"VTR" <vexjorge@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:O-edncBeYb8Hyx_VnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> June 10, 2008 - 5:13PM
> Sen. Karen Johnson's floor speech about 9/11
> Provided to the Tribune
>
> 9/11 Floor Speech
>
> MR. PRESIDENT – POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE.
>
> INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS IN THE GALLERY … and then I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST
> THAT MY REMARKS OF
> MORE THAN 200 WORDS BE ENTERED INTO THE JOURNAL.
>
> Members -- I would like to introduce a very special guest who has been
> joined today by several
> of his closest friends. Up in the gallery, we have many of the members
of
> the Phoenix 9/11
> Truth group – people who are asking for a new, independent investigation
> of the attacks of
> Sept. 11, 2001. In particular, I would like to introduce to you a VERY
> courageous man named
> Blair Gadsby. I’m going to ask the folks with Blair to help him to stand
> as I tell you a little
> about him. Blair is very weak because he has been fasting for more than
> two weeks to try to
> bring attention to the cause of 9/11 Truth. This is the 16th day that
> Blair has gone without
> food and spent his day outside the office of U.S. Senator John McCain
> pleading with the senator
> to take a look at new evidence in the 9/11 crimes. We have one man who
is
> sacrificing his own
> personal needs and desires to stand boldly pleading for the world to
take
> notice, to question,
> to research and not place their lives into the hands of media
> sound-bites, - to think for
> themselves, consciously and critically. Blair is an educator and to me
> this is what the great
> educators do. Thousands of people all over the country and actually
around
> the world have been
> watching on the internet as this Hunger Strike progresses here in
Phoenix.
> I want Blair to know
> that I am his biggest fan and that good people everywhere admire him for
> his courage and
> determine. Please give a warm welcome to Blair Gadsby and the Phoenix
9/11
> Truth movement. (STOP)
>
> *************************************************************
>
> (FLOOR SPEECH) Last month, I started speaking publicly regarding my
> concerns about the attacks
> of Sept. 11, 2001, which brought down the Twin Towers of the World Trade
> Center, as well as
> Building 7. If you’ve watched the media coverage since I first began to
> speak out, you know how
> vicious and irrational it has been toward me. The media have worked hard
> to try to make it seem
> silly to even question the 9/11 Commission Re****t, even though some of
its
> own authors have
> done so, including both of the Commission Co-Chairmen – Mr. Hamilton and
> Keane.
>
> Actually, the 9/11 Commission Re****t represents just one theory – the
> theory that fire and the
> damage from the airplane impacts brought down the three buildings. This
> theory explains none of
> the features of the destruction
Actually, it explains all of them.
> that we all witnessed that day and which we can still observe
> on hundreds of videos. It explains nothing about how in four out of four
> cases, no hijacking
> code was transmitted by the hijacked airliners, and in four of four
cases,
> no fighter jets
> managed to get alongside any of the hijacked airliners.
Neither of those are "features of destuction" of the buildings themselves.
They may be features of the hijacking, but not of the collapses.
> The military officers who lied to
> Congress about their failure to protect America
And who, exactly, were these military officers? Names and ranks, please,
and be clear about the nature of the lies.
If you're going to claim that people lied, at least have the backbone to
identify them.
> would have been referred for prosecution by
> some of the 9/11 Commissioners, but those Commissioners were told that
> they did not have that
> authority.
Which is probably true. Read the terms of the commission to find out.
>The events of that day were a heinous crime against our nation and our
>citizens,
Yes they were, and most of those who perpetrated it died in the event.
> and
> the sense of justice that exists in each one of us demands to know what
> really happened and how
> all the perpetrators will be caught and punished.
How, exactly, does the speaker propose that we catch and punish the dead?
> The speculation and theorizing won’t end
> until a thorough, transparent investigation, free of conflicts of
> interest, takes place.
>
> Among the many theories that you can find on the Internet is one that
> rises above all the rest.
>
> It is rock-solid, confirmed by hard evidence, and sup****ted by hundreds
of
> scholars,
> architects, engineers and other professionals who have the education,
> training, and expertise
> to know what they’re talking about. This is the theory that explosive
> demolitions brought down
> the Twin Towers and Building 7.
Oh, please.
There is no such "rock-solid" evidence for controlled demolition. It
does
not exist.
People who know what they are talking about do not believe that
controlled
demolitions brought the towers down, including Tower 7. Saying that
they
do is simply falsehood or demonstrates incredible ignorance.
The "controlled demolition" fantasy is just that - a fantasy.
Now, there seem to me to be only two ways to understand why these people
are wasting time with this political posturing, when they should be using
the insurance companies. They should be buying shares in the insurers
and
attending the AGMs and demanding that the company recover the payouts from
those the "9/11 truthers" say are responsible.
The first way to understand this failure is that these people just aren't
smart enough to realize that that is a far more effective way to proceed;
certainly, their course of action to date has been notable for its lack of
results.
The second way to understand it is that they DO realize that this avenue
is
open to them, but that it would cause them to be wholly discredited when
the
insurer's investigations, though not bound by the same restrictions courts
are, do not reach the conclusions the "9/11 truthers" say they want and
are
unable to recover the funds or prevent future payouts.
This approach is not without risk, since it can lead to discrediting the
"9/11 truth" concept. Perhaps they don't want to take that risk.
Finally, this Senator says that some military officers lied to Congress
about their "failure to protect America". Yet she takes great care to
not
identify them by name. Is this because she is afraid of personal
prosecution?
Is she not willing to allow those officers to defend their reputations in
open court?
I'd have to say that this Senator appears to be a few seats shy of a
quorum.
-pk
<snippage>
|
