South Texas We Are CHANGE meets Admiral Bobby R. Inman

On Monday, April 1, 2008 Admiral Bobby R. Inman spoke at the University of Texas-Pan American on issues related to cyber security.

During and after the Q&A session, South Texas We Are CHANGE members Eloy Gonzalez II and Leo Krayola confronted Admiral Inman on a a number of pressing and current political issues such as the congressional bill H.R. 1955 as its relation to terrorism, 9/11 truth activism, and freedom of speech.

Other important topics, such as the Federal Reserve, the admiral declined to discuss.

Note: I think I was in error by stating outright that Admiral Inman supports HR 1955. Just because he is a member of the Commission on Cyber Security does not make this so. Also, the exchange between him and me about the danger HR 1955 poses to civil liberties of United States citizens was at times a bit muddled and inconsistent.

On the upside however, Admiral Inman did say TWICE that he does NOT believe 9/11 truth activists are terrorists. This may eventually prove useful if and when HR 1955 and other similar and so-called "anti-terror" legislation goes into full effect.

Hang On.


Andrews AFB is 10 miles from the Pentagon.

What kind of soldier or sailor believes the Pentagon could be hit 51 MINS after WTC 1 , WTC 2.

Even if the buildings did not "collapse".





NOT Admirable ADMIRAL.

Semper Fi.

You have forgotten.

Treason Does Not Go Well with some of us.

We don't forget so easy.


Say hi to Benedict Arnold when you see him.

The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

No offense but

so many of these Bushies are effeminate.

yeah, what's up with that?

he just cowers away like a scared little girl. gross.

On his way to join the other hypocrites at the all-male Bohemian


Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here:

Admiral's view: Dissent is a Crime.

Let there be no doubt that from what he says, he believes dissent is a crime akin to terrorism. Looks and smells like fascism in the USA to me.
He says extremists on either side. What does that mean? Does it mean that the official extremists are criminals too? They are the ones who are on on the other side of this issue. I am one who think the extremists in the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department are the criminals.

Is it a crime to think that Oswald was a patsy and that JFK was assassinated by CIA operatives?

Is it a crime to think that our government knew about Pearl Harbor, but allowed it to happen so that America would agree to join the fight in WW2?

Is it a crime to believe that the Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened.?

Is it a crime to observe that the current adminstration took our country into an illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq under false pretenses?

Is it a crime to know that the invasion of Afghanistan was really about the proposed natural gas pipeline going through that country?

Is it a crime to know about the Tuskegee Experiment?

Is it a crime not to believe the conclusions of 911 Zelikow Commission?

Is it a crime to see that Norman Mineta's testimony before the commission shows that there was a "Don't Shoot Down" order?

Is it a crime to see the controlled demolition of WTC 7, knowing that it was not hit by a plane or a tower?

Is it a crime to see Larry Silverstein's explanation on the PBS documentary that on his suggestion, the NY Fire Commander decided to "Pull It"?

Is it a crime to know that it takes weeks to set up a 47 story building for controlled demolition?

Is it a crime to know that they could not have set up a classic controlled demolition in one chaotic afternoon?

Is it a crime to want a real investigation into the events of 911?

Is it a crime to oppose going to war with Iran?

Is it a crime to question the Federal Reserve System?

Is it a crime to think?

Is it?

Is the Constitution a Crime?

The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

Time and Time again

This was a much improved performance from a 911 Truther.

I appreciated the tone with which he put his question to Inman - Bravo.

However, and I will always return to this point time and time again, we pose questions, even if they are forceful, when what we should be doing now - is making accusations.

Why do we ask questions? We know they will not answer them and more importantly it continues to play into the mind set that they have created for us; that they are above us, that they are our leaders and we should be affraid of them and cower at the very sight of them.

It was like that Specter video the other day - why ask him questions about JFK and the MB theory, a shooter on the knoll and all that - you know he's going to blow you off, spin it...whatever.

We would be much better served by standing up and saying in a calm, but very firm voice - I believe you to be complicit in the....(fill in the blank)....murder of JFK...911...whatever...and back it up with some facts as you do so.

Stop asking questions and start making public accusations.

We've been asking polite questions of our politicians and media for nearly 50 years, now and it's gotten us nothing but more false flag events - start accusing them; start calling them publicly, the scum and traitors that they are.

Personally speaking, I would have loved to seen Specter (the other day), or even this piece of shit Inman, just being called a piece of shit traitor and that the world is waking up to it.

Accusations people...accusations. It's time to take the gloves off.

HR 1955 = S 1959

Sen. Obama sits on the sub-committee considering S 1959. Let's make sure to ask him about it at every opportunity until he answers.

Good job guys!

All military and former military personnel should always be asked how anything could hit or happen at the Pentagon.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

It sounds like you are

shouting answers at him rather than engaging in meaningful dialog. Do you really want answers from these people? It doesn't sound like it. So what is the point?

You're right

I should NOT have done that and, yes, I definitely do want answers. Unfortunately, in this encounter, I let my frustrations as a 9/11 truth activist get the better of me. But the real and first and foremost point of my addressing Admiral Inman was strictly to get his position on HR 1955, or more particularly to determine whether or not he thinks 9/11 truth activists are terrorists. Seen in that admittedly narrow light, I must say that I think I did rather well.

Basically, I thought it important to show how people like Admiral Inman, who are in key positions of power to influence the opinions of any number influential people in high places, reflexively, instinctively, when asked questions such as mine, respond by saying "NO" that they do NOT think 9/11 truth activists are terrorists. Whether or not their response could ultimately be viewed as genuine I believe is not as important (although it is in fact very important) as getting them on record at least acknowledging the obvious difference between people like us who promote truth and peace and people unlike us who promote terrorism and violence.

Excellent encounter!

Bobby Inman has his own skeletons. His abrupt withdrawal from further consideration for Secretary of Defense in 1994 speaks volumes. The rumor was columnist William Safire was threatening to out him as gay (pedarast?) which prompted his rather bizarre reaction. His behavior invites psychological study.

NY Times article: "A Nominee's Withdrawal;"

In Admiral Inman's defense, he's probably not as pro-Israel and seems against widespread wiretapping? These are a plus.

But, Inman's tact of throwing out a dismissive remark, "you're misleading people," without bothering to support it, makes anything he says suspect IMHO!

Great Job! Well Done! Thank You!

...don't believe them!