Why Demolish WTC7 at 5:20 pm? ...and why an obvious CD?

...came across an interesting take of these questions on LC forums.


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

Q: Why did they do such an obvious controlled demolition if all the destruction was supposed to look like the natural result of the aircraft attacks?

A: Because they hadn't planned on anyone seeing the collapse! The best answer I've heard proposed, is that it was a major screwup. They never planned to trigger the job at 5:20 p.m!

This scenario has it that the collapse of WTC7 was planned to occur under the debris cloud from the falling WTC1
and be blamed on the WTC1 collapse.



Hidden by that massive debris cloud, a controlled demolition of WTC7 would be well masked while guaranteeing the total destruction of WTC7 and it's contents..unlike a topple which would produce far less predictable results.

Something went wrong and they failed to trigger the demolition in time with the WTC1 collapse.

That obviously presented two problems.

They had to finish the job (CD WTC7) and they had to have some kind of explanation to account for it's collapse.

Once they corrected the technical glitch with the CD setup, they allowed time for the debris damage and fires to build a case for the re-planned collapse.

Q Back to the question, why did they wait until 5:20 p.m.?

A Faced with a new countdown to the demolition, It would have raised more immediate questions if they hadn't waited?

Let it burn unfought for several hours and establish a probable cause, even if a weak one for it's collapse.

Thanks to the complicity of the mainstream media very few people ever noted the collapse of WTC7.

Thanks to the Internet it came to world attention.

Q Why not wait until after dark when the 'telltale' symmetry and speed of the controlled demolition of WTC7 would not be visible?

A The simple answer is, it was a salvage job, they never planned to do the job after WTC1 collapsed.

Another reason was that on Sept.11, 2001, the sun set in New York City at 6:11 p.m.
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneYear.php

As the sun began to set the lack of flames behind the veil of smoke on the south face would become too apparent.


The 'believed to be' towering inferno would gradually become a darkened 47-story empty tower with possibly a few flames licking out of the odd window here and there.

The "emperor's new clothes" would be revealed and the total collapse of a building with such limited visible fire would have made even the most corrupt engineer visibly squirm in any attempt to suggest natural causes.

So on Tuesday, September 11, 2001, at 5:20 p.m., we all watched, and they "pulled it."


"The debris generated by the collapse of WTC 7 spread mainly westward toward the Verizon building, and to the south... The average debris field radius was approximately 70 feet.
The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the facade was pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and
implosion." - FEMA (05/02)


Read more:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/45059/1/#new

is there any CT so goofy that even YOU won't ambrace it? What crap.

what crap!

Wtf makes you think you have any idea what I embrace? I'm calling you out on your goofy theories because, let's face it...you have no concrete proof whatsoever that controlled demolition was employed on 9/11. None. Calling you on your goofy bullshit is hardly embracing the "official theory", whatever that is. Actually, the "official theory" is a convenient phrase used by CT's to denigrate anything that contradicts their goofy worldview.

that OBL was responsible for 9/11, zero evidence the collapse was caused by fire, zero evidence that a Boeing hit the Pentagon, etc. hence the official theory is nothing more than a fairy tale.

and goodbye, I don't try to reason with "no planers".

...are we beginning to see a pattern yet?

"Any detonation of explosives within WTC 7 would have been detected by multiple seismographs monitoring ground vibration in the general area. No such telltale 'spike' or vibratory anomaly was recorded by any monitoring instrument."
—Brent Blanchard of Protec
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20oof%209-8-06%20.pdf

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

BTW, Hyper-imagination is associated with bipolar disorders. Just thought you should know.

and nightmares?




"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon said on Tuesday it dropped charges against a Saudi who U.S. officials say intended to be the "20th hijacker" on September 11. "


:rofl:

hijacker. But seriously don't give up tilling at windmills; it makes for great amusement.

There was a video that came out just a little over a year ago, and this is the one that was shot from the couples apartment just a few hundred feet away, NW of the WTC complex. You can hear them talking, screaming, etc. all through the attacks. It also shows something strange which I have never seen discussed anywhere else. It clearly shows a window washers scaffolding ascending the north face of WTC 7. During the attacks. Now, think about it. If you were on that thing, wouldn't the obvious course of action be to get to the ground as quickly as possible? Instead of ascending to the roof? It goes up quite slowly too..... anyone else seen this?

The scaffolding slowing creeps up to the top. You can see it on a few other vids/photos too at different stages. Although I think most of the images we see have been doctored in some way.

In NYC tall buildings have window washing scaffolds that generally don't go down to the ground. They are lowered from crane like devices on the roof, and the only way out is up. So ascending would be the way to escape.

I'd love to see that video though.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

that's your job and the job of all the "untruthers."

"/sarc" indicates that the preceding words are sarcastic.

I knew exactly what your intention was, including your secondary intention, which as always, is simply to be obnoxious.

Snark begets snark.

Why do you come onto these and other boards just to make enemies? What's wrong with you anyway? Why are you always, always snarking? Why can't you contribute anything, anything productive or interesting to DU discussions?

Don't you have anything interesting to say about any topic? Seriously, I've never seen one of your posts garner enough interest to get on even the bottom of the Greatest Page. In fact, I've never, ever read anything even modestly interesting from you.

Why not try to come up with something -- anything -- interesting to contribute to DU discussions, rather than focus so, so much negative energy on DU? I mean, for your own good. It must be horrible to be consumed by so much negative energy and emotion.

I post in support of one of your posts, using clearly marked sarcasm, and you spin it into a bad thing.

How cooperative. /sarc

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

In Hammy's ideological pure world either you agree with him or you support Bush or everthing Bush represents. His posts have established that many times.

You don't seem to understand that most of the time I am simply making a parody of your own logical fallacies:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=205091&mesg_id=205382

In my view you're intense ideology causes you to be intellectually dishonest. This is evidenced by your consistent misrepresentation of other's words and plain intent. Your only purpose seems to be an effort to marginalize those that disagree with you.

You can't even name one.

Because you are mistaking a parody of yourself for an ideological position. How silly!

anyone that disagrees with me will be subjected to stupid rhetorical tricks and misrepresentation of their position.

Whether you're a Sophist or Propagandist is hard to tell.

is whether you actually know the definitions of "ideological" or "ideology."

It seems you don't.

Maybe you should have taken at least one social science class, in the course of becoming an alleged "engineer."

You've nailed it! :hi:

But there are differences among untruthers and their fellow travelers:

OCTers -- anyone who believes/supports the "official conspiracy theory."

OCTabots -- someone who supports the official conspiracy theory with robotic regularity, posting almost instantly and at all times of the day and night any time the Bush version of events is questioned.

OCTabarnacles -- in the same way that barnacles cling stubbornly to the bottom of marine structures and vehicles in a form of infestation, these specialized OCTers cling stubbornley to the "bottom" of DU, ie its dungeon infesting the 9/11 Forum; any OCTabot who rarely posts outside of the 9/11 forum.

Evangelical fundamentalist OCTabarnaclism -- the religion of the OCTabarnacles, it is a fundamentalist movement that makes the same religious style errors of logical fallacy that other fundamentalist religions make; based on an inerrant holy text, the 9/11 Commission Report, despite the fact that its authors have rejected it; while most fundamentalist religions have a holy good person at their centers, OCTabarnacalism has at its center a figure who, while not necessarily proclaimed to be the ultimate good, cannot be ascribed to be "evil," namely the "incompetent but not evil" George W. Bush.

untruthers -- those who believe the ultimate service they can provide is to prevent the truth of 9/11 from being uncovered.

You're assuming "truthers" are actually espousing truth. Of course, truth would have compelling evidence to accompany it. You don't. Your "untruthers" label has an almost Orwellian quality to it. It's an attempt at psychic foreclosure by implying anyone who takes issue with your nonsense is deliberately attempting to prevent the truth of 9/11 from being uncovered. How, pray tell, is questioning your goofy claims and theories preventing the truth from being uncovered? I think the bigger problem for the "truth movement" is that relatively few people are buying your bullshit.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

.

they all lower to the ground.

It is very rare to see a window washing platform on very tall buildings in Manhattan lowered all the way to the ground.

Even with those that can, if a window washer were trying to escape an increasingly scary situation, many in Manhattan would go up rather than down -- that's where they get off and on. Not that I'm an expert on washing widows, but having worked in Manhattan for many years, I've often seen them got on at the top and get off at the top. You almost never see them come down to the sidewalk. I don't know about wtc 7 though.

I did casually know a guy who was a window washer (used to drink beer at the same ale house) and the guy had fallen something like ten stories and survived! It used to make my back hurt just talking to him and thinking about what he went through!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

work always to encourage and promote the most stupid and/or the most COINTELPROed among those pretending to be skeptics of the official story.

And here I thought I was just being cheeky in a spare moment on an internet forum.

I had no idea I was so important.


You didn't get a chuckle out of "back and to the left"?

Geez.

you're not interested in resolving what you call "conspiracy" questions except insofar as they're funny to you.

you really think that?

This forum could have been like cooperativeresearch, but oddly it isn't.

I wonder why that is?

hhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

if the truth movement had the intellectual discipline to vet and reject the more "esoteric" theories then they would be taken seriously. I respond to what I see - I am not the one originating theories about CD, thermate, non planes, death rays, mini-nukes. You want a serious forum? - then help filter out the pseudo science BS and other loony tune posts.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

why do you keep forgetting that I have said that several time.

The NIST report is not - that is the report that I am defending when I take on the loony tunes. Go look at my posts - you will clearly see that I do not post on threads dealing with Saudi influence or the money. It is only the loony tune science threads that I post to. If the truth movement would simply say that MIHOP consisted of the CIA duping and helping a bunch of Arab patsies into flying aircraft into the WTC and Pentagon, I wouldn't be here. That sounds like a reasonable conspiracy and I would be willing to withhold judgment until real evidence came forward. But when you have truthers that believe that steel beams burn like wood logs, well, I just can't resist. It is entertaining as hell and I think it important that people like that aren't seen as the face of the Democratic party.

My vested interest is simply seeing that the democratic party is not seen as the party of scientific ignorance.

Why the personal attacks - do you really think I care what an anonymous internet poster thinks about me?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

it seems to be key to your mental stability. Have a nice life - I promise I will never bother you again.

Therefore, I don't need to do anything to preserve it.

It's yours that needs to be carefully protected through your online antics.

...of HR being put in the position of refuting a silly claim based on his own knowledge.

Imagine what it's like having degrees in physics and engineering, and seeing silly claims posted here every day.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I actually won an election for this position. I hate to tell you this, but it was a secret ballot, so I am certain I will not be able to prove it to your satisfaction. Just sayin'.

I get a little giggly evertime I see someone HERE use that word.

:rofl:

and other fundamentalist "untruthers."

I was simply making a point about window washing. I see from your profile that you are from Israel. While I've never been there, I get the impression from pictures on tv that there aren't that many very, very tall buildings in your major cities compared to Manhattan.

In other cities with "normal" size buildings, window washing platforms do indeed descend to the ground.

The problem of the length and strength of cables for washing windows on really tall buildings is such an issue that a lot of new buildings in Manhattan have a kind of track system. The window washing platform rides in a track built into the building, kind of like certain elevators. It looks pretty cool!

Robotic brushes climbed up the facade of the buildings on regular schedules, using tracks in the aluminum cladding as guide rails. They were controlled by a gantry on the roof that positined them on the next face of the building when the current face was completed.

Could this be what you were seeing?

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/godfrey.htm

It was a rather pedestrian 47 story building to the north of the complex. Until 9/11, most New Yorkers would not have identified it as part of the "World Trade Center" because it was across the street from the Plaza that was the center of the complex.

Hence, I doubt that the tower window cleaning system was used on WTC 7, but if I'm wrong, I'll stand corrected.

there was something happening on 9/11 roughly every half-hour for the first few hours. Plane crash, building falling down. For some reason it seems like WTC7 collapse was delayed.

Nothing against your speculative talents, but if the demolition is really that obvious, if you can prove it, then that's the whole ball game right there. There is no need to construct a story for why it happened or when it happened or how. It either was or it wasn't a demolition. If it was, only people with connections inside the government and the building (which was full of federal agencies) could have done it. If it was, the question of whether the other buildings were blown up is obviously all the more compelling. If it was, the official story is a lie. So at that point, you should repeat that it was demolished and call for a revolution. You don't complicate things by adding a story that you don't need and can't know for sure.

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!

that had information of WT # 7 collapsing some twenty minutes before the actual event?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqqhX8gkhE0

Around 16 minutes into this film you can watch the BBC reporter talking about bldg. # 7 having already collapsed but in her background the bldg. is still standing. The satellite transmission is interrupted 5 minutes before the actual collapse time.

I imagine this has been shown in this forum before?

...and Aaron Brown of CNN reported it much earlier than that. Actually, he was reading a report that said it "was collapsing or in danger of collapse"... and the game of whisper-down-the-lane ran from there among several news agencies.

There were reports all day long that WTC7 was in danger of collapsing. That's why workers were pulled off of the tower site, and a collapse zone was established around the building.

how reliable was the information of "immenent collapse" and from whom did that information originate?

Could there be a possibility that it was wanted to be seen that the building was destined to come down because of the fire and debris?

Could it be possible that "things" did not go as originally expected?

Being new to all of this I don't know if these and other questions were fully investigated.

Are there full and reliable accounts of how it all played out?

they were monitoring a bulge in the building. They also reported heavy structural damage.


Deputy Chief Peter Hayden:




http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayd ...

Deputy Chief Nick Visconti:






http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visc ...


Battalion Chief John Norman:






http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/norm ...





http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyl


http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-81.pdf

page 165

Now my next question is this. Is there also any possibility that there was a failed, or perhaps delayed reaction to a controlled demolition.

I just don't want to discount anything for my inquiring mind.

I'm sorry for continuing with questions but I don't trust this administartion one iota.

Chief Hayden and others determined the building was unsafe and cleared the area.

http://www.youtube.com/v/3HLDgjYuRHk&hl

But my inquiring mind also has questions. Suppose that WTC7 was a controllled demolition. How do you explain the BBC report under that scenario? A foreign news agency, controlled by the administration, was provided advance notice of a secret demolition, yes?

And Chief Hayden or not, that doesn't prove to me that there wasn't a controlled demolition earlier that failed to immediately bring the bldg. down.

I'm new to this forum. There is to me just too much in the way of questions and shady doings on that day.

The Cheney war games?

The pre-knowledge of the potential attacks?

What am I missing? Fill me in with a list of ????? things about the disaster.

I thought you were asking about the BBC report, and the decision early in the day to evacuate the area around building 7 because the fire department had deemed it unsafe.

If your question is "prove it wasn't a controlled demolition", then that's a different question, as are "The Cheney war games?" which isn't much of a question.

On the subject of foreknowledge of potential attacks, absolutely there was foreknowledge of potential attacks. But I don't see how that is consistent with controlled demolitions, or are you suggesting that the Bush administration had foreknowledge of what the Bush administration was going to do? Well, yes, of course they would have. It seems that Richard Clarke in particular was very concerned about an attack by Al Qaeda, and he appears to have missed these other internal goings on.

Is there any reason why you suspect an "earlier CD," besides just general suspiciousness?

An "earlier CD" with explosives would have been impossible to hide -- it would have been extremely loud.

If anything else was done to WTC 7 besides just it having been hit by debris from the Twin Towers, plus the resulting fires, then whatever might have done would have to have been something much quieter than the use of explosives.

They don't regularly blow up their headquarters in Langley to hide their dastardly deeds, do they?

when they announce the next morning that the records of hundreds of pending cases of
fraud, (ie: the Enron scandal), have mysteriously disappeared without a trace?

how would they explain it, if nothing happened to Building 7?

I'm left wondering which plot by which committee of lunatics you mean.

So you're not to blame for the craziness of your theories at all. You've completely transferred that to THEM.

:(

off-site backups of all critical data, in case of damage to the on-site stuff.

I have no idea if the government agencies in WTC7 did this or not.

Mission accomplished!








It's devastating. They'll have to scrap many cases
and start from scratch on others.

--Carmen Lawrence, former head of New York SEC.







As someone else said,

'Many original documents were stored in WTC7 that have no digital backups. A lot of damning evidence was destroyed that would have sent many corporate heads to jail. Now they will never do time. It was the PERFECT crime, although done sloppily. Then again nowadays you can get away with anything. Most people are too busy to pay attention to anything anymore.'

I think if the original documents of pending cases had backups stored (perhaps scanned onto computer disk, microfiche, etc.), those backups were perhaps stored in another part of the building. Or even in another area of the WTC outside of building 7, but still within the WTC complex. So if that's the case, then even the backups would not have escaped destruction.

but was brought down by AF pilot acting on his own. Or maybe when Minetta grounded the planes (which should have been done immediately but the perps were following a dawdling strategy) he grounded the plane that was supposed to hit it. But as the headquarters for the high perps it absolutely had to come down. The arrests should start with Giuliani, Pataki and Silverstein. They'll sell out the higher ups.

You'd think the insurers would want an investigation so they could
try to blame the loss on WTC1, or on the guys who installed the diesel
tanks, or on the engineers.

They wrote a check before the FEMA investigation was even released.

Then of course the whole outfit was sold to Swiss Re, so shareholders
no longer had standing to ask questions.

I bet there were some insurance investigators who thought they were
going to get a nice contract to investigate WTC7 and they're still
wondering why they didn't.

GE knows they will easily recoup that insurance money and more, if they play ball. which means doing nothing to question the official version of events. $861 million is nothing compared to what GE was poised to make from post-9/11 defense contracts, the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, etc.

WTC 7 was not destroyed by a controlled demolition.

This theory would explain why the timing seems odd (to some people)
It would remove the need to explain how a controlled demolition was performed without signature ground tremors in a building that was extensively damaged by the collapse of the WTC tower.
It would remove the need to explain why the hell anyone would plan a demolition of a building that could quite easily be destroyed by debris from a falling building in close proximity.
It would remove the need to explain what made such a person think their charges would survive the other buildings collapse and thus how they would get away without an entire building full of planned charges being discovered.

It would fit with FDNY accounts.
It would fit with the physical evidence.
It would fit with the available video footage.

hmmm... maybe we should consider this possibility.

symmetrically at free-fall speed.

free-fall speed is to dishonestly start the clock AFTER the east and west penthouses collapsed and to dishonestly stop the clock when the lower stories are obscured by the building in front of it when the video was shot.

Why would someone do what you suggest? to prove a conspiracy theory and know when the video was made that they were going to have a conspiracy theory to prove? that gets too convoluted for me...

I'm saying that the people who are claiming it fell at free fall speed (you'd have to time the actual collapse and do the math to prove freefall) are DISHONESTLY starting the stopwatch AFTER the east and west penthouses have already collapsed and stop it BEFORE the building has actually completely collapsed (you can't see the lower stories collapse in most videos because there's another building in the line of sight). If you add the additional time I'm referencing, it's clear the collapse is nowhere NEAR free-fall speed. I hope this makes it clearer.

I would need to see what exact time sequence film you are looking at and the clock to judge. Thank you.

and I waste any further time, we need to clarify a few things.

1) Do you believe that WTC 7 collapsed at free-fall speed? If you do, how did you arrive at that conclusion, especially since it appears you have little idea of the actual time it took to collapse?

2) Do you understand what I am driving at with my example? I'm not sure you do or you wouldn't be asking me to supply the video and make the request that it include a clock. If you understand what I am positing, could you repeat it back for me? The reason I am asking this is because your initial comment about it being "too convoluted" tells me that you somehow think it was a problem for the "plotters". I am saying that some CT's are trying to make it appear that WTC 7 fell at free-fall speed by only timing the collapse after the east and west penthouses have already collapsed (which happened something like 8 to 9 seconds before the rest of the building begins to collapse)then stopping the timer when the view of the building is obscured by the building in front of it when, in fact a number of stories are still collapsing out of the view of the video camera.

Unless you completely understand my premise, it's pointless for me to do the work you should be doing (or should have already done) if you're not going to understand it.

Not footage with a clock that starts when you say, I can't find it, but you must know of some? a link? a hint?

Before I look for it, have you seen a video that begins with the east and west penthouses collapsing first, then it's about another 8-9 seconds prior to the rest of the building collapsing and can you see that the building is obscured by another building, so it's continuing to collapse out of the sight of the camera? If you can, then I'll find the video I'm talking about.

To really know if I've seen it before, I may not have been that aware of the sequence. Don't worry about it.

The EAST penthouse collapsed approximately 10 seconds before the outer wall. But the WEST penthouse did not collapse until just before the outer wall begins to collapse

The first of the three video files http://wtc7.net/videos.html">on this page is approximately 36 seconds long and shows the WTC 7 collapse viewed from the north, including the collapse of the east penthouse approximately 10 seconds before the outer wall.

The last of the three videos on that page does not include the collapse of the east penthouse, but does give a more close-up view than the other videos. There, you can see that the collapse of the west penthouse does not happen until just before the final global collapse of the outer wall.

The final global collapse of the outer wall did indeed take approximately 6.5 seconds. Interior local collapses began approximately 10 seconds earlier. But the outer wall (and any parts of the interior that had not already collapsed by then) did indeed fall at very close to (though not exactly) free fall acceleration.

The question is whether, at that point, the outer wall could reasonably be expected to offer little enough resistance to being crushed. That's a quantitative question, requiring quantitative analysis by someone familiar with the mechanical properties of the materials. The answer, either way, should not be assumed to be "obvious," since skyscraper collapses are outside our everyday experience.

Loose Change has been edited and re-released multiple times to remove obvious falsehoods and unsubstantiated charges.

Surely you can understand the fervent desire to prove that the Bush administration is a criminal enterprise by whatever means?

Is drastically different than the first two, such a different movie that it contains only about 10 minutes of the original footage. It is dry, logical, and just the facts, ma'am. If you haven't seen it, I would suggest you do. It is not the incendiary, hyperbolic movie of the first realease, and, yes, they made darn sure of the facts. Korey Rowe and the other filmmakers were college students when the first film was made, and are now full adults. They left a great deal of new arguable informtion out of the final edition.

Anyway, if you haven't seen it, you should, some serious doubters I know were impressed, and I would rather discuss it with a scoffer I know had seen the final cut. Oh, and btw, I live not far from them and they are not making much money from this, and driving to speak at showings on low funds. Maybe an "industry" but not a money making one!

And let's pretend there were WMDs in Iraq and Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

You see? Living in fantasyland is so much fun!

jeopardize something. Do you really think this is some sort of smoking gun, Nebula? If WTC 7 was the real target, why "blow up" WTC's 1 & 2?

How many buildings housed the SEC headquarters in NYC?

...Oh, that's right. ONE.

The Securities and Exchange Commission, that independent regulatory agency established by Congress in 1934 and responsible for enforcing federal securities laws and investigating corporate abuse in the financial markets.

Show me where I claimed anything about the SEC. My point was that any majot building in NYC is likely to house offices of an entity engaged in crotical business or regulatory efforts. Now you're inferring that WTC 1 & 2 were attackrd to provide cover for the CD of WTC 7 which, according to you, must have been the real target/reason for the attack. You're the poster boy for the logical fallacy, "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc". You're the King of the Post Hoc rstionaliation.

and you may well be the king of the really slick ad hominem attack: that phrase was personal and was a reference to Nebula him/herself and not the post.

do you even know what the term means? If you do, then it should be easy to point to one from me.

I was quoting the term you accused Nebula of using, I did not mean it to sound like I was saying you were the king of post hoc rationalization, you are not guilty of any rationalization; I did mean to say that you are the King of the slick ad Hominem attack. Which makes me guilty of the same sin. Sorry for that too, didn't mean to lower my standards.