911 WTC 7 Silent Thermate Demolition, Debunkers Grab Your Ankles!

[whitehall]

Since the conspiracy went on for several years, president Clinton had to be part of it. What did Clinton know and when did he know it?

 

[KokomoJojo]

Looks ok to me

awe skylar did I ignore you?

So sorry, sure here is a cutter just for you, just to show you what backwards neanderthal you are.



the technology is really easy and simple. you could make on in your back yard and it slices through steel far better than a hot knife through butter and requires very little thermate too.

Oh yeh, well the proof is all that molten shit, unless you want to go for a nook, otherwise the only other options you have available that could produce that kind of heat are the looney tune posers and official story huggers hot air.


Nah its fun watching ignoramusus maximus huggerus wallow in foolishness.

Actually the amount of high grade thermate needed is very little since its only the catalyst and the devices are WAY smaller than what the predictions some web idiots made. Especially if you dope em with generically speaking exotic metals.

I suppose you are one of the neandrathals who think the only way is det cord?

Just watch the pretty twinkles and you can follow the sychronization

Oh and this one is NOT the wtc


This one is

Now had you taken the time to actually understand the material you are ridiculing you wouldnt look so foolish aboyt now.

So simple yet you can't prove a single one ever existed in 2001, was powerful enough to cut through an actual steel beam, or explain why none were found.

Other than your hallucinations, you have nothing at all.

you may want to stop doing drugs before posting or are you a psychopathic liar?

You retard. I challenged you for proof that a "thermate cutter" existed in 2001 -- not proof of a drawing of one.

Making an ass of yourself does not impress anyone.

Both thermate cutters and thermate welders existed when they made the railroad.

Face it you should have stayed in school instead of doing so many drugs.

The thermite (thermit) reaction was discovered in 1893 and patented in 1895 by German chemist Hans Goldschmidt.[7] Consequently, the reaction is sometimes called the "Goldschmidt reaction" or "Goldschmidt process". Goldschmidt was originally interested in producing very pure metals by avoiding the use of carbon in smelting, but he soon discovered the value of thermite in welding.[8]

The first commercial application of thermite was the welding of tram tracks in Essen in 1899.[9]

Actually making an ass out of myself would shock many people, making an ass out of you on the other hand is another story, with both brains tied behind my head.

Have a wonderful day

Holyfuckingshit!!

After all your posting, it turns out you don't know the difference between "thermite welding" and a "thermate cutter."



That would be like you saying the Chinese had AK-47s in the 1300's because they invented gunpowder in the 9th century.

geezus yer a dumbass.

why dont you tell us what you think is so vastly different outside the way it is applied to the material.

Dont hold your breath people the dumbass cant answer that.

 

[Faun]

So simple yet you can't prove a single one ever existed in 2001, was powerful enough to cut through an actual steel beam, or explain why none were found.

Other than your hallucinations, you have nothing at all.

you may want to stop doing drugs before posting or are you a psychopathic liar?

You retard. I challenged you for proof that a "thermate cutter" existed in 2001 -- not proof of a drawing of one.

Making an ass of yourself does not impress anyone.

Both thermate cutters and thermate welders existed when they made the railroad.

Face it you should have stayed in school instead of doing so many drugs.

The thermite (thermit) reaction was discovered in 1893 and patented in 1895 by German chemist Hans Goldschmidt.[7] Consequently, the reaction is sometimes called the "Goldschmidt reaction" or "Goldschmidt process". Goldschmidt was originally interested in producing very pure metals by avoiding the use of carbon in smelting, but he soon discovered the value of thermite in welding.[8]

The first commercial application of thermite was the welding of tram tracks in Essen in 1899.[9]

Actually making an ass out of myself would shock many people, making an ass out of you on the other hand is another story, with both brains tied behind my head.

Have a wonderful day

Holyfuckingshit!!

After all your posting, it turns out you don't know the difference between "thermite welding" and a "thermate cutter."



That would be like you saying the Chinese had AK-47s in the 1300's because they invented gunpowder in the 9th century.

geezus yer a dumbass.

why dont you tell us what you think is so vastly different outside the way it is applied to the material.

Dont hold your breath people the dumbass cant answer that.

The difference is a cutter, as you insanely claim was employed to bring down the Twin Towers, didn't exist yet. Again, this is akin to my gun powder analogy. What a pity you're not equipped with the necessary tools to grasp it.

 

[Skylar]

none if they worked properly, since they self consume

The device in your video doesn't self consume.
Try again?

no shit! LOL



do you think that maybe its because the kid who built it in his back yard didnt construct it according to the patents? LOL

Just imagine how kick ass the real mcCoy is now that we have seen a kid who built one that works that good out of shit from his back yard scrap heap eh!

do you think that maybe its because the kid who built it in his back yard didnt construct it according to the patents?

No. I think its because there would have to be tens of thousands, hundreds of which would have been dislodged by the planes crashing into the towers. And because the patented version wouldn't even self consume.

Don't worry yourself with such details as 'self consuming'. Koko has a completely different thermite diagram to show you of a completely different 'cutter' that supposed to self consume. Its not actually a cutter, but an igniter. And it can't even remotely cut through a girder.
But when you point this out, Koko will go back to the original cutter. That doesn't self consume.
When you point this out, Koko returns to the self consuming model that doesn't cut shit.
Brainwash. Rinse. Repeat.

So what do you think it is? You've been observing the nature and methods of these 9/11 "Truthers." What drives them to make such silly arguments and half-baked conclusions?

truther arguments arent very silly when you continually wind up with your ass handed to you.

Laughing.....then where are all the thousands and thousands of thermite cutters? They would have been the size of small cars. Yet...nothing.

And why were not girders cut in a manner consist with thermite?

And why were there no thermite reactions?

And why didn't anyone notice these giant canisters hanging off the side of girders?

And what of the FDNY that gives a completely different account, accurately predicting the collapse of WTC 7 due to fire to within 30 minutes?

And how would any such 'thermite' system work if on fire?

You can resolve any of these theory killing holes in your silly conspiracy. Talk to me when you can.

 

[Skylar]

you may want to stop doing drugs before posting or are you a psychopathic liar?

You retard. I challenged you for proof that a "thermate cutter" existed in 2001 -- not proof of a drawing of one.

Making an ass of yourself does not impress anyone.

Both thermate cutters and thermate welders existed when they made the railroad.

Face it you should have stayed in school instead of doing so many drugs.

The thermite (thermit) reaction was discovered in 1893 and patented in 1895 by German chemist Hans Goldschmidt.[7] Consequently, the reaction is sometimes called the "Goldschmidt reaction" or "Goldschmidt process". Goldschmidt was originally interested in producing very pure metals by avoiding the use of carbon in smelting, but he soon discovered the value of thermite in welding.[8]

The first commercial application of thermite was the welding of tram tracks in Essen in 1899.[9]

Actually making an ass out of myself would shock many people, making an ass out of you on the other hand is another story, with both brains tied behind my head.

Have a wonderful day

Holyfuckingshit!!

After all your posting, it turns out you don't know the difference between "thermite welding" and a "thermate cutter."



That would be like you saying the Chinese had AK-47s in the 1300's because they invented gunpowder in the 9th century.

geezus yer a dumbass.

why dont you tell us what you think is so vastly different outside the way it is applied to the material.

Dont hold your breath people the dumbass cant answer that.

The difference is a cutter, as you insanely claim was employed to bring down the Twin Towers, didn't exist yet. Again, this is akin to my gun powder analogy. What a pity you're not equipped with the necessary tools to grasp it.

And of course, where were they in the wreckage. The cutter would have been enormous, obvious, the source of huge quantities of slag, and numbered by the 10s of thousands.

Yet.....jack shit.

 

[Capstone]

US4216721.pdf describes a "thermite penetration device" that was patented on August 12, 1980 (after having been filed for in 1972).

US5698812.pdf describes a "thermite destructive device" patented in 1997, which improved on the former device by venting the top (note that the potential for use with thermate-th3 is explicitly mentioned in the document).

Both devices could serve the purpose of a "thermate cutter charge", and both had long been available to military contractors on 9/11/01.

 

[Skylar]

US4216721.pdf describes a "thermite penetration device" that was patented on August 12, 1980 (after having been filed for in 1972).

US5698812.pdf describes a "thermite destructive device" patented in 1997, which improved on the former device by venting the top (note that thermate-th3 is explicitly mentioned in the document).

Both devices could serve the purpose of a "thermate cutter charge", and both had long been available to military contractors on 9/11/01.

Then where were they? Tocut a girder, you'd need something roughly the size of a compact car. And you'd need them by the thousands.

The other is a grenade. And there were no girders cut in a manner consistent with grenades.

Or thermite, for that matter.

Nor were there any thermite reactions, despite the thermite theory requiring 10s of thousands.

So......how's that working out for you?

 

[Faun]

US4216721.pdf describes a "thermite penetration device" that was patented on August 12, 1980 (after having been filed for in 1972).

US5698812.pdf describes a "thermite destructive device" patented in 1997, which improved on the former device by venting the top (note that the potential for use with thermate-th3 is explicitly mentioned in the document).

Both devices could serve the purpose of a "thermate cutter charge", and both had long been available to military contractors on 9/11/01.

Patents don't prove anything. There are many patents which were never developed. Try showing evidence that such a device actually existed prior to 9.11 and worked as designed.

 

[Capstone]

Then where were they? Tocut a girder, you'd need something roughly the size of a compact car. And you'd need them by the thousands. ...

Not to concede the point as to the size or number of military-grade cutter charge devices required to account for the observable aspects of the "collapses", but where were many things that should have been present in the debris piles, absent the use of incendiaries/pyrotechnics? Several witnesses and participants in the clean-up efforts remarked on the virtual lack of recognizable pieces from the enormous quantity of office equipment, furniture, ETC., particularly from the vast majority of the lower floors of the Twins, which, according to the official story, experienced few or no fires prior to the "collapses". What were discovered at the bottom of the piles (indicating self-contained oxygen sources) were streams and pools of molten metals, which should lead any rational person to wonder whether that's where many of the conspicuously missing objects ended up.

It's also perfectly reasonable to suspect that any badly mangled remnants of demolition devices that may have been recovered (perhaps unknowingly) during the clean-up stages were likely shipped-out (in quick fasion) along with the bulk of the crime scene evidence.

Regarding the majority of the "thermitic reactions", they took place from the inside-out and were therefore covered, first by the intact building materials/components and then by the horizontally ejected clouds of pulverized building materials/components (along with everything else in the buildings, including human beings). This was particularly effective in the top-down initiations of the "collapses" of buildings 1 and 2, because the laterally-ejected debris clouds also cascaded downward due to gravity, providing some cover for what was going on with lower portions of the buildings at the time of their respective destructions. Having said all of that, there were possible thermitic reactions caught on tape during what may have been either an intentional pre-weakening ignition or an unintentional one of the pre-coated interior columns/walls. I'm talking about the videos of yellow/reddish molten metal pouring out from exploded windows prior to the "collapses". There were also a number of "squibs" caught on camera during the "collapses", which are typical of top-down implosions (I think there's a video out there of a known top-down demolition of a high-rise building in China, in which all the characteristics observed in the destructions of buildings 1 and 2 are visible, as well).

As for how my beliefs are working out for me, all I can say is that remaining true to my core principles is its own reward, yes, even in the face of heavy ridicule from sell-outs like you and others on this board.

 

[Capstone]

US4216721.pdf describes a "thermite penetration device" that was patented on August 12, 1980 (after having been filed for in 1972).

US5698812.pdf describes a "thermite destructive device" patented in 1997, which improved on the former device by venting the top (note that the potential for use with thermate-th3 is explicitly mentioned in the document).

Both devices could serve the purpose of a "thermate cutter charge", and both had long been available to military contractors on 9/11/01.

Patents don't prove anything. There are many patents which were never developed. Try showing evidence that such a device actually existed prior to 9.11 and worked as designed.

Those aren't your run-of-the-mill patents, Faun; they're military patents.

My dad (Ret. Air Force, now deceased) worked on the SR-71 project several years before most people (even in the military) knew it existed. The lack of widespread knowledge of (or access to) much of the evidence of a thing's existence aren't themselves evidence of its lack of existence. That's true of all things, but most especially true where many military things are concerned.

 

[irosie91]

I saw the buildings collapse-----they neither imploded
as one sees in a controlled demolition-----nor did anything
SHOOT outward----horizontally-----until the collapse hit bottom
when the energy of the collapse propelled stuff all over
the city-----from the bottom outward-----bodies were not thrown
out THEY JUMPED------some fell out and down-----nothing got TOSSED out from the upper end

 

[daws101]

no shit! LOL



do you think that maybe its because the kid who built it in his back yard didnt construct it according to the patents? LOL

Just imagine how kick ass the real mcCoy is now that we have seen a kid who built one that works that good out of shit from his back yard scrap heap eh!

do you think that maybe its because the kid who built it in his back yard didnt construct it according to the patents?

No. I think its because there would have to be tens of thousands, hundreds of which would have been dislodged by the planes crashing into the towers. And because the patented version wouldn't even self consume.

Don't worry yourself with such details as 'self consuming'. Koko has a completely different thermite diagram to show you of a completely different 'cutter' that supposed to self consume. Its not actually a cutter, but an igniter. And it can't even remotely cut through a girder.
But when you point this out, Koko will go back to the original cutter. That doesn't self consume.
When you point this out, Koko returns to the self consuming model that doesn't cut shit.
Brainwash. Rinse. Repeat.

So what do you think it is? You've been observing the nature and methods of these 9/11 "Truthers." What drives them to make such silly arguments and half-baked conclusions?

They've internalized their conspiracy. They've Jack Burton'd their narrative. And made their imagined ability to 'see what no one else can see, do what no one else can do' part of their identity.

So if you point out holes in their theories, they get wildly defensive or evasive. As you're essentially attacking a piece of who they are. Equally, they need to perpetuate their stories to maintain this feeling of having 'special knowledge'.

Which is why most 'Truthers' are so invulnerable to contrary evidence. Acknowledging the holes in their theory is often seen as a personal failure or an almost blasphemous attack. As if you were talking shit about their religion. They shut down. And they will ignore anything, from any source, even their own....that contradicts their narrative.

problem is you havent punched holes in anything I posted, if you think you have by all means cite them and I will be happy to explain the facts to you.

how do you punch holes in a gigantic hole. nothing you 've posted ever is based on fact...

 

[daws101]

an inability to deal with reality mostly

Yeah, I've read that but sometimes I think it's something more.

true it is more

some people can not deal with the fact that a few people

or in some cases one person could do such horrible things

so they assign governmental conspiracies

in a way of dealing with it

read the footer below, pshychologists warn us that posers/debunkers/huggers are bat shit crazy losers.

Correspondence from James Bennett to Laurie Manwell with Responses
(06/17/07 to 06/17/07):
James Bennett:
I was reading your paper published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies, and I was wondering
why you misrepresented the Angus-Reid poll on page 16:
"An Angus-Reid poll comparing responses from 2002 and 2006 found similar results, and
that in 2006, only 16% of Americans believed that the government is telling the truth

about the events of 9/11[16].” "
If you go to the poll, which you footnote, you find that that question does not even ask
people whether they believe "the government is lying about the events of 9/11":
81. When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible

terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush
Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or
are they mostly lying?
On the contrary, it very specifically asks people whether they believe that government
was lying about warnings of terrorist attacks, not the attacks themselves. This becomes
even more obvious when you read the previous two poll questions, which ask whether
they believe the Clinton and Bush administrations paid enough attention to terrorism.
So I have to ask, why did you entirely change the premise of the question for your paper,
and are you going to issue a correction?
Laurie Manwell:
I must respectfully disagree with your interpretation. I did state in my paper that it was
regarding the "events of 9/11" which, in fact, includes prior knowledge of the attacks.
I would also argue that this fact itself, foreknowledge of the attacks, is the single most
important fact, because if properly dealt with, all of the events of 9/11 could have been

prevented.
Moreover, it speaks to the fact that the majority of people believe that George W. Bush is
lying about many things and consider such behavior to be above the law. Below are some
of the other questions that I also considered in making my statement. Misrepresentation
of the events of 9/11 – both before, during and after – have been well documented and
many people are becoming more and more aware that the official account of the events of
9/11 is full of lies.

not credible! any scientist making the above statements is erroneously speculating !
http://www.journalof911studies.com/... Bennett to Laurie Manwell with Responses.pdf

James Bennett:
Thanks for the response, but I think you are being somewhat disingenuous. No
honest person is going to think that "what they knew prior to 9/11" and the
"events of 9/11" are synonymous. In fact even you indicate that you think
they are two different issues when you state that with prior knowledge of
the attacks "all of the events of 9/11 could have been prevented." If you
actually regarded these as interchangeable, that statement would be
illogical.
Incidentally that logic is also based on the assumption that the attacks were
carried out by a third party, not by the US government, as one does not
receives "warnings" from oneself, which seems to contradict your main
thesis.
Laurie Manwell:
It seems that you have an agenda here rather than open discussion of the topic of my
paper. Nowhere do I say that the US government "did it" and nor is my main thesis that.
All research is subject to interpretation and I include all of my sources for
verification.
If you strongly disagree I would encourage you to write a letter or article
for submission to the Journal of 9/11 Studies where we can debate this issue within an
academic - rather than personal - domain, as I am not sure what your point is other than
to attack me personally by calling me disingenuous.
If you wish to discuss the research professionally that is fine but I am not interested in
responding to questions regarding my character, especially since we do not even know
each other.
James Bennett:
Actually I would argue that you have a personal agenda, otherwise you would
not have changed the wording from "what they knew prior to September
11th, 2001," to "the events of 9/11". There is no reason to do that except to advance an
agenda.
I have already had letters posted on the Journal. I have no interest in
having any articles posted to what is essentially a crackpot echo
chamber without academic or intellectual standards.

 

[daws101]

US4216721.pdf describes a "thermite penetration device" that was patented on August 12, 1980 (after having been filed for in 1972).

US5698812.pdf describes a "thermite destructive device" patented in 1997, which improved on the former device by venting the top (note that the potential for use with thermate-th3 is explicitly mentioned in the document).

Both devices could serve the purpose of a "thermate cutter charge", and both had long been available to military contractors on 9/11/01.

odd how no whole or part of said cutter charge were found, neither was the signature cutting style of said units.

 

[Faun]

US4216721.pdf describes a "thermite penetration device" that was patented on August 12, 1980 (after having been filed for in 1972).

US5698812.pdf describes a "thermite destructive device" patented in 1997, which improved on the former device by venting the top (note that the potential for use with thermate-th3 is explicitly mentioned in the document).

Both devices could serve the purpose of a "thermate cutter charge", and both had long been available to military contractors on 9/11/01.

Patents don't prove anything. There are many patents which were never developed. Try showing evidence that such a device actually existed prior to 9.11 and worked as designed.

Those aren't your run-of-the-mill patents, Faun; they're military patents.

My dad (Ret. Air Force, now deceased) worked on the SR-71 project several years before most people (even in the military) knew it existed. The lack of widespread knowledge of (or access to) much of the evidence of a thing's existence aren't themselves evidence of its lack of existence. That's true of all things, but most especially true where many military things are concerned.

Nothing personal, but your words carry no weight. Saying people knew they existed, I just can't prove it, proves it as much as claiming your dad knew there were aliens in area 51.

 

[daws101]

US4216721.pdf describes a "thermite penetration device" that was patented on August 12, 1980 (after having been filed for in 1972).

US5698812.pdf describes a "thermite destructive device" patented in 1997, which improved on the former device by venting the top (note that the potential for use with thermate-th3 is explicitly mentioned in the document).

Both devices could serve the purpose of a "thermate cutter charge", and both had long been available to military contractors on 9/11/01.

Patents don't prove anything. There are many patents which were never developed. Try showing evidence that such a device actually existed prior to 9.11 and worked as designed.

Those aren't your run-of-the-mill patents, Faun; they're military patents.

My dad (Ret. Air Force, now deceased) worked on the SR-71 project several years before most people (even in the military) knew it existed. The lack of widespread knowledge of (or access to) much of the evidence of a thing's existence aren't themselves evidence of its lack of existence. That's true of all things, but most especially true where many military things are concerned.

Nothing personal, but your words carry no weight. Saying people knew they existed, I just can't prove it, proves it as much as claiming your dad knew there were aliens in area 51.

that's an old twoofer trick.
koko's show me documented proof nonsense is denial of reality at it's best.

 

[MrDVS1]

Like I've always said 9/11 was an inside job. The official story is too full of holes to be believed, except by people who don't know much of anything.

 

[daws101]

Like I've always said 9/11 was an inside job. The official story is too full of holes to be believed, except by people who don't know much of anything.

speaking of people who don't know jack shit about anything
here's one now.
before you start to go off on erroneous speculation... be prepared to have your ass handed to you.
btw real life has lots of holes in it.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Like I've always said 9/11 was an inside job. The official story is too full of holes to be believed, except by people who don't know much of anything.

speaking of people who don't know jack shit about anything
here's one now.
before you start to go off on erroneous speculation... be prepared to have your ass handed to you.
btw real life has lots of holes in it.

Yeh so says the tard that doesnt know the difference between the bank building and wtc7.

too bad they dont have a 'what a dumb fuck' button I can click!

 

[KokomoJojo]

an inability to deal with reality mostly

Yeah, I've read that but sometimes I think it's something more.

true it is more

some people can not deal with the fact that a few people

or in some cases one person could do such horrible things

so they assign governmental conspiracies

in a way of dealing with it

read the footer below, pshychologists warn us that posers/debunkers/huggers are bat shit crazy losers.

Correspondence from James Bennett to Laurie Manwell with Responses
(06/17/07 to 06/17/07):
James Bennett:
I was reading your paper published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies, and I was wondering
why you misrepresented the Angus-Reid poll on page 16:
"An Angus-Reid poll comparing responses from 2002 and 2006 found similar results, and
that in 2006, only 16% of Americans believed that the government is telling the truth

about the events of 9/11[16].” "
If you go to the poll, which you footnote, you find that that question does not even ask
people whether they believe "the government is lying about the events of 9/11":
81. When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible

terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush
Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or
are they mostly lying?
On the contrary, it very specifically asks people whether they believe that government
was lying about warnings of terrorist attacks, not the attacks themselves. This becomes
even more obvious when you read the previous two poll questions, which ask whether
they believe the Clinton and Bush administrations paid enough attention to terrorism.
So I have to ask, why did you entirely change the premise of the question for your paper,
and are you going to issue a correction?
Laurie Manwell:
I must respectfully disagree with your interpretation. I did state in my paper that it was
regarding the "events of 9/11" which, in fact, includes prior knowledge of the attacks.
I would also argue that this fact itself, foreknowledge of the attacks, is the single most
important fact, because if properly dealt with, all of the events of 9/11 could have been

prevented.
Moreover, it speaks to the fact that the majority of people believe that George W. Bush is
lying about many things and consider such behavior to be above the law. Below are some
of the other questions that I also considered in making my statement. Misrepresentation
of the events of 9/11 – both before, during and after – have been well documented and
many people are becoming more and more aware that the official account of the events of
9/11 is full of lies.

not credible! any scientist making the above statements is erroneously speculating !
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Correspondence from James Bennett to Laurie Manwell with Responses.pdf

James Bennett:
Thanks for the response, but I think you are being somewhat disingenuous. No
honest person is going to think that "what they knew prior to 9/11" and the
"events of 9/11" are synonymous. In fact even you indicate that you think
they are two different issues when you state that with prior knowledge of
the attacks "all of the events of 9/11 could have been prevented." If you
actually regarded these as interchangeable, that statement would be
illogical.
Incidentally that logic is also based on the assumption that the attacks were
carried out by a third party, not by the US government, as one does not
receives "warnings" from oneself, which seems to contradict your main
thesis.
Laurie Manwell:
It seems that you have an agenda here rather than open discussion of the topic of my
paper. Nowhere do I say that the US government "did it" and nor is my main thesis that.
All research is subject to interpretation and I include all of my sources for
verification.
If you strongly disagree I would encourage you to write a letter or article
for submission to the Journal of 9/11 Studies where we can debate this issue within an
academic - rather than personal - domain, as I am not sure what your point is other than
to attack me personally by calling me disingenuous.
If you wish to discuss the research professionally that is fine but I am not interested in
responding to questions regarding my character, especially since we do not even know
each other.
James Bennett:
Actually I would argue that you have a personal agenda, otherwise you would
not have changed the wording from "what they knew prior to September
11th, 2001," to "the events of 9/11". There is no reason to do that except to advance an
agenda.
I have already had letters posted on the Journal. I have no interest in
having any articles posted to what is essentially a crackpot echo
chamber without academic or intellectual standards.

great post dawes, too bad it doesnt have one damn thing to do with this thread.