1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The Horror Continues

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by Jon Gold, Apr 10, 2006.

  1. Seve B

    Seve B Registered User

    I have already stated that the motive is unknown and probably unknowable without subpoena power. The 9/11 Commission had such power, but failed to exercise it with regards to WTC-7. Profound statement Lovehound: Absence of proof proves nothing. Perhaps that's what was on the mind of the 9/11 Commission when they didn't investigate the collapse of WTC-7.

    Your comparison of the collapse of WTC7 to a magic show is spurious and actually supports my hypothesis. It is the people involved in a magic show, the performers, that purposefully act in such a way that your eye is deceived. Everyone here is arguing that well understood principles, namely gravity, worked to bring down WTC-7. I'm the one that is arguing the possibility of human involvement.

    Also, your argument that "Things often look like what they are not" actually lends support to those earlier that were trying to get everone here to not believe their eyes, that two jets crashing into WTC 1 and 2 were the only cause of their collapses. Which is it, do we beleive our eyes or don't we?
     
  2. Seve B

    Seve B Registered User

    If you don't want to discuss these issues and think I'm a troll, then go somewhere else, join another discussion.

    Also, what I have done is argue with people here, I don't reject every answer and in fact I have commended some members as being absolutely correct. Argue with me back if you want to, that's what this is all about.

    Still, no one has tried to argue with me about the meaning of Larry Silverstein's statement about the decision to "pull it" in the PBS documentary. One member's statement that "it could have meant anything" is extremely unpersuasive and I'm sure everyone here can see that. Give me a concrete statement of what he meant and your reasons for believing so. I have already made this request but here it is again.

    Also, there are apparently engineers here. One of them could surely give me a coherent argument as to why the bending, twisting, stretching, and compressing of the components of the building's structure that were not damaged by the fire/debris would offer absolutely no resistance to the collapse of the building.
     
  3. Seve B

    Seve B Registered User

    The motives of individuals is so much more difficult to figure out than something that is scientifically verifiable. Any theories I present with regards to motive will instantly be blasted by the members here as having no support. As I said, I can't get support for motive because the only way to prove that is to subpoena witnesses. I get the impression that the members here will take nothing less than verifiable proof of theories they do not agree with (I, admittedly, feel the same way about the theory that fires/debris brought down WTC-7 in that I want verifiable proof), and any speculation I have to offer will not be helpful.

    Also the two questions aren't intermixed in my opinion. I have already argued, I think persuasively, that we can prove or disprove the controlled demolition hypothesis scientifically before we even get to the question of motive. If it is scientifically proven that the buildings were brought down with controlled demolition, that would instantly give the theory credibility, which would warrant further investigation into who was behind it, and with a real investigation comes the coveted subpoena power.
     
  4. ditch

    ditch Downunder Member

    Sounds fair to me. But there's a few of them around at the moment it appears.

    There was no attempt to label you in the same basket as Holocaust deniers as was said in the response to my post. The comparison to David Irving was appropriate because of the radical line he takes with what is popularly accepted as fact, much like you are doing here. I thought that was the obvious point.
     
  5. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    I'm a degreed engineer. I gave you my reasons. Feel free to reread my posts if you didn't understand them. The key words are 'catastrophic collapse due to design parameters exceeded.'

    You ask all these questions yet you're unwilling to accept the answers. Perhaps you are the person who should go elsewhere. Meanwhile I'll consider this a troll thread. Happy trolling! :)

    Try www.demolition-discussions.com or www.conspiracy-nuts.com ... Maybe they have experts there. All we have on GA are laymen (and laywomen if gender correctness requires). Nobody here has your answer. And from the thread, few care.
     
  6. Seve B

    Seve B Registered User

    'catastrophic collapse due to design parameters exceeded' - words that seem to say a lot but actually have no substance. The fact that the building collapsed is not the issue. The details of the collapse are what matter. What caused the collapse of every single support member at the exact same time?

    I went back and re-read your "explanations" and I would be very interested to know what type of engineering you have a degree in. Not all engineering curriculums delve deeply into physics and materials science.

    I guess I will go ahead and sign off now and I hope my arguments have at least sparked an interest in at least one person to go learn more about this topic. I just watched the CBS footage of the collapse of WTC7, with Dan Rather talking over it. First, in watching the footage again it is so obvious it was taken down through controlled demolition. Second, Dan Rather, the lay-est of laypeople, said something like 'That looks like the footage we have seen so many times of a building being brought down with dynamite.'
     
  7. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old school Conservative

    So long and thanks for all the fish.

    I doubt any of us will seriously consider it, considering the way this material was presented. The problem with :beanie: people is their lack of making a good presentation. They blare all of this stuff at the top of their lungs so loud and often that no one hears it after a while.

    A fanatic is best described as someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

    I think this describes Jon and company quite well.

    I still do not see the reasons as to why WTC-7 was brought down. Why not 3? Or 6? Or all of them? The technical expertise needed to prepare 7 would have required months of preparation work, in secret, all with the foreknowledge of 9/11 and when it would happen. And I mean what specific day it would happen. You are, indirectly, accusing Mr. Silverstein of collaborating with OBL, et. al. Mr. Silverstein would have had to have direct knowledge of the plans and time table in order to prepare the building.

    Things are too complex to have happened in this order.

    Also, no one has brought forth the notion (other than myself) that no one from this "organization" had a guilt attack and didn't talk? All it would take is one person to break this wide open.

    None of these things have been addressed.

    I have spent hours in morbid fascination reading this train wreck of a thread. I'm through. Y'all talk amongst yourselves, or you can lock this thread. I think it's reached the end.
     
  8. Elspeth

    Elspeth Beware the Fire Dragon

    Thank you Lovehound. That is what I thought, but I wanted a more learned opinion from a person in the field we are talking about.

    Me I studied art and computers in college:)
     
  9. cdw

    cdw Ahhhh...the good life.

    Oh, thank god! I was REALLY starting to get scared at the thought of people from Brooklyn having more knowledge than...well, now THAT would have been a true CT, now wouldn't it? :lol:
     
  10. cdw

    cdw Ahhhh...the good life.

    I just went to the site you linked... omg, people actually believe that the government not only planted massive bombs in the WTC buildings but also in the Pentagon at the same time and managed to get planes flown in all these places too? In the Pentagon? Why'd they spare the White House? Cause Cheney was behind the whole thing and they were afraid he wouldn't get out in time? :rofl: Or, oh, wait...I know....because some idiots weren't in on the whole thing and shot the plane down, right? And the detonators on the explosives failed. Of course!

    Okaaaay...this has been an interesting diversion from real life. My thoughts are with those who died and experienced the horror of that day and all the other tragedies that were bestowed upon all those in the bombings prior and after 9/11 worldwide. What a terrible disservice to them, the survivors and those that protect us.
     
  11. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    A few things, since I think this is all coming to a close.

    1. I believe this topic was done a huge disservice by the person who started this thread, Jon Gold. His style was in your face, aggressive, and attacked people who didn't agree with him. It was followed up by another pit bull in CB_Brooklyn. By the time Ben and Seve came on the scene the tone was set, although I think we all did a fantastic job in pulling back the reins on ad-hominems.

    2. Further, I think GA membership did an amazing job with their opinions. They didn't discard things at face value, but they also demanded more with questions which were reasonable. You folks never cease to amaze me.

    3. I think Ben and Seve, and ESPECIALLY Seve has done a tremendous service for his camp in the WAY he spoke about this issue. He was honest about what he believed and what he didn't believe. I've read many sides of these theories from different sources and I've yet to see it presented as professionally, level headed, and sticking to the issues as Seve. To a certain extent Ben as well.

    4. If many of you are wondering why people (and I am not saying this IS the reason the 4 people who came on to this board believe these theories) believe in the CT's is better described by this BBC article (hat tip to tke711):


    The cream of the crop for the explanation for this and many other CT's is superbly explained with in our human nature:

    Again, thanks a lot to all of the people involved in this thread. It has been an excellent thread, despite a few flames.
     
  12. benthere

    benthere Registered User

    I don't want to revive this thread, but I can't let a misrepresentation of the facts like that go unchallenged. The Scholars for 9/11 Truth has at least one member whose wife died during the events of 9/11. The families pushed for the 9/11 commission to be created, then when the 9/11 Commission Report was published, they drafted a list of unanswered questions that the Report didn't address. You can read about the group and excerpts from some of those questions here:

    http://physics911.ca/org/modules/mylinks/visit.php?cid=23&lid=27

    Also, Steven Push, a lawyer representing victims' families stated, in a Guardian article:

    William Rodriquez, an engineer working in one of the basement floors of the WTC, and who was responsible for saving many lives by helping people out of the building (I think he won an award from the President for that), has filed a RICO lawsuit against some members of our government.

    http://archive.democrats.com/preview.cfm?term=September%2011%20Lawsuits

    [SIZE=-1]Ellen Mariani, who lost her husband on 9/11, also filed a RICO lawsuit, this one against [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]President Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, George Tenet, Condoleezza Rice, Norman Mineta, Kenneth Feinberg, and George H.W. Bush. Quote from her attorney on MSNBC:[/SIZE]

    [SIZE=-1]
    [/SIZE]


    [SIZE=-1]You can say that you disagree with their complaints if you wish, but you can't say that anything we've done has been a disservice to those families, when they have the same questions, have been responsible for the creation of the commissions that have investigated so far, and are not convinced that the investigations were complete. They are also part of the many "9/11 Truth" groups that are responsible for much of the informal investigation you see on these sites.[/SIZE]

    [SIZE=-1]Again, I don't wish to continue any argument, but I just want you to know that your argument that we are doing a "[/SIZE]terrible disservice to them" is complete bunk. Ignoring their complaints, giving them no media coverage, and misprepresenting calls for further investigation does a far greater disservice to them.

    Please, before anyone replies to that, do the research on the victims' families and their wishes yourself.

    Regarding some of the other replies, I agree with ethics' comments appreciating the response of some of the GA members. Much of the discussion was civil and level headed. Demanding answers to your questions and doing your own investigations is good, and appreciated.
     
  13. Violet1966

    Violet1966 Stand and Deliver Staff Member

    Look I'm gonna say what I'm saying here then I'm done too here. Everyone was traumatized that day. We all want answers. One of the ones I wanted and I blamed our government for was why weren't those planes stopped? Why did we allow these people into the country? My questions are more "main stream" then the more traumatized end of the spectrum where people are living in fear and looking to blame our government in different ways. Your reaction as was mine back then, are part of some sort of post traumatic stress situation. Our nation was attacked. Our government wasn't able to stop it. Some will point fingers one way...some other ways but in the end we felt vulnerable and needed to blame someone and want every answer. Now we can get into what if's with anything in life...that isn't going to change anything though. The fact is this terrorized us and it seems to be dividing a part of culture. You people are that part. Well good. Keep up your research and come up with some real solid proof. Until then, you can't get everyone to believe your theories so you're just going to have to get used to the reactions here because they are the reactions of real broad spectrum Americans. People who lost friends or know people who lost people. We have some rescuers here who were there after. We have all kinds here and if you took the forum seriously you'd know this. We have communists, racists, every color you can imagine....we've come across some extremists and seen just about everything there is to see in people from around the world. We don't just focus on US issues here either. So you tested your theory and it's been proven you all need to gather your evidence a little better. What you're asking is similar to the public wanting to interview Lee Harvey Oswald. The terrorists who actually flew the planes are dead. We know for a fact they were who they were from witnesses and records. Things led to certain organizations. There's really not much to doubt about the bottom of this.

    I ask you to rethink the US involvement theory as I posted some facts in one of my earlier posts. Where this was a fear in other countries too as they got intelligence that led to them intercepting possible disasters. We have one of the accomplices under arrest and he's damn proud to talk of his role in all this. We also have a previous attack on the WTC and other attacks where the same people claimed they planned it.

    None of them is going to be the first to admit this and that's why so many people called this act cowardly. That's what terrorism is. It doesn't come when you expect it. You gonna say that any terrorist acts now going on in the world, are really government plots? We thought we would never be hit on our soil again. We were wrong.

    I hope one day we can all come to peace with what happened that day and really move on. All of us. If we don't.....they win. :(
     
  14. Piobaireachd

    Piobaireachd Full Member

    Yup, kooks are everywhere. Must be Art Bell fans.
     
  15. benthere

    benthere Registered User

    I appreciate your sentiment.
     
  16. Seve B

    Seve B Registered User

    How bold of you to chime in with your little snide remark after I left.

    I would love to hear from you specifically how my presentation was bad, why you thought the tone of my words were "blaring at the top of my lungs" and, moreover, why you think I am not smart. I can say with absolute confidence that I have articulated my points here better than anyone. Even if you don't agree with the substance of my points, I'm sure you can agree that I have presented everything in a clear, coherent and straightforward manner.


    I think I have made a persuasive case that the collapse of WTC-7 warrants further investigation because the scientific theory for the collapse proposed by the NIST has not undergone the rigorous scientific scrutiny necessary for such a theory to be generally accepted as fact, nor has the evidence considered by the NIST been made publicly available so that their conclusions can be independently verified.

    Some above have commented that I should come back when I have more evidence to support my claims. Well, that is exactly what I have been calling for here. I don't have access to the evidence because the NIST has not released it to the public. They released a description of the evidence, but not the actual evidence itself, and their "report" would not stand up in court, nor should it stand up in the scientific community without publication/disclosure of the underlying evidence. If I got my hands on the evidence, you can rest assured that I would analyze it and have it analyzed and return if and when that evidence supports the controlled demolition theory.

    This will honestly probably be my last post on the topic of 9/11 theories generally, and surely WTC-7 specifically (unless someone has something new to offer). To those that leave snide remarks about me after I depart, let me go ahead and respond with an extremely sarcastic "well crafted" and "very clever".

    But I will leave you with this:

    Much has been made here on the question of motive behind possible government involvement in 9/11. The Project For A New American Century (whose members you can figure out or probably already know, including top figures in the Bush Administration) published a paper in September 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses". You can find it at:
    http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

    In it they talk about maintaining and extending America's superiority through military supremacy. I highly recommend you read it. On page 51 of the document (page 63 of the .pdf file), they state that the "process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catostrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." Well everyone, looks like they got their wish: 9/11, the ultimate catostrophic and catalyzing event. I would submit to you that every argument in that paper in favor of revolutionizing our military and extending American power in the world represents ample motive on the part of the PNAC members to create a catastrophic and catalyzing event, so their dreams of military supremacy could be realized.

    P.S. thanks ethics for your levelheadedness as well, and your gracious comments about they way I have conducted myself here.
     
  17. ditch

    ditch Downunder Member

    You can stay as calm as you like Seve and be as polite as you like, and you have been. But you and your mates have put forward nothing but a naive conspiracy theory. Your ideas make no more sense than to say the earth is flat. You have been most unconvincing as to the motive/s. There is nothing convincing at all in what you say. As far as the physics go I'll have to leave the debunking to those more qualified.

    Numerous times in history when major events occur that shock, there follows a conspiracy theory that attempts to explain it all. The most recent post of ethic's quotes a psychology professor whose explanation for this phenomenon makes a good deal of sense. Perhaps you guys should be looking between your own ears for why you want to believe all that you have written here.
     
  18. Copzilla

    Copzilla dangerous animal Staff Member

    I disagree entirely. Making a statement like that does not indicate any form of motive. That statement is so ambiguous as to be simply an observation. Many predictions do in fact come true, without it being a conspiracy. And I disagree that anyone WISHED for a catastrophic event, particularly anyone in the government.

    Again, this is not proof, and isn't even close enough on the proof meter to be worthy of mention. It was a waste of my time to read it. Many of the CT arguments are of this nature.

    Puffs of smoke, and things like that, indicated a detonated charge? Have any of you folks ever heated concrete? You know what happens to concrete when it's heated?

    Some years ago, back when cops were a little looser, nights were a little slower, a few cops I know went to a subdivision that was under construction in the middle of the night and built a bonfire out of scrap wood in the middle of a cul de sac to warm themselves and just BS through the boring hours. The concrete beneath that cul de sac became heated, and an air pocket in the concrete popped. It sounded like a gunshot, and blew sparks and embers all over the cul de sac. It blew a footlong size chunk out of the concrete.

    I suppose we could have theorized that someone planted explosives in the concrete, and someone wanted to kill us all, but we just figured that Occam's Razor applied.

    The world is a dynamic place, where things like puffs of smoke happen in gigantic fires created by tons of superheated fuels. Where buildings falling from one reason look like buildings falling from another reason. Where twenty stories of concrete falling onto one story of concrete are not going to be slowed at all by that one story of concrete, and yes, it will appear to be a near freefall.

    And regardless, we could investigate it until the cows come home, by experts the world over, and in fact 9-11 has been, but a select few disregard all of them, seeking to discredit them, have proclaimed themselves to have the gospel in order to assure themselves that these random acts of violence in this dynamic world cannot happen. But they do. It's a violent, chaotic world.

    I don't need to attend meetings with a bunch of Jonestown refugees and Heaven's Gate leftovers in order to reach my opinion that a person raising a question isn't necessarily worthy of an answer, as the question is preposterous.
     
    1 person likes this.
  19. Frodo Lives

    Frodo Lives Luke, I am NOT your father!

    A couple questions. I really don't have any idea on this, but wouldn't planted explosives powerful enough to cut the support beams have blown out the windows in the towers? I know they where already heavily damaged, but still wouldn't glass have flown out with great force?

    If they had used remote denoting charges, couldn't a cell phone signal have caused at least one of the charges to detonate early? With the thousands of people around the buildings at any given moment and many of them using cell phones, I would think one wrong signal would have set one of the charges way before 911. I know when I was working traffic control for road construction we had to check each vehicle coming into the area to make sure that nobody was using one and made sure the people in the vehicles knew of the danger of such an accident happening.
     
  20. benthere

    benthere Registered User

    Recently I've seen that stuff about people trying to write off "conspiracy theories" as a psychological phenomenon. It was the subject of a recent mainstream Washington blog entry, shortly after Charlie Sheen was on Showbiz Live with his belief it was controlled demolition. It's probably an effective tactic for silencing or discrediting "theorists", but it seems to me it has about the same analytical value as calling skeptics "kooks", that is, next to nil.

    In my case, I was at work when the first plane hit. We had radios on everywhere I went. The news was unlike anything I had ever heard before or since, just passing off from one reporter to another. So much happening at once, and I was somewhat looking up into the sky wondering what was going to happen next. It was the only time I have ever watched streaming video at work, and I actually saw the second plane hit on CNN.

    I remember hearing secondary explosions mentioned several times that day. Later I wrote that off like everyone else as them just not knowing what all was happening. I don't remember seeing any footage of WTC 7 collapsing. People who had loved ones who lived in NYC were crying. Everyone else was in a state of shock. Soon after I would start hearing the anger of people ready to go out and get some revenge on the Arab countries that we were told had perpetrated it. I knew that the country had changed drastically in the days after 9/11.

    Months (years?) later, I watched the NOVA documentary about the collapse with great interest, as I had no understanding of how the towers could have collapsed at that time. It didn't answer it all for me, but it wasn't something that I spent a great deal of time on either. I used to watch X-files occasionally, but thought most of it was unbelievable. I knew about as much about the JFK assassination as anyone else in my generation who wasn't alive then. I was not a conspiracy theorist by any definition of the phrase.

    It wasn't until a couple of months ago when I was browsing around bittorrent that I got the idea to do a quick search for videos of the collapse. You can get videos of most events that are broadcast on TV, so there surely must have been some clips of the collapse. I came across "9/11 Eyewitness" in that search. It was the video from a guy that lived across the Hudson in NJ, who had recorded the whole event from an angle not seen on network television pool cameras.

    You hear explosions several seconds before the collapse, loud enough to be heard across the river. You see smoke rising from the base of the towers. Well...I've never seen that on TV before. So I did research. Hmm...turns out you can see squibs going off 20 or more feet below the collapse zone in different locations all around the building on footage from just about every major news station. Did more research. Turns out William Rodriguez, who I've mentioned before as an engineer in the WTC, heard an explosion in one of the basement floors just before the planes hit and had one of his coworkers come in right after with his skin hanging off saying there was an explosion. Turns out nobody's listening to Mr. Rodriguez. That's why I hadn't heard of him before.

    Well, you can hear references to secondary explosions just about anywhere you look. Newspaper reports, eyewitnesses, TV news, firefighter tapes, plus all the video evidence that definitely isn't "cement heating up" nor is it windows blowing out. You can watch the videos from multiple sources with projectiles arcing out of the building and witness the top half of the South tower start tilting and disintegrate along the way, even though there is no more weight and no more damage to that section than there was when it was standing up. The damage was below that section. It should have conserved its momentum. This is basic physics folks. Is any of that adequately explained by any report produced as of yet? Nope. I've read them all. I've read the problems with them all, beyond the questions that I already knew weren't answered.

    The official theory changes from report to report, while each time they leave out things such as the WTC 7, or decide they are only going to study the collapse after its initiation, or study only the portion of the collapse down to the 78th floor. Or treat the core as if it is hollow, when in actuality it's the primary support for the building. Or fail to explain how the pancake theory works, without leaving a "spindle" where the core columns remain standing after the floors have "dominoed".

    It's clear that if the premise is correct that the buildings were demolished, it wasn't Arabs who did it. While I'm interested in finding out who may have had the motives, I don't feel it's necessary at the beginning of an investigation to know who the killer was. The evidence points to a certain method of killing. I don't blame Silverstein, but he is a "person of interest". So are those that profit from new wars, now that the Cold War is over. That makes the PNAC document that was created in the late 90s, as well as "The Grand Chessboard" particularly interesting.

    These late-90s documents prophesize our "new Pearl Harbor" as well as our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, mention most of the countries in our "Axis of Evil", encourage a rebuilding of our military and the need to ensure that we remain the only superpower in the world, with emerging threats to that supremacy from the EU, China, and India, and are written by a group made up of many of the members of the current administration. Please see the Wikipedia entry for the list that used to be prominent on PNAC's website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century. I'm sure you'll recognize more than a few names. The significance is that these are doctrine-setting documents written by probably the most influential thinktank of the current administration.

    Do I think that makes them guilty? No. It's circumstantial at best. But clearly there are people who could have motive. Almost every policy decision since 9/11, a very large percentage of our nation's budget, a new department to protect our homeland, new opportunities for our intelligence agencies, new private defense contracts, wars that we wanted to fight but didn't have support for. There are a huge number of people who benefitted from 9/11 happening, as messed up as that is.

    Do I blame everyone who made money or kept their job or got promoted because of 9/11? Absolutely not. I don't blame any of them. I don't even consider it to be necessary to start blaming any of them. Not until a true investigation happens.

    But I do believe it could have been pulled off by people within our country. I believe there are people who had motive and the opportunity. I believe there are methods to get people not to talk. I don't think it would have required too large of a group of conspirators. I think there are many good people who know something but are afraid to talk. I don't think it's easy for anyone, as this thread should show, to talk, other than to provide what the government (or even the people) want to hear. I believe, as David Ray Griffin does, that the 9/11 story has developed into a (religious) mythology that is of great significance to this nation.

    And so, I believe there is enough reason to think that we don't know enough about 9/11 yet, we haven't heard the whole story. And I am going to continue researching it, regardless of whether any of you will join me. I do, because I believe it is of utmost significance to our nation for someone to do it. I'm not 100% convinced of any one theory of what happened, and I don't think anyone else should be either. I will continue to search for primary sources (of which I have many) that prove or disprove theories explaining what I've seen with my own eyes, happened, and have heard described through many eyewitness sources. And I will support those that are filing FOIA requests, demanding answers, and raising awareness of the issues. I feel it necessary as my duty to my country and the victims who died that day.

    I've never expressed to anyone my full reasoning for getting involved in my research. But I suppose that is because I've never been questioned as to my reasoning for it. I don't think a great many of you understand that each person who is researching has their own reasons for doing what they do, that may not be easy to categorize and dismiss. The numbers are surely quite large at this point, with over 40,000 writing into CNN agreeing with Sheen, many conferences and movie screenings around the country, hundreds of websites with a great variety of opinions and material, and even a small beginning of some mainstream news coverage. That doesn't mean that I agree with all of them. In fact, there are many theories I disagree with. But I am with them in their desire for their questions to be answered, for information to be released, and for their voices to be heard.

    Thanks for listening.
     

Share This Page