers fell at all to most observers. It WAS also surprising that an asymmetric damage and fire pattern led to near similtaneous failure of all the colunms on each floor, and it WAS bloody GOB-SMACKING that the central cores did not resist the collapse enough to slow it to a stop within a few stories.

    “Do you really think that a floor designed for people to walk on was designed to hold the weight of a ten to fifteen story block of steel and concrete? No? Then it was unsurprising that each successive floor was no less able than the one above it to hold that weight.”

    How did it come about that a floor had such a weight placed on it? Dear Soba, Dear Soba. Were there no Central columns? Was there no interlocking mesh of load-bearing perimiter columns? No large corner columns? No beams linking the whole shebang together transversely? Are you sugggesting that this steel skeleton was not designed to support five or six times the weight above at any point it even in a 100 mph hurricane? If so, give me your own ideas about how much load the structure was designed for and we can all have a good laugh.

    “I think you’re reading with a broad brush and not taking any time to absorb what I am actually saying and instead responding to what you think or hope I am saying.”

    Then we’re both going to have to be a bit more patient. But really, how do you expect others to make the effort to take you seriously when so many of your comments are abusive and contemptuous of those of us who do not share your views on 9/11? If you think that’s an appropriate manner for dealing with other people is it any wonder they don’t hang on your every word?

    “Also, the verinage technique shows that the building is NOT left with a big block sitting on a pile of rubble. The upper stories also smash to pieces. You did watch that video, right?”

    Right! But that isn’t always the case with the verinage technique, is it? And when it happens, do you know why it happens?

    And the verinage technique is a meticulously planned CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, isn’t it? They have to work out where to PULL the structure in order to make it work, right?

    And although it can produce “squib”-like puffs of smoke and debris, with the verinage technique, these are never produced below the collapse front, right?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY3nj728WPY

    So the verinage technique is irrelavent to the discussion of the WTC collapses, right?

    So why bring it up?

  • angrysoba

    “I think that bringing up “verinage” in the context of the WTC collapses is a bit of an own goal for your non-demolition theory because such a collapse would result in an initial jolt (not observed at the WTC) and because such strong steel-framed structures would resist the collapse sufficiently to stop it from proceeding all the way to the bottom.

    So in the spirit of chivalry, like helping an adversary get up during a duel when he’s been tripped over by his own shoelaces”

    Tim, there are a number of points I am covering by showing the videos of the verinage technique. Again, not what you think I am saying but things I have EXPLICITLY said.

    One of those is that the buildings being demolished by verinage also exhibit “squibs” and “pyroclastic clouds” as well as the fact that the top of the building can be completely demolished.

    All of this shows that explosives ARE NOT NECESSARY to produce the phenomena that are pointed to as incontrovertible evidence of explosives.

  • TIm Groves

    “One thing on thermite that has never been explained to me by trooferdom:”

    I have no idea if thermite was used at the WTC although I wouldn’t rule it out. You on the other hand have a completely closed mind. I HAVE EXPLAINED to you before (although I don’t count myself as “trooferdom”) that there are all kinds of thermitic materials. But you just don’t get it because you just don’t listen. As Chinese Cultural Atache Ben Ni Hiru used to say, “Why you no risen? You stupid irriot!”

    The Jones team claims to have identified Nanothermite in the dust and nobody else has come out to try to disprove their findings yet. But you yourself have debunked the work, and not by falling back on your woodwork and cooking skills or even your philosophy degree, but by farting, burping and casting aspersions at the quality of the scolarship involved ?” a truly revolutionary piece of scholarship. Congratulations!

  • Anonymous

    “Tim, there are a number of points I am covering by showing the videos of the verinage technique. Again, not what you think I am saying but things I have EXPLICITLY said.

    One of those is that the buildings being demolished by verinage also exhibit “squibs” and “pyroclastic clouds” as well as the fact that the top of the building can be completely demolished.”

    Soba, with verinage the “squibs” are not found several stories below the collapse front. Please check for yourself. Also, you have shown no evidence that the verinage would work on steel-framed skyscrapers, have you?

    “All of this shows that explosives ARE NOT NECESSARY to produce the phenomena that are pointed to as incontrovertible evidence of explosives.”

    NO! IT BLOODY DOESN’T!!!

    But if you can find a steel-framed skyscraper that was demolished by the verinage technique and displayed the phenomena in question, then it would.

    BUT SO FAR YOU HAVEN’T, SO IT DOESN’T!

  • angrysoba

    “Precisely my point. But if you are going to be picky, WHY DO YOU INSIST ON INFLICTING half-baked INEXACT analogies on us? Why are you allowed to make analogies between the WTC destructions and “verinage” demolitions when we’re not?”

    Where did I say you couldn’t use your own half-baked inexact anaologies?

    You can, and you do. I am merely saying that showing a video of a building NOT COLLAPSING is not evidence that the WTC couldn’t have collapsed.

    It is necessary for you to discover the impossibility of the Towers collapse not sufficient to show examples of other buildings not collapsing.

    “You never passed your physics O level, did you? ”

    No, it had been replaced with science GCSEs in my time. I did earn myself that though.

    “When the supports are pulled the upper stories begin falling at an acceleration of about 9.8 metres per second per second. When they hit the lower stories, they transfer some or all of this momentum and so make a rapid deceleration. This is the “jolt”.”

    Well, then you would need to show some figures and perhaps take your own advice and:

    “instead took a course in basic physics includng mechanics, materials science and structural engineering,”

    Maybe then you could write a paper on it and get it published in a real journal. If the science is right you would become famous.

    “How did it come about that a floor had such a weight placed on it? Dear Soba, Dear Soba”

    I believe I have posted videos of this before. The steel lost its integrity and the top column essentially sank into the building. *****Importantly, the top of the building didn’t come down exactly onto the supporting columns but onto the areas not designed to support the weight******

    ” Were there no Central columns? Was there no interlocking mesh of load-bearing perimiter columns? No large corner columns? No beams linking the whole shebang together transversely?”

    Sure there were but they could support the weight at a particular alignment. The load had shifted, as I pointed out above. This is why buildings are built in a parcular way and girders are not haphazardly stacked on top of each other. If they are they could fall down.

    “And the verinage technique is a meticulously planned CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, isn’t it? They have to work out where to PULL the structure in order to make it work, right?”

    Yeah, I noticed that Tony Szamboti tried that one too. It could have been verinage, he suggests.

    “And although it can produce “squib”-like puffs of smoke and debris, with the verinage technique, these are never produced below the collapse front, right?”

    I don’t know if they never are. That may well be a good point and I’ll have to check it out.

    “So the verinage technique is irrelavent to the discussion of the WTC collapses, right?”

    No, it isn’t.

    “So why bring it up?”

    See above.

  • angrysoba

    “Soba, with verinage the “squibs” are not found several stories below the collapse front. Please check for yourself. Also, you have shown no evidence that the verinage would work on steel-framed skyscrapers, have you?”

    No, but I am not saying that the Towers were demolished by verinage. Obviously.

  • angrysoba

    On the jolt, I have said before and I’ll have to say again, the towers did not simply fall down complelely vertically down the strongest perimeter columns.

    There was a tilt. This is important because it shows that the load shifted.

    Guess what, Ryan Mackey agrees with me.

    On this programme from about 5 minutes in Ryan Mackey is explaining this to Tony Szamboti:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDvDND9zNUk&feature=related

    Which just goes to show that you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know there was no controlled demolition but one can be found to say so.

  • Edo

    Hey angrysoba! I pissed myself at your half arsed attempt over at nobody’s blog. You really are something.. haha.

  • Frazer

    Verinage technique, nano explosives ?

    To throw some reason back in here, the WTC towers were NOT destroyed by any type of controlled explosion using ANY type of explosives used today. There will always be conspiracy theories about this for a long time to come, but in the end it was a tradgedy caused by a group of people flying passenger jets into them. Speculate all you like, I am telling you that no explosives were used, and I know what I am talking about. Loons, the lot of you !

  • crab

    oh what a barny.

    As posted earlier, many options for how the buildings could have been rigged to rapidly disintegrate here:

    http://preview.tinyurl.com/ygsq7bo

    Plausible theories

    * distributed explosives

    * thermobaric devices

    * thermite preparations

    But why argue with substance when you can make fun of how people carry it to you?

    Frazer, vernage technique was tossed in earlier by Larry who demanded a comment on its relevance, and nano-thermitic particles found in WTC dust samples were documented in a paper by dutch academics last year. Your footstomping is childish. Your case is that demo was too difficult to manage, yet was actualy achieved TWICE by plane collisions -each the equivalent of ONE bomb and ONE fire – is a very confident, modestly qualified yet comletely unsubstantiated, contradictory assertion. If you cant see that its because you refuse to look, simply.

    This was to be the thread about 911, its clear who tried to be responsive and thoughtful and who tried to be dismissive and distruptive.

    Best quote of the thread:

    “Salandria said sadly. “All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time and effort microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy. Don’t you think the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They chose not to. Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: ‘We are in control and no one — not the President, not Congress, nor any elected official — no one can do anything about it.’ It was a message to the people that their Government was powerless. And the people eventually got the message.”

  • Steelback

    Characteristically the main participants in this controlled discussion above are gatekeepers or gamers.

    Conventionally objective debate consists in trading evidence and information to support a given position.The mutual exchange of research-based insight is the lifeblood of real dialogue.

    Notwithstanding the fabricated and utterly synthetic “discussion” above there will remain enough people who in the face of the censors and disinformationists have retained enough natural human curiosity to want to follow this link:

    http://jewishcrimenetworkdid911.blogspot.com/

  • Apostate

    Chris Bollyn has some insightful commentary on “strange and dangerous” Moschepoche involvement in 911 too.

    http://www.bollyn.com/index.

    Bollyn has a photo of himself after a Moschepoche attack.It’s the only language they know.

  • Tim Groves

    “The steel lost its integrity and the top column essentially sank into the building.”

    The steel lost it’s integrity? You are beginning to sound like the Global Warming Alarmists who now that the Arctic ice cap has made a comeback are calling it “rotten ice”.

    How, prey tell, did the steel lose its integrity?

    “the top column essentially sank into the building.”

    Did it, indeed? I admit that the sentence does give me some mental images. But it’s hardly nobel-prize-winning sciencespeak, is it. How did the steel that lost its integrity give way? Did every column on one, two or three floors snap or break simultaneously, or did the columns bend and bow one at a time a bit at a time so that the “top column” sank gently into whatever was supposed to sink into?

    On momentum: “Well, then you would need to show some figures and perhaps take your own advice and:”

    No I wouldn’t. If you can’t wrap your head around the principle of the conservation of momentum, then all your hard work on trying to explain “how the towers fell” will have been in vain.

    Not only do you seem to be remarkably ignorant of physics, you are also ignornant of your own ignorance.

    “No, but I am not saying that the Towers were demolished by verinage. Obviously.”

    I’m glad to hear that. After all, the kind of structures that verinage has been used on (reinforced concrete) could not have been safely built to the height of the Twin Towers. Although he material has excellent compression resistance so that you could theoretically build a tower miles high out of it, It would never stand up to hurricanes if built to more than about 30 storeys.

    But what you are really saying is that a Verinage collapse produces something akin to a pyroclastic flow too, so that a pyroclastic flow at the WTC doesn’t prove it was a controlled demolition. Point taken.

    What I (and you) would have to look into here is whether the verinage collapses produce hot pyroclastic flows of the kind that burned and scorched people, cars and various objects at the WTC. Has anyone measured how hot the verinage dust clouds and blasts are? In any case, the difference in the size and height between a verinage event and the WTC events would make it difficult to compare temperatures directly. You’d expect the WTC clouds to be hotter as the amount of gravitational energy converted to heat would be much greater.

    “There was a tilt. This is important because it shows that the load shifted.”

    Yes, there was a tilt. Especially in the case of the South Tower there was a very pronounced tilt of the upper block. But then a funny thing happened. The block disintegrated in mid-air, dissapating it angular momentum in the process, much to the chagrin of all those engineers and physicists who are trying to explain the collapses without using some kind of demolition technique. Because 10-storey blocks of steel-framed building don’t normally do that.

    “Loons, the lot of you!”

    You’re proably right, Frazer. But we’re only doing a bit of hyperthetical speculation. None of us on this thread really knows what went on (apart from yourself, perhaps) and none of us are going to do much about it, so our beliefs don’t add up to a can of beans, do they. And it is a full moon tonight, so where’s the harm in howling like loons?

  • Tim Groves

    “Notwithstanding the fabricated and utterly synthetic “discussion” above”

    It’s a fair cop! I freely admit it. I fabricated my part in it out of whole words and sythesized them from an alphabet soup of letters.

    But I think there’s a world of difference between who dun 9-11 and how 9-11 was dun. I’m much more interested in the latter. Perhaps Craig might be gracious enough to open another thread for those who want to peel the onion on who was behind the people behind the people behind the people behind the people behind the various antics that add up to what we now call “9-11”.

  • tungsten

    Steelback’s eminently sensible 4 step inquiry method was censored out of this thread.

    The references to the importance of NY as the venue for 911 have also met the same fate.

    It’s therefore worth reiterating that NY is HQ to the Lobby,B’nai B’rith,ADL,Mishpucka,et al.All these groups were decisive in fomenting the anti-German hysteria in 1916-17 that led to US entry into WW1.

    The same decisive Lobby power

    shaped the Zionist position taken by Woodrow Wilson.

    It was from NY in 1933 that Samuel Untermeyer declared World Jewry’s trade boycott war on Hitler’s Germany

    in 1933 that culminated in WW2.

    From NY Reform and conservative Jewry maintained their influence with FDR to ensure no Jews gained entry to Palestine during the war years.This was the blood sacrifice of the lesser brethren known as the Holocaust.

    The Lobby’s form,means and motive were consistent throughout the twentieth century and the PNAC document was only one of a succession of such that evidenced their determination to use the alliance they had forged with the neo-cons at that time to involve the US in wars for “full spectrum dominance” across the Middle East in particular.

    The catalyzing Pearl Harbour event we call 911 again is just one more in a succession of cassus belli/triggers for war that run through from Cuba in 1898,1912,1933,to Tonkin in 1964….ad nauseum.

    War is the agreed means the Lobby has had since 1908 (Carnegie Endowment for Peace) to transform the US into the type of society they see as most compatible with their long-term goals.

1 13 14 15 16 17 134

Comments are closed.