evidence against flight 93 shoot down

[Jonnyclueless]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSA_Flight_1771

 

[metamars]

Why not show me wrong. Take all your "ample evidence" and show me wrong. 93 is what you get when a plane hits at 600 mph at 42 degrees pitch down and 142 degrees right bank. This is a fact. I have shown you photos of other high speed impacts and you ignore the hard evidence.

I don't know if you don't understand the question, but for whatever reason or reasons, you are not forthcoming with general, empirical relationships between Kinetic Energy and debris dispersal, as I requested. My guess is that, despite your training and pretty picture of a diploma, you weren't taught this, and haven't learned it, since taking your diploma. (Perhaps nobody has really done a serious study, so that nobody knows. I find that hard to believe, but it's a logical possibility.)

If you were open and honest about such a situation, that would be fine. Instead, you blabber on about what you've "proved". You're basically repeating yourself, with minor variations, and showing that your notions of having proved something are strange, indeed.

Not that I think it's anything but a waste of time, but let's press on by assuming that I desperately want to prove you correct about the plausibility of the engine (or engine part) being found so far from the rest of the debris. How would I do this? By looking at pictures of debris fields, and saying "Yup, they look similar"? By noting how pretty your diploma looks? By doing simplistic physics calculations?

No. The only way I could do this that would inspire confidence in me is by using empirical studies which relate debris field dispersion to KE, angle of incidence, ground composition, etc. This is what I asked you for, but, for one reason or another (perhaps because you failed to understand the significance of the question), you do not provide this.

That's fine, but don't expect me to be convinced by your photos and your diploma. You can repeat yourself all you want, including blabbering on about how you've "proved" something, but I'm not convinced. And does it need to be pointed out that, if the fdr data that is claimed is the gospel truth, most of this thread is moot?

Believe it or not, my sense of self-worth does not depend on whether or not I believe the plane was shot down or not. I am happy to believe whatever seems most logical. Your failure to produce the sort of empirical relationship that would provide insight, or to satisfactorily explain eyewitness accounts (the little I can glean of them - again, I haven't studied this a lot), doesn't do anything for me in terms of me deciding one way or another.

I will grant you, though, that I found value in
1) your comments about rotational Kinetic Energy; this is something I hadn't thought about, and probably needs to be accounted for
2) the example you gave of debris being ejected 400 feet, which is suggestive, though not a clincher, as you presume

Aside from these, well, .... Hopefully you get something out of repeating yourself.

 

[metamars]

Absolutely incorrect. This is just too painful to continue. I think only Beachnut has the stomach to deal with this nonsense.

Go talk to a physics professor, who can readily tell you what will hit the ground sooner when you have a mass A, that experiences a downward force of just gravity, a mass B that experiences a downward force of gravity plus jet engine thrust, and at time t0, both mass A and mass B are at the same height.

I'm sure that a physics professor can relieve your pain in a matter of seconds, if you'll only let him, or her.

 

[beachnut]

I don't know if you don't understand the question, but for whatever reason or reasons, you are not forthcoming with general, empirical relationships between Kinetic Energy and debris dispersal, as I requested. My guess is that, despite your training and pretty picture of a diploma, you weren't taught this, and haven't learned it, since taking your diploma. (Perhaps nobody has really done a serious study, so that nobody knows. I find that hard to believe, but it's a logical possibility.)

No, you need to do your own work, you don't believe the FAA, NTSB, me, the military, the government, Miller, or anything with rational thought to it.

If you were open and honest about such a situation, that would be fine. Instead, you blabber on about what you've "proved". You're basically repeating yourself, with minor variations, and showing that your notions of having proved something are strange, indeed.

Not related to the missile or shoot down.

Not that I think it's anything but a waste of time, but let's press on by assuming that I desperately want to prove you correct about the plausibility of the engine (or engine part) being found so far from the rest of the debris. How would I do this? By looking at pictures of debris fields, and saying "Yup, they look similar"? By noting how pretty your diploma looks? By doing simplistic physics calculations?

That is not far. This was a big impact, figure out the kinetic energy yourself. Yes you can look up crashes and say they look similar. This is why I show the F-4, the speed was slower than 93, but the parts are crushed.

Truther think there should be a tail, or wings. But not at 600 mph. This is basic physics. And I understand all of this, I don't have to go learn it, I can already see 93 from day one was normal! I can't help you learn this. I have flown jets from 1974.

93 looks like a high speed impact. It is a fact. This is why no experts are joining the truth movement in numbers greater than 0.001 percent.
lol

No. The only way I could do this that would inspire confidence in me is by using empirical studies which relate debris field dispersion to KE, angle of incidence, ground composition, etc. This is what I asked you for, but, for one reason or another (perhaps because you failed to understand the significance of the question), you do not provide this.

Not related to the missile or shoot down.
There was no missile because 93 was all perfect until impact. The FDR proves this. I hate to repeat myself but you ignore the proof each time by bring up stuff not related. The 93 impact is normal, you have not shown one thing wrong with it.

That's fine, but don't expect me to be convinced by your photos and your diploma. You can repeat yourself all you want, including blabbering on about how you've "proved" something, but I'm not convinced. And does it need to be pointed out that, if the fdr data that is claimed is the gospel truth, most of this thread is moot?

Not related to the missile or shoot down. The FDR is right. Sorry, your fantasy is moot.

Believe it or not, my sense of self-worth does not depend on whether or not I believe the plane was shot down or not. I am happy to believe whatever seems most logical. Your failure to produce the sort of empirical relationship that would provide insight, or to satisfactorily explain eyewitness accounts (the little I can glean of them - again, I haven't studied this a lot), doesn't do anything for me in terms of me deciding one way or another.

Sorry, you have to show me the debris is not right, it is your idea. I use the FDR, you can't dispute the FDR with facts or evidence. No missile.

I will grant you, though, that I found value in
1) your comments about rotational Kinetic Energy; this is something I hadn't thought about, and probably needs to be accounted for
2) the example you gave of debris being ejected 400 feet, which is suggestive, though not a clincher, as you presume

Aside from these, well, .... Hopefully you get something out of repeating yourself.

1637 pounds of TNT energy at impact. How do you know that is right?

The eject instrument is true, I was there, I owned the crash scene after the fire department finished up! Parts were ejected for hundreds of feet in a 200 mph impact! The impact kinetic energy is the key. Better check my 1600 pounds of TNT. Need it in joules? The wings ruptured on impact and exploded. Not much left of the plane, a layperson may not know it was a plane, just like 93.

Still no evidence for a missile. Why?

So we have the FDR showing all engines turning at impact, attached to 93.
We have a great interview TC did on Miller, and that provides evidence of no missile.
So the thread is about evidence against a shoot down; do you have any? NO

We need to stay on topic, this is evidence against a shoot down.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Go talk to a physics professor, who can readily tell you what will hit the ground sooner when you have a mass A, that experiences a downward force of just gravity, a mass B that experiences a downward force of gravity plus jet engine thrust, and at time t0, both mass A and mass B are at the same height.

I'm sure that a physics professor can relieve your pain in a matter of seconds, if you'll only let him, or her.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So if that's how you think a heat seeking missile hitting a plane works, then no wonder you are so lost on this issue. I'd say seek some serious professional help. Better yet, why don't you get a physics professor to back your claim up. See if you can do it without them laughing at you.

 

[metamars]

That is not far. This was a big impact, figure out the kinetic energy yourself. Yes you can look up crashes and say they look similar. This is why I show the F-4, the speed was slower than 93, but the parts are crushed.

I've saw the F-4 video months ago. Nobody is disputing that a plane can disintegrate into small pieces. Try to follow the arguments of different posters, even if they post different things on the same thread, please.

Truther think there should be a tail, or wings. But not at 600 mph. This is basic physics. And I understand all of this, I don't have to go learn it, I can already see 93 from day one was normal! I can't help you learn this. I have flown jets from 1974.

Did your oxygen supply ever malfunction? Just curious.

I hate to repeat myself but you ignore the proof each time by bring up stuff not related. The 93 impact is normal, you have not shown one thing wrong with it. [/FONT][/COLOR]
[/FONT][/COLOR]

Not related to the missile or shoot down. The FDR is right. Sorry, your fantasy is moot.

Sorry, you have to show me the debris is not right, it is your idea. I use the FDR, you can't dispute the FDR with facts or evidence. No missile.



1637 pounds of TNT energy at impact. How do you know that is right?

The eject instrument is true, I was there, I owned the crash scene after the fire department finished up! Parts were ejected for hundreds of feet in a 200 mph impact! The impact kinetic energy is the key. Better check my 1600 pounds of TNT. Need it in joules? The wings ruptured on impact and exploded. Not much left of the plane, a layperson may not know it was a plane, just like 93.

Still no evidence for a missile. Why?

So we have the FDR showing all engines turning at impact, attached to 93.
We have a great interview TC did on Miller, and that provides evidence of no missile.
So the thread is about evidence against a shoot down; do you have any? NO

We need to stay on topic, this is evidence against a shoot down.

So good to know that you hate to repeat yourself. Not.

Since you're going to evade speaking informatively to a rational process for drawing a conclusion from details of the crash data that I was speaking to, while still finding time to post the same stuff over and over again, I'll leave you to your verbal treadmill exercize, word salad, photos, and all. Enjoy your circular journey, won't you?

 

[Mr.Herbert]

Did your oxygen supply ever malfunction? Just curious.

It appears yours did.... at birth.

So good to know that you hate to repeat yourself. Not.

References to Waynes World? Um... dude...it's 2008

Since you're going to evade speaking informatively to a rational process for drawing a conclusion from details of the crash data that I was speaking to, while still finding time to post the same stuff over and over again, I'll leave you to your verbal treadmill exercize, word salad, photos, and all. Enjoy your circular journey, won't you?

Translation: Stop posting things that I don't understand.

 

[beachnut]

I've saw the F-4 video months ago. Nobody is disputing that a plane can disintegrate into small pieces. Try to follow the arguments of different posters, even if they post different things on the same thread, please.

Did your oxygen supply ever malfunction? Just curious.

So good to know that you hate to repeat yourself. Not.

Since you're going to evade speaking informatively to a rational process , ... Enjoy your circular journey, won't you?

You brought up the dumb idea that water made a difference. If you want to rationalize it now, too late. So just attack me again.

Go read the FDR, you will see the plane was in one piece. FDR is proof of no shoot down. What do you have to add? Exactly, an attack on me.

You have no evidence to contest the FDR. The FDR and Miller are good evidence to show no shoot down.

Enjoy your lack of evidence, process.

 

[Reheat]

Maybe the air-to-air missile was of this sort, but the blast occurred sufficiently close to the engine to break off part of it, due to blast effects.

I'm sure you have no idea how utterly stupid this is....

If you insist that engine part that went a few hundred yards was due to a missile then it would have to have been a shoot down below 500', I'd guess considerably below. If the aircraft was this low, why would there have been a need to shoot a missile at it?

If there had been a missile shot into that engine at altitude in order to bring it down, the engine part or parts would have been miles from the main crash site.

You may as well stop speculating as you don't know squat about air-to-air missile nor what damage they can do. You also don't know squat about the physics involved either.

All you're doing is revealing your ignorance, nothing more.

 

[metamars]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So if that's how you think a heat seeking missile hitting a plane works, then no wonder you are so lost on this issue. I'd say seek some serious professional help. Better yet, why don't you get a physics professor to back your claim up. See if you can do it without them laughing at you.

You're giving me the same vibes as beachnut, now, though instead of pointing out how high speed impacts can lead to vast disintegration, which I already knew, you are suggesting (apparently) that I believe a heat seeking missile "works" by knocking off an engine, such that the net effect is an accelerated crash into the ground. By design. Which is not what I expect the general case to be. So, one of you makes 'points', of which we are already in agreement, and another makes 'points', which are the product if his own misunderstanding.

If such an ignorant thought entertains you, or gives you some sort of satisfaction, go right ahead and believe it. You're wrong, just as you seem not to have understood a simple physics principle, but hey! whatever floats your boat. (Or should I say "flies your kite" ) This isn't Physical Reviews....

I've never really given much thought to whether or not a general crash sequence occurs, or is even intended, by taking out an engine via a heat seeking missile. In modern fighters that I've seen, if there's twin engines, they are close together. Destroying one is sure to destroy the other one, I should think.

Furthermore, even if a fighter wereto only lose a single engine, I would expect fuel leakage, perhaps with an onboard fire since, unlike the 757, a live heat source is near the (expected) fuel leakage. In this case, a likely sequence is that the pilot would eject, fearing an onboard explosion.

And if the target is a bomber, of which at least some (like a B-52) is more similar to a 757, I think you'd still be happy to cause a fuel leak, loss of thrust, and loss of aerilon control. If the plane can't be controlled, it'll still eventually crash, whether a wing dips or not, and whether any engines are still providing thrust at the moment of impact.

Even if there was no onboard fire, taking out a jet fighter engine is likely to ruin control of the tail section. No control also implies ejection. How on earth would the pilot land a plane he can't control?

So, no, it isn't necessary for a heat seeking missile to cause a wing to dip, and cause a jet-engine accelerated crash into the ground. For one thing, if terminal speed is 200 mph with all engines failing, I'm sure that will be quite enough to ruin the plane and kill the pilot.

But in the case of a 757, as has been discussed in this thread, where a wing has been said to have dipped, "ear witnesses" heard an explosion before impact, and an engine (or part of an engine; nobody has specified how much of the engine) lands 600 yards from the bulk of the plane, a scenario wherein a heat seeking missile strikes and separates an engine, 'far' from it's twin, and the twin keeps operating, seems very plausible.

BTW, I have a degree in physics. Really, the problem is so simple, you can ask a high school physics teacher about it.

 

[beachnut]

You're giving me the same vibes as beachnut, now, though instead of pointing out how high speed impacts can lead to vast disintegration, which I already knew, you are suggesting (apparently) that I believe a heat seeking missile "works" by knocking off an engine, such that the net effect is an accelerated crash into the ground. By design. Which is not what I expect the general case to be. So, one of you makes 'points', of which we are already in agreement, and another makes 'points', which are the product if his own misunderstanding.

If such an ignorant thought entertains you, or gives you some sort of satisfaction, go right ahead and believe it. You're wrong, just as you seem not to have understood a simple physics principle, but hey! whatever floats your boat. (Or should I say "flies your kite" ) This isn't Physical Reviews....

I've never really given much thought to whether or not a general crash sequence occurs, or is even intended, by taking out an engine via a heat seeking missile. In modern fighters that I've seen, if there's twin engines, they are close together. Destroying one is sure to destroy the other one, I should think.

Furthermore, even if a fighter wereto only lose a single engine, I would expect fuel leakage, perhaps with an onboard fire since, unlike the 757, a live heat source is near the (expected) fuel leakage. In this case, a likely sequence is that the pilot would eject, fearing an onboard explosion.

And if the target is a bomber, of which at least some (like a B-52) is more similar to a 757, I think you'd still be happy to cause a fuel leak, loss of thrust, and loss of aerilon control. If the plane can't be controlled, it'll still eventually crash, whether a wing dips or not, and whether any engines are still providing thrust at the moment of impact.

Even if there was no onboard fire, taking out a jet fighter engine is likely to ruin control of the tail section. No control also implies ejection. How on earth would the pilot land a plane he can't control?

So, no, it isn't necessary for a heat seeking missile to cause a wing to dip, and cause a jet-engine accelerated crash into the ground. For one thing, if terminal speed is 200 mph with all engines failing, I'm sure that will be quite enough to ruin the plane and kill the pilot.

But in the case of a 757, as has been discussed in this thread, where a wing has been said to have dipped, "ear witnesses" heard an explosion before impact, and an engine (or part of an engine; nobody has specified how much of the engine) lands 600 yards from the bulk of the plane, a scenario wherein a heat seeking missile strikes and separates an engine, 'far' from it's twin, and the twin keeps operating, seems very plausible.

BTW, I have a degree in physics. Really, the problem is so simple, you can ask a high school physics teacher about it.

Too funny.

This is your post in a thread about evidence against a shoot down, and you mess up physics and claim it is your major. LOL

You are off topic and have forgotten all you know about physics. You can't correct my error in kinetic energy.

Your ideas are proven stupid with the FDR. The wing dip is the terrorist flying the plane, he put in a huge amount of right bank! He had the wheel right! Funny, you take witness statement confirmed by the FDR to support the proven wrong missile crap. If you are a physics major you can figure this out and prove it to yourself; but you are failing to use that physics stink to save yourself.

This is your problem you think 400 yards in the pond is far away. A missile would put these parts miles away. Physics major; then use it! Run the numbers physics major. You should have taken the aircraft investigation course and flown jets for 34 years.

 

[metamars]

I'm sure you have no idea how utterly stupid this is....

If you insist that engine part that went a few hundred yards was due to a missile then it would have to have been a shoot down below 500', I'd guess considerably below. If the aircraft was this low, why would there have been a need to shoot a missile at it?

What's your point? Apparently, you believe that if the plane was below 500', it must have been doomed, anyway. Why would that be? Remember, please, I'm not taking FDR data as gospel.

If there had been a missile shot into that engine at altitude in order to bring it down, the engine part or parts would have been miles from the main crash site.

Makes sense to me, unless it was sort of dangling, but didn't finally disconnect until lower altitude.

You may as well stop speculating as you don't know squat about air-to-air missile nor what damage they can do.

You're right, I don't know squat about what an air-to-air missile would do. Why don't you tell us what an air-to-air missile with a payload of 3.7 kg would do upon striking a 757 engine? I'm all ears.

You also don't know squat about the physics involved either.

I've actually studied parts of Impact - The Theory and Physical Behaviour of Colliding Solids, by Werner Goldsmith, but have never made a similar effort with regard to the physics of explosions.

All you're doing is revealing your ignorance, nothing more.

Well, here's your big chance to illumine not just my mind, but everybody else's. Go for it.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

No Metmars, you have no provided any scientific basis for how shooting a plane with a missile, and taking out one engine will cause the plane to point downwards and increase in speed form the remaining engine. Please, go right ahead.

but please go on pretending we don't understand physics when it is YOU who does not. I enjoy a good laugh at your delusions.

And using the whole explosion before the impact? Give us a break, even YOU of all people know that's not reliable.

And I am sure that many of you crackpots also think that the loved ones who talked to the people on the plane as this was going down are all in on it too. I am sure they get a kick out o their loved ones getting murdered and just make this stuff up to go along with some government conspiracy.

 

[beachnut]

What's your point? Apparently, you believe that if the plane was below 500', it must have been doomed, anyway. Why would that be? Remember, please, I'm not taking FDR data as gospel.

A physics major, at least on who really lives physics, would see at 41 degrees pitch down, and 500 feet we have impact in less than a second, Reheat saves a missile; you are not using your physics stuff.

And if you used physics to solve 93, you too would understand this. Seem like you must have been a cold fusion physicist like Dr. Thermite Jones.

So we still have no input from you on thread topic, just failed ideas, and showing you may be a physics major, but you sure don't use it. Some have the knowledge of physics but can't apply it; why is that?

FDR is still a major evidence source against the shoot down. topic


.370 kg of HE caused this.

http://flickr.com/photos/11923090@N03/2164282251

You are the physics major, tell us what 10 times that amount would do?

 

[Reheat]

What's your point? Apparently, you believe that if the plane was below 500', it must have been doomed, anyway. Why would that be? Remember, please, I'm not taking FDR data as gospel.

I'm sure the jihadist pilot was just giving the passengers a low altitude sight seeing tour prior to taking out a cornfield in PA in order to impact the economy of the US.

You're obviously a complete waste of time....

 

[metamars]

No Metmars, you have no provided any scientific basis for how shooting a plane with a missile, and taking out one engine will cause the plane to point downwards and increase in speed form the remaining engine. Please, go right ahead.

I've already provided arguments. Unless I'm mistaken, you haven't refuted any of them. E.g., the wing provides lift to the airplane. Knocking an engine off of a plane is sure to screw up the airfoil; removing part of the wing will completely remove that wing portion's ability to provide lift.

Your refutation of this is where? I must have missed it.

but please go on pretending we don't understand physics when it is YOU who does not. I enjoy a good laugh at your delusions.

Is it your delusion or mine that you've not refuted a single one of the arguments I gave?

And using the whole explosion before the impact? Give us a break, even YOU of all people know that's not reliable.

I must confess, I have no idea what you're talking about. What is a "whole explosion before impact"?

And I am sure that many of you crackpots also think that the loved ones who talked to the people on the plane as this was going down are all in on it too. I am sure they get a kick out o their loved ones getting murdered and just make this stuff up to go along with some government conspiracy.

At this point, you're resorting to bovine excrement, and smearing me with your own delusional presuppositions. Ah, but you're "sure", aren't you? Why am I not surprised that you're "sure" of yourself, even when describing my own thoughts? Why-y-y-y, you know me better than I know myself! Isn't it obvious?

 

[beachnut]

M, man,
Where was the super sonic MACH 2.5 thunder trail. Not one person talked about the sonic boom trail of the missile. No one. Physics.
FDR is the key, learn to read the FDR. You could use physics to save you from saying silly things like you are.

 

[metamars]

.370 kg of HE caused this.

http://flickr.com/photos/11923090@N03/2164282251

Wow, that's a neat picture and neat story! Nice way to step off the treadmill!

There's nothing in the story about having to adjust for a dipping wing, though I'd love to ask the captain. Notice, too, that the story says

Captain Gennotte, remembering a broadcast about the United Airlines Flight 232 disaster in the USA in 1989, managed to flatten out the plane's gyrations by use of the throttles.

If whoever was piloting 93 didn't want to crash, but didn't know about correcting gyrations by means of the throttles, who's to say that it wouldn't have led to a violent wing dip? Plus, you can't assume the DHL plane would have reacted exactly the same as a 757.

 

[beachnut]

Wow, that's a neat picture and neat story! Nice way to step off the treadmill!

There's nothing in the story about having to adjust for a dipping wing, though I'd love to ask the captain. Notice, too, that the story says



If whoever was piloting 93 didn't want to crash, but didn't know about correcting gyrations by means of the throttles, who's to say that it wouldn't have led to a violent wing dip? Plus, you can't assume the DHL plane would have reacted exactly the same as a 757.

http://www.talkingproud.us/International051504.html

The missile missed.
You need to use your physics on 9/11 instead of making up lies and false information.

All the movements of 93 were from inputs from the terrorist, all of them. Sorry, the FDR once again puts a big damper on your fantasy ideas.

... the terrorist made all the movements of flight 93, the stick inputs are on the FDR! Your fantasy is killed by facts and evidence.

 

[TC329]

I don't know if you don't understand the question, but for whatever reason or reasons, you are not forthcoming with general, empirical relationships between Kinetic Energy and debris dispersal, as I requested. My guess is that, despite your training and pretty picture of a diploma, you weren't taught this, and haven't learned it, since taking your diploma. (Perhaps nobody has really done a serious study, so that nobody knows. I find that hard to believe, but it's a logical possibility.)

If you were open and honest about such a situation, that would be fine. Instead, you blabber on about what you've "proved". You're basically repeating yourself, with minor variations, and showing that your notions of having proved something are strange, indeed.

Not that I think it's anything but a waste of time, but let's press on by assuming that I desperately want to prove you correct about the plausibility of the engine (or engine part) being found so far from the rest of the debris. How would I do this? By looking at pictures of debris fields, and saying "Yup, they look similar"? By noting how pretty your diploma looks? By doing simplistic physics calculations?

No. The only way I could do this that would inspire confidence in me is by using empirical studies which relate debris field dispersion to KE, angle of incidence, ground composition, etc. This is what I asked you for, but, for one reason or another (perhaps because you failed to understand the significance of the question), you do not provide this.

That's fine, but don't expect me to be convinced by your photos and your diploma. You can repeat yourself all you want, including blabbering on about how you've "proved" something, but I'm not convinced. And does it need to be pointed out that, if the fdr data that is claimed is the gospel truth, most of this thread is moot?

Believe it or not, my sense of self-worth does not depend on whether or not I believe the plane was shot down or not. I am happy to believe whatever seems most logical. Your failure to produce the sort of empirical relationship that would provide insight, or to satisfactorily explain eyewitness accounts (the little I can glean of them - again, I haven't studied this a lot), doesn't do anything for me in terms of me deciding one way or another.

I will grant you, though, that I found value in
1) your comments about rotational Kinetic Energy; this is something I hadn't thought about, and probably needs to be accounted for
2) the example you gave of debris being ejected 400 feet, which is suggestive, though not a clincher, as you presume

Aside from these, well, .... Hopefully you get something out of repeating yourself.

you don't have beachnut on ignore yet, huh?

it doesn't matter what you say. you could uncover a shoot down video and beachnut will explain how it didn't happen. but you'll learn in a few more posts......