Tricky Ways To Pull Down A Skyscraper

[ozeco41]

david.watts Challenges ozeco41. (See post #517)

He should learn the military adage "know your enemy" - however let me show how far from reality he is on debating process.
___________________________________

For someone as deep into denial as you David - you sure have a lot of energy to waste. It would IMO be better spent understanding the simple issues you are desperately trying to avoid. However:
An hypothesis is based on facts and reasoning. Facts are backed by evidence and differ from opinions which are neither expert nor backed by evidence.

So what facts do you assert - I've colours coded them to grade them by relevance:
1) These are matters of scenario setting which I allow. They do not contribute to any hypothesis and I totally ignore the implications.

2) These are assertions of fact which I could accept if backed by evidence but as yet you give no evidence. For moot purposes I allow them but would require the evidence.

THESE ARE THE ONLY ONES WHICH CAN VALIDLY BE INCLUDED IN AN HYPOTHESIS

3) These are assertions of fact which also have no evidence but which are extremely unlikely could ever be backed by evidence.

4) These are emotive assertions or implications or improbabilities which have zero effect as direct evidence or in absence of any explicit demonstration of a relevant claim.

5) These are assertions of fact which are either untrue OR could not be true. You will need to remove them from any of your logic trains which are negated by your false premises

(Note: this is a question only about hypotheses and has nothing to do with what happened on 9-11/2001.)

Question: ozeco, If i may introduce a mythical hypothetical to see what your hypothesis would be; I wish to do so:

In Myth City there were five 47-story buildings surrounding Hypothetical Circle which were known as the Hypothetical Quintuplets. Each of the Quintuplets were built exactly the same as WTC7 all being steel framed buildings. All five buildings were just recently cheaply purchased by Mr. Mytherstein and immediately insured for grand amounts covering controlled demolition; mythical or otherwise. On the 32nd day of Mythuary, bombs exploded in all five Hypothetical Quintuplets knocking out a portion of the lower structures exactly equal to what happened to WTC7. Fires started in all five of the 47-story tall Hypotheticals and burned exactly, I mean exactly the same as they did in WTC7 and on the same exact floors. In all five of the Quintuplets there were recording systems in place throughout the buildings which continuously transmitted to separate recorders in Mr. Mytherstein's offices in Billion Dollar Square, that while also located in Myth City, were located a safe distance from the Hypotheticals.

After about seven hours, all five of the Hypothetical Quintuplets collapsed very quickly and in a quite symmetrical fashion and mostly into their own footprints at almost free fall accelerational boggled speed. The collapse times for all five were recorded by video and appeared to be exactly the same. All collapses included 2.25 seconds of actual free fall.

Recordings of multiple explosions were made in only four of the five buildings and all sounded identical to each other and sounded exactly like "steel cutting explosives." Unfortunately, the recording system in the 5th Quintuplet had been stolen the day before soon after the bomb sniffing dogs had been asked to leave.

There was absolutely no doubt in the entire mythical world that the four buildings from which the recordings were heard, were controlled demolitions. But nobody was sure about the fifth Hypothetical Quintuplet because there were no recordings; the 'fifth' had had its recorders stolen! So in unanimous agreement, Inspector ozeco was summoned. They relayed to the inspector, there is no doubt that four were controlled demolitions. But the fifth of the five Hypotheticals surrounding Hypothetical Circle had no recordings. All we know for a fact is there was damage from the initial explosion seven hours before it collapsed and that there were fires that burned inside for those 7 hours. However, we do have some circumstantial stuff from quite a few earwitnesses, including firemen and policemen and other lay people, that said without a doubt they heard explosions coming from number 7, sorry, we mean, number 5. In a quick search of the internet we see that you said, "My answer remains - yes I will reconsider once you come up with some factual evidence which legitimately modifies the hypothesis I have put forward." They asked Inspector ozeco, "Inspector ozeco, would you please tell us what is your hypothesis for the collapse of the fifth Hypothetical Quintuplet?"

There isn't much GREEN - admissible factual stuff is there david??

We have only three facts which are admissible into the first hypothesis. They are:
1) Explosions causing malicious damage in five buildings; AND
2) Fires started at the same time; AND
3) Buildings collapsed 7 hours later.

I accept those three facts as true facts for purposes of this moot exercise. All three would need verification in a real situation.

So the reasoning applied to those facts allows us to make two legitimate interim conclusions viz:

A) The collapse occurred 7 hours after the explosions THEREFORE the explosions did not cause the collapses.

B) The explosions may have contributed to the collapse mechanisms - we do not have sufficient evidence to determine if the explosion made any or zero contribution OR how much contribution if in fact there was any.

So the only legitimate hypothesis available at this stage and on the evidence available ie:

There is a prima facie case that fire damage caused the collapses.

We can draw other conclusions about this little "challenge" by david.watts.

I'll leave them for now.

 

[david.watts]

ozeco, do you not understand that this is very simply only a "mythical hypothetical"? It has nothing to do with 9/11 other than to understand how "your hypothesis" is forever (apparently) enmeshed and inescapably entwined in the meteorite found in the debris.

Is there not enough clarity to what I am asking? It boils down to this (in my "mythical hypothetical"): There are five identical buildings with identical damage and identical fires. All five buildings collapsed at the same time in identical fashion. It is PROVEN -- even to you unequivocally! --that four were controlled demolitions. Possible proof of the fifth did not exist because there were no like recordings. What is your mythical hypothetical hypothesis as to the reason for the fifth Hypothetical Quintuplet collapsing?

THAT IS IT! NOTHING MORE!

 

[Iamme]

If drones brought down the buildings, then has anyone researched the whereabouts of all the passengers that supposedly were on board?
All you`d need is a passenger list. Then find out if these people are still alive...or missing.
Oh. Wait. The govt wisked them all off to Bolivia or somewhere, right?
ETA: Nah. They could talk. No, they would have had to have been executed. But wait. If that`s true, then why not just go with the loaded plane of passengers?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You dismiss the circumstantial evidence -- reports of explosions -- because you think it is not credible. Fine. No problem there. For me, I take it very seriously and I stated it so in stating my opinion that WTC7 was a CD. We see it differently. I understand.

I disagree. The reports are taken into consideration regardless, it's simply been concluded based on the lack of corroborating evidence that the reports don't prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the explosions were a product of explosives. No physical identifiers have ever been uncovered, directly or indirectly, therefore the most realistic consideration for the reports is that people described sounds using similes and metaphors that they could identify with; not that they were literal. The context under which those reports were made is hardly unusual or new. Ozeco can address your hypothetical as he wishes, but I see it as unnecessary to get into that sort of detail given that it doesn't really progress the discussion

 

[ozeco41]

Ozeco can address your hypothetical as he wishes, but I see it as unnecessary to get into that sort of detail given that it doesn't really progress the discussion

Which is exactly what I did.

david.watts set up his own hypothetical and, unlike some others, I was not in the slightest confused between the hypothetical and whatever happened at WTC "X"

I responded, and I suggest with pedantic logical accuracy, to david's challenge.

The sad aspect is that his counter-response shows that EITHER he does not understand his own hypothetical OR cannot analyse accurately what he wrote.

THEN he has the gall to say:

ozeco, do you not understand that this is very simply only a "mythical hypothetical"? It has nothing to do with 9/11 other than to understand how "your hypothesis" is forever (apparently) enmeshed and inescapably entwined in the meteorite found in the debris.

I don't understand David? you have to be kidding.. I understood and comprehensibly demolished your hypothetical.

AND, where ever you dug up the reference to "meteorite", it is not mentioned in either your own hypothetical or my analysis.

THEN david, your own analysis is totally at odds with the evidence you presented in the hypothetical - you invent evidence which was not there. Cannot even follow your own hypothetical.

....All five buildings collapsed at the same time in identical fashion. It is PROVEN -- even to you unequivocally! --that four were controlled demolitions.

That claim of proof is false - according to david's OWN hypothesis AND:

...Possible proof of the fifth did not exist because there were no like recordings.

The recordings OR absence of recordings prove nothing in the setting of david's own hypothetical.

If I was cruel I would claim that David has shown that, like a typical truther, he either has no regard for evidence and logic OR chooses to pretend so to support false claims.

BUT I wont say that....

Why he would do that when he set up the hypothetical himself defies my imagination.

He set himself up for a loss by challenging me. I accepted the challenge. He lost. Why compound the loss by "shifting goalposts'???

Beats me.

Now any other members who want the mental exercise - feel free to check if my reasoning of the hypothetical was correct. BUT please don't get confused with real 9/11 events.

What is your mythical hypothetical hypothesis as to the reason for the fifth Hypothetical Quintuplet collapsing?

Read my post david.

 

[david.watts]

david.watts Challenges ozeco41. (See post #517)

He should learn the military adage "know your enemy" - however let me show how far from reality he is on debating process.
___________________________________

For someone as deep into denial as you David - you sure have a lot of energy to waste. It would IMO be better spent understanding the simple issues you are desperately trying to avoid. However:
An hypothesis is based on facts and reasoning. Facts are backed by evidence and differ from opinions which are neither expert nor backed by evidence.

So what facts do you assert - I've colours coded them to grade them by relevance:
1) These are matters of scenario setting which I allow. They do not contribute to any hypothesis and I totally ignore the implications.

2) These are assertions of fact which I could accept if backed by evidence but as yet you give no evidence. For moot purposes I allow them but would require the evidence.

THESE ARE THE ONLY ONES WHICH CAN VALIDLY BE INCLUDED IN AN HYPOTHESIS

3) These are assertions of fact which also have no evidence but which are extremely unlikely could ever be backed by evidence.

4) These are emotive assertions or implications or improbabilities which have zero effect as direct evidence or in absence of any explicit demonstration of a relevant claim.

5) These are assertions of fact which are either untrue OR could not be true. You will need to remove them from any of your logic trains which are negated by your false premises


There isn't much GREEN - admissible factual stuff is there david??

We have only three facts which are admissible into the first hypothesis. They are:
1) Explosions causing malicious damage in five buildings; AND
2) Fires started at the same time; AND
3) Buildings collapsed 7 hours later.

I accept those three facts as true facts for purposes of this moot exercise. All three would need verification in a real situation.

So the reasoning applied to those facts allows us to make two legitimate interim conclusions viz:

A) The collapse occurred 7 hours after the explosions THEREFORE the explosions did not cause the collapses.

B) The explosions may have contributed to the collapse mechanisms - we do not have sufficient evidence to determine if the explosion made any or zero contribution OR how much contribution if in fact there was any.

So the only legitimate hypothesis available at this stage and on the evidence available ie:

There is a prima facie case that fire damage caused the collapses.

We can draw other conclusions about this little "challenge" by david.watts.

I'll leave them for now.

Which is exactly what I did.

david.watts set up his own hypothetical and, unlike some others, I was not in the slightest confused between the hypothetical and whatever happened at WTC "X"

I responded, and I suggest with pedantic logical accuracy, to david's challenge.

The sad aspect is that his counter-response shows that EITHER he does not understand his own hypothetical OR cannot analyse accurately what he wrote.

THEN he has the gall to say:
I don't understand David? you have to be kidding.. I understood and comprehensibly demolished your hypothetical.

AND, where ever you dug up the reference to "meteorite", it is not mentioned in either your own hypothetical or my analysis.

THEN david, your own analysis is totally at odds with the evidence you presented in the hypothetical - you invent evidence which was not there. Cannot even follow your own hypothetical.
That claim of proof is false - according to david's OWN hypothesis AND:
The recordings OR absence of recordings prove nothing in the setting of david's own hypothetical.

If I was cruel I would claim that David has shown that, like a typical truther, he either has no regard for evidence and logic OR chooses to pretend so to support false claims.

BUT I wont say that....

Why he would do that when he set up the hypothetical himself defies my imagination.

He set himself up for a loss by challenging me. I accepted the challenge. He lost. Why compound the loss by "shifting goalposts'???

Beats me.

Now any other members who want the mental exercise - feel free to check if my reasoning of the hypothetical was correct. BUT please don't get confused with real 9/11 events.

Read my post david.

First of all, I am NOT "challenging" you. I am only very simply asking you an ever so simple question.

Second, the explosions in all five buildings that happened seven hours before the collapses are not the the ones that were recorded. "Recordings of multiple explosions were made in only four of the five buildings and all sounded identical to each other and sounded exactly like "steel cutting explosives." Unfortunately, the recording system in the 5th Quintuplet had been stolen the day before ..." so there were no recordings from the 5th. The explosions that were recorded happened immediately prior to four collapses. So sorry I was not clear enough.

Third, you said "read my post david." I did. You apparently did not read mine:

"ozeco, do you not understand that this is very simply only a "mythical hypothetical"? It has nothing to do with 9/11 other than to understand how "your hypothesis" is forever (apparently) enmeshed and inescapably entwined in the meteorite found in the debris."

I am just asking, w h a t i s y o u r h y p o t h e s i s ? If you are afraid to answer the question because I made reference to a "meteorite," I am sorry I frightened you. "Meteorite" has no place in the mythical hypothetical. I only used it my explanation of what I am asking and nowhere in my hypothetical. I thought it would be understood that the reference was to debris from 9/11.

Try this:

My "Mythical Hypothetical" revised:

1) There are 100 hypothetically identical (!) buildings that were not built like WTC7 and bore no resemblance. But yes, they were steel-framed.

2) In all 100 buildings, one hypothetically-identical-to-each-other bomb exploded at a hypothetical time of exactly 6AM. Each explosion caused hypothetically precisely the same damage in each of the hypothetically identical buildings and started fires in all said buildings that were exactly the same, hypothetically. Each and every fire burned for hypothetically the same amount of time of let's say, 5 hours exactly.

3) In 99 of the 100 buildings there were video cameras throughout transmitting to remote recorders. At 1AM or 8AM -- take your pick -- video with audio in 99 of the 100 buildings recorded steel cutting charges being attached to each and every column in each of the 99 buildings and taking exactly one hour to do so.

4) After all of the fires had burned for exactly 5 hours and at precisely 11AM, all 100 buildings collapsed. Precisely 1/2 second before each and every collapse, video recordings showed all steel cutting charges cutting all columns in all 99 buildings in exactly the same fashion. The audio recordings ALL sounded exactly the same and sounded exactly like steel cutting charges cutting steel.

5) In the 100th building, the video cameras were never plugged in so there were no recordings from inside the 100th building.

6) Outside video recordings of all 100 collapses were hypothetically 100% identical. All hypothetical collapses were straight down and into their own footprint and took precisely the same amount of time. The collapses all came down at 95% the rate of free fall.

7) No evidence of any kind was collected from any collapse. The video and audio is all there is.

8) ozeco, hypothetically, you took the video/audio from the 99 buildings to be unequivocal proof of CD all 99 buildings. (I said as much in #525.)

All of this is simply about this:

ozeco,

1) What is your, shall I say, hypothetical null hypothesis for why the 100th building collapsed?

a. Fire Induced collapse.

b. Controlled demolition.

c. something else.

2) My null hypothesis is controlled demolition. Is that wrong? If so why?

Simple answers will suffice.

Thank you.

............

By the way, did you -- or anyone -- like the Sherlock joke? (Maybe you had heard it before.)

 

[ozeco41]

The explosions that were recorded happened immediately prior to four collapses. So sorry I was not clear enough.

david I am not going to chase your moving goalposts. You still don't understand the evolution of hypotheses in the scientific method. I stated my hypothesis on the basis of the then known evidence which you provided. I don't care for your evasion "sorry I was not clear enough" - all you are trying to do is introduce new evidence. You do that legitimately by proposing a counter hypothesis NOT by blaming me because YOU withheld evidence.

I reponded to your post and did so with pedantic precision. Now you want to change the scenario.

Third, you said "read my post david." I did.

Once again I refuse to chase your evasions./derails/shifting goalposts. My hypothesis was explicilty stated in bold characters.
There is a prima facie case that fire damage caused the collapses.
...based on the evidence which you provided and which I explicitly classified in several categories. I even colour coded them for you. I claimed that only the GREEN ones were valid. Go ahead - prove me wrong.

...I am just asking, w h a t i s y o u r h y p o t h e s i s ? If you are afraid to answer the question because I made reference to a "meteorite," I am sorry I frightened you. "Meteorite" has no place in the mythical hypothetical. I only used it my explanation of what I am asking and nowhere in my hypothetical.

In my response to the hypothetical which you posted - not the one you have now tried to change on two occasions - I said explicitly:

So the only legitimate hypothesis available at this stage and on the evidence available ie:

There is a prima facie case that fire damage caused the collapses.

The suggestion that I am "afraid" is ludicrous. David I am supremely confident in my abilty to engage you in reasoned argument. And cold bloodedly objective at eliminating any red herrings you throw or any other debating tricks you employ. I still doubt that you are being deliberately obtuse. My aim is still to assist you in thinking clearly.

(Many other members are probably shaking their heads in pity at my extended patience. )

Try this:

My "Mythical Hypothetical" revised:

No.

You posted an hypothetical. I gave you a comprehensive response to that hypothetical and showed what the valid conclusion was. You show no intention of either comprehending or responding legitimately to what I posted.

Yet you want to change the ground rules. If I was cynical I could think that you are trying to learn by your mistakes. We don't need a set of shifted goalposts - you can learn from the first example.

 

[DGM]

(Many other members are probably shaking their heads in pity at my extended patience.

You need to accept his hypothetical then anything is possible, even the inside job.

<back to poking my own pinata>

 

[ozeco41]

You need to accept his hypothetical then anything is possible, even the inside job.

<back to poking my own pinata>

Mmmm maybe.

I accepted his scenario as stated for moot purposes. I only accepted that scenario...no way would I offer open door to anything that he decides to bring along later to entrap me.

Any way - standalone from david's issues - it was a change from my usual engineering focus and good fun for an out of practice lawyer.

Very few of these truthers would last five minutes in either a court of law OR the para-legal setting of a "new inquiry". And I suspect that Gage, Deets, Sarns, Szamboti et al are all well aware of that reality.

PS get back to your troll feeding frenzy - I see the tactics is to overfeed so he ends up with terminal problems due to gross obesity.

...or swelled-head explodes from all the ego stroking....

[/cynical mode]

 

[david.watts]

I really would like very much to get this and everything in the future back on a civil and respectful course. And not just between you and me, but also me with everybody else. I have no doubt been disrespectful at times. At the same time, a very large percentage of what I have received from around here from most -- but not all -- has been (often very) disrespectful.


You stated, There is a prima facie case that fire damage caused the collapses. Fine. But there was a major misunderstanding of when the recordings occurred. You were thinking 7 hours before. I did apologize for not being more clear. Plus, the thing about the "meteorite." By restating the hypothetical I was just trying to make it more clear so there could be absolutely no doubt about my hypothetical. Plus, I made it 100 buildings, not just 5. I simply was looking to see if you -- with a scientific background -- thought "there is a prima facie case that fire damage caused the collapses" was still a valid null. Honestly, nothing more.

You have indirectly answered what I asked. Thank you for at least indirectly answering. You say "fire-induced" is still valid. That is good with me. I guess it could have been 1,000 buildings, or even 100,000. The scientific method, if that is what applies, does not change the null no matter how many buildings. That is now clear to me. I did not know if the "number" plays at all into the development of an hypothesis. I thought it probably would. At least at some point. I am apparently wrong.


FYI, I was in no way trying to "withhold" evidence. I was painstakingly trying to lay out everything so there would not be any misunderstanding. I believe I did a better job of that in my revised revision which you did not address. I in no way was trying to "move the goal posts." I really don't think I did; that was not my intension anyway. I am sorry you interpreted it that way.

I am not trying to "entrap" you. But I do understand that is what you (and others) think. That is why I used "afraid." It seemed that way; that you were afraid of being "entrapped;" that I had some ulterior motive. I did not understand why you would not simply answer what I was trying to lay out -- what I thought was a very simple hypothetical.

No hard feelings from my side. Cheers.

 

[david.watts]

I should add, some -- JSanderO for one -- have been very respectful and it has been appreciated.

 

[beachnut]

I should add, some -- JSanderO for one -- have been very respectful and it has been appreciated.

He knows why you make up lies about 911.

He is still listed as a patriot for truth, not as bad as your nonsense on 911. Are you on the list of those who can't figure out 911?
http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html#Orling

How can JSO get off the list?
How do your erase your history of woo? All your work, a mythical story, undefined.

 

[ozeco41]

You stated, There is a prima facie case that fire damage caused the collapses. Fine. But there was a major misunderstanding of when the recordings occurred. You were thinking 7 hours before. I did apologize for not being more clear.

I responded on what you wrote - not what you were thinking. Engineer - yes; lawyer - sort of; mind-reader - no.

Now the other issue you are raising is what is the strength of evidence of "multiple similar events"?

You specified identical which I dismissed as impossible - a flaw in your specification of the hypothetical scenario.

However multiple similar events actually happening would automatically raise the possibility of human malice as a factor which would need to be resolved. It would be dubious to hypothesis "fire only" with the coincidence issue not resolved. BUT "coincidence" would not prove CD - it is only "circumstantial" evidence.

 

[david.watts]

I responded on what you wrote - not what you were thinking. Engineer - yes; lawyer - sort of; mind-reader - no.

Now the other issue you are raising is what is the strength of evidence of "multiple similar events"?

You specified identical which I dismissed as impossible - a flaw in your specification of the hypothetical scenario.

However multiple similar events actually happening would automatically raise the possibility of human malice as a factor which would need to be resolved. It would be dubious to hypothesis "fire only" with the coincidence issue not resolved. BUT "coincidence" would not prove CD - it is only "circumstantial" evidence.

I thought "identical" would be permissible for a "hypothetical" if only just to make it unambiguously clear what I was I saying.

And thank you for straightening me out about "multiple similar events." That is what I presumed and was looking to see if you agreed or not. So I mistook your previous response as meaning the number of events and even a very large number would not affect the hypothesis. It did not make sense to me but I thought maybe you were saying the scientific method treated each individual event separately. Something like, for example in the extreme, just because every building collapse in history had been proven to be a CD, we have this one event (collapse) that cannot be explained and since there was damage and fire, the hypothesis still must be "fire-induced." Again, that seemed to make no sense. And now I understand that is not what you saying/implying/inferring in your previous post.

Sorry for all of the unintended confusion.

 

[JSanderO]

He knows why you make up lies about 911.

He is still listed as a patriot for truth, not as bad as your nonsense on 911. Are you on the list of those who can't figure out 911?
http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html#Orling

How can JSO get off the list?
How do your erase your history of woo? All your work, a mythical story, undefined.

dingle ding... That site is locked and not maintained. They don't respond to emails and I've written several times to get my name removed.

However, I did at one time think differently and did sign the petition. I was also on AE911T's board. Live and learn. I learned. I try to be polite and honest broker. I have nothing to hide.

 

[beachnut]

dingle ding... That site is locked and not maintained. They don't respond to emails and I've written several times to get my name removed.

However, I did at one time think differently and did sign the petition. I was also on AE911T's board. Live and learn. I learned. I try to be polite and honest broker. I have nothing to hide.

I wonder if we can contact the owner of the page and take it over. Every year the .com comes up for renewal. Who ever has the web site owns .org and .net, which goes to the .com. Go Daddy has the hosting, if I had the money I would buy it out and let you change your stuff.

For 70 bucks you can try to buy it out, think it is 70 plus some.

patriotsquestion911.net/org/com September I think .com is up for renewal. It cost 10 or 20 bucks/yr to have a web page.

One way to spend 70 bucks, and it looks like it might not work.
http://www.godaddy.com/domains/doma...riotsquestion911.com&ci=44270&prog_id=GoDaddy

If the domain name you want is already registered by someone else, you can use our professional Domain Buy Service with your personal Domain Buy Agent to attempt to acquire it for you. Domain Buy Agents make every reasonable attempt to contact the current domain name registrant to try to negotiate its purchase.
In addition to the Domain Buy Service fee, there is a 10% commission. There is a minimum commission charge of $10.
The Domain Buy Service purchase gives our agents a maximum of 30 days to negotiate a deal for you. Your purchase is non-refundable and non-transferable. If you want to pursue a different domain name instead of the one you originally purchased, you must purchase a separate request to acquire the new domain name through Domain Buy Service.

Guess they could charge a lot, the owner. If I had some money. if

 

[JSanderO]

I wonder if we can contact the owner of the page and take it over. Every year the .com comes up for renewal. Who ever has the web site owns .org and .net, which goes to the .com. Go Daddy has the hosting, if I had the money I would buy it out and let you change your stuff.

For 70 bucks you can try to buy it out, think it is 70 plus some.

patriotsquestion911.net/org/com September I think .com is up for renewal. It cost 10 or 20 bucks/yr to have a web page.

One way to spend 70 bucks, and it looks like it might not work.
http://www.godaddy.com/domains/doma...riotsquestion911.com&ci=44270&prog_id=GoDaddy

Guess they could charge a lot, the owner. If I had some money. if

They need a site called "parrots for 911 truth" it can be the umbrella site.