See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Are 911 Truth Deniers Dumber Than A 5th Grader?
Source:
Rense
URL Source: http://www.rense.com/general76/truther.htm
Published: Apr 13, 2007
Author: Douglas Herman
Post Date: 2007-04-14 21:15:20 by robin
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 1806
Comments: 157
Are 911 Truth Deniers Dumber The most subversive show on television is on the Fox TV network. Maybe you've seen it. Hosted by a guy named Jeff Foxworthy, the show is called "Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader?" Hopefully, the show is broadcast to every nation of the world, including China, the Middle East and the English-speaking nations of the former British empire. Why? To show the rest of the world what they already suspect: that most Americans are a bunch of greedy nitwits, numbskulls and knuckleheads. Truly, most Americans are Not smarter than a fifth grader. Indeed, judging from the shows I've seen, quite a few American adults are dumber than a FIRST grader. The adults--and I use that word loosely--who participate on the show are college graduates with good jobs. Some of them graduated with honors--whatever that means in collegiate circles. Uniformly, they perform badly. If ignorance is bliss then most of the adults on the show are positively delirious. They win a few thousand dollars, sometimes a quarter million, but for the most part, look like greedy imbeciles. They ALL remind me of 911 truth deniers. First question: What is jet fuel? Don't know? Yes, you are dumber than a fifth grader. Could a kerosene fire (basically jet fuel) melt steel beams? No, but sometimes it does if the government says it can and the Twin Towers are involved. Sorry, wrong answer. You are dumber than any first grader possessing a basic understanding of a barbecue grill. I'm forever delighted by the faces of the wise children everywhere. They remind me of "Truthers," those citizens concerned with nothing so much as unraveling a great crime against America, convinced we can persuade even the dumbest Americans--and God knows there are millions of them---that steel building do not just fall down at the speed of gravity, no matter how many morons at MIT say they can. Okay: How many sides to a trapezoid? Every Truther, and fifth grader on the show that I happened to watch, knew the answer to that. Four, as in the shape of the WTC-7 foundation. Indeed, one of the World's Most Famous Smart Persons, a professor at MIT named Chomsky, said the perplexing anomalies of 911 didn't really matter to him. Huh? That would be like asking a group of fifth graders how did the Titanic sink? And then remarking to them to ignore the iceberg altogether and focus instead on the weight and volume of the water that filled the ship. All while manipulating computer models to show that a few open portholes caused the Titanic to sink. Because that was EXACTLY what the Kean Commission did to WTC-7. They ignored the collapse of a 600 foot World Trade Center building altogether. And that was EXACTLY what NIST has done also, for the past five years. They have ignored the obvious, ignoring the iceberg, focusing on the floodwater. Are Americans dumber than 5th graders? Yes, especially most of the top scientists working for the US government. For example, a videotape was shown---but not identified---to a top Dutch demolition expert. The videotape was of a 47 story government building collapsing in 6.5 seconds. The Dutch expert---unlike many of the top US experts---said unequivocally that the building had been blown down. A controlled demolition. Indeed, you could show that same videotape to those 5th graders and get the same answer. The chief difference? Neither the Dutch expert nor the 5th graders depend on the US government to pay their salaries, or fund their think tanks or universities. Thus they can answer honestly and without fear of retribution. Magna Cum Laude in Cowardice? Simply look around. Next Question: Who met with the (alleged but never proven) head hijacker's bagman, met him for breakfast on 9-11? If you answered a top Al Qaeda member, you would be WRONG. But if you answered several top US intelligence figures met with the man who provided Mohammed Atta with $100,000 you would be right. Another question. Why couldn't NORAD get even one plane aloft to encounter even one hijacked jet? Was it because our highly trained air force pilots are incompetent and dumber than a 5th grader? How do you feel about that? That the rest of the world thinks we are dumber than a newborn babe for believing that the top air defense in the world--NORAD--couldn't even get ONE fighter jet aloft in ninety minutes, 90 MINUTES? We really are a dumb race of people if we believe 9-11 was a case of incompetence. Dumber still if we accept the excuses from our government officials and haven't demanded the indictment of even ONE person that allowed close to 3,000 citizens be murdered. Debunkers would have you believe the official lie. And it is a masterful lie. They want to keep you dumb; that is their whole purpose. To keep you dumb. To keep you from asking too many questions. But mostly to keep you from demanding answers, and then demanding indictments and convictions. But debunkers are relatively few, and mostly shrewd, manipulative liars. 911 truth deniers, on the other hand---the millions of ordinary folks who adhere to the official story--would have us simply give the US government the benefit of the doubt. When you ask them why, when you point to the string of lies before and after 911, when you point to the murderous government policies post- 911, they stare dumbly, like contestants on that TV game show. On that TV show, however, the 5th graders can sometimes help those dumb adults. But only IF the adults want to be helped. Five years after 911, we Truthers are the fresh-faced students, trying to awaken our compatriots to the correct answers. And in this case, they have a whole lot more to win or lose than a few thousand dollars. Footnote: I would like once again to thank my compatriots at 911blogger.com who provided the illustration. As you can see, it doesn't take a rocket scientists to understand 911. Indeed, most American rocket scientists are probably too dumb. Simply put: Can an object fall through mass 5 times greater than itself, falling nearly as fast as it would fall through empty air, when the only force available is gravity? Sure it can, as long as the object is falling through a heavily-insured white elephant housing sensitive government offices. USAF veteran Douglas Herman writes for Rense regularly and clearly understood the scam of the NORAD standdown within a few months after 911. He wrote the recent Rense feature, Why No Norad On 911?
Than A 5th Grader?
By Douglas Herman
Exclusive to Rense.com
4-13-7
Most 911 debunkers love to quote the number of top US scientists, engineers and architects who deny 911 was an inside job. Luckily, we Truthers can demonstrate that many of these top experts are just plain dumb. How? We need only point to a show like "Smarter Than A 5th Grader," a show that readily indicates how dumb so-called educated American people can be. Even ones with advanced degrees and Cum Laude after their names.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-109) not displayed.
.
.
.
#110. To: Kamala, ALL (#100)
But not from zones where the calculations show the temperatures were the highest. None of the samples they tested saw temperatures higher than that because they only tested samples that still had paint on them. This was necessary because the only robust test they found involved the condition of paint. And that test procedure could not be used on steel that saw temperatures of more than about 250 C. And note this. The samples they tested indicated peak temperatures that agreed with the temperatures calculated by their fire model in those locations of the towers. The tests actually validated the computer model results. In other locations, those same fire models indicated peak temperatures of more than 1800 F. What Mark can't fathom is that computer modeling is the STATE OF THE ART in determining peak temperatures in fires. And those codes have been validated against numerous actual cases during development.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Who is full of shit? You or NIST? One of you wants us to believe that without paint they would not be able to tell how the steel performed during the fire? The shit is so deep at the moment, that I need an extension ladder to see over the top of it.
NIST had a total of 236 samples of steel. 136 were distinct samples, many from the fire zones.
No steel sample saw temps higher than around 487F.
Here is the bottom line with the NIST, tweeked computer models and trumped up workstation model burn tests, are nothing more than voodoo witchcraft.
#111. To: BeAChooser (#110)
None of the samples they tested saw temperatures higher than that because they only tested samples that still had paint on them. This was necessary because the only robust test they found involved the condition of paint. And that test procedure could not be used on steel that saw temperatures of more than about 250 C.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#112. To: BeAChooser (#110)
Nothing there, except for a hole in the ground!
"You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
#113. To: roughrider, nolu_chan, ALL (#109)
No, I didn't say that. I don't see any experts in fire, anywhere in the world, stressing about the high temperatures found in the WTC rubble. Perhaps they think that ordinary fire under those conditions could actually be very hot and hard to put out. Also, I don't see ANY of them suggesting that steel couldn't melt under those conditions. I'm all ears, if you know of any that do dispute that. I'm all ears if you can name any that have actually joined this so-called *truth* movement. But that doesn't rule out the possibility that a thermite like reaction occurred in the rubble or perhaps even in the towers. Dr Greening makes some very good points (and he's not the only chemist who has remarked about that possibility). And Ex-Professor Jones is a demonstrable, serial LIAR. He has NO background in any of this. He's a sub-atomic particle physicist and he should have remained one. No. It's Occam's Razor. IF there were a thermite reaction in the rubble (and we don't really know if there was), and IF the materials that produce thermite are readily available in the rubble (making Jones' claim that they prove the existance of bombs foolish), then the most likely explanation is Dr Greening's, rather than the silly assertion that thermite bombs were placed everywhere throughout the towers. Occam's Razor is not on the side that has to claim no one noticed the placement of all these charges and no one (among the hundreds or thousands who must know the truth) has yet blown the whistle. And I'm still waiting to hear their theory of what kept steel molten in the rubble for 6 weeks because it certainly wasn't thermite bombs that went off on 9/11. But it could be Dr Greening's theory or those ordinary fire physics that none of the fire experts seem to have challenged. Oh no. Are you going to start counting angels on the heads of pins again? Not at all. The NIST scenario does not need thermite to collapse the towers. The only issue is where the molten steel (if that's what it was) in the rubble came from. Was it produced during the collapse, afterwords or both? I don't think it was even necessary for Dr Greening to try and explain the collapse of the towers with his theory. NIST's explanation is fine. The material seen flowing out of ONE of the towers many minutes before it collapsed (say, roughrider ... did they set off those thermite bombs minutes before the collapse and it still took minutes for the towers to collapse?) may or may not be steel. A lot of REAL experts seem to think the material was aluminum. And that has a certain logic since the remains of the airplane's fuselage came to rest in the corner of the tower where the stream of molten material was seen and it was very hot in that corner (according to the fire code models that NIST developed). As to the molten materials in the rubble, they may or may not have been steel. I'm willing to believe some of it was. But so what? We know you can melt steel with wood under certain conditions. NONE of the experts in fire have come forward to say it was impossible that ordinary fires in the rubble (and there were plenty of combustibles and sources of air in the rubble) did that. But if they didn't, then there is still the possibility that a thermite-like reaction took place along the lines postulated by Dr Greening and others. So there is no inconsistency in this view.
1. We now need some kind of "thermite" reaction in order to make the official version of the failures of the towers to work.
2. Any thermite reaction in the towers HAS to be the product of some kind of "accident" in order for the official version to work.
3. Arguing backword from the official version's conclusion,
Now, thermite is the SAVIOR of the official version
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#114. To: BeAChooser (#113)
There's that shill term again. Why do fairy tale believers always use that term?
No. It's Occam's Razor.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#115. To: Critter, ALL (#111)
http://www.boulder.nist.gov/div853/highlight_WTC2004.htm "Task 5 — Analyze Steel to Estimate Temperature, Just as the nature of the deformation and failure of the recovered steel reveals information about the impact and collapse, the steel can also contain evidence of its exposure to the elevated temperatures in the fire. The situation is made more complex because much of the steel was also exposed to extended fires in the rubble before recovery. Several different methods, both conventional and novel, were examined for estimating high-temperature excursions seen by the steel. Only one method proved to be robust and easy to implement: paint on steels that reached temperatures over 250 °C cracked from the difference in thermal expansion between the paint and the steel." And you might also want to take a look at this: http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf
Who is full of shit? You or NIST?
One of you wants us to believe that without paint they would not be able to tell how the steel performed during the fire?
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#116. To: All, Itisa1mosttoolate (#112)
You will never get answers to legitimate questions about what really happened to Flight 93 if you discredit yourselves with silly assertions about bombs in the WTC and no Flight 77 at the Pentagon.
Nothing there, except for a hole in the ground!
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#117. To: roughrider (#109)
Thermite placed in exactly the right positions to bring down the towers symmetrically and at a near free-fall rate.
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
#118. To: BeAChooser (#115)
So it is NIST that is full fo shit. OK thanks.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#119. To: BeAChooser (#116)
How about expecting aircraft parts at an aircraft crash? Is that to much to ask?
"You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
#120. To: BeAChooser (#116)
Are you a creepy Korean guy?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
#121. To: Minerva (#120)
yes, he is a horny, sullen, creepy korean guy with a lot of pent anger and a serious lack of social skills. which is weird, i don't meet many jewish korean guys.
Are you a creepy Korean guy?
"Aren't you lucky. You get to hear me whine about the 10 posts I'm allowed each day." -- BeAChooser
#122. To: Morgana le Fay (#121)
You never met Won Epstien?
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#123. To: Critter (#122)
i know one named sung yu rubinstein.
"Aren't you lucky. You get to hear me whine about the 10 posts I'm allowed each day." -- BeAChooser
#124. To: Critter (#111)
I found a forum index with some of the NIST "experts" replies, concerns, emails and such. The FDS software was so full of bugs it was a joke. None of this computer software was tested or existed before the WTC research project. The big "experts" running the fire simulations had backgrounds in math, software, and forestry. Other background of NIST "experts" were navy, dod, pentagon, oil and gas, marine coastal flooding.
Mark
"I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
#125. To: Kamala, critter, ALL (#124)
Go to http://www.fire.nist.gov/fds/ Download the FDS Technical Reference User Guide http://www.fire.nist.gov/fds/docs/fds_tech_guide_4.pdf listed on that web page. In the acknowledgments section it states "The Fire Dynamics Simulator has been under development for almost 25 years." In Chapter 2 it states that "Version 1 of FDS was publicly released in February 2000". Chapter 6 is on model validation. It states "FDS was officially released in 2000. However, for two decades various CFD codes using the basic FDS hydrodynamic framework were developed at NIST for different applications and for research. In the mid 1990s, many of these different codes were consolidated into what eventually became FDS. Before FDS, the various models were referred to as LES, NIST-LES, LES3D, IFS (Industrial Fire Simulator), and ALOFT (A Large Outdoor Fire Plume Trajectory)." So Mark is simply wrong about when the software was developed. As to it's accuracy, if you read Chapter 6 you will see there has been a significant and highly successful effort to validate the code both before and since 9/11. They are able to conclude that "for simulations that simply involve mass and heat transport, the model predicts flow velocities and temperatures to an accuracy of 5 % to 20% compared to experimental measurements, depending on the fidelity of the underlying grid." So isn't it ironic that Mark seems to have utter faith in the conclusions of Skilling's "white paper" (which he wrote back in 1964), when they had virtually no tools (and certainly NO computer tools) for evaluating the spread and effects of fire in structures, much less anything else. Deceptive and false again. For example, in the acknowledgments page of the above FDS Technical Reference Guide, it says "Howard Baum and Ronald Rehm laid the theoretical groundwork for the model and devised the basic numerical solvers that are still used in the code today." Well according to his profile (http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/profiles.asp?lastname=baum ), Howard Baum has a BS in Aeronautical Engineering, an MS in Applied Mechanics, and a PhD in Applied Mathematics. He has "research interests in the fluid mechanics of fires, turbulent combustion, convective and radiative heat transfer, smoke transport, and microgravity combustion. He was a Lecturer and then Assistant Professor in the Division of Engineering and Applied Sciences at Harvard University from 1964 to 1971. He then spent four years as a Senior Scientist at Aerodyne Research, Inc., Billerica, Massachusetts before joining NIST. Dr. Baum has published over one hundred forty papers and reports. His analysis of ventilation in containership holds is the technical basis of an international standard for containership ventilation. He is the co-developer (with R. Rehm) of what are now known as the low Mach number combustion equations, the starting point for most theoretical and computational work in that field. He has been involved in the development of large eddy simulation models for both building and outdoor fires at NIST since its inception. He also developed the first multiple fire model for urban environments that actually distinguishes individual fires. Dr. Baum has served on National Research Council Panels convened by the Naval Studies Board in 1986 and 1991 to consider Office of Naval Research Opportunities in Solid and Fluid Mechanics, and a Panel in 1987 to consider the Status of Nuclear Winter Research. He was a member of the U.S. Delegation to the 1991 Japan-U.S. Heat Transfer Joint Seminar, and an invited participant in the 1994 U.S. Japan Seminar "Modeling in Combustion Science" sponsored by the National Science foundation and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. He was an invited lecturer at the SIAM Sixth International Conference on Numerical Combustion in 1996, at the 50th anniversary symposium of the National Research Insitute of Fire and Disaster in Japan in 1998, and at the Emmons Memorial Symposium in San Antonio in 2000. He was also a member of the U.S. Panel of the UJNR Panel on Fire Research and Safety at the 13th meeting in 1996, the 14th meeting in 1998, and the 15th meeting in 2000. He was a Senior Visitor at the University of Minnesota Insitute for Mathematics and its Applications (IMA) in 1999 and organizer of the IMA Fire Modeling Workshop. He is currently a member of the Editorial Board of the journals Combustion and Flame and Combustion Theory and Modeling. Dr. Baum has been the recipient of many honors and awards. They include the U.S. Department of Commerce Silver Medal Award in 1981 and a Gold Medal Award in 1985. He was named Russell Severance Springer Visiting Professor at the University of California, Berkeley in 1985. He was awarded a Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Fellowship in 1994 for a visit to the University of Tokyo Insitute of Industrial Science. He received the Medal of Excellence from the International Association for Fire Safety Science in 1991 and 1999. He was awarded the 1999 Arthur B. Guise Medal of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers. He was elected a Fellow and Chartered Physicist of the Insitute of Physics in 1999. Dr. Baum was elected to membership in the National Academy of Engineering in 2000. His biography is listed in American Men and Women of Science, and Who's Who in America." He really is an expert on fire ... contrary to what Mark would have you believe. He co-developer, Ronald Rehm, has a profile (http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/profiles.asp?lastname=rehm ) that indicates he has a BS in Engineering Sciences and a PhD in Applied Mathematics. His resume would suggest he's quite good at computational mathematics (he's published over 80 papers, for one thing). That is expertise one actually needs to develop good simulation tools. Contrary to what Mark would have you believe. And that's just for starters. Kevin McGrattan, another mathematician, is mentioned as adding features needed to make the model accessible to practicing fire protection engineers, and he remains the custodian of the FDS source code. It is noted in his profile (http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/profiles.asp?lastname=mcgrattan ) that he developed LES (Large Eddy Simulation) models of smoke movement in enclosures of various geometries and in the atmosphere, as well fire models for other situations. That certainly seems applicable experience. Glenn Forney is identified as having developed the visualization tool Smokeview that not only made the public release possible, but it also serves as the principal diagnostic tool for the continuing development of FDS. Yes, he's another mathematician. But so what? Maybe that qualifies him to actually be a good computer programmer? The acknowledgments says Kuldeep Prasad added the multipleblock feature of the model, paving the way for parallel processing. According to his profile Dr Prasad has a BT in Aeronautical Engineering and a PhD in Aerospace Engineering. His profile says his doctoral thesis was done under the direction of Profs. Edward Price, Warren Strahle and Ben Zinn, was entitled “Numerical Simulation of Chemically Reacting Fluid Flows Through Two-Dimensional Burners”. Dr. Prasad did post-doctoral research at Yale University with Prof. Mitch Smooke, where he designed a comprehensive multi-layered combustion model for studying the burning rates of solid rocket propellants." "At NRL, he developed models for studying liquid methanol pool fires and performed numerical simulations to optimize water-mist injection characteristics for maximum flame suppression. He also developed a domain decomposition technique based on the multiblock Chimera approach to solve the unsteady compressible Navier Stokes equations inside a large fire compartment. Computations for a 1310 kW fire in a multi-compartment geometry that replicates the ex-USS Shadwell were performed." He has over ten publications in refereed journals. And that's before he even got to NIST. "His research interests include numerical simulation of chemically reacting fluid flows with detailed finite rate kinetics, mathematical and numerical modeling of various physical and chemical processes and large scale computing using DNS or LES models. His areas of expertise include scalable computing on massively parallel architectures, distributed computing, OpenMP and SPMD programming as well as visualization and animation techniques." I don't know about you, Mark, but that sounds like an expert who is qualified to develop good fire codes. William (Ruddy) Mell is another person mentioned in just the first paragraph of the acknowledgments page. It says he has developed unique applications of the model in areas of microgravity combustion and wildland fire spread. He doesn't have a profile at NIST but it turns out he was a research assistant professor in the Combustion Research Group at the University of Utah. And whether his experience before joining NIST was directly associated with building fires, at least he had experience in fires ... rather than sub-atomic particles or (in the case of Shillings) just building design. And the last name mentioned in that first paragraph is Charles Bouldin who "devised the basic framework of the parallel version of the code. " Bouldin has BS, MS and PhD in Physics. "Solid state physics, with a specialization in converting computational codes to run on parallel processing systems." This too is a expertise that would be needed to build a efficient fire modeling code. And unlike your ex-professor Jones, he's at least working in the arena of his specialty. By the way, he is the author of over 75 technical publications. And that's just the names mentioned in the first paragraph of the acknowledgments section. There are dozens of other names and I'm willing to bet that Mark has mischaracterized their expertise just as badly as he did this first group. Indeed, a careful reading shows this section of the document is loaded with names of individuals who have experience directly applicable to modeling building fires. Mark is just plain wrong. Again.
The FDS software was so full of bugs it was a joke. None of this computer software was tested or existed before the WTC research project.
The big "experts" running the fire simulations had backgrounds in math, software, and forestry. Other background of NIST "experts" were navy, dod, pentagon, oil and gas, marine coastal flooding.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#126. To: BeAChooser (#113)
You will have trouble making Occam's Razor fit your hypothesis. Occam's Razor demands simple solutions, BUT they have to answer ALL of the questions. How could an accidental thermite reaction occur contemporaneouly in both towers in order to bring them down, causing explosions, as Greening stated. Simply saying "coincidence" won't cut it.
#127. To: roughrider, ALL (#126)
Strawman. You apparently didn't actually read my last post to you. I'm not advocating Greening's theory about what brought them down. I don't need to because the NIST explanation is more than adequate to explain what was observed before and during the collapse. Which is why not one structural engineer, demolition expert or macro-world physicist anywhere in the world has gone public to suggest otherwise. You see, roughrider, they understand the physics involved ... whereas a sub-atomic particle physicist, a theologian, a philosopher, an expert in dental materials, an economist, a janitor, a lawyer, and all the rest of the names leading the *truth* movement do not. I'm only suggesting Greening's theory MIGHT be an explanation for why molten "something" was observed in rubble as much as 6 weeks after the collapse. Equally possible is that an ordinary subterranean fire can explain it (as NOT ONE expert in fire or steel anywhere in the world has gone public to suggest otherwise). Still another possibility is that the steel was affected by materials (like sulfer) in the environment either long before the planes hit the buildings or after the collapse while it sat in that hellish mix we call rubble. Form a eutectic mixture in that steel and you lower the melting point which again would allow ordinary fires to produce molten material long after the towers had collapsed. And by the way, the thermite bomb theory does NOT explain that last fact. Like you said, solutions have to answer ALL of the questions and the CT community has been studiously avoiding the question about what source of heat kept the steel molten (assuming it was steel) for more than six weeks after the collapse.
You will have trouble making Occam's Razor fit your hypothesis. Occam's Razor demands simple solutions, BUT they have to answer ALL of the questions. How could an accidental thermite reaction occur contemporaneouly in both towers in order to bring them down, causing explosions, as Greening stated.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#128. To: BeAChooser (#113)
The whole purpose of Occam's Razor is to supply the simplest solution that answers ALL of the questions. Following is a reproduction of the outstanding questions concerning what happened in and around the WTC as a result of the attacks on 9/11/01. ALL of the questions have to be answered under Occam's Razor. Greening only tries to answer (perhaps) two of them: What caused the towers to collapse AND/OR what caused the continuing hot fires and molten metal for a long period of time after the towers collapsed. By employing his "back of the envelope" hypothesis, he explains both events with the introduction--a priori--of "Accidental Thermite," a substance at which you used to scoff at the notion of its presence on 9/11. Interestingly, he suggests that his "Accidental Thermite" might explain the explosions ("Explosive reactions" was HIS term) that numerous firefighters, police, and victim/witnesses testified they heard. So, now there WERE explosions, provided we can posit them within the confines of Greening's hypothesis, as it buttresses the official version--The collapses, continuing heat, and explosions were the result of "Accidental Thermite," the SWAMP GAS and MAGIC BULLET needed to explain all of these events within the confines of the official hypothesis. Occam's Razor doesn't work that way. The hypothesis leaves the following events unaddressed as originally posted by nolu_chan: 1. Pulverization of 99% of concrete into ultra fine dust as recorded by official studies. Concrete dust was created instantly throughout the towers when the fusion device million degree heat rapidly expanded water vapour 1000- fold in the concrete floors. 2. Superheated steels ablating (vaporizing continuously as they fall) as seen in video clips of the towers collapsing. This requires uniform temperatures roughly twice that of thermite. Conventional demolition or explosive charges (thermate, rdx, hdx etc.) cannot transfer heath so rapidly that the steel goes above it's boiling temperature. 3. 22 ton outer wall steel sections ejected 200 meters into the winter garden. Cutting charges cannot eject heavy steels and throwing charges cannot provide the energy required without heavy, solid surface mounts. 4. 330 ton section of outer wall columns ripping off side of tower. Cutting charges cannot eject heavy steels linked together and throwing charges cannot provide the energy required without very heavy, solid surfaces to mount those charges. 5. Molten ponds of steel at the bottom of elevator shafts (WTC1, WTC2, WTC7). Massive heath loads have been present at the lower parts of these high-rise buildings. As one of the witnesses after seeing the flow of metals declared: "no one will be found alive". 6. The spire behaviour (stands for 20-30 seconds, evaporates and goes down, steel dust remains in the air where the spire was). The spire did not stand because it lost its durability when the joints vaporized. 7. Sharp spikes in seismograph readings (Richter 2.1 and 2.3) occurred at the beginning of collapse for both towers. Short duration and high power indicate an explosive event. 8. A press weighting 50 tons disappeared from a basement floor of Twin Towers and was never recovered from debris. Not possible with collapses or controlled demolitions. The press was vaporized or melted totally. 9. Bone dust cloud around the WTC. This was found not until spring 2006 from the Deutsche Bank building. (In excess of 700 human remains found on the roof and from air vents). See http://www.911citizenswatch.org/print.php?sid=906 10. Fires took 100 days to extinguish despite continuous spraying of water. Thermate would burn out totally and then cool down much faster, just in a few days. This long cooling time means the total heath load being absorbed into the steels of the WTC was massive, far in excess anything found in collapses or typical controlled demolitions. 11. Brown shades of color in the air due nuclear radiation forming NO2, NO3 and nitric acid. TV and documentary footage changed the color balance to blue to disguise this fact indicating complicity in the coverup. 12. Elevated Tritium values measured in the WTC area but not elsewhere in New York. Official studies stated that 8 EXIT signs from two commercial Boeing jets were responsible. The tritium in those EXIT signs is insufficient to explain the measurements (very little tritium is available for measuring after evaporation into air as hydrogen and as tritiated water vapour. This can provide conclusive proof of fusion devices and therefore US/Israeli military involvement. 13. Pyroclastic flow observed in the concrete-based clouds. Only found with volcanic eruptions and nuclear detonations. The explosion squibs cool down just a few milliseconds after the explosion or after having reached some 10 meters in the air. Pyroclastic flow will not mix with other clouds meaning very serious heath in those clouds not possible with the conventional demolition or explosive charges. The pyroclastic clouds were cooling down at the WTC but this process took some 30 seconds. See http://video.google.com/videoplay? docid=1381525012075538113 14. Huge expanding dust clouds 5 times the volume of the building indicating extreme levels of heat generated far in excess of traditional demolition explosives. 15. Rubble height was some 10% of the original instead of 33% expected in a traditional demolition. Fusion device removal of underground central steel framework allowed upper framework to fall into this empty space and reduce the rubble height. 16. No survivors found, except some firefighters in one corner pocket in the rubble who looked up to see blue sky above them instead of being crushed by collapsing debris. Upward fusion flashlight-like beam of destruction missed this pocket but removed debris above those lucky firemen. 17. 14 rescue dogs and some rescue workers died far too soon afterward to be attributed to asbestos or dust toxins (respiratory problems due to alpha and tritium particles created by fusion are far more toxic) 18. Record concentrations of near-atomic size metal particles found in dust studies due to ablated steel. Only possible with vaporized (boiling) steels. 19. Decontamination procedure used at Ground Zero (hi-pressure water spraying) for all steel removed from site. Water spraying contains fusion radioactivity. 20. No bodies, furniture or computers found in the rubble, but intact sheets of paper covered the streets with fine dust. Items with significant mass absorbed fusion energy (neutrons, x-rays) and were vaporized while paper did not. Paper and powder theory. 21. 200 000 gallon sprinkler water tanks on the roofs of WTC1 and WTC2, but no water in the ruins. Heat of fusion devices vaporized large reservoirs of water. 22. Reports of cars exploding around the WTC and many burned out wrecks could be seen that had not been hit by debris. Fusion energy (heath radiation and the neutrons) caused cars to ignite and burn far from WTC site. 23. Wide area electrical outage, repairs took over 3 months. Fusion devices cause EM pulse with Compton scattering. See German engineers help the USA plate 5. http://home.de bitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/defaulte.htm 24. EM pulse was recorded by broadcast cameras with high quality electronic circuitry. This occurred at the same time as the seismic peaks recorded by Lamont Doherty during the beginning of the collapse. This is due to the Compton Effect and resulted in a large area power outage at the WTC. All of these events require some kind of verifiable explanation. EMP, Tritium, etc., etc. Now, I don't know if there was a backpack hydrogen/fusion device anywhere near those towers, but, if you are going to apply Occam's Razor, I hate to tell you this--Occam's Razor fits this explanation like a glove. It answers every outstanding question and is completely simple. One item, easily concealable and capable of being covertly introduced into one or both towers, was responsible for ALL of it. If Al Qaeda gained access to stolen Soviet backbacks, which is not an unreasonable position given how nukes seemed to be unaccounted for there, you don't even need to blame our government for anything more than concealing the instrumentality of the attack.
#129. To: roughrider (#128)
Excellent. Occam's Razor is the most misunderstood and misused term among non-thinkers. They think that Occam's Razor stands for whatever the official version of something is. Occam's Razor says explosions of intense heat blasted the WTC and brought WTC1 and WTC2 down. Gravity could never explode the buildings like that.
#130. To: Paul Revere, roughrider (#129) (Edited)
i agree. it's a cop out theory. whenever someone posts that i know immediately they are not openminded, usually arrogant, and certainly not interested in learning the truth.
Occam's Razor is the most misunderstood and misused term among non-thinkers.
#131. To: christine (#130)
Yes, it was logic, not fantasy or desire, that convinced me 9-11 was an operation that had to involve the top levels of government for months. I wish it were not true, and tried to find a way to believe the official story, but there is simply too much out there that makes clear the towers were demolished by our government.
#132. To: Paul Revere, Christine, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#129)
There is an occasional use for this tool, but it requires prudent judgment. The Doyle/Holmes philosophy of eliminating the impossible is one of the most dynamic reasoning tools available. Occam's Razor is useful in cleaning up any doubts, afterward. But, I totally agree that Occam's Razor is more typically little understood and badly used. Short of God-given blind ass luck, there is no substitute for education, intelligence and insight. Occam's Razor is the most misunderstood and misused term among non-thinkers.
#133. To: SKYDRIFTER (#132)
Short of God-given blind ass luck, there is no substitute for education, intelligence and insight. Well said. In practice, Occum's Razor is used to foreclose discussion, to ridicule a theory as not the obvious one. Every criminal framing or false flag operation relies upon Occam's Razor to sate the masses and convince them UP is DOWN. It's like misdirection and magic. Logic is deceived because it sees only what it expects to see.
But, I totally agree that Occam's Razor is more typically little understood and badly used.
#134. To: roughrider, ALL (#128)
Occam's razor does not apply in the way you claim since the immediate cause of the towers collapsing, the immediate cause of the damage at the pentagon, the failure of the government to prevent those immediate causes from occuring, the failure of the government to punish anyone for incompetence related to 9/11, and the behavior of the government with regards to Flight 93 can be totally separate yet still logically consistent. First, there is no logical reason why the towers could not have collapsed due to ordinary physics that have nothing to do with bombs. In fact, an explanation of the collapse is relatively simple. Here: http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm . Which is why NOT ONE structural engineer, demolition expert or macro-level physicist in the world supports the assertion that bombs, energy beams or space aliens did it. The claim that thermite bombs (or bombs or energy weapons of any kind) were necessary to bring down the WTC, that Flight 77 did not impact the Pentagon, or that Flight 77 could not have caused the damage that was done to the Pentagon rests on the shakiest of foundations. There are NO actual experts in subjects relevant to such phenomena who have come forward saying they believe that's what happened. NOT ONE. Anywhere in the world. But there are numerous experts around the world who say the "official" explanations are logical and probably correct based on the evidence and what they know about the relevant technical disciplines. I could make a list of things (just like you did) that the thermite/nuclear/beamweapon explanation (your choice) has to explain and I guarantee you that none of them does ... certainly not in any simple way. You can't explain why NO experts ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD agree with the thermite bomb theory except by either calling thousands of professionals in structures, demolition, materials, seismology and physics incompetent morons or by saying they are part of the largest conspiracy theory every imagined or that they've all been silenced in some manner or by saying none of the them have the slightest conscience and are only interested in money and their jobs. You can't explain why the towers were seen to be deforming (in a manner compatible with NIST's theory) long before the collapse. You can't explain how so many bombs could have been placed in the towers without ANYONE noticing. You can't explain why bombs would be going off for many, many minutes before the actual collapse (if you believe CT accounts). In comparison, the NIST explanation answers all of the above concerns with a relatively simple answer. You can't even answer the question of what kept the molten steel molten for 6 weeks. Whereas, I've offered you THREE different explanations that REAL experts in the relevant subjects advocate and that no REAL experts challenge. And in the case of the Pentagon, the facts (the missing plane and passengers, the size and shape of the entrance hole, the extent and shape of the damage through the structure, the identifiable debris that was found, the damage to the light poles and generator, the testimony of forensic and other professionals who were at the scene, the vast numbers of eyewitnesses that saw a plane like Flight 77 hit the building, the fact that NO expert in structures or demolition says the pentagon was damaged by a bomb or a missile) can not be explained by ANY of the alternate theories that have been proposed ... not missiles, not small aircraft, not bombs. The ONLY simple answer is that Flight 77 did indeed hit the structure and did the damage. THAT is what Occam's Razer really says in this instance. That said, there STILL can be valid questions about certain aspects of 9/11. I've said that all along. The government could have screwed up through incompetence (and thus made it possible for bin Laden's folks to get away with this) AND THEN tried to cover up that screwup to keep members of it from suffering the consequences of their poor performance. There is even the POSSIBLY that someone(s) or some group in the government aided the hijackers efforts (for whatever reason) by ignoring their efforts until it was too late. But that possibility does not require bombs in the towers to bring them down. It doesn't even require that they have wanted the towers brought down. Maybe it was just an accident. I do not discount the possibility that the government shot down Flight 93 and then denied it (for obvious reasons). But none of the above possibilities REQUIRES that bombs brought down the WTC towers or did the damage to the Pentagon. Insisting that it does only makes it harder to get the valid questions taken seriously. Now let's take a look at that list you offered: Give me the name of ONE structural engineer, demolition expert, expert in steel and concrete, macro-world physicist anywhere in the world who says that pulverization of the concrete is impossible under the NIST scenario. Just one. The simple truth is YOU CAN'T. And Occam's Razer suggests a reason. So your *simple* alternative is fusion devices in each of the towers? Is that what your application of Occam's Razer is telling you, roughrider? If so, all I can do is laugh. ROTFLOL! If you want to ensure that hardly a soul in the real world will take you or anything you claim seriously, just continue with this assertion. This is utter nonsense, roughrider. By all means, present us the video evidence supporting this silly claim about "vaporizing" steel. Now even thermite bombs can't do it. It takes NUCLEAR WEAPONS (at least two, since there were two towers that acted the same way but at different times). ROTFLOL! Did you even look at what you posted, roughrider? Right. So you think Occam's Razer tells you that it takes nuclear energy to do that. Hate to tell you, roughrider, but I've linked a calculation several times that shows relatively low air pressure could do it. Here: http://www.911myths.com/html/explosive_force.html See the calculation at the very of end of that web page. Air pressure low enough that it could have been generated by the collapse itself. So was there a separate mini-nuke at that location? ROTFLOL! This is bogus. Pools. Ponds. Show me ONE actual credible source that claims having seen that. And provide an explanation of how thermites or energy beams could keep that material molten for more than 6 weeks. Or if a nuclear device is your energy, then provide ANY proof that the hundreds of workers exposed to the debris of the WTC towers are suffering ANY sign of radiation exposure. It didn't vaporize, it toppled as the videos clearly indicate. And just how do they know that was "steel" dust in the air where the spire was, rather than some of the pulverized concrete that created a cloud across half of NYC and coated every surface for miles? There was nothing in the seismograms that seismologists described as "spikes". Nor did the peak oscillations occur at the beginning of the collapse. Lerner-Lam, chief seismologist at the facility that made the recordings, is on record stating that "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers. That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context." And there is not a single seismologist in the world that supports the bomb/energybeam conspiracy theories. NOT ONE. Maybe they hid the nuke in the press? ROTFLOL! Just so folks know, this claim is derived SOLELY from a comment made by Mike Pecoraro who worked in the north tower basement. He said after the explosion that occurred when the plane hit, he and another worker went up to the C level, where there was a small machine shop. He said "There was nothing there but rubble,” said Pecoraro. "We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press--gone!” Now Occam's Razer (and a certain degree of common sense) says he meant that the explosion had reduced the press to rubble rather than vaporizing or melting it. Exactly. So we have a choice. What kept the metal molten? A nuke. Ordinary fire physics? Naturally occurring chemicals in the rubble that resulted in a thermite-LIKE mixture? Or did the steel get affected so that it melted more easily? Ask yourself, roughrider, which of the above is the SIMPLEST? Which fits the facts the best? So now the media are part of the conspiracy too? ROTFLOL! FALSE http://www.llnl.gov/tid/lof/documents/pdf/241096.pdf states that emergency exit signs, weapons from law enforcement which have tritium sights and were destroyed at WTC , and watches containing tritium could account for the measured amounts of tritium. Looking at this another way, the CT community would have us believe that the tritium from a minimum of two fusion devices would be no more than found in 8 emergency exit signs, less than a 120 law enforcement weapons (because some that were present were recovered intact and relatively undamaged) and the watches occupants wore. Now is that ridiculous or not? ROTFLOL! Funny ... none of the experts in pyroclastic flows have expressed any concern that conditions at the WTC couldn't have produced them ... without bombs or nukes. Again. Not one real expert seems to have problems with what was observed to happen. What does Occam tell you, roughrider? Is the simple answer that they are ALL incompetent, part of the conspiracy, or under death threats to keep quiet? And what if the heat generate was less than a traditional demolition because it wasn't a demolition at all? What if the towers collapse wasn't due to a traditional demolition? And, in point of fact, the height of the rubble pile was completely consistent with the original height of the towers, the fact that the towers were mostly made of air, and the fact that structure debris spread out over an area 3 to 4 times that defined by the outer wall of the towers. Oh ... so now your SIMPLE theory has FUSION BOMBS in the basement of each tower too. How many nukes in all did they use in each tower, roughrider? Prove this. And just how much of the original steel did they recover. Last I heard it was hundreds of thousands of tons. So were these *really small* nukes, roughrider? This is simply false. It's amazing that we didn't see these sun-bright nukes go off that day. Cars but not people? Strange... But only powerlines were affected. Not electrical devices ... which would be the case if it had been EMP. Complete nonsense. By all means, roughrider, provide us a source to prove this silly claim. Bet you don't. Yeah, sure it does, roughrider. What you've just introduced is a red herring ... a diversion meant to distract attention from the real issues. Or are you going to pretend I don't understand what that is either? ROTFLOL!
The whole purpose of Occam's Razor is to supply the simplest solution that answers ALL of the questions.
1. Pulverization of 99% of concrete into ultra fine dust as recorded by official studies.
Concrete dust was created instantly throughout the towers when the fusion device million degree heat rapidly expanded water vapour 1000- fold in the concrete floors.
2. Superheated steels ablating (vaporizing continuously as they fall) as seen in video clips of the towers collapsing.
This requires uniform temperatures roughly twice that of thermite. Conventional demolition or explosive charges (thermate, rdx, hdx etc.) cannot transfer heath so rapidly that the steel goes above it's boiling temperature.
3. 22 ton outer wall steel sections ejected 200 meters into the winter garden. Cutting charges cannot eject heavy steels and throwing charges cannot provide the energy required without heavy, solid surface mounts.
4. 330 ton section of outer wall columns ripping off side of tower. Cutting charges cannot eject heavy steels linked together and throwing charges cannot provide the energy required without very heavy, solid surfaces to mount those charges.
5. Molten ponds of steel at the bottom of elevator shafts (WTC1, WTC2, WTC7).
6. The spire behaviour (stands for 20-30 seconds, evaporates and goes down, steel dust remains in the air where the spire was).
7. Sharp spikes in seismograph readings
8. A press weighting 50 tons disappeared from a basement floor of Twin Towers and was never recovered from debris. Not possible with collapses or controlled demolitions. The press was vaporized or melted totally.
10. Fires took 100 days to extinguish despite continuous spraying of water. Thermate would burn out totally and then cool down much faster, just in a few days.
11. Brown shades of color in the air due nuclear radiation forming NO2, NO3 and nitric acid. TV and documentary footage changed the color balance to blue to disguise this fact indicating complicity in the coverup.
12. Elevated Tritium values measured in the WTC area but not elsewhere in New York. Official studies stated that 8 EXIT signs from two commercial Boeing jets were responsible.
13. Pyroclastic flow observed in the concrete-based clouds. Only found with volcanic eruptions and nuclear detonations.
14. Huge expanding dust clouds 5 times the volume of the building indicating extreme levels of heat generated far in excess of traditional demolition explosives.
15. Rubble height was some 10% of the original instead of 33% expected in a traditional demolition.
Fusion device removal of underground central steel framework allowed upper framework to fall into this empty space and reduce the rubble height.
18. Record concentrations of near-atomic size metal particles found in dust studies due to ablated steel.
20. No bodies, furniture or computers found in the rubble,
21. 200 000 gallon sprinkler water tanks on the roofs of WTC1 and WTC2, but no water in the ruins. Heat of fusion devices vaporized large reservoirs of water.
22. Reports of cars exploding around the WTC and many burned out wrecks could be seen that had not been hit by debris. Fusion energy (heath radiation and the neutrons) caused cars to ignite and burn far from WTC site.
23. Wide area electrical outage, repairs took over 3 months. Fusion devices cause EM pulse with Compton scattering. See German engineers help the USA plate 5. http://home.de http://bitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/defaulte.htm
24. EM pulse was recorded by broadcast cameras with high quality electronic circuitry. This occurred at the same time as the seismic peaks recorded by Lamont Doherty during the beginning of the collapse.
I hate to tell you this--Occam's Razor fits this explanation like a glove.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#135. To: BeAChooser (#79)
"Figure 13(e): Aluminum at ca. 1500°C" That's not Aluminum.
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/40c_lg_molten- lg.jpg
#136. To: nobody (#135)
your link doesnt work.. but here is the pic welcome to 4~!
#137. To: BeAChooser (#79)
No, it glows all the way down, as shown by several videos. "9/11 ABC South Tower Live Collapse Enlarged Video" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OP6MlrfbCvQ "9/11: Stabilized South Tower Molten Metal" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvaKyxXUS-8 "9/11: South Tower molten metal compilation" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_jiCyMkrRM
you will see silver color in the stream of material once it gets away from window. Clear as day.
#138. To: Zipporah (#136)
Thank you. Here's another link used by "debunkers": http://www.metalw ebnews.com/howto/furnace2/melting.html It cleverly mixes two photos of molten iron pouring from a non-tilting furnace with pictures of molten aluminum in a tilting furnace.
#139. To: nobody (#137)
hi nobody, welcome. ;)
#140. To: christine (#139) (Edited)
Thanks. An outdoor color temperature chart should be used to estimate the temperature of the molten flow from the tower, since it's in broad daylight. http://www.spacekdet.com/ tutorials/coltemp.html NIST says it's molten aluminum with contents mixed in that make it glow orange as it flows from the tower-top. No-one has duplicated the effect, so we get a lot of miscaptioned pictures of so-called "aluminum" glowing yellow, from "debunkers." No-one has suggested how already-molten aluminum is supposedly contained and heated hundreds of degrees beyond its melting point, to make it glow as it appears in the 9/11 videos.
#141. To: nobody (#138)
ah..!! I see.. thanks for the link..
#142. To: Zipporah (#141)
Glad you could take a look. Steven Jones apparently thinks that due to the presence of an Iron-Sulphur eutectic, the color is made slightly more orange-y than one might normally expect from molten iron or steel. By the way, I think that when color correction is performed on an indoor photo, it generally shifts the relevant chart from an indoor chart to an outdoor chart, removing some red and yellow.
#143. To: nobody (#142)
Hmm could you explain?
#144. To: Zipporah (#143)
Practically all standard photo-processing programs have an "auto-correct" type of feature that takes away the yellowy cast of indoor lighting. Complicating the situation a little more, perhaps, people such as myself will often automatically mentally compensate for indoor lighting to the extent that white looks white again, unless consciously thinking about the lighting, but not for uncompensated indoor photos.
#145. To: nobody (#144)
Oh okay.. thanks for the explanation.. very helpful.
#146. To: Zipporah (#145)
Happy to oblige. I bring it up because the photo you helped me re-post appears to be color-compensated.
#147. To: nobody (#146)
k..that makes sense.. thanks!
#148. To: Zipporah (#147)
Jones has also described the color as "yellow-to-white." So I suppose he sees it as a mixture of iron eutectic and iron. Hopefully he will clarify why his description of the color has varied. Here is apparently a presentation of his from last year: http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-Molten- Jones7apr06.htm "Dramatic video footage reveals yellow-to-white hot molten metal dripping from the South WTC Tower shortly before its collapse on 9/11/2001. [1] (See: http://www.checktheevid ence.com/911/Thermite2.htm ) The fact that this is indeed molten metal was confirmed in official FEMA and NIST 9/11 reports. [2, 3] Could this be molten aluminum (from the plane), or molten steel (due to fires), or molten iron (due to thermite reactions)?"
#149. To: Zipporah (#147)
Here's another outdoor color temperature chart for iron and aluminum (i.e. blackbody-type) thermal glows: 1500 degrees Centigrade (about 1770 K) is about 300 degrees C above the melting point of the aluminum alloy with the highest melting point (about 1200 C, 1500 K). By the chart, that alloy would appear red-orange outdoors when it melts. Nothing available will ever make that alloy (or pure aluminum or iron or steel) glow yellow outdoors without first raising the temperature to about 3000 K.
#150. To: christine (#130)
In this case a fair application of Occam's Razor would be that the buildings were brought down by friction caused by the insurance policy rubbing against the mortgage.
i agree. it's a cop out theory. whenever someone posts that i know immediately they are not openminded, usually arrogant, and certainly not interested in learning the truth.
.
.
.
Comments (151 - 157) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest