FOUR MORE YEARS!!! So.. Hows that going for ya nowdays?

[Iƒrit]

The Collapse of the World Trade Center:
The first thing I will begin to discuss will be the amazing and unique designs of the actual towers. The Word Trade Center was actually designed and built around the mid-1960’s all the way through the early 1970’s. They were believed to show a new and inventive approach to skyscrapers, in that they were very light in weight and incorporated new modular construction methods to reduce the time of construction, and to reduce the total costs of the towers. Both of the towers stood four hundred and eleven meters above the ground level and twenty-one meters below the ground surface. The buildings were both square, and measured sixty-four meters. The design was dominated by wind loads instead of gravity loads, and the total weight of the structure was somewhere around five hundred thousand tons. Being in the sense that skyscrapers take on heavy wind forces. It was designed to resist two hundred and twenty-five kilometer per hour hurricane winds, and a resist a wind load of 2kPa which is a total lateral load of 5,000 tons.
Designing a building of this magnitude formed as a difficult task for architects and engineers. The best way to look at the idea for the design of this building would be to look at it like a giant egg-crate. The construction allowed the structure to be composed of approximately ninety-five percent air, which was somewhat apparent when the towers collapsed because the height of the rubble was merely only a few stories above ground. This was manly used to make the towers more cost affective and consume less construction time. The architects used a light in weight perimeter tube that had consisted of two hundred and forty-four exterior columns that were made of thirty-six centimeter square steel box section on one hundred centimeter centers. This design allowed the windows to be more than one-half meters wide, and still be able to give the proper structural support. Inside of the outer tube the design was a twenty-seven meter by forty meter core to allow the support of the weight of the tower. There were web joists that were eighty centimeters tall that had connected the inner core to the perimeter of each individual story, and there were concrete slabs produced on top of these to form the different floors. This was a new technique in the building of skyscrapers because there were usually formed with columns on five centimeter centers and contained lots of masonry to accept the loads formed by the structure. This lightweight design allowed the possibilities that if few columns were lost; the loads of the structure would shift to the adjacent columns to help keep the structure standing. This was shown and demonstrated during the initial impact of the airplanes. This is why the World Trade Center has been labeled as “one of the most redundant and one of the most resilient” skyscrapers ever built even to this day.

The next topic of discussion will be the actual impacts of the airplanes into the sides of the towers. If any of you watched the news reports that first covered the incident you would notice that the structures took the initial impacts very well. This is very true in the fact that the structures were more than one thousand times the mass of the aircraft and able to resist wind forces of up to thirty times the weight of the airplane. On the day of September 11, 2001 there was no heavy wind force so the building was only stressed to approximately one third of its allowed stress allowable from the two hundred MPa design. The structure wasn’t exactly designed for airplane impact collisions, but when you do the math it should have been able to withstand the initial collision. So if this wasn’t the cause of the collapse, what was?
The only component of the airplane that can be compared to the strength of the boxed perimeter of the World Trade Center is the keel beam location at the bottom of the planes fuselage. When the loads shifted as the columns were taken out by the aircraft, the aircraft left approximately ninety thousand liter gallons of jet engine fuel that was ignited. This obviously would create a major problem in any building. This is clearly the key factor in the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Center. A thing as simple as a fire is considered the most misunderstood part of the collapse of September 11th. Many scientists and reporters believe that the “steel melted” due to the immense amounts of jet fuel burning so hot inside the towers, but when you compare thoughts of thermodynamics and combustion science, this is simply not true.
It is said that a main part of the problems is that some engineers and the average man confuse the concepts of temperature and heat, which is understandable. These two terms are very similar and sometimes it may be hard to distinguish the difference between these two concepts. These two concepts are related, but they are not the same. According to thermodynamics, heat contained in materials is directly related to the temperatures through the heat capacity and the density of the medium. When you compare the definitions of these two terms you will find that; temperature is an intensive property that does not vary with different amounts of material, while heat is an extensive property, varying with changes in the amounts of different materials. I found a very good analogy that can help us better understand this concept. If I were to add a second log to a fire would the temperature of the fire double? They answer to this is obviously no, but if I were to add this second log to the fire, the size of the fire would be expected to double, while the temperature would remain roughly the same. Thus the concept of the enormous amount of jet fuel “burning hotter” is a false statement because of thermodynamic principles. The temperature of the fire in the World Trade Center, was not an unusual fire, and did not possess the capabilities to melt steel. We can also take a look at combustion science to see for a fact that the steel did not actually melt.
When we talk about combustion science we get the concepts of three basic types of flames. Jet burners are generally described as mixing the fuel and the oxidants in stoichiometric proportions and igniting them in a constant-volume chamber so they are not allowed to expand and exit with extreme velocities. This creates enormous amounts of pressure which is why it results in such extreme velocities. This is the most intense heat produced, and is what happens to occur in a jet engine. The next type of flame is called a pre-mixed flame. Bunsen burners are considered pre-mixed flames; they are very similar to the concepts of jet burners but travel at much slower velocities. Since the size of the chamber is non existent and the mixing occurs at the last possible second, the velocities cannot be as high due to a lack of high pressure. The flame that creates the lowest intensity of heat is called a diffuse flame. In this flame the fuel and oxidant are not mixed before the ignition. These two materials are left to flow uncontrollably and will ultimately combust when the ratios reach ranges to cause a flame. Another simple way to look at this would again be a fireplace, which is a diffuse flame exactly like that of the World Trade Center.
Numbers will prove that the fire did not cause the steel to melt, but that the steel was softened and its strengths cut in half due to the temperatures of this fire. It is said that when burning fuels at room temperatures you can define a maximum temperature for the flame. When you burn carbon with pure oxygen the maximum intensity is said to be three thousand two hundred degrees Celsius, while hydrogen burns at a maximum of two thousand seven hundred and fifty degrees Celsius. So if you but them together the maximum of three thousand degrees can be agreed as the maximum temperature of any hydrocarbons burning in pure oxygen. As we have come to discover that the air is reduced by two-thirds that of pure oxygen. When you burn pure oxygen you only need to heat its two molecules; carbon monoxide and water, but when you heat air you not only need to heat these two molecules but also four molecules of nitrogen that are also in the air. This is where you get the result that oxygen has one-third the burning intensities of pure oxygen. This means that burning jet fuel in pure oxygen; the maximum temperature possible is approximately one thousand degrees Celsius, which is not enough to melt steel whose melting point is found to be roughly one thousand five hundred degrees Celsius.
Another reason to support this concept is also that diffuse flames are also found to be very difficult to reach there maximum temperatures. There are many left over fuel molecules that must also be burning to be mixed with the best ratios. If we yet again look at a fireplace, notice that when you blow on the fire the intensity and size of the fire increase. This is a result in extra molecules that need to be burned. This concept yet again lowers the ratios of heat found in the fire in the World Trade Center. It is said that most common house fires are approximately found to be around five and six hundred degrees Celsius. The soot and black smoke confirms the ideas that I have just suggested since they are evident in fires that are fuel rich. Even with all this evidence against the idea of the steel melting, the fire was the reason for the collapse of the towers. Evidence shows that the collapse of the towers was caused by the loss of strength of the steel due to softening, and the damage to the structural integrity due to the distortion of the steel. It has been determined that the fires inside the towers were approximately around seven hundred and fifty to eight hundred degrees Celsius. It has also been determined that steel begins to soften around four hundred and twenty five degrees Celsius and loses approximately half its strength around six hundred and fifty degrees Celsius.
When both of the structures were hit there was a loss of more than one important structural member. This caused the towers to have a somewhat domino affect when collapsing. The main assumption that we can use to determine this collapse has to the with the angle clops between the outer walls and the structural core. When the fire had weakened the structural integrity of the above floors, they began to bow outwards and fall on top of each other. This in result was too heavy of force for the lower levels to support. Which in result was the reason why neither tower tipped over, but they just crumbled directly towards the ground. There was not enough lateral velocity created in the short amount of time that it took for the towers to crumble. This was a major reason why the building was created and approximately ninety-five percent air. This is why engineers have come to the conclusion that the design of these towers was very sufficient.

Ok now you have some information about the World Trade Center, and the unlikely-ness that a fire caused the building to collapse. However some skeptics will argue that point. So to insure that they are wrong lets view other sky-scaper fires and then compare them to this event.

The One Meridian Plaza Fire
One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire started on the 22nd floor and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss. It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century".
The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. 4 Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed.

skyscraper didnt collapse

The First Interstate Bank fire
The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss.

A report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire:
In spite of the total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans.

skyscraper didnt collapse

The 1 New York Plaza Fire
1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours.

skyscraper didnt collapse

Caracas Tower Fire
The tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began before midnight on the 34th floor, spread to more than 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours. Heat from the fires prevented firefighters from reaching the upper floors, and smoke injured 40 firefighters.

Lax enforcement of fire codes in Venezuela was blamed for the malfunctioning of water pumps and a lack of fire extinguishers inside of the building. Because the building was empty when the fire broke out, no civilians were killed or injured. 8

skyscraper didnt collapse

Ok did you hear about "secondary devices going off"?
Firefighter Schroeder - http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/au ... osions.htm
9/11 NBC News broadcast - http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGE ... evices.wma

What about Building 7?
Building 7 was the third skyscraper to be reduced to rubble on September 11, 2001. According to the government, fires, primarily, leveled this building, but fires have never before or since destroyed a steel skyscraper. Nor could the fires had reached a tempture that would have damaged the structure to cause a collapse in the amount of time.

The team that investigated the collapse were kept away from the crime scene. By the time they published their inconclusive report in May, 2002, the evidence had been destroyed.

Why did the government rapidly recycle the steel from the largest and most mysterious engineering failure in world history, and why has the media remained silent?

Other interesting facts and documents to look at

A interesting quote from the PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses"
Everyone is familiar with this quote...
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."

go take a look at the "Rebuilding America's Defenses" and review whats inside that document...no doubt there its a plan to ruin americas national soverity.
wiki link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_fo ... s_Defenses


U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba
Book: U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba
By David Ruppe

N E W* Y O R K, May 1, 2001* In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

Details of the plans are described in Body of Secrets (Doubleday), a new book by investigative reporter James Bamford about the history of America's largest spy agency, the National Security Agency. However, the plans were not connected to the agency, he notes.

The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.

"These were Joint Chiefs of Staff documents. The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing," Bamford told ABCNEWS.com.

"The whole point of a democracy is to have leaders responding to the public will, and here this is the complete reverse, the military trying to trick the American people into a war that they want but that nobody else wants."

Gunning for War
The documents show "the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government," writes Bamford.

Actual Document - http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010 ... hwoods.pdf

Here are a few video's that also support the truth about 9/11
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 9024486145
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 0886411718
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 0296169386

[Fear Of The Duck]

The administration also gives big oil tax cuts. Even amongst their record profits. They are the last coorperations on this planet that need a break.

Today in the US we are facing an economic problem. If those taxes were still in place we would be in even worst trouble. Americans as do people all over the world face shortages on fuel and food. With more of their money going to the Government, we would be in worst shape. Why would we be in worst shape? Because the money that was taken from us would be spent poorly. The Legislation ( Congress approves the budget, not the President) would spend money on silly projects that either do nothing, or not enough. As US citizens we are aware of the blown social programs and wasteful spending. If a Democrat is elected in the Next election the economic burden we are facing now would increase. Democrats are well known for increasing taxes. Those taxes would be put to use in a Socialist Universal Health Care system. Also money would be thrown at the problem in the Housing market. People blame bush and his "oil buddies" for the oil prices. The people who say this are naive and ignorant. The reason oil prices are horrible is because of the increase in demand. China and India, the two most populated countries in the world have increased there demand for Oil. This increase in demand has sparked the rise in oil prices world wide! Are people in France paying at the pump because of Bush as well?

for this part ya have won the corran horn best post of the month award!!

I've already told you why they have a problem with us. Not because we are "damn dirty americans" that we have a better life than they do.

IT IS BECAUSE OUR ADMINISTRATIONS ARE ALWAYS MEDDLING IN THEIR AFFAIRS.

We meddle. People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think. Don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome.

the problem is the american government is too strong. ppl that have too much power will use it, even just for the sake of it. and at the beginning it was designed to be small, the smallest government possible. where did it all go wrong?



@ifrit:

1. after reading your post i'm under the impression you haven't entirely grasped the difference between temperature and heat yourself. So just to clarify:

If I were to add a second log to a fire would the temperature of the fire double? They answer to this is obviously no, but if I were to add this second log to the fire, the size of the fire would be expected to double, while the temperature would remain roughly the same. Thus the concept of the enormous amount of jet fuel “burning hotter” is a false statement because of thermodynamic principles.

right, temperature would stay the same, but the amount of heat generated would rise significantly. also the fire was inside the building. do a quick experiment: light some stuff in your fireplace and leave it till it's almost 100% burned (there's no flame, but the fuell is still red, means the temperature is not high enough for it to burn). now cover the fireplace. if you do it right you will notice after removing the cover efter a few minutes that the fuell is burning again cos the heat trapped unde the cover caused the temperature to raise. (had you used other example i probably wouldn't have noticed this, but i have the fireplace )

i'm not an engineer but maybe the steel was softened after all.

[Iƒrit]

well you example differs from the case..one the altitude is far different, there for less oxygen. A Fireplace is alot more closed in then a building, and furtherore something I forgot to add was that most of the fuel combusted outside the building, that is clear from watching films of the collesion. But I also left a piece out that I had not quite finished, something I found during my research, I'll post it as soon as possible.

[Saturnine]

Love y'all!

I thank the sympathisers and the opposition! I've gotta walk away from this one now.. Its getting too thorough. This is going to consume my evenings!

It's been fun, but I gotta run!

Lots of good ideas have been presented by both sides.

[spoiler]VOTE BUSH IN 08![/spoiler]

[Iƒrit]

Love y'all!

I thank the sympathisers and the opposition! I've gotta walk away from this one now.. Its getting too thorough. This is going to consume my evenings!

It's been fun, but I gotta run!

Lots of good ideas have been presented by both sides.

[spoiler]VOTE BUSH IN 08![/spoiler]

Let that be a lesson to ya.

your evil jack!!!

[Juliette]

I stand by my man McCain.

Hey, what?! Stalin was judged by Nikita as well..

[Legendary Apophis]

If Americans are a bit decent they won't elect someone who wants to stay a century in Iraq

[Juliette]

If Americans are a bit decent they won't elect someone who wants to stay a century in Iraq

Thank God Americans aren't decent..

j/k

Funny how you keep saying that.. you still haven't presented any good argument against McCain; they were all too easy.

[Legendary Apophis]

If Americans are a bit decent they won't elect someone who wants to stay a century in Iraq

Thank God Americans aren't decent..

j/k

Funny how you keep saying that.. you still haven't presented any good argument against McCain; they were all too easy.

McCain is againt modifiying of health insurance, yet 45 MILLIONS of Americans don't have it.
Even been told the case that someone to cure his cancer had to sell his house so much it was expensive! So it means, either it's your life, or it's your home. If you can't pay, go die!
That's harsh, but not wrong.
If you can pay it's ok, if you can't, sorry!
McCain is for staying in Iraq, was Vietnam a so good experience to do it again? How much soldiers need to be killed to realize this invasion was STUPID? Do they need to reach 25,000 soldiers killed cap to realize?
McCain is an OPPORTUNIST.
He was against the republican religious side and the lobbies, and all of a sudden, he joins them and support them even more than Bush did. Immigration now, he supported a good project, but his party disagree, so he changes 100% his view.
Just because he USED to be a good candidate, ALL of his good sides are gone, as he's nothing but a wind vane.
So what good things does he propose, since hes so "good"?
And what does Obama do so "wrong"? I'm really waiting to hear!

[Juliette]

Down with Obama!



It's Too Soon, Senator

On Nov. 4. 2008, Obama will be 47 years old. He will have served in the Senate for less than four years and in elected office for little more than a decade.

Even assuming a Democrat wins the White House and is reelected in 2012, Obama will only be in his mid-50s when the 2016 election comes around.

Why rehash all of these facts? Because the most compelling reason for Obama not to run for president is that by jumping too soon he could ruin one of the most promising Democratic political careers in recent memory.

If Obama decides to run in 2008 and doesn't wind up as either the presidential or vice presidential nominee, he would run the risk of being perceived as yesterday's news by voters should he try to run for national office again down the line.

There are several recent examples of this trend. The most fitting is Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, who was seen as a Democratic rising stars when he began to raise money and organize for the 1988 presidential race. But charges of plagiarism forced Biden from the race, and although he remained in the Senate and is planning to run for president again in 2008, he has not yet been able to reclaim his former star status.

Depending on the outcome of the 2008 Democratic contest, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards may join these ignominious ranks. Edwards shocked many in the political establishment by deciding to run for president in 2004 after just a single term in the Senate. He proved his doubters wrong with a strong second-place showing in the Iowa caucuses and wound up on the national ticket. Should Edwards fall short in his all-but-certain 2008 bid, you can be sure there will be any number of critics who argue that he tried for too much, too soon.

There is also a sense in Democratic circles that Obama is simply not ready to assume the role of spokesman for his party. They argue that Obama's considerable rhetorical skills belie a somewhat wet-behind-the-ears politician who is still trying to deal with his rapid rise to political fame.

Obama is slowly growing into his role, but there have been bumps along the way. He has brought in several national operatives to held guide him, including Minyon Moore, who is charged with building Obama's outreach to African Americans, and Anita Dunn, who is running Obama's Hopefund leadership PAC until the end of the year.

GOP operatives are only too happy to remind journalists that Obama has never had to run a general election campaign against a serious GOP candidate. In 2004, former investment banker Jack Ryan won the Republican primary in the Illinois Senate race but was forced to withdraw after allegations surfaced that he had urged his wife to attend sex clubs against her wishes. No credible Republican stepped forward to fill the void left by Ryan, and the party eventually settled for Alan Keyes, who had run for Senate twice unsuccessfully in Maryland (and don't forget the 1996 and 2000 presidential bids). The Keyes candidacy was widely seen as a joke, even by the most loyal Republicans. The outcome was never in doubt: Obama won with a whopping 70 percent of the vote in the general election.

Republicans whisper that a wealth of negative information exists about Obama that has never received any real airing in the national media, though the mere fact that this kind of talk is being spread around may say more about GOP fears of an Obama candidacy than anything the Illinois senator may or may not have done.

Still, it remains to be seen how Obama would react to an opposition research document dump against him. He has generally been wary of confrontation with Republicans since coming to the Senate. Obama briefly clashed with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) earlier this year over an ethics reform proposal, but the two men quickly made nice and downplayed the incident.

The final reason Obama should stay out of the 2008 race can be boiled down to just three words -- Hillary Rodham Clinton. The New York senator is an overwhelming favorite for the nomination in 2008, thanks to a massive fundraising and organizational machine just waiting to be turned on.

If Obama chooses to run, he would need to get around Clinton in the primaries -- a formidable challenge given the preparations she and her campaign team have already made. Putting aside Clinton, there are several other well-known politicians -- Edwards and John Kerry jump to mind -- who have considerable financial and organizational resources that would complicate Obama's effort.

Why not wait four or eight years until he can be the "Hillary" of the presidential field, the odds-on nominee, rather than just one of a handful of candidates given a chance at winning the nomination?

Time is on Obama's side. Another four or eight years will allow him to polish his political skills and build the kind of network that would make him nearly unbeatable in a future primary fight. Should he jump in 2008, he runs the risk of being a has-been by 2012. If he waits, he can work on establishing political juggernaut status.

[Iƒrit]

well wrote, but sadly I wont be voting for either of them...I wish Ron Paul would go for president
who ever states publically and signs an affidavit to abolish the Federal Reserve and to restore our domestic and foreign policies back to our country, gets my vote. And even then with electronic voting being used it doesnt really matter who you vote. Winner, its gonna be decided by who ever the Bilderberg group chooses to have as their puppet. Hilary is a diffenate no as she is an attendee of Bilderberg meetings. Ohbama has some interesting points and might make a decent canidate, probably one of the only ones I might consider voting for. McCain has some decent ideas, but really I dont want to see america as the 'world police' nor do I think we belong in the middle east, however I'd only like to see the federal reserve abolished and our foreign and domestic policies handled by congress, as they should be. Bush has seriously ruined this contry and should be charged for his crimes against americans.

I am feeling more and more that americans are just going with the flow of things and not realizing what is REALLY happening behing the curtain.

[Legendary Apophis]

Better to have a young president than a too old one!
And everyone says Obama is unexperienced, yes he didn't run any important elections for now, but Americans chose him over Edwards and Clinton.
So now everyone will have to play with this.

[Iƒrit]

Love y'all!

I thank the sympathisers and the opposition! I've gotta walk away from this one now.. Its getting too thorough. This is going to consume my evenings!

It's been fun, but I gotta run!

Lots of good ideas have been presented by both sides.

[spoiler]VOTE BUSH IN 08![/spoiler]

Let that be a lesson to ya.

your evil jack!!!

I can't wait till he sees it.

wish I had your ID
jk...it was funny though

[Legendary Apophis]

I've seen Ron Paul's program.
Still thinking same about McCain.
IF I had to vote between those two, I'd vote McCain without a doubt!
Ron Paul's program is pure foolishness!
Seriously I don't know in which kind of dimension he lives, but that must be pretty far of ours

[Iƒrit]

I've seen Ron Paul's program.
Still thinking same about McCain.
IF I had to vote between those two, I'd vote McCain without a doubt!
Ron Paul's program is pure foolishness!
Seriously I don't know in which kind of dimension he lives, but that must be pretty far of ours

your not liked anymore

Ron Paul is all about the constitution and everything involved with it...much to be said about that. He is for the people and their rights, he would certainly do a great job that I would stake my life on it.

Unlike bush and others who are trying to make america into a police state and strip our constitutional rights away...