Activism Discussion: 9/11 PETITION To Congress And The Senate

9/11 PETITION To Congress And The Senate
Posts: 24

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)

Freedom Fighter
2006-03-04 17:36:59 EST
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND OF THE SENATE OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT,

On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the Undersigned
Scholars for 9/11 Truth Hereby Petitions for, and hereby demands, Release of
the Following kinds of documents, video and films, and physical evidence to
the public for study by experts and scholars investigating the events of
9/11:

1. Immediate release of the full Pentagon surveillance tapes, of which five
frames (only) have been released via the official ASCE report, as Judicial
Watch has also requested. We further demand release of the video tape seized
by FBI agents minutes after the Pentagon hit, from the fuel service station
near the Pentagon, as well as any other videotape which shows the 9/11
strike on the Pentagon.

See
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/12/1211_wirepentagon.html
www.defenselink.mil/releases/2000/b05012000_bt218-00.html
www.defenselink.mil/news/May2000/20005022a.jpg
perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/fct-videos.html

2. Immediate release of 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video
footage held by NIST, largely from private photographers, regarding the
collapses of WTC buildings on 9/11/2001 (NIST, 2005, p. 81). In particular,
all footage relating to the collapse of WTC 7 (including shots before,
during and after the collapse) must be released immediately, without waiting
for the NIST report on WTC 7, which is long overdue and may be prolonged
indefinitely.

3. An explanation from Vice President Richard Cheney regarding the "orders"
described by Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta in his testimony
before The 9/11 Commission. Secretary Mineta stated that while in an
underground bunker at the White House, he watched Vice President Cheney
castigate a young officer for asking, as a plane drew closer and closer to
the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The officer should be identified
and allowed to testify at a deposition under oath.

See www.911truthmovement.org/video/hamilton_win.wmv

4. The documents generated by Vice President Cheney's energy task force have
been kept from the public. A court case brought forth a few maps that
display oil fields in the Middle East. We hereby put Congress on notice that
there is probable cause with regard to criminal activities by the Cheney
Energy Task Force involving a criminal conspiracy to launch illegal wars
and/or terrorist activities. We therefore demand that Energy Task Force
document that comprise, discuss, or refer to plans to invade the Middle
East, including Iran, and Venezuela or other sovereign nations be released
immediately.

See Cheney v. District Court 542 U.S. 367 (2004) and United States v. Nixon
418 U.S. 683 (1974).

See www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33642

5. Audio tapes of interviews with air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11
were intentionally destroyed by crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the
tape into little pieces, and then dropping the pieces in different trash
cans around the building. We demand an explanation for this destruction of
evidence and ask that the possible existence of other copies of such tapes
or perhaps of written transcripts of the interviews be pursued. All air
traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 should be allowed to testify during a
public forum under oath.

See
query.nytimes.com archive
web.archive.org suntimes cst-nws-tape07.html

6. The Secret Service, which is highly trained to protect the President from
danger and to move him to a secure location in the event of a threat,
breached its own standard procedures by allowing President Bush to remain at
a public location for 25 minutes after it was known that the nation was
under attack. All Secret Service personnel who were at Booker Elementary
School with President Bush on 9/11 should be required to testify in public
and under oath about these events.

See
abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121331&page=1
www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/feral_press_9-10.gif
www.whatreallyhappened.com/bushbook.mov

7. On the morning of 9/11, some five "war games" or "terror drills" were
being conducted by U.S. defense agencies, including one "live fly" exercise
employing aircraft. These drills reportedly included the injection of false
radar blips onto the screens of air traffic controllers. In addition, the
government was running a simulation of a plane crashing into a building the
morning of 9/11. Who was in charge of coordinating these war games and
terror drills? Who had the ability to issues orders in relation to their
conduct? On which screens were "false radar blips" inserted? When did such
false injects commence? When were they purged from the controllers' screens?
What was the effect of these activities on standard procedures for
interdicting hijacked aircraft?

See
www.911readingroom.org article_id=92
www.fromthewilderness.com Mckinney_transcript.shtml
www.spiegltech.com McKinney2.rm (6 minutes, 12 seconds into the video)
www.boston.com 0903_plane_exercise.htm

8. It has been reported that the FBI long ago found three of four "black
boxes" from the two airplanes which hit the Twin Towers, yet has
consistently denied that they were ever found. Their data would be of the
greatest importance to understanding the events of 9/11. This matter must be
investigated and the data they provide released to the public.

See
www.pnionline.com/dnblog/extra/archives/001139.html
www.counterpunch.org/lindorff12202005.html

For each of the four sites under investigation, the 9/11 Commission reported
that two Boeing 757s, and two Boeing 767s (FAA, Part 121, airliners) owned
by United Airlines and American Airlines were hijacked by novice pilots and
were subsequently crashed, resulting in an unimaginable loss of life.
Approximately 3,000 people died the morning of 9/11 as the direct result of
these officially reported hijackings and subsequent crashes.

These four scheduled airliners were reported to have carried a total of 266
passengers and crew members, which, under FAA and NTSB regulations, demands
a comprehensive investigation of the primary and contributing causes of
each. In the case of suspected criminal foul play, the NTSB would normally
assign the lead investigative role to the FBI, with assistance of
investigators from the NTSB and FAA. A comprehensive investigation of each
aircraft crash is not a regulatory option: they would have been mandatory.
Therefore, we demand public release of each comprehensive crash
investigation report, including access to all physical evidence that was
required to have been collected and secured at a suitable facility. Such
evidence should have included a large assortment of indestructible parts,
including landing gears, surface actuators, engines, black boxes, and so on.
The serialized parts would be invaluable in identifying each aircraft and,
contrary to some reports, could not have "vaporized" upon impact.

Considering the enormous loss of life and financial collateral damage, if no
crash investigations were conducted, who made the decision to disregard the
FAA, Part 121, regulatory requirement? In the absence of the Part 121
investigation reports, the identity of the responsible authorities who made
the decision not to investigate must be released, and they should be made
immediately available for deposition under oath.

9. In the weeks before 9/11, the US Stock market showed rather high levels
of activity on companies that would subsequently be affected by the attacks.
The afternoon before the attack, alarm bells were sounding over trading
patterns in stock options. A jump in United Air Lines some 90 times (not 90
percent) above normal between September 6 and September 10, for example, and
285 times higher than average the Thursday before the attack, have been
reported. A jump in American Airlines put options 60 times (not 60 percent)
above normal the day before the attacks has also been reported. No similar
trading occurred on any other airlines appear to have occurred.

Between September 6-10, 2001, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw
suspicious trading on Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley, two of the largest
WTC tenants. An average of 3,053 put options in Merrill Lynch were bought
between Sept. 6-10, compared to an average of 252 in the previous week.
Merrill Lynch, another WTC tenant, saw 12,215 put options bought between
Sept. 7-10, whereas the previous days had seen averages of 212 contracts a
day. According to Dylan Ratigan of Bloomberg News: "This would be the most
extraordinary coincidence in the history of mankind, if it was a
coincidence. This could very well be insider trading at the worst, most
horrific, most evil use you've ever seen in your entire life. It's
absolutely unprecedented."

On September 18, 2001, the BBC reported: "American authorities are
investigating unusually large numbers of shares in airlines, insurance
companies and arms manufacturers that were sold off in the days and weeks
before the attacks. They believe that the sales were by people who knew
about the impending disaster".

According to the London Independent, October 10, 2001: "To the embarrassment
of investigators, it has also emerged that the firm used to buy many of the
'put' options-where a trader, in effect, bets on a share price fall-on
United Airlines stock was headed until 1998 by 'Buzzy' Krongard, now
executive director of the CIA."

See
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1549909.stm
news.independent.co.uk/business/news/story.jsp?story=99402

The 9/11 Commission, after looking into the pre-9/11 stock trades, never
denied their unusual nature. Instead, the Commission declared that al-Qaeda
did not conduct the trades, and asked no further questions.

See amazon.com David Ray Griffin's book

Who, if not al-Qaeda, performed the incriminating trades? This information
exists, it can be easily obtained, and it needs to be made public. Moreover,
illegal money transfers may have been processed through computers housed at
the World Trade Center before the planes crashed into the Twin Towers on
9/11. We demand a disclosure of the source of the put options and that this
whole sordid affair receive a complete and public investigation.

See
www.rediff.com/money/2001/dec/17wtc.htm
archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/industry/12/20/wtc.harddrives.idg/

10. Eyewitness testimony and a substantiating photographic record suggest
that a large sample of slag from the World Trade Center is being held at
Hangar 17 of the John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City.
Access to the slag sample should be made available to appropriate physicists
in order to conduct non-destructive X-ray Fluorescence tests and other forms
of examination, which should reveal evidence of the cause of the collapse of
the Twin Towers. Based on these tests, we further demand two small samples
(about the size of a fist) be extracted from this large piece for further
scientific analysis.

See 911proof.com/resources/Slag+Sample.gif

11. Release of a complete inventory of the plane wreckage and debris from
flights 11, 77, 93 or 175 or any other aircraft that crashed or was
destroyed on September 11, 2001, including, but not limited to:

(a) the location (whether warehouses or otherwise) of all such items;

(b) a catalog of photographs and videotapes taken of any and all such items;
and

(c) a list of all tests and examinations concerning any and all such items,
including reports of such tests or examinations.

12. Release of a complete inventory of any steel, other metal or other
material from the World Trade Centers, including, but not limited to:

(a) the location (whether warehouses or otherwise) of all such items;

(b) a catalog of photographs and videotapes taken of any and all such items;
and

(c) a list of all tests and examinations concerning any and all such items,
including reports of such tests or examinations.

On behalf of the People of the United States of America, we demand that the
cover-up in this case end and that the kinds of documents, video and films,
and physical evidence described above be provided to the public for experts
and scholars to evaluate and assess in their efforts to expose falsehoods
and reveal truths about events on 9/11.

FOR THE SOCIETY:

James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
Founder and Co-Chair
Scholars for 9/11 Truth

Steven E. Jones, Ph.D.
Co-Chair
Scholars for 9/11 Truth

28 February 2006



A*@justicespammail.com
2006-03-04 18:31:32 EST
On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 22:36:59 GMT, "Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net>
wrote:

>TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND OF THE SENATE OF THE
>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

Please, please look at us and make us feel important...

What a crock.

>Who, if not al-Qaeda, performed the incriminating trades? This information
>exists, it can be easily obtained, and it needs to be made public. Moreover,
>illegal money transfers may have been processed through computers housed at
>the World Trade Center before the planes crashed into the Twin Towers on
>9/11. We demand a disclosure of the source of the put options and that this
>whole sordid affair receive a complete and public investigation.

And here we have a fine example of these "investigators" ignoring
easily obtainable information:

http://www.nationalreview.com/rose/rose200407260700.asp


July 26, 2004, 7:00 a.m.
Was There Another 9/11 Attack on Wall Street?
Were the hijackers also insider traders?

Were the September 11 hijackers insider traders as well as murderers?
The 9/11 Commission's report has belatedly put paid to the rumor that
Osama bin Laden and his accomplices speculated in the stocks and
options of vulnerable companies in the weeks before the attacks. The
potential profits garnered from such manipulation would have been in
the millions.

Truth to tell, if one looked at the trading figures — especially with
the benefit of hindsight — for early September, there was a lot to be
suspicious about.

Trading in AMR — the ticker for American Airlines' parent — rang alarm
bells, especially in regard to frenetic put-option activity before
September 11. A put, in brief, is a contract to sell a certain number
of shares at a previously agreed upon "strike" price sometime in the
future. The price of the put depends on a number of factors, not least
of which is the price of the underlying security. Cautious investors
buy puts as insurance if they believe a stock they hold might fall,
while speculators exploit their high volatility and relatively low
cost to leverage profits if the stock does dive. (A call option is the
same, but in reverse, and is oriented towards the bullish).

Some 4,516 put contracts — which could be potentially leveraged into
controlling more than 450,000 shares of AMR — traded hands the
afternoon before the attacks (compared to 748 calls). Thus, about 85
percent of the day's options activity involved puts — a massive
imbalance rarely seen. When the markets opened for the first time
after September 11, AMR plummeted by 39 percent, which would work out
to be $4 million profit for the holder or holders of those puts
(assuming the "insiders" had bought 4,000 of the contracts). Put it
this way, on September 10, 2001, somebody, somewhere, was very, very
bearish about AMR's near-term prospects.

Derivatives trading in UAL (United Airlines's parent) on the Chicago
Board Options Exchange (CBOE) on September 6 (and into the next day)
exhibited identical characteristics: 4,744 puts on UAL, compared to
just 396 calls. By September 10, short interest (essentially, a wager
that a stock's price will fall) in UAL jumped by 40 percent over its
level of a month previously. As for AMR, its short interest increased
by 20 percent.

The deeper we delve into the murky world of futures the darker the
picture apparently becomes (a few excitable souls still believe the
CIA and Bush — you know, because they knew the attacks were coming —
were behind the shorting). One hedge-fund manager whispered to the New
York Times that he'd heard that major short-selling had been happening
in eSpeed (ESPD), the electronic bond-trading network controlled by
Cantor Fitzgerald (whose offices were high up in 1 World Trade
Center). There was probably something to this rumor. Between August 7
and Friday, September 7, ESPD fell by $5.85 (or 42 percent) to $7.95.

Or what about the zealous buying of 17,955 short-term S&P 500 index
puts at 1,050 points — the "strike price," essentially — on Monday,
September 10, 2001? Those investors were gambling that the S&P, which
closed at 1,092.54 at 4pm that day, would fall by at least 42 points
by September 21, when the options were scheduled to expire. Without
such a significant decline, the options would be worthless. (Hey,
options trading is highly risky, but potentially very profitable).
More eerie stuff turned up in Britain and Germany. In London,
investigators detected what seemed to be huge bets on a decline in
airline stocks, while in the latter, the price of Munich Re, a
reinsurance company that would be hit by claims resulting from the
attacks, plummeted amid a surge of puts-buying.

So, to repeat, were Osama and his accomplices involved in insider
trading? Part of the answer is tucked away in a footnote on page 499
of the 9/11 Commission Report. The commissioners, basing their
findings upon exhaustive research of millions of transactions by the
Securities and Exchange Commission, note that "some unusual trading
did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous
explanation." Moreover, "the trading had no connection with 9/11." So
what happened? "A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no
conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on
September 6." This same institution, as part of a complex trading
strategy, also purchased 115,000 shares of AMR on September 10. But
what about the spike in AMR puts trading on September 10? It turns out
that a "U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its
subscribers on Sunday, September 9...recommended these trades."
Readers jumped in headfirst come Monday morning, only to strike it
tragically lucky the next day.

Recall, as well, the mood of the summer of 2001. By early September,
the airline industry was in the doldrums after the dot.com meltdown
hit business and vacation travel. On September 5, meanwhile, Reuters,
the news service widely followed by Wall Streeters, quoted analysts as
saying that "a further deterioration" in airline financials was
probable. Translation: Bail out now, boys. Matters were not helped by
AMR's announcement two days later that its third- and fourth-quarter
losses would be larger even than already forecast. Immediately,
airline analysts downgraded AMR, as did hotel specialists, and a wave
of shorting hit the travel industry (people even took positions in
Royal Caribbean Cruise lines and Cruise Lines Carnival Corps).

As a result, investors hurled themselves into the puts market,
desperate to lock in profits or make a killing if AMR went bust. The
panic was not restricted only to AMR: Speculators rightly predicted
that UAL would also go from bad to worse, and took their bear
positions accordingly. Thus, the short interest on UAL was up, as I've
said, 40 percent over the previous month (and AMR's by 20 percent),
but the average for the other major airlines was 11 percent during the
same period. While UAL's and AMR's short interest was greater than the
airline average — reflecting widespread pessimism as to their chances
— keep in mind that the average short ratio of all stocks on the
exchange reportedly rose by one percent: pretty much every airline was
getting clipped that summer compared to the rest of the market. In
other words, American and United were in deep trouble even before
September 11, and the market reacted normally (well, perhaps a little
overheatedly) to bad news and darkened forecasts.

As for the ESPD rumor, yes, the stock — in common with most Nasdaq
tech listings, a highly volatile one in the first place (it's Beta
today is a whopping 1.886) — had gone into a tailspin thanks to the
short-sellers, but by Monday, September 10, it had bounced to $8.69 —
or 74 cents above its September 7 closing price. If Osama was an
eSpeed short-seller, he had his wallet pick-pocketed by the longs on
that occasion. (Since then, ESPD's lagged behind the major indexes).

The mysterious London trades, it turns out, were the work of a small
European airline that was following a tried-and-true hedging strategy
against a downturn (wisely, it seems). And as for Munich Re, the stock
had been dropping since the beginning of September, and a week before
September 11, two brokerages cut their ratings on the firm owing to
their concerns about deterioration in the capital markets.

It is hardly likely, in any case, that a cell of terrorists, having
planned these attacks for some years, would risk detection by the
Security and Exchange Commission just a few days before they pulled
the trigger. Even granting that bin Laden himself might be somewhat
more sophisticated financially than his Taliban protectors, it is most
improbable that his accomplices and sympathizers around the world were
au fait with the workings of the derivatives market. And for executing
options orders of the magnitude of early September, one would require
the services of a major institutional broker — you try inputting "Buy
4,500 AMR October Puts" on E*Trade without getting a quizzical call
from the broker. That kind of access would have been far beyond the
means of anyone who could possibly have known in advance of the
attacks.

Conspiracies do exist in this world but the UAL and AMR affair was not
one of them. Sometimes, the most complex events have deceptively
simple causes.

— Alexander Rose is NR's deputy managing editor.

To reiterate one more time:

"A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties
to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6." This
same institution, as part of a complex trading strategy, also
purchased 115,000 shares of AMR on September 10. But what about the
spike in AMR puts trading on September 10? It turns out that a
"U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on
Sunday, September 9...recommended these trades."

All these guys (Griffith, Jones, et all) want to do is sell their
books.

Vandar
2006-03-04 18:56:06 EST
Freedom Fighter wrote:

> TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND OF THE SENATE OF THE
> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
>
> PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT,
>
> On Behalf of the People of the United States of America,

Those arrogant, pompous idiots don't speak for me or my family.

Freedom Fighter
2006-03-04 19:15:58 EST
"Vandar" <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4OpOf.1769$kg.348@news02.roc.ny...
> Freedom Fighter wrote:
>
>> TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND OF THE SENATE OF THE
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
>>
>> PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT,
>>
>> On Behalf of the People of the United States of America,

-----
> Those arrogant, pompous idiots don't speak for me or my family.

Ad-hominem attack is the refuge of unintelligent and immature people that
can't refute an opinion with logic or facts, so they resort to childishly
attacking the person that holds the opinion.

Pathetic.



Vandar
2006-03-04 20:28:19 EST
Freedom Fighter wrote:

> "Vandar" <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4OpOf.1769$kg.348@news02.roc.ny...
>
>>Freedom Fighter wrote:
>>
>>
>>>TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND OF THE SENATE OF THE
>>>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
>>>
>>>PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT,
>>>
>>>On Behalf of the People of the United States of America,
>
>
> -----
>
>>Those arrogant, pompous idiots don't speak for me or my family.
>
>
> Ad-hominem attack is the refuge of unintelligent and immature people that
> can't refute an opinion with logic or facts, so they resort to childishly
> attacking the person that holds the opinion.
>
> Pathetic.

Wouldn't it just be easier for you to post a link to one of the other 4
million times you've pasted that?

Donnie
2006-03-05 23:51:02 EST
On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 23:56:06 GMT, Vandar <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Freedom Fighter wrote:
>
>> TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND OF THE SENATE OF THE
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
>>
>> PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT,
>>
>> On Behalf of the People of the United States of America,
>
>Those arrogant, pompous idiots don't speak for me or my family.
####################################
Why wouldn't you want to see what is there even if you don't think it
will reveal anything new?

Vandar
2006-03-06 00:50:37 EST
donnie wrote:

> On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 23:56:06 GMT, Vandar <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Freedom Fighter wrote:
>>
>>
>>>TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND OF THE SENATE OF THE
>>>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
>>>
>>>PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT,
>>>
>>>On Behalf of the People of the United States of America,
>>
>>Those arrogant, pompous idiots don't speak for me or my family.
>
> ####################################
> Why wouldn't you want to see what is there even if you don't think it
> will reveal anything new?

I'd like to see what they have as much as the next guy. Those arrogant,
pompous idiots still don't speak for me. The tapes they are "demanding"
be released have already been fully litigated through various lawsuits
and FOIA requests. It's documented at flight77.info.
The questions they ask have already been answered, so I don't want them
claiming they speak for me (as those attached to their petition look
like idiots who haven't done their research)

Freedom Fighter
2006-03-06 17:14:31 EST
"Vandar" <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:voPOf.16583$qg.10132@news01.roc.ny...
> donnie wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 23:56:06 GMT, Vandar <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Freedom Fighter wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND OF THE SENATE OF THE
>>>>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
>>>>
>>>>PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT,
>>>>
>>>>On Behalf of the People of the United States of America,
>>>
>>>Those arrogant, pompous idiots don't speak for me or my family.
>>
>> ####################################
>> Why wouldn't you want to see what is there even if you don't think it
>> will reveal anything new?
>
> I'd like to see what they have as much as the next guy. Those arrogant,
> pompous idiots still don't speak for me.

"Idiots?" How may I ask do YOUR academic qualifications entitle you to refer
to these scholars as "idiots?"

There are no degrees awarded for close-mindedness.




Donnie
2006-03-06 17:47:13 EST
On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 05:50:37 GMT, Vandar <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>Those arrogant, pompous idiots don't speak for me or my family.
>>
>> ####################################
>> Why wouldn't you want to see what is there even if you don't think it
>> will reveal anything new?
>
>I'd like to see what they have as much as the next guy. Those arrogant,
>pompous idiots still don't speak for me. The tapes they are "demanding"
>be released have already been fully litigated through various lawsuits
>and FOIA requests. It's documented at flight77.info.
>The questions they ask have already been answered, so I don't want them
>claiming they speak for me (as those attached to their petition look
>like idiots who haven't done their research)
######################################
Apparently, you don't want to see what they have "as much as the next
guy" because the next guy is demanding more information and you're
not. You are satisfied with the answers that have been given and
others are not satisfied. You will never change their minds and they
will never change yours in a million years and in a million snoozenet
posts.

Vandar
2006-03-06 19:24:30 EST
Freedom Fighter wrote:
> "Vandar" <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:voPOf.16583$qg.10132@news01.roc.ny...
>
>>donnie wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 23:56:06 GMT, Vandar <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Freedom Fighter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND OF THE SENATE OF THE
>>>>>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
>>>>>
>>>>>PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT,
>>>>>
>>>>>On Behalf of the People of the United States of America,
>>>>
>>>>Those arrogant, pompous idiots don't speak for me or my family.
>>>
>>>####################################
>>>Why wouldn't you want to see what is there even if you don't think it
>>>will reveal anything new?
>>
>>I'd like to see what they have as much as the next guy. Those arrogant,
>>pompous idiots still don't speak for me.
>
>
> "Idiots?" How may I ask do YOUR academic qualifications entitle you to refer
> to these scholars as "idiots?"
>
> There are no degrees awarded for close-mindedness.

None of those espousing that crap have any academic qualifications
relevant to what they're whining about, and I'm not the one trying to
use my irrelevant academic qualifications as a platform from which to
claim superior knowledge on the topic. They're idiots.
Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron