Christopher 7 --- C7 & C4 - Page 10

Christopher7 · 24th August 2007, 08:14 PM

Originally Posted by twinstead

I'm bumping this old thread because chris thinks that THIS is the only place to critique his theory.

Reading the thread, I thing critique is a very mild word.

A few people here are honest enough to admit that WTC 7 looks like a CD.

WTC 7 imploded and landed mostly in it's own footprint.

That is evidence of CD.

Danny Jowenko and two professors of structural analysis and construction said it was 'absolutely' a CD based on the videos.

That is evidence of a CD

Daryl heard a 'sound like a clap of thunder' and a couple seconds later the bottom floor caved out.

That is evidence of a CD.

You can deny this evidence and then claim there is no evidence if you like.

beachnut · 24th August 2007, 09:29 PM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

A few people here are honest enough to admit that WTC 7 looks like a CD.

WTC 7 imploded and landed mostly in it's own footprint.

That is evidence of CD.

Danny Jowenko and two professors of structural analysis and construction said it was 'absolutely' a CD based on the videos.

That is evidence of a CD

Daryl heard a 'sound like a clap of thunder' and a couple seconds later the bottom floor caved out.

That is evidence of a CD.

You can deny this evidence and then claim there is no evidence if you like.

You would fall for anything if you think WTC7 is a CD. I have watched CD, and WTC7 is missing some very critical elements. You will continue to waste your time, and you still have not found anything to support your ideas. You ignore all the facts, and have no facts to support your ideas which are already countered by other evidence you refuse to take into account. Your shallow research are the biggest reason you will never get past the standard rant on this issue. Plus, if you have the evidence you need to claim the Pulitzer Prize now; what are you waiting for great research man?

Christopher7 · 24th August 2007, 11:28 PM

Originally Posted by beachnut

I have watched CD, and WTC7 is missing some very critical elements.

The owner of a CD company and two professors of structural analysis and construction disagree with you.

Quote:

You ignore all the facts,

What facts have i ignored?

Quote:

and have no facts to support your ideas

Fact: WTC 7 imploded

Fact: The exterior walls and most of the interior fell in about 7 seconds.

Fact: The entire collapse took about 15 seconds.

Fact: WTC 7 landed mostly in it's original footprint.

Fact: This is what happens in a professional building implosion.

Quote:

which are already countered by other evidence you refuse to take into account.

What evidence?

Christopher7 · 14th November 2007, 02:47 PM

Funk

Do you understand the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof' ?

evidence: sign or proof

Every high rise building building that has ever imploded, before or since 9/11, was a CD.

WTC 7 imploded.
This is a sign this it could have been a CD.
It is therefore evidence of a CD.

JMarshall · 14th November 2007, 04:46 PM

Wait... What definition of evidence are you using? Law? Scientific? Criminal? They all have slightly different definitions, and as such we all have to agree to adhere to one of them. Since truthers believe 9/11 was a government conspiracy, let's use the law definition... That would mean the evidence must be excluded from consideration based on indication of unreliability, and of social concerns. A sign, therefore would not be reliable, and as such not considered for evidence, while proof, would be considered since it is based on facts pertaining to the "case".

Think of it this way, if I were to shoot someone, and the police pulled my print off of the gun, that would be proof that I had handled that gun. Conversely, if the police found my Expert Rifle badge in my house that would be a sign I have experience with weapons, and as such they could easily come to a conclusion that I did it, but this wouldn't stand up as evidence...

I didn't see WTC7 implode, I saw it fall from structural fatigue. In fact, a lot of people are tagging the implode label on it just because they have seen a couple of controlled demolition implosions. If it looks like an implosion, yes that is a sign of implosion, but it isn't evidence.

LashL · 14th November 2007, 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Funk

Do you understand the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof' ?

evidence: sign or proof

Every high rise building building that has ever imploded, before or since 9/11, was a CD.

WTC 7 imploded.
This is a sign this it could have been a CD.
It is therefore evidence of a CD.

No, this is wrong.

In fact, it is a ridiculous, simplistic, uneducated piece of tripe.

The collapse of 7WTC is not "evidence" of a controlled demolition at all. It is "evidence" that the building collapsed, nothing more.

TerryUK · 14th November 2007, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by LashL

No, this is wrong.

In fact, it is a ridiculous, simplistic, uneducated piece of tripe.

The collapse of 7WTC is not "evidence" of a controlled demolition at all. It is "evidence" that the building collapsed, nothing more.

What you state above is completely wrong.

Try defining the word 'evidence' before you talk about "tripe"

LashL · 14th November 2007, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by TerryUK

What you state above is completely wrong.

Try defining the word 'evidence' before you talk about "tripe"

Unlike yourself, and unlike Christopher7, I deal with real evidence in real life on a daily basis. His post is, as I said, simplistic, uneducated tripe.

TerryUK · 14th November 2007, 07:11 PM

Originally Posted by LashL

Unlike yourself, and unlike Christopher7, I deal with real evidence in real life on a daily basis. His post is, as I said, simplistic, uneducated tripe.

I don't think you know what I deal with on a daily basis, and you clearly don't seem to know what the term 'evidence' means.

Please prove ( or demonstrate ) that his post is tripe, and please give your ideas as to what 'evidence' means.

Edit: A little hint -- facts, information, or observations, do not need to be proof, in order to qualify as evidence.

T.A.M. · 14th November 2007, 07:15 PM

Terry you better have some pretty high credentials to tell a lawyer that they do not know what evidence is.

TAM

LashL · 14th November 2007, 07:25 PM

Originally Posted by TerryUK

I don't think you know what I deal with on a daily basis, and you clearly don't seem to know what the term 'evidence' means.

Please prove ( or demonstrate ) that his post is tripe, and please give your ideas as to what 'evidence' means.

Admittedly, I base my opinion that you do not deal with real evidence on a daily basis, or even a regular basis, on the content of your posts. Your posts indicate to me that you know not of what you speak.

If you have any real world legal experience and expertise, all you need in order to satisfy yourself that Christopher7's post #364 is simplistic and uneducated tripe is to read it.

TerryUK · 14th November 2007, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by LashL

Admittedly, I base my opinion that you do not deal with real evidence on a daily basis, or even a regular basis, on the content of your posts. Your posts indicate to me that you know not of what you speak.

If you have any real world legal experience and expertise, all you need in order to satisfy yourself that Christopher7's post #364 is simplistic and uneducated tripe is to read it.

That just waffle.

Obviously, you can't back up what you say.

What does 'evidence' mean to you? Explain your position.

I don't think you can.

LashL · 14th November 2007, 08:31 PM

Originally Posted by TerryUK

That just waffle.

Obviously, you can't back up what you say.

What does 'evidence' mean to you? Explain your position.

I don't think you can.

You are wrong, as usual.

But I am not easily sidetracked by piffle, and that is all that you have offered so far.

To refresh your memory, since it appears that you are easily sidetracked by your own piffle, Christopher7 made a silly post rife with logical and factual errors, and I said that it was a ridiculous, simplistic, uneducated piece of tripe, because it was.

You then purported to 'defend' his ridiculous, simplistic, uneducated post, without actually saying anything in support of it at all (how silly is that?), and without demonstrating in any manner whatsoever that you comprehended the obvious logical and factual errors in his post.

Leaving aside Christopher7's piffle and your own piffle for the moment, here is the matter at hand from my responding post, which still remains: "The collapse of 7WTC is not evidence of a controlled demolition at all. It is evidence that the building collapsed, nothing more."

Do you have a problem with that? If so, what is your problem with it and why?

Dave Rogers · 15th November 2007, 01:47 AM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Every high rise building building that has ever imploded, before or since 9/11, was a CD.

WTC 7 imploded.
This is a sign this it could have been a CD.
It is therefore evidence of a CD.

Every type of vehicle that was ever built, before or after the Apollo Lunar Module, was incapable of landing on the moon.
The Apollo Lunar Module was a vehicle.
This is a sign that it could have been incapable of landing on the moon.
It is therefore evidence that it did not land on the moon.

Is that how it works?

Of course, you could argue that the Apollo LM was designed to land on the moon, and WTC7 wasn't designed to collapse. So let's try again.

Every nuclear power station that was ever built, before or after Chernobyl, has not exploded.
Chernobyl was a nuclear power station.
This is a sign that it could have been impossible for it to explode.
It is therefore evidence that it did not explode.

Evidence it may be, but its weight is so close to zero that it's not worth considering.

Dave

funk de fino · 15th November 2007, 03:05 AM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Funk

Do you understand the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof' ?

evidence: sign or proof

Every high rise building building that has ever imploded, before or since 9/11, was a CD.

WTC 7 imploded.
This is a sign this it could have been a CD.
It is therefore evidence of a CD.

use the word "collapse" instead, it changes things for you

i know why you won't

JimBenArm · 15th November 2007, 03:41 AM

What's with all the zombie threads coming back to life lately? I thought Halloween was over.
Oh, and Terry? You're wrong. Just sayin'.

Christopher7 · 15th November 2007, 03:53 AM

Originally Posted by JMarshall

I didn't see WTC7 implode, I saw it fall from structural fatigue. In fact, a lot of people are tagging the implode label on it just because they have seen a couple of controlled demolition implosions. If it looks like an implosion, yes that is a sign of implosion, but it isn't evidence.

You have seen WTC 7 implode, you just refuse to admit it.

FEMA 5-30
If the collapse initiated at these transfer trusses, this would explain why the building imploded

FEMA 5-31 Loss of strength due to the transfer trusses could explain why the building imploded

FEMA 5-31 WTC 7 had a relatively small debris field because the façade came straight down, suggesting an internal collapse.

NIST L-33 The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building.

As always you deny any evidence presented and them chant "there is no evidence of CD".

WTC 7 did in fact implode.

FEMA recognized this yet you still try to talk around it.

You can play legal sophistry if you like but you cannot change the FACT that WTC 7 imploded.
i.e. It fell in on itself and landed mostly in it's own footprint.

The speed and manner was consistent with a CD.

This evidence of CD.

You will deny this too because you are simply in denial.

JimBenArm · 15th November 2007, 03:59 AM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

You have seen WTC 7 implode, you just refuse to admit it.

FEMA 5-30
If the collapse initiated at these transfer trusses, this would explain why the building imploded

FEMA 5-31 Loss of strength due to the transfer trusses could explain why the building imploded

FEMA 5-31 WTC 7 had a relatively small debris field because the façade came straight down, suggesting an internal collapse.

NIST L-33 The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building.

As always you deny any evidence presented and them chant "there is no evidence of CD".

WTC 7 did in fact implode.

FEMA recognized this yet you still try to talk around it.

You can play legal sophistry if you like but you cannot change the FACT that WTC 7 imploded.
i.e. It fell in on itself and landed mostly in it's own footprint.

The speed and manner was consistent with a CD.

This evidence of CD.

You will deny this too because you are simply in denial.

Your arrogance is insulting. You need to apologize for this post immediately. Just because we disagree with you does not mean anyone is in denial. This is demeaning, and a person with integrity would not use such terms.

Christopher7 · 15th November 2007, 04:22 AM

Originally Posted by funk de fino

use the word "collapse" instead, it changes things for you

i know why you won't

Stacy Loizeaux: The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion." .......... It's actually being pulled in on top of itself.

Since that time, the term 'implosion' has become synonymous with controlled demolition. [when referring to buildings]

CD is the only known cause of a building implosion.

Building implosion is a fine art and only a few companies can do it.

The odds of a building imploding by chance are very remote.

The implosion of WTC 7 is very strong evidence of CD.

Christopher7 · 15th November 2007, 04:29 AM

Originally Posted by JimBenArm

Your arrogance is insulting. You need to apologize for this post immediately. Just because we disagree with you does not mean anyone is in denial. This is demeaning, and a person with integrity would not use such terms.

Please

"I didn't see WTC7 implode"

That's denial Jim.

To say a building imploding is not evidence of CD when that's the only known cause, is denial.

JimBenArm · 15th November 2007, 04:41 AM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Please

"I didn't see WTC7 implode"

That's denial Jim.

To say a building imploding is not evidence of CD when that's the only known cause, is denial.

Oh, how silly of me. I forgot that you're a carpenter, and able to diagnose this, as well as critique causes of a building collapse. Yes, if we don't agree with you it must be denial, or stupidity. What else could it be?

You still can't see your own arrogance, can you?

Christopher7 · 15th November 2007, 05:01 AM

Funk

Hers's one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I

Here's another.
Please note that they cut off the beginning of the collapse.
That's when the clap of thunder Daryl heard would have occurred.

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

The beginning of the collapse is missing from this video too.

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

Christopher7 · 15th November 2007, 05:56 AM

Originally Posted by JimBenArm

Oh, how silly of me. I forgot that you're a carpenter, and able to diagnose this, as well as critique causes of a building collapse. Yes, if we don't agree with you it must be denial, or stupidity. What else could it be?

Yes, that was truly silly of you.
I did not diagnose this, FEMA did.

If you reject their diagnosis, you are in denial.

WTC 7 IMPLODED.

Seriously dude, it's bloody obvious.

funk de fino · 15th November 2007, 05:59 AM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Stacy Loizeaux: The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion." .......... It's actually being pulled in on top of itself.

Since that time, the term 'implosion' has become synonymous with controlled demolition. [when referring to buildings]

CD is the only known cause of a building implosion.

Building implosion is a fine art and only a few companies can do it.

The odds of a building imploding by chance are very remote.

The implosion of WTC 7 is very strong evidence of CD.

Again replace implode with collapse and see where it leaves your evidence

Also from your own quote

Quote:

FEMA 5-31 WTC 7 had a relatively small debris field because the façade came straight down, suggesting an internal collapse.

Why only bold certain parts of that statement?

Did the penthouse collapse before the rest? Who says you get to decide if it is an implosion? Only if it suits your theory? Does Loizeaux think WTC7 was CD?

If it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that it was not CD then is it still an implosion?

If you can prove it was a CD then you can call it an implosion. You have it the wrong way round C7.

Christopher7 · 15th November 2007, 06:14 AM

Originally Posted by funk de fino

Again replace implode with collapse and see where it leaves your evidence

No

Quote:

Did the penthouse collapse before the rest?

Yes

Quote:

Who says you get to decide if it is an implosion?

I didn't, FEMA did.

FEMA 5-30
If the collapse initiated at these transfer trusses, this would explain why the building imploded

FEMA 5-31
Loss of strength due to the transfer trusses could explain why the building imploded

Quote:

Does Loizeaux think WTC7 was CD?

Does Loiseaux think WTC 7 imploded?

Quote:

If it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that it was not CD then is it still an implosion?

Yes, implosion means it fell in on itself.

funk de fino · 15th November 2007, 06:16 AM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Funk

Hers's one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I

Where was this taken C7? Where is WTC7, I cannot see it and I do not know when this happenbed or where. In fact I think this is the one that was elsewhere was it not? Not at the WTC7?

Originally Posted by C7

Here's another.
Please note that they cut off the beginning of the collapse.
That's when the clap of thunder Daryl heard would have occurred.

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

Shows nothing and never at any time does any of the people mention implode? This must be evidence it was not CD? The news guy says collapse. The firemen say blow up and I hear no explosions?

Quote:

The beginning of the collapse is missing from this video too.

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

Strange I see the penthouse move but I see no explosions or hear any in this video. Why is that? Where are the videos like the ones on implosionworld that you so kindly showed me too?

This quote from youtube about a video that clearly shows the penthouse collpase followed by the total collapse is more than 7 seconds really says it all about the company you keep C7

Originally Posted by CD guy

Maybe you should get your eyes checked dork! The collapse sequence begins at 00:12, at the latest 00:13, and is COMPLETE no later than 00:19. That's 6 to 7 seconds you lying piece of filth. But the BLATANT fact that you are a LIAR was already apparent with your PATHETIC claim that this video is "rare video." You lying pig.

keep on wasting your life by all means

JimBenArm · 15th November 2007, 06:42 AM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Yes, that was truly silly of you.
I did not diagnose this, FEMA did.

If you reject their diagnosis, you are in denial.

WTC 7 IMPLODED.

Seriously dude, it's bloody obvious.

Only to people like you, who consider their own expertise in areas outside their own to be greater than it is. Sorry, you are a complete and total layman, with no experience or expertise to make these determinations. This would be analogous to me correcting a surgeon on a videotaped documentary on open-heart surgery because I fileted a salmon once.
The fact you cannot or will not realize this is truly astounding!

Christopher7 · 15th November 2007, 06:54 AM

Originally Posted by JimBenArm

Only to people like you, who consider their own expertise in areas outside their own to be greater than it is. Sorry, you are a complete and total layman, with no experience or expertise to make these determinations. This would be analogous to me correcting a surgeon on a videotaped documentary on open-heart surgery because I fileted a salmon once.
The fact you cannot or will not realize this is truly astounding!

Hello?

I think you and Funk have gone off the deep end.

FEMA made the determination.

funk de fino · 15th November 2007, 06:59 AM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Hello?

I think you and Funk have gone off the deep end.

FEMA made the determination.

hello

Show me how many times NIST use implode compared to collapse

cherrypicker

phunk · 15th November 2007, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Stacy Loizeaux: The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion." .......... It's actually being pulled in on top of itself.

Since that time, the term 'implosion' has become synonymous with controlled demolition. [when referring to buildings]

CD is the only known cause of a building implosion.

Building implosion is a fine art and only a few companies can do it.

The odds of a building imploding by chance are very remote.

The implosion of WTC 7 is very strong evidence of CD.

Actually, no. Using that definition of implosion, any collapse starting in the core of a building is going to be an implosion, regardless of the cause of the collapse. Implosion is a result of CD, but CD is not the only cause of implosion, and therefore you need further evidence to prove CD over the other causes.

Dave Rogers · 15th November 2007, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by phunk

Actually, no. Using that definition of implosion, any collapse starting in the core of a building is going to be an implosion, regardless of the cause of the collapse. Implosion is a result of CD, but CD is not the only cause of implosion, and therefore you need further evidence to prove CD over the other causes.

Oooh, nice one. You caught Chris affirming the consequent. Like no-one's ever done that before where WTC7's concerned.

Dave

Christopher7 · 15th November 2007, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by phunk

Actually, no. Using that definition of implosion, any collapse starting in the core of a building is going to be an implosion, regardless of the cause of the collapse. Implosion is a result of CD, but CD is not the only cause of implosion, and therefore you need further evidence to prove CD over the other causes.

What other cases?

CD is the only known cause of a building implosion.

Building implosion is a fine art.

It cannot happen by chance.

contra · 15th November 2007, 05:20 PM

Quote:

The odds of a building imploding by chance are very remote.

correct? however the chances are greatly increased if its hit be debris weighing tons from over a 1000 feet up?

Its like the chance of my being hit by a car by chance while sitting in my non ground level flat are next to zero. however if I go outside the changes change.

Hydrogen and Oxygen will spontaniously combine at room temperature to make water. Chemically this may take thousands of years, but would happen without heat.
The chances of water being created increase towards 100% (not quite though) if you add a flame.

The situation changing, changes the chance of an event.

Quote:

Building implosion is a fine art.

Well if its a controlled demolition. you are right. It takes months to prepare, plan what to do, gut the building, wire it up, cut some of the supports to make it less stable. etc etc etc

It takes a long time to do, and is almost an art.

I had more... but I grow weary of this plane of existance... ie its 1.20am

Christopher7 · 15th November 2007, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by contra

correct? however the chances are greatly increased if its hit be debris weighing tons from over a 1000 feet up?

Not in this case.
The debris damage was to the south west part of WTC 7.
The implosion began in the east central part.

contra · 15th November 2007, 05:49 PM

So the chances didn't increase at all from the damage?
Nothing?
Zero?
Nada?

I find that hard to believe. I would think what anything that changed the whole way the weight of the building is disributed would change the chances of it falling. Add in the fire and such.... and the chances keep going up.

leftysergeant · 15th November 2007, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

[color=black]Fact: WTC 7 landed mostly in it's original footprint.

So did all the steel elements of the Windsor Tower above the mechanical floor that halted the collapse and that was ENTIRELY due to fires.

Quote:

Fact: This is what happens in a professional building implosion.

Or in the case of a steel building involved in a severe fire, e.g., the Windsor Tower.

Quote:

What evidence?

All of it, actually.

And let's go back to what morons like Gage call "squibs" at the top of WTC 7. They are rectangular and they do not expand as the building starts to subside. They do not shoot out horizontally. They are in the exact same location as debris damage more clearly visible from the other side of the building.

Most of the "evidence" presented by twoofers in re WTC 7 is just plain slovenly research, if it can be called that. the originator of the "squibs" BS is obviously a dim wit.

Christopher7 · 15th November 2007, 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by contra

So the chances didn't increase at all from the damage?
Nothing?
Zero?
Nada?

I find that hard to believe. I would think what anything that changed the whole way the weight of the building is disributed would change the chances of it falling. Add in the fire and such.... and the chances keep going up.

Nada

NIST L - 36
"If the initiating event was due to damage to the perimeter moment frame, then it would have started along the south or southwest facade."

"Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas. Progression of column failure to adjacent columns would have been arrested by the vierendeel of the perimeter moment frame which could span across a sizeable opening due to the strength and stiffness of the frame,"

The damage to the SW part of WTC 7 had no significant effect on columns 79, 80 and 81.

contra · 15th November 2007, 06:17 PM

Significant and none are very different.

I've lost blood.
I've lost a significant amount of blood.
Very different statements, one implying a lot more than the other.

Significant shows things changed, that when other factors are put in changes everything. If it had a massive effect it would have fallen right away. It had an effect with everything else; so it stood for hours then fell.

TerryUK · 15th November 2007, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by contra

Significant and none are very different.

I've lost blood.
I've lost a significant amount of blood.
Very different statements, one implying a lot more than the other.

Significant shows things changed, that when other factors are put in changes everything. If it had a massive effect it would have fallen right away. It had an effect with everything else; so it stood for hours then fell.

"no significant effect"
That means it had 'no effect that mattered' doesn't it?

JMarshall · 15th November 2007, 08:06 PM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

You have seen WTC 7 implode, you just refuse to admit it.

You will deny this too because you are simply in denial.

What is this an intervention? Hi, my names Josh, and I saw WTC7 fall, not implode...

[GROUP]
Hi Josh, we're here to help!
[/GFROUP]

Look, Christopher, I'm not offended, by your callow remarks, but there is something you have to understand, I do have demolition, and explosives experience, and as such I saw WTC7 fall from structural failure, it looked nothing like a CD to me.

Another thing, using your (il)logic:

CDs fall into their foot print, companies are so good they can bring a building down mere feet from other buildings and not harm them.

WTC7 fell mostly into it's footprint, with damage done to the surrounding areas, this is a sign it wasn't a CD!

So therefore, by your logic it is evidence that WTC was not a CD!

You see how that works? It's completely idiotic to think that way

You cannot possibly understand what all goes into an actual CD, so why do you think you can claim it was just from watching some videos?

24th August 2007, 09:29 PM	#362
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,886	ignoring critical evidence keeps truthers in the dark Originally Posted by Christopher7 A few people here are honest enough to admit that WTC 7 looks like a CD. WTC 7 imploded and landed mostly in it's own footprint. That is evidence of CD. Danny Jowenko and two professors of structural analysis and construction said it was 'absolutely' a CD based on the videos. That is evidence of a CD Daryl heard a 'sound like a clap of thunder' and a couple seconds later the bottom floor caved out. That is evidence of a CD. You can deny this evidence and then claim there is no evidence if you like. You would fall for anything if you think WTC7 is a CD. I have watched CD, and WTC7 is missing some very critical elements. You will continue to waste your time, and you still have not found anything to support your ideas. You ignore all the facts, and have no facts to support your ideas which are already countered by other evidence you refuse to take into account. Your shallow research are the biggest reason you will never get past the standard rant on this issue. Plus, if you have the evidence you need to claim the Pulitzer Prize now; what are you waiting for great research man?

14th November 2007, 04:46 PM	#365
JMarshall Thinker Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 221	Wait... What definition of evidence are you using? Law? Scientific? Criminal? They all have slightly different definitions, and as such we all have to agree to adhere to one of them. Since truthers believe 9/11 was a government conspiracy, let's use the law definition... That would mean the evidence must be excluded from consideration based on indication of unreliability, and of social concerns. A sign, therefore would not be reliable, and as such not considered for evidence, while proof, would be considered since it is based on facts pertaining to the "case". Think of it this way, if I were to shoot someone, and the police pulled my print off of the gun, that would be proof that I had handled that gun. Conversely, if the police found my Expert Rifle badge in my house that would be a sign I have experience with weapons, and as such they could easily come to a conclusion that I did it, but this wouldn't stand up as evidence... I didn't see WTC7 implode, I saw it fall from structural fatigue. In fact, a lot of people are tagging the implode label on it just because they have seen a couple of controlled demolition implosions. If it looks like an implosion, yes that is a sign of implosion, but it isn't evidence.
JMarshall Thinker Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 221

14th November 2007, 06:44 PM	#366
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Administrator Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 26,180	Originally Posted by Christopher7 Funk Do you understand the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof' ? evidence: sign or proof Every high rise building building that has ever imploded, before or since 9/11, was a CD. WTC 7 imploded. This is a sign this it could have been a CD. It is therefore evidence of a CD. No, this is wrong. In fact, it is a ridiculous, simplistic, uneducated piece of tripe. The collapse of 7WTC is not "evidence" of a controlled demolition at all. It is "evidence" that the building collapsed, nothing more.
	Last edited by LashL; 14th November 2007 at 06:46 PM.

14th November 2007, 06:53 PM	#367
TerryUK Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 267	Originally Posted by LashL No, this is wrong. In fact, it is a ridiculous, simplistic, uneducated piece of tripe. The collapse of 7WTC is not "evidence" of a controlled demolition at all. It is "evidence" that the building collapsed, nothing more. What you state above is completely wrong. Try defining the word 'evidence' before you talk about "tripe"
TerryUK Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 267

14th November 2007, 06:55 PM	#368
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Administrator Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 26,180	Originally Posted by TerryUK What you state above is completely wrong. Try defining the word 'evidence' before you talk about "tripe" Unlike yourself, and unlike Christopher7, I deal with real evidence in real life on a daily basis. His post is, as I said, simplistic, uneducated tripe.
	Last edited by LashL; 14th November 2007 at 06:57 PM.

24th August 2007, 08:14 PM	#361
Christopher7 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,535	Originally Posted by twinstead I'm bumping this old thread because chris thinks that THIS is the only place to critique his theory. Reading the thread, I thing critique is a very mild word. A few people here are honest enough to admit that WTC 7 looks like a CD. WTC 7 imploded and landed mostly in it's own footprint. That is evidence of CD. Danny Jowenko and two professors of structural analysis and construction said it was 'absolutely' a CD based on the videos. That is evidence of a CD Daryl heard a 'sound like a clap of thunder' and a couple seconds later the bottom floor caved out. That is evidence of a CD. You can deny this evidence and then claim there is no evidence if you like.

24th August 2007, 11:28 PM	#363
Christopher7 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,535	Originally Posted by beachnut I have watched CD, and WTC7 is missing some very critical elements. The owner of a CD company and two professors of structural analysis and construction disagree with you. Quote: You ignore all the facts, What facts have i ignored? Quote: and have no facts to support your ideas Fact: WTC 7 imploded Fact: The exterior walls and most of the interior fell in about 7 seconds. Fact: The entire collapse took about 15 seconds. Fact: WTC 7 landed mostly in it's original footprint. Fact: This is what happens in a professional building implosion. Quote: which are already countered by other evidence you refuse to take into account. What evidence?

14th November 2007, 02:47 PM	#364
Christopher7 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,535	Funk Do you understand the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof' ? evidence: sign or proof Every high rise building building that has ever imploded, before or since 9/11, was a CD. WTC 7 imploded. This is a sign this it could have been a CD. It is therefore evidence of a CD.

14th November 2007, 07:11 PM	#369
TerryUK Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 267	Originally Posted by LashL Unlike yourself, and unlike Christopher7, I deal with real evidence in real life on a daily basis. His post is, as I said, simplistic, uneducated tripe. I don't think you know what I deal with on a daily basis, and you clearly don't seem to know what the term 'evidence' means. Please prove ( or demonstrate ) that his post is tripe, and please give your ideas as to what 'evidence' means. Edit: A little hint -- facts, information, or observations, do not need to be proof, in order to qualify as evidence.
TerryUK Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 267	Last edited by TerryUK; 14th November 2007 at 07:13 PM.

14th November 2007, 07:15 PM	#370
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	Terry you better have some pretty high credentials to tell a lawyer that they do not know what evidence is. TAM

14th November 2007, 07:25 PM	#371
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Administrator Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 26,180	Originally Posted by TerryUK I don't think you know what I deal with on a daily basis, and you clearly don't seem to know what the term 'evidence' means. Please prove ( or demonstrate ) that his post is tripe, and please give your ideas as to what 'evidence' means. Admittedly, I base my opinion that you do not deal with real evidence on a daily basis, or even a regular basis, on the content of your posts. Your posts indicate to me that you know not of what you speak. If you have any real world legal experience and expertise, all you need in order to satisfy yourself that Christopher7's post #364 is simplistic and uneducated tripe is to read it.

14th November 2007, 07:36 PM	#372
TerryUK Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 267	Originally Posted by LashL Admittedly, I base my opinion that you do not deal with real evidence on a daily basis, or even a regular basis, on the content of your posts. Your posts indicate to me that you know not of what you speak. If you have any real world legal experience and expertise, all you need in order to satisfy yourself that Christopher7's post #364 is simplistic and uneducated tripe is to read it. That just waffle. Obviously, you can't back up what you say. What does 'evidence' mean to you? Explain your position. I don't think you can.
TerryUK Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 267

14th November 2007, 08:31 PM	#373
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Administrator Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 26,180	Originally Posted by TerryUK That just waffle. Obviously, you can't back up what you say. What does 'evidence' mean to you? Explain your position. I don't think you can. You are wrong, as usual. But I am not easily sidetracked by piffle, and that is all that you have offered so far. To refresh your memory, since it appears that you are easily sidetracked by your own piffle, Christopher7 made a silly post rife with logical and factual errors, and I said that it was a ridiculous, simplistic, uneducated piece of tripe, because it was. You then purported to 'defend' his ridiculous, simplistic, uneducated post, without actually saying anything in support of it at all (how silly is that?), and without demonstrating in any manner whatsoever that you comprehended the obvious logical and factual errors in his post. Leaving aside Christopher7's piffle and your own piffle for the moment, here is the matter at hand from my responding post, which still remains: "The collapse of 7WTC is not evidence of a controlled demolition at all. It is evidence that the building collapsed, nothing more." Do you have a problem with that? If so, what is your problem with it and why?

15th November 2007, 01:47 AM	#374
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,894	Originally Posted by Christopher7 Every high rise building building that has ever imploded, before or since 9/11, was a CD. WTC 7 imploded. This is a sign this it could have been a CD. It is therefore evidence of a CD. Every type of vehicle that was ever built, before or after the Apollo Lunar Module, was incapable of landing on the moon. The Apollo Lunar Module was a vehicle. This is a sign that it could have been incapable of landing on the moon. It is therefore evidence that it did not land on the moon. Is that how it works? Of course, you could argue that the Apollo LM was designed to land on the moon, and WTC7 wasn't designed to collapse. So let's try again. Every nuclear power station that was ever built, before or after Chernobyl, has not exploded. Chernobyl was a nuclear power station. This is a sign that it could have been impossible for it to explode. It is therefore evidence that it did not explode. Evidence it may be, but its weight is so close to zero that it's not worth considering. Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

15th November 2007, 03:05 AM	#375
funk de fino Dreaming of unicorns Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Alba Posts: 10,789	Originally Posted by Christopher7 Funk Do you understand the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof' ? evidence: sign or proof Every high rise building building that has ever imploded, before or since 9/11, was a CD. WTC 7 imploded. This is a sign this it could have been a CD. It is therefore evidence of a CD. use the word "collapse" instead, it changes things for you i know why you won't
	__________________ Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. Christopher 7 - There is no need to contact them for conformation. That is just a denial tactic

15th November 2007, 03:41 AM	#376
JimBenArm Based on a true story! Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 12,967	What's with all the zombie threads coming back to life lately? I thought Halloween was over. Oh, and Terry? You're wrong. Just sayin'.

15th November 2007, 03:53 AM	#377
Christopher7 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,535	Originally Posted by JMarshall I didn't see WTC7 implode, I saw it fall from structural fatigue. In fact, a lot of people are tagging the implode label on it just because they have seen a couple of controlled demolition implosions. If it looks like an implosion, yes that is a sign of implosion, but it isn't evidence. You have seen WTC 7 implode, you just refuse to admit it. FEMA 5-30 If the collapse initiated at these transfer trusses, this would explain why the building imploded FEMA 5-31 Loss of strength due to the transfer trusses could explain why the building imploded FEMA 5-31 WTC 7 had a relatively small debris field because the façade came straight down, suggesting an internal collapse. NIST L-33 The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building. As always you deny any evidence presented and them chant "there is no evidence of CD". WTC 7 did in fact implode. FEMA recognized this yet you still try to talk around it. You can play legal sophistry if you like but you cannot change the FACT that WTC 7 imploded. i.e. It fell in on itself and landed mostly in it's own footprint. The speed and manner was consistent with a CD. This evidence of CD. You will deny this too because you are simply in denial.

15th November 2007, 03:59 AM	#378
JimBenArm Based on a true story! Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 12,967	Originally Posted by Christopher7 You have seen WTC 7 implode, you just refuse to admit it. FEMA 5-30 If the collapse initiated at these transfer trusses, this would explain why the building imploded FEMA 5-31 Loss of strength due to the transfer trusses could explain why the building imploded FEMA 5-31 WTC 7 had a relatively small debris field because the façade came straight down, suggesting an internal collapse. NIST L-33 The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building. As always you deny any evidence presented and them chant "there is no evidence of CD". WTC 7 did in fact implode. FEMA recognized this yet you still try to talk around it. You can play legal sophistry if you like but you cannot change the FACT that WTC 7 imploded. i.e. It fell in on itself and landed mostly in it's own footprint. The speed and manner was consistent with a CD. This evidence of CD. You will deny this too because you are simply in denial. Your arrogance is insulting. You need to apologize for this post immediately. Just because we disagree with you does not mean anyone is in denial. This is demeaning, and a person with integrity would not use such terms.

15th November 2007, 04:22 AM	#379
Christopher7 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,535	Originally Posted by funk de fino use the word "collapse" instead, it changes things for you i know why you won't Stacy Loizeaux: The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion." .......... It's actually being pulled in on top of itself. Since that time, the term 'implosion' has become synonymous with controlled demolition. [when referring to buildings] CD is the only known cause of a building implosion. Building implosion is a fine art and only a few companies can do it. The odds of a building imploding by chance are very remote. The implosion of WTC 7 is very strong evidence of CD.

15th November 2007, 04:29 AM	#380
Christopher7 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,535	Originally Posted by JimBenArm Your arrogance is insulting. You need to apologize for this post immediately. Just because we disagree with you does not mean anyone is in denial. This is demeaning, and a person with integrity would not use such terms. Please "I didn't see WTC7 implode" That's denial Jim. To say a building imploding is not evidence of CD when that's the only known cause, is denial.

15th November 2007, 04:41 AM	#381
JimBenArm Based on a true story! Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 12,967	Originally Posted by Christopher7 Please "I didn't see WTC7 implode" That's denial Jim. To say a building imploding is not evidence of CD when that's the only known cause, is denial. Oh, how silly of me. I forgot that you're a carpenter, and able to diagnose this, as well as critique causes of a building collapse. Yes, if we don't agree with you it must be denial, or stupidity. What else could it be? You still can't see your own arrogance, can you?

15th November 2007, 05:01 AM	#382
Christopher7 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,535	Funk Hers's one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I Here's another. Please note that they cut off the beginning of the collapse. That's when the clap of thunder Daryl heard would have occurred. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ The beginning of the collapse is missing from this video too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIbqaybkbWI

15th November 2007, 05:56 AM	#383
Christopher7 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,535	Originally Posted by JimBenArm Oh, how silly of me. I forgot that you're a carpenter, and able to diagnose this, as well as critique causes of a building collapse. Yes, if we don't agree with you it must be denial, or stupidity. What else could it be? Yes, that was truly silly of you. I did not diagnose this, FEMA did. If you reject their diagnosis, you are in denial. WTC 7 IMPLODED. Seriously dude, it's bloody obvious.

15th November 2007, 05:59 AM	#384
funk de fino Dreaming of unicorns Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Alba Posts: 10,789	Originally Posted by Christopher7 Stacy Loizeaux: The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion." .......... It's actually being pulled in on top of itself. Since that time, the term 'implosion' has become synonymous with controlled demolition. [when referring to buildings] CD is the only known cause of a building implosion. Building implosion is a fine art and only a few companies can do it. The odds of a building imploding by chance are very remote. The implosion of WTC 7 is very strong evidence of CD. Again replace implode with collapse and see where it leaves your evidence Also from your own quote Quote: FEMA 5-31 WTC 7 had a relatively small debris field because the façade came straight down, suggesting an internal collapse. Why only bold certain parts of that statement? Did the penthouse collapse before the rest? Who says you get to decide if it is an implosion? Only if it suits your theory? Does Loizeaux think WTC7 was CD? If it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that it was not CD then is it still an implosion? If you can prove it was a CD then you can call it an implosion. You have it the wrong way round C7.
	__________________ Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. Christopher 7 - There is no need to contact them for conformation. That is just a denial tactic

15th November 2007, 06:14 AM	#385
Christopher7 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,535	Originally Posted by funk de fino Again replace implode with collapse and see where it leaves your evidence No Quote: Did the penthouse collapse before the rest? Yes Quote: Who says you get to decide if it is an implosion? I didn't, FEMA did. FEMA 5-30 If the collapse initiated at these transfer trusses, this would explain why the building imploded FEMA 5-31 Loss of strength due to the transfer trusses could explain why the building imploded Quote: Does Loizeaux think WTC7 was CD? Does Loiseaux think WTC 7 imploded? Quote: If it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that it was not CD then is it still an implosion? Yes, implosion means it fell in on itself.
	Last edited by Christopher7; 15th November 2007 at 06:19 AM.

15th November 2007, 06:16 AM	#386
funk de fino Dreaming of unicorns Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Alba Posts: 10,789	Originally Posted by Christopher7 Funk Hers's one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I Where was this taken C7? Where is WTC7, I cannot see it and I do not know when this happenbed or where. In fact I think this is the one that was elsewhere was it not? Not at the WTC7? Originally Posted by C7 Here's another. Please note that they cut off the beginning of the collapse. That's when the clap of thunder Daryl heard would have occurred. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ Shows nothing and never at any time does any of the people mention implode? This must be evidence it was not CD? The news guy says collapse. The firemen say blow up and I hear no explosions? Quote: The beginning of the collapse is missing from this video too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIbqaybkbWI Strange I see the penthouse move but I see no explosions or hear any in this video. Why is that? Where are the videos like the ones on implosionworld that you so kindly showed me too? This quote from youtube about a video that clearly shows the penthouse collpase followed by the total collapse is more than 7 seconds really says it all about the company you keep C7 Originally Posted by CD guy Maybe you should get your eyes checked dork! The collapse sequence begins at 00:12, at the latest 00:13, and is COMPLETE no later than 00:19. That's 6 to 7 seconds you lying piece of filth. But the BLATANT fact that you are a LIAR was already apparent with your PATHETIC claim that this video is "rare video." You lying pig. keep on wasting your life by all means
	__________________ Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. Christopher 7 - There is no need to contact them for conformation. That is just a denial tactic

15th November 2007, 06:42 AM	#387
JimBenArm Based on a true story! Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 12,967	Originally Posted by Christopher7 Yes, that was truly silly of you. I did not diagnose this, FEMA did. If you reject their diagnosis, you are in denial. WTC 7 IMPLODED. Seriously dude, it's bloody obvious. Only to people like you, who consider their own expertise in areas outside their own to be greater than it is. Sorry, you are a complete and total layman, with no experience or expertise to make these determinations. This would be analogous to me correcting a surgeon on a videotaped documentary on open-heart surgery because I fileted a salmon once. The fact you cannot or will not realize this is truly astounding!

15th November 2007, 06:54 AM	#388
Christopher7 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,535	Originally Posted by JimBenArm Only to people like you, who consider their own expertise in areas outside their own to be greater than it is. Sorry, you are a complete and total layman, with no experience or expertise to make these determinations. This would be analogous to me correcting a surgeon on a videotaped documentary on open-heart surgery because I fileted a salmon once. The fact you cannot or will not realize this is truly astounding! Hello? I think you and Funk have gone off the deep end. FEMA made the determination.

15th November 2007, 06:59 AM	#389
funk de fino Dreaming of unicorns Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Alba Posts: 10,789	Originally Posted by Christopher7 Hello? I think you and Funk have gone off the deep end. FEMA made the determination. hello Show me how many times NIST use implode compared to collapse cherrypicker
	__________________ Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. Christopher 7 - There is no need to contact them for conformation. That is just a denial tactic

15th November 2007, 08:41 AM	#390
phunk Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,908	Originally Posted by Christopher7 Stacy Loizeaux: The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion." .......... It's actually being pulled in on top of itself. Since that time, the term 'implosion' has become synonymous with controlled demolition. [when referring to buildings] CD is the only known cause of a building implosion. Building implosion is a fine art and only a few companies can do it. The odds of a building imploding by chance are very remote. The implosion of WTC 7 is very strong evidence of CD. Actually, no. Using that definition of implosion, any collapse starting in the core of a building is going to be an implosion, regardless of the cause of the collapse. Implosion is a result of CD, but CD is not the only cause of implosion, and therefore you need further evidence to prove CD over the other causes.
phunk Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,908

15th November 2007, 09:05 AM	#391
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,894	Originally Posted by phunk Actually, no. Using that definition of implosion, any collapse starting in the core of a building is going to be an implosion, regardless of the cause of the collapse. Implosion is a result of CD, but CD is not the only cause of implosion, and therefore you need further evidence to prove CD over the other causes. Oooh, nice one. You caught Chris affirming the consequent. Like no-one's ever done that before where WTC7's concerned. Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

15th November 2007, 04:58 PM	#392
Christopher7 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,535	Originally Posted by phunk Actually, no. Using that definition of implosion, any collapse starting in the core of a building is going to be an implosion, regardless of the cause of the collapse. Implosion is a result of CD, but CD is not the only cause of implosion, and therefore you need further evidence to prove CD over the other causes. What other cases? CD is the only known cause of a building implosion. Building implosion is a fine art. It cannot happen by chance.
	Last edited by Christopher7; 15th November 2007 at 05:02 PM.

15th November 2007, 05:20 PM	#393
contra Scholar Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 108	Quote: The odds of a building imploding by chance are very remote. correct? however the chances are greatly increased if its hit be debris weighing tons from over a 1000 feet up? Its like the chance of my being hit by a car by chance while sitting in my non ground level flat are next to zero. however if I go outside the changes change. Hydrogen and Oxygen will spontaniously combine at room temperature to make water. Chemically this may take thousands of years, but would happen without heat. The chances of water being created increase towards 100% (not quite though) if you add a flame. The situation changing, changes the chance of an event. Quote: Building implosion is a fine art. Well if its a controlled demolition. you are right. It takes months to prepare, plan what to do, gut the building, wire it up, cut some of the supports to make it less stable. etc etc etc It takes a long time to do, and is almost an art. I had more... but I grow weary of this plane of existance... ie its 1.20am
contra Scholar Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 108

15th November 2007, 05:44 PM	#394
Christopher7 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,535	Originally Posted by contra correct? however the chances are greatly increased if its hit be debris weighing tons from over a 1000 feet up? Not in this case. The debris damage was to the south west part of WTC 7. The implosion began in the east central part.

15th November 2007, 05:49 PM	#395
contra Scholar Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 108	So the chances didn't increase at all from the damage? Nothing? Zero? Nada? I find that hard to believe. I would think what anything that changed the whole way the weight of the building is disributed would change the chances of it falling. Add in the fire and such.... and the chances keep going up.
contra Scholar Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 108