[Mb-civic] 9/11 Truth

[Ian]

Barbara:

Well, I'm not sure what to provide you since I am not sure how much you already know.  If the Pentagon debacle is the only piece with which you are familiar, then there is a great deal more, including the controlled demolition of both WTC 7 and the twin towers, and the likelihood that the "passenger heroics" story re Flight 93 is bogus -  that it was shot out of the sky by a military plane.

I know you asked me not to send "alot," but since I had just put together the following for a friend who is new to the 9/11 truth movement, I thought I would send it along, both for you and for anyone else in civic who is interested in this issue but has only spotty info.  It is admittedly lengthy, but it is also pretty comprehensive.

Feel free to take your time with it.  It is alot to digest, and some of it leads to extremely disturbing conclusions, including that our government may be complicit in the murders of 3,000 of its own citizens, the increasingly failing health of thousands of others, and the unnecessary traumatization of millions more.

Peace.

---------

I am going to go through some of the evidence that something is fishy about the "official story" of the events of 9/11.  Note that when the 9/11 truth movement refers to the "official story," they usually mean The 9/11 Commission Report (which I have read in its entirety), and subsequent statements by U.S. Government officials.  I will discuss the following four things: (i) the collapse of the twin towers, (ii) the collapse of WTC 7, (iii) the crash at the Pentagon, and (iv) the plane that went down in Pennsylvania.

I have provided website links as often as possible so you can see photos and/or videos, and read researched material.  Always feel free to browse through the various websites to learn more than just those things I am referring you to.

One "caution": it is easy to get either confused or "sucked in" by various websites, based on how "deep" they get re "conspiracy theories."  The best rule of thumb is this: the more you see certain specific facts, evidence or statements, the more likely they are to be the most accurate ones.  That is, the more "overlapping" you see with various sites, the more likely you are to be on the "right track" on the various aspects of 9/11 truth.  For my money, the best sites overall for 9/11 truth info are the following:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/quickindex/

http://killtown.911review.org/

Also, the two Alex Jones sites:

www.prisonplanet.com

www.infowars.com

---------------

1.  The Twin Towers.

The 9/11 Commission Report would have us believe that the towers fell as a result of steel support structures being weakened by the impact of the planes and the ensuing fires.  The Report claims that the fires fed on flammable materials in the building, leading to the weakening of the interior and exterior support structures, which then led to the collapse of the buildings in a "pancake effect" - i.e., one floor collapsing on top of the next, with the combined weight causing each of the buildings to collapse.  Here are some facts and questions that put the lie to that theory.

-The impact of the planes in and of themselves did "take out" some of the exterior and interior support structure.  However, the impacts themselves would not have caused the buildings to collapse.

-The initial "fireballs" of jet fuel probably caused some damage, but were not hot enough, nor for long enough duration, to cause any significant damage.  It is important to keep in mind that, in both impacts, the vast majority of the diesel fuel burned up within seconds.  More importantly, jet fuel burns, at its hottest, at around 1,800 degrees.  Yet the melting point of steel is 2,900 degrees.  So the heat from the fires - even had it been at the hottest possible temperature (which is was not) - could not have melted the support structures.  Numerous studies have been done on this, and all have concluded that there is no way that the fire was hot enough to melt steel.  (See, for example, http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064).

-There was very little flammable material in the buildings that could have provided "fuel" for the fires, especially to create a hot enough fire to continually affect the steel.  In fact, it is very clear that the fires were not very hot at all.  For one thing, the darker the smoke, the more "fuel-starved" a fire is: and the smoke from the fires in the two towers began to get dark in less than 20 minutes, which means they had very little to "feed" on.  In addition, there are numerous photographs of people standing in the areas in which the fires were supposedly hottest: yet these people are standing there comfortably (though admittedly stranded), many in clothing that is not even black from smoke.  (See, for example, http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2005/170105womanwaving.htm).

-Each tower had a "central core" comprised of 47 vertical solid-steel beams.  Note that The 9/11 Commission Report completely omits this: it is as if these "central cores" did not exist!  This is because their "pancake theory" falls apart given these "central cores."  Had the floors collapsed on top of each other in perfect pancake fashion, as the Report claims, there would have been a "stutter" effect - i.e., a slight time lag - due to the existence of these "cores."  Yet it took just under ten seconds for each of the towers to collapse.  This is called "free fall" speed: i.e., the time it would take for an object dropped from the top of one of the towers to reach the ground.  But no building collapses at "free fall" speed unless the entire interior support structure is destroyed.  The only thing that could have destroyed the interior "cores" of the twin towers is explosives: i.e., a "controlled demolition."  There is simply no other way to explain how and why the towers fell at "free fall" speed.  Indeed, in some of the photographs and videos of the collapses, you can spot the "squibs" (i.e., explosive charges) blowing up just prior to each floor collapsing, and see parts of the building flying outward - and even upward - which can only be the result of explosives.  (See, for example, http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/squibs.html and 
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/).

-Over 90% or more of the concrete in both towers was pulverized into fine dust: there were very few large chunks of concrete.  If the government's "pancake theory" were true, there would have been quite a few large chucks of steel flying off as the floors collapsed on top of each other.  The only thing that could have pulverized 95% of the concrete is explosives - especially given that some of this pulverizing occurred before the buildings had completely collapsed.  As well, there were no pieces of steel longer than between 12 and 24 feet.  In fact, almost all of the pieces of steel were exactly that size.  Only explosives could have created such perfectly "cut" steel pieces.  As an aside, it is unbelievably coincidental that this is the exact size that fits on a flatbed truck.  (See, for example, http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/aerialdust.html and http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc2_cutter.html and http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc2_cutter.html).

-The twin towers collapsed almost perfectly into their own "footprints": even though the top of one of the towers was leaning precariously, both towers fell straight down, causing the most minimal damage to the buildings around them.  This is exactly how a controlled demolition works.  (See, for example, http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/wtc.htm).

These are the clearest, most direct facts and questions.  There is also evidence to support the fact that there were explosions in the sub-basements of the two towers just prior to their collapse (See http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/underground/underground_explosions.htm and http://www.explosive911analysis.com/).  It is also curious that one of the companies hired to do the clean-up at the site was the same company that had been working, prior to 9/11, on strengthening the section of the Pentagon that was destroyed.  (See http://www.global-conspiracies.com/16254.htm).  And then there is the fact that, despite the WTC site being a "crime scene" - for which a thorough forensic investigation should have been done - the clean-up was done as quickly as possible, without allowing any government or independent agency to seriously examine any of the "evidence."  One widespread speculation is that, had such an investigation been permitted, someone would have discovered traces of thermite - the explosives used in controlled demolitions - on the steel beams and in the pulverized dust.

Finally, for a very good overview of the twin tower collapses, go to: http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html.

2.  WTC 7

At 5:02 pm on September 11, 2001, WTC 7 - a 47-story steel and concrete building - collapsed, just hours after WTC 1 and 2.

The 9/11 Commission Report does not address the collapse of WTC 7 at all.  This is an incredible oversight, given what its collapse almost certainly signifies.  FEMA did do a "report" on the collapse of WTC 7, as did NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology).  The FEMA Report is a joke, as almost none of the "facts" in the report are backed up by any evidence - and, indeed, almost all of the visual and other evidence clearly undermines that report.  The NIST Report was more "thorough," but ultimately does not conclude what caused the collapse.  (See, for example, http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/).

Here are some of the facts that point to a controlled demolition, and what that means in the "bigger picture":

-WTC 7 was a 47-story steel-and-concrete building.  It was not hit by a plane.  Prior to its collapse, there were two or three small fires on various floors of the building. None of them was severe (i.e., uncontrollable), despite what firefighters later claimed.  And although the building may have been hit by some of the debris from the collapse of the north tower, this did not cause the fires.  Indeed, the origin of the fires has never been ascertained: they could have been set deliberately.

-At 5:02, WTC 7 collapsed at "free fall" speed, completely into its "footprint."  As noted above, a building cannot collapse at "free fall" speed unless the entire interior support structure is destroyed first.  And the only way that can be done is by explosives.  Similarly, as above, a building rarely if ever collapses perfectly into its "footprint" unless by controlled demolition with explosives.  These two facts alone point to a controlled demolition.  Yet the most direct evidence that WTC 7 was destroyed by a controlled demolition comes from WTC owner Larry Silverstein himself, in an interview done for a PBS documentary on 9/11.  In that interview, Silverstein clearly states that he and the fire department made the decision to "pull" the building: "pull" is construction industry terminology for a controlled demolition.  And you need only watch any of the numerous videos of the collapse of WTC 7 to see that it was unquestionably a controlled demolition: it looks exactly like all the controlled demolitions they show on TV.  See, for example, http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/pp_fdny.htm.  If you play the second video (click on the second "play" button), you will see the clip from the PBS video and hear Silverstein say that it was "pulled."  Note that some people are claiming that he meant that he was pulling the firefighters from the building.  However, it is very clear from his last sentence that that was not what he meant: he clearly meant "pull" the building.  Finally, note that not once in history has a steel-and-concrete building collapsed as the result of fire.  Indeed, a building very much like WTC 7 caught fire in Madrid and burned out of control at much hotter temperatures for hours on more floors than were on fire at the WTC - yet the building did not collapse.  (See photos and text at http://www.infowars.com/articles/world/madrid_towering_inferno.htm).

-WTC 7 had some very interesting tenants, including the IRS, the CIA, the Department of Defense, the Secret Service, and the Office of Emergency Management (OEM). Re OEM, this was the famous "bunker" that Giuliani built as a command center for crises.  There are many who believe that this was actually the command center for coordinating the 9/11 attacks on the WTC, and that the building was destroyed to cover up all evidence of this fact.

Indeed, given that the collapse of WTC 7 was almost certainly a controlled demolition, there is a further critical fact to consider: setting the charges for a controlled demolition takes day, if not weeks - it cannot be done in just a few hours, especially for a 47-story building, and especially when there are active fires in the building.  This means that the explosive charges had to have been set prior to 9/11.  And this leads to two conclusions, the first one obvious: if the explosive charges were set prior to 9/11, this means that someone - indeed, many people - almost certainly had prior knowledge of the attack.  And the second conclusion is that if explosive charges were set in WTC 7 in advance of 9/11, this makes it more likely that explosive charges were set in the twin towers - which means that the collapses were not the result of plane impacts and fires, but of controlled demolitions.  Indeed, there was a "power-down" in the area of the WTC just days before 9/11, which would have required that no one be in either of the twin towers working late at night: i.e., that both towers were completely empty.  (See, for example, http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/powerdown.html).  As if that were not incredible enough, the company that provided security access to the twin towers was owned by...George Bush's brother!  (See http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911security.html).

So what does all this mean in the "bigger picture?"  You need only put the pieces together.  WTC 7 was destroyed in a controlled demolition, as admitted to by Larry Silverstein and as seen in the numerous videos.  The charges for such a controlled demolition could not have been placed that day, so they must have been placed prior to 9/11.  This means that there was foreknowledge of the attacks.  It also means that it is far more likely that the twin towers were also destroyed by controlled demolitions, since so much evidence points that way: we now know that WTC 7 was destroyed that way, that explosive charges had to be set prior to 9/11, and that there was a power-down at the WTC that would have allowed a demolitions crew unimpeded and largely unseen access to the twin towers.

3.  The Pentagon.

Here we have the most clear-cut case of a cover-up, and the most complicated set of events, facts and possibilities.

The 9/11 Commission Report would have us believe that a Boeing 757 crashed into one wing of the Pentagon at over 500 miles per hour, causing a fireball and virtually disintegrating.  Here is both factual evidence and strange occurrences that lead to a different conclusion.

-A Boeing 757 has a wingspan of 124 feet, a length of 155 feet, and a height (at the tail) of 44 feet.  (See http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/technical.html).  The hole that was made in the side of the Pentagon measured 60 feet across and about 30 feet high.  It does not take a genius to realize that a plane with a wingspan of 124 feet would make a hole much larger than 60 feet across, and that the tail section would create a hole higher than 30 feet.  (See http://www.thepowerhour.com/911_analysis/plane-crash-pentagon-hole-photo.htm).

-There was very little debris of any type found.  No seats, luggage, personal effects, or large sections of plane wreckage.  Note that even if a fireball occurred at impact, all plane crashes leave wreckage of some type.  And what little wreckage was found was very suspicious: the largest pieces were found quite a distance from the impact zone, and did not appear in early photos of the scene.  Also, the wheel base found at the site did not match a 757.  (See, for example, http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html).

-There is some question as to just how large the fireball was.  The only photos we have were released by the Pentagon from a single closed circuit camera some distance from the imact zone.  As an aside, it is suspicious that all other closed circuit cameras at the Pentagon happened to be shut down at the time of the impact.  And the Pentagon has only released four frames from the sole existing video.  Setting aside the additional suspicion created by the fact that the "time-stamp" on the photos is 9/12 (!), the photos are not in sequence, and it is impossible to tell what hit the building.  Yet a careful look at the photos shows two things.  First, whatever hit the building was not large enough to be a 757.  Second, the fireball was not nearly as large as one would expect from a 757 fully-laden with 10,000 gallons of diesel fuel.  In fact, if you compare the fireball with the one we all saw when the second plane hit the twin towers, it is clear that whatever hit the Pentagon could not have been the same size plane.  (See, for example, http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagon/spencer05.htm.  Scroll down about 2/'3 of the way to see the video stills.)

-Note also that there was video footage from at least four other cameras in the area, including a gas station and a hotel.  However, all of these videotapes from confiscated by the FBI within less than an hour of the crash, and none of it has ever been released to the public.  As an aside, this leads to another unanswered question: how did the FBI know exactly where every camera that might have caught the impact was located, and arrive at each place to confiscate those tapes with less than a couple of hours of the impact?

-Despite the impact, the windows on the third floor directly above the impact zone were undamaged.  This is highly unlikely if a plane with a height of 44 feet hit the building.  (See http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/building.html).  Second, despite the fireball, items directly next to the impact zone were undamaged by fire, including a wooden desk with an open book.  (See http://www.physics911.ca/Omholt:_9/11_and_The_Impossible_Pentagon.  Scroll down about 3/4 of the way and look for a daytime shot of the collapsed section of the building.  On the second floor, in the third room back, is a wooden stand on which is sitting an open book.  Neither of these items - nor anything in the rooms adjacent to the impact zone - was even singed.)

-Whatever hit the building left a perfectly circular "exit" hole.  (See http://www.rense.com/general63/pmm.htm, first and second photo).  If a plane had hit the building, it would not have left a perfectly circular exit hole, since the nose of the plane would have been the first thing smashed.  In addition, the exit hole is a long distance from where the internal end of the impact zone occurred, and even if the nose of the plane survived, it would not have travelled that distance.  Third, there is no nose cone wreckage at the exit hole.  (See also http://911review.org/brad.com/pentagon/exit_hole/ and http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/11%20September%202001/pentagon.htm).

-The lawn in front of the impact zone was completely untouched.  In other words, despite the claim that a 757 was flying virtually only a few feet above the ground when it impacted the building, there is no damage to the lawn at all, either from exhaust or "sliding" or the impact itself.  (See http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/pentalawn.html and http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/lawn.html.  Both of these websites have great photos of all aspects of the crash.  As you look at the photos of the building from different angles and at different times, you will see - without any question in your mind - that it could not have been a 757 that hit the building).

-According to the official Report, whatever hit the Pentagon did a 270-degree turn at over 400 miles per hour.  Every professional commercial pilot who was asked about this said that such a maneuver is virtually impossible - especially for a novice flyer (which the alleged Arab pilots were).  (See, for example, http://www.thepowerhour.com/911_analysis/steves-analysis.htm).

-It is highly suspicious that, despite having one of the most comprehensive and complex video, defense and anti-aircraft systems, all of these systems were inactive when the Pentagon was hit.

-It is additionally suspicious that the wing of the Pentagon that was impacted had been undergoing a "strengthening" at the very time of the impact: i.e., blast windows were being put in, and other measures were being taken to "shore up" that part of the building.  (And, as noted above, the company that was doing this is one of the four companies that just happened to be chosen for the clean-up of the WTC site...)  In addition, that wing was the furthest place possible from where all the "brass" were - including Rumsfeld himself, who was in the building at the time.  If you were a hijacker with enough info to be able to penetrate the Pentagon's defense system, you would certainly also know what part of the building had the greatest number of "important people."  So why would you deliberately avoid hitting that part of the building - making a complicated and dangerous 270-degree turn at high speed in order to hit the part of the building that would cause the least damage and loss of life?

If Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, this raises two serious questions.  First, what did hit the Pentagon?  And second, what happened to Flight 77 and its passengers?

There are two main theories as to what actually hit the Pentagon.  One theory holds that it was a military "drone" plane (i.e. unmanned, controlled by remote control). And there are at least two such planes which would fit the evidence that exists re the size of the hole made by the plane, the damage caused, and the size and "containment" of the fireball.  The other theory holds that it was a large missile, "dressed up" to look like a small plane at high speed.  And, again, there are such missiles that would fit all the evidence that exists.  Indeed, the missile theory may be the more probable of the two theories, since (i) a missile could be outfitted with a small bomb that would explode on impact (causing the fireball), and (ii) a missile would leave an "exit hole" much like the one in the photos.

If Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, what happened to it?  There is at least one truly disturbing theory.  According to the 9/11 Commission Report, two military aircraft were "scrambled" when it was discovered that a "possibly hostile aircraft" was approaching the Pentagon.  Yet these two military craft were "held" just out over the Atlantic Ocean for at least 20-30 minutes before being allowed to attempt to intercept the "plane."  The very disturbing theory has it that the two military planes actually "escorted" Flight 77 out over the Atlantic Ocean and shot it down some time before the "possibly hostile aircraft" (i.e., the military drone or missile) began its approach to the Pentagon.  Note that the time line allows for this scenario: (i) Flight 77 took off at 8:50 am and was hijacked only moments afterward; (ii) Flight 77's transponder was turned off (making the plane "invisible" to radar) by 9:00 am; (iii) whatever crashed into the Pentagon did so at 9:41 am - over 40 minutes later.  Thus, there would have been plenty of time for the military jets to make contact with Flight 77 and order the pilot to follow them - which the pilot would have done without question - then shoot it down over the Atlantic and "replace" it with the drone plane or missile.

Clearly, this theory is as disturbing, if not more so, than the idea that over 2,500 people were murdered in the controlled demolition of the twin towers.  Yet if the twin towers were brought down by controlled demolition - and evidence is piling up in that direction, as noted above - then it is no longer a "stretch" to believe that those who planned and executed the events of 9/11 would deliberately shoot down a commercial airliner, killing everyone aboard.

In any case, unlike the facts and evidence surrounding the collapse of the twin towers, the facts and evidence surrounding the crash at the Pentagon clearly lead to the conclusion that it could not have been a Boeing 757 that struck the building, and that there was clearly a "cover-up" with regard to the crash.

4.  Flight 93.

The 9/11 Commission Rport would have us believe that a "titanic struggle" occurred when passengers on the plane stormed the cockpit to try to overpower the hijackers, and that this was what caused the plane to crash into a field in Pennsylvania.  However, there is quite a bit of evidence to support the belief that Flight 93 was shot down by one or two military planes, and that no such passenger heroics ever occurred.

-Numerous eyewitnesses claim to have seen a "white military plane" following Flight 93 just prior to the crash.  And at least one military veteran believes that the sound he heard just prior to the crash was a missile.  (See http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/flight_93.html and http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12192317&method=full&).

-The FBI and Pennsylvania Police cordoned off a second site where wreckage was found - almost eight miles from the crash site.  The only way that wreckage could have been strewn that far is if the plane was blown apart in mid-air.  (See http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight93.html (second quote on right side of home page, reported by CNN) and http://www.flight93crash.com/flight93_secondary_debris_field.html (see 5th paragraph)).

-In a speech to the troops in December 2004, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld actually stated that Flight 93 was "shot down."  The Pentagon later claimed that Rumsfeld "misspoke," but given the other evidence to support a shoot-down, it would seem that he "accidentally" spoke the truth.  (See 
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/27/rumsfeld.flt93/).

Finally, it is incredibly suspicious that the FBI took possession of both the cockpit voice recorder and the flight data recorder (the "black boxes"), and has refused to release any of the evidence from either of them.  Thus, we have only their word that the cause of the crash was passengers attempting to overpower the hijackers.

-----------

I also want to touch on a few other related issues re 9/11.

1.  According to the passenger manifests (the lists of passengers on each plane), there were no Arabs on any of the planes.  Nor is there any indication - even in The 9/11 Commission Report - that the hijackers were travelling under aliases.  So how did the hijackers get on the planes?  One theory has it that they were put on board by high-placed government or other officials.

2.  According to numerous reports, at least 5 (and perhaps as many as 7) of the hijackers whose names and photos appeared in the papers just days after the 9/11 attacks were seen alive with their families in Saudi Arabia less than a year later.

3.  The U.S. Government claimed to have "no idea" the attacks were going to occur, nor did they have any names or faces of the hijackers on 9/11.  Yet only 48 hours later - on September 13th - the Goverment released the names and photos of all 19 hijackers, including who the "ringleaders" were.  This single fact stretches credibility a long, long way.

4.  According to an in-depth investigative report (available on DVD) called the "Venice Flying Circus" (that's Venice, Florida, not Venice, Italy), there is a great deal of evidence that Mohammed Atta and the other hijackers were actually CIA operatives, or otherwise associated with the U.S. government, and were certainly not "rabid Islamic fundamentalists" carrying out the will of Osama bin Laden (who, you will remember, was the U.S. government's "man in Afghanistan" during the conflict with the Russians that ended in 1989.  It is a well-known, undisputed fact that bin Laden was supported by the CIA for years).  Consider the following facts from the "Venice Flying Circus" report:

-The majority of the hijackers were trained at two flight schools in Florida, one in Venice and one in Naples.

-Both of those flight schools were bought by Scandinavian nationals about a year or so prior to 9/11.  Both of those Scandinavian nationals were CIA operatives.

-While attending flight school, some of the hijackers were staying in a small community in Naples that was created specifically for families of CIA members.

-While attending flight school, the hijackers were "partying it up": wearing Western clothes, drinking, smoking, getting lap dances, etc.  This is hardly the way "rabid Islamic fundamentalists" would act, since all of those activities are forbidden in Islam.

-Within a few months of 9/11, the two flight schools were sold by the Scandinavian nationals, and they returned to their CIA duties in Scandinavia.

There is a great deal more in the report, which was done so quickly after 9/11 that the government did not have time to "buy everyone's silence" - so the investigator was able to interview many people who interacted with Atta and his crew.

There is also a great deal more on 9/11 in general that I have not touched on, including the EPA's lies about the safety of the air immediately after the collapse of the twin towers (which has already led to the deaths of all 16 search and rescue dogs, and at least one policeman and one firefighter - with dozens more suffering from serious respiratory conditions), the question of all the supposed cell phone calls made by passengers on some of the airplanes (since cellphones don't work at 30,000 feet), the question of whether the plane that hit the south tower was even a commercial airliner, and the suspicious fact that Bush llip-flopped on Osama bin Laden: immediately after the attacks, it was "Wanted dead or alive," "Public Enemy #1," "We'll smoke him out," and a $5 million reward for his capture.  Yet only a year later, Bush said (and I am paraphrasing), "I don't think about him much anymore.  He's been marginalized, and the war on terror is larger than one man."  But when bin Laden released a new tape last year calling for more terror attacks on the U.S., Bush flip-flopped again and said "We need to take him seriously."  Could it be that Bush never really - seriously - went after bin Laden because the two of them were in cahoots?

Of course, all of this leads to the big question: what exactly occurred on 9/11?  There are no "smoking guns" - yet.  And even the most knowledgeable 9/11 truth researchers have not put forth complete theories of the "whole picture."  I do have a theory, based on the available evidence.  However, since I am still working out some of the details, I will provide it when I am ready.

Peace!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060329/41e684de/attachment-0001.htm