Merged Fireballs and Backdraft in WTC1 Basement and Lobby

[Grizzly Bear]

My argument:

(1) [Upon impact] Elevator cables are severed + jet fuel droplets and/or jet fuel fireball descend shaft

(1.5) (4) [upon impact]The first basement explosion occured below car 50 and before it reached B1 [building shook from the impact and was felt throughout the structure]
(2) Car 50 falls approx. 17 floors taking no more than 5s to reach B1
(3) Jet fuel droplets and/or jet fuel fireball descend 95 floors taking approx. 30s and 15s respectively

Conclusion: whatever The plane impact was felt throughout the structure and witnesses initially believed what they heard were exploded[sions] below car 50 and before it reached B1 could not POSSIBLY have been caused by fuel droplets and/or jet fuel fireball. [which is the effect of the plane impacts you ignore]

peace

I had to make a few edits to your argument to point out your flaws because somehow magically the building's physical reaction to being hit by a 100-ton proectile is being construed as a basement explosion.

 

[Norseman]

#3 wqs debunked a while ago too.

That would be thewholesoul's argument:

(3) Jet fuel droplets and/or jet fuel fireball descend 95 floors taking approx. 30s and 15s respectively

This I covered in my post #492, where I debunked my original 30 second claim from the OP. I am basically the source for both parts of that argument.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Yes, how could we forget the Brazilian rain drop argument. If that isn't convincing, I don't know what is.

 

[thewholesoul]

In response to the following statement

perhaps you can tell me why nobody in B1, 2 and 4 reported seeing a slow expanding fireball indiciative of a fuel deflagration

you cited the testimony of Sanchez.

“It sounded like a bomb and the lights went on and off,” said Sanchez in the tape recording.[undetermined amount of time later] “We started to walk to the exit and a huge ball of fire went through the freight elevator. The hot air from the ball of fire dropped Chino to the floor and my hair got burned,” said Sanchez in the tape recording. “The room then got full of smoke and I remember saying out loud ‘I believe it was a bomb that blew up inside the building.

this is correct, Sanchez did see a fireball in the basement i have recognized this fact a long time ago. in any event the testimony of Sanchez does contradict my above claim that nobody in B1, 2, and 4 reported seeing a slow expanding fireball. What I was meant to say was in relation to the first basement explosion there is no report of a fireball. In other words whatever was responsible for the bomb like sound was not responsible for producing the fireball. The fireball witnessed by Sanchez was most likely the same fireball that almost killed Marlene Cruz:

[Arturo Griffith] I told them there was someone else down there, a woman. They went back to get her. Seconds after they pulled her out, a ball of fire came down the shaft. They almost got killed.'

It stands to reason that this fireball continued its way downwards to B4 and that is what Sanchez saw and what knocked Chino to the ground. so the point here is that the fireball seen by Arturo Griffith and Sanchez coming down the fright elevator shaft was not the first basement explosion which occured below car 50 and before it reached B1.

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

Why would I have to shot down 1 to 3?. Number 1 to 3 are matters of fact, but the exact times etc are unknown and open to some speculation.

I agree, there is a degree of speculation involved but it is a fact that fuel droplets or jet fuel fireball descending from the 93rd floor at 9m/s and 27m/s respectively could not possibly pass an elevator freefalling from the 17th or 18th floor. So given that you do not dispute #1-3 lets move on.

Number 4 I have debunked in post number 561, number 585 and number 586.

And i reponded to those posts in post number 588.

But did you really debunk #4 in those posts you cited? Lets take a look shall we:

In post 586 you merely advised me to read the testimony in mark roberts paper. Hardly a rebuttal since i have arrived at an entirely different conclusion using the very same testimony.

In post 561 + 585 in relation to the testimony of Felipe David your argument is as follows:

As should be evident from my post #499 there is no need for any jet fuel or your fantasy bombs to explain the first "explosion" heard by Felipe David and other witnesses in the basement levels of WTC 1. In all likelihood the first thing they heard and felt was the impact of Flight 11 itself transfered through the structure,... That would be the first "explosion" they heard...So the impact shock wave would reach B1 instantly. Felipe David would hear the impact sound transferred through the core columns. And he would feel the impact shock wave and the following vibrations through the floor he was standing on, something that easily would lead him to believe that the "explosion" occurred below him

Whoops, it looks like I forget to mention back in post #561 that Felipe David must have been standing just a few meters away from two elevator shafts leading directly up to the impact zone. So just a second after the impact sound traveling through the steel structure reached him, the direct sound of impact traveling down the air inside the elevator shafts would reach him to. Standing outside the elevator shafts it would sound as it came from the elevator doors... My main point in post #561 was that the building shaking he would have felt through the floor easily could have led Felipe David to believe that the explosion occurred below him.

Here’s my explanation – IT WAS A BOMB. Much simpler wouldnt you agree? I know Occam does.

By the way its worth noting that new information has come to light regarding the location of Felipe David. He was not as we all thought standing beside the elevator on B1, rather he was inside his office on B2 when the incident happened. http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=9-zHiGb5KFk but i am positive you will dispute this so lets move on.

The fact of the matter is something did explode below William Rodriguez and Felipe David and whatever that was it burnt Felipe. But what your saying is that nothing-actually-exploded below Felipe which just makes you sound daft.

For the record, I have no reason to doubt that Rodriguez did hear and feel an explosion from below before hearing a noise from above. One logical explanation for what Rodriguez experienced is that he did not hear the aircraft impact and that the noise from above was made by secondary fuel explosions, elevators crashing down, etc. We know that these secondary events happened. But is it possible that Rodriguez didn't hear flight 11's impact?

I think it is not only possible, but likely. I have been in the basements of some skyscrapers. The mechanical equipment there makes them noisy places. [Mark Roberts]

http://911stories.googlepages.com/somepeopleclosetotheaircraftimpactsdidn'

moving on...

Here is yet another example, that I found by coincidence, of someone unable to locate the correct source of the noise inside a building, just like David Felipe. This account from the Marriott Hotel next to WTC 1 and WTC 2:

Please Norseman enough with the examples already. I never disputed the fact that sometimes an ‘event’ above can give one the impression that something exploded below, what i am disputing is that this is what actually happened in relation to the first basement explosion. the fact that everyone on B1 heard an explosion BELOW them, not a creaking steel structure, an explosion with the walls cracking, rooms shaking and with smoke everywhere; and those on B4 heard the explosion ABOVE them, with walls cracking, rooms shaking, people being thrown to the floor etc should suggest to any sane individual that SOMETHING exploded between B1 and B4. but i am positive you will disagree so lets move on...

Here is the fact you claim to have debunked:

The first basement explosion occured below car 50 and before it reached B1
Here is your position:

"The first basement explosion that occured below car 50 and before it reached B1 - was a shockwave!!!”

I really dont see how this debunks me? So what your saying is that the massive ‘fuel deflagration’ responsible for turning a machine shop and car park into rubble [Mike Pecarero] etc came AFTER car 50 reached B1.

If thats your position then maybe you could tell me how they were not burnt alive by the fireball descending the shaft? Did you know the amount of actual accounts of fireballs, smoke, or jet fuel entering elevators that day? Go ask Gerry Wertz, Carmen Griffith, Harry Waizer, Virginia DiChiara, Yuichi Itakura, Tony Savas and Firefighter Peter Blaich who saw several individuals incinerated inside an elevator. Was car 50 made of some sort of special fireproofing? But seriously Norseman, how could a massive fireball with enough strength to turn a carpark into rubble and cause a cave-in in the PATH station somehow pass over the occupants of car 50 unnoticed?

Perhaps you fancy the liquid jet fuel scenario in which case you can surely explain to me how they weren’t overcome by 7000ppm to 50000ppm [the fuel/air ration required for a jet fuel detonation] when it passed over their car? keeping in mind that a person can detect jet fuel as little as 1ppm.

And if you were looking for an ignition source simply read what Marlene Cruz had to say:

there was smoke, and FIRE, and water all over the place

Now how on earth could the correct fuel to air ratio pass over this fire without igniting? Dont you think they would have noticed a massive fuel deflagration engulfing the car and burning the skin off their faces?

So let me break this down for you Norseman: if the fuel deflagration responsible for the devastation in the basement did not occur below car 50 and BEFORE it reached B1 then it must have occured below car 50 and AFTER it reached B1. There is NO ESCAPING this fact.

Either way the fireball or jet fuel had to have passed over car 50 at some point in time in order to deflagrate and inflict the damage it did because the only avenue the fireball or jet fuel had from the impact zone to the basement was down shaft 50, 6 and 7.

So please do yourself a favor, stand up right now and walk into the bathroom, splash some cold water over your face and stare into the mirror. Once there repeat the following to yourself – i have believed in a lie, a fantazy, a fabrication, a polyfiction, and false reality for 7 years now. i am just a man and like every man i will be wrong at least one time within my lifetime...and on this occassion i was wrong. LONG LIVE THE TRUTH!

Say it 10 times until it finally sinks in.

peace

 

[Jonnyclueless]

"I agree, there is a degree of speculation involved but it is a fact that fuel droplets or jet fuel fireball descending from the 93rd floor at 9m/s and 27m/s respectively could not possibly pass an elevator freefalling from the 17th or 18th floor. So given that you do not dispute #1-3 lets move on."

No it is not a fact.

 

[thewholesoul]

(1) [Upon impact] Elevator cables are severed + jet fuel droplets and/or jet fuel fireball descend shaft

(1.5) (4) [upon impact]The first basement explosion occured below car 50 and before it reached B1 [building shook from the impact and was felt throughout the structure]

(2) Car 50 falls approx. 17 floors taking no more than 5s to reach B1

(3) Jet fuel droplets and/or jet fuel fireball descend 95 floors taking approx. 30s and 15s respectively

Conclusion: whatever The plane impact was felt throughout the structure and witnesses initially believed what they heard were exploded[sions] below car 50 and before it reached B1 could not POSSIBLY have been caused by fuel droplets and/or jet fuel fireball. [which is the effect of the plane impacts you ignore]

I had to make a few edits to your argument to point out your flaws because somehow magically the building's physical reaction to being hit by a 100-ton proectile is being construed as a basement explosion

ok i will even assume that your argument is true, that in fact the first basement explosion(s) were the result of vibrations.

vibrations do not produce smoke, incredible winds, and burn injuries.

you need a fuel deflagration at some point in time to explain these phenomena. now the following 3 lines prove that the fuel droplets and/or jet fuel fireball could not have possibly passed car 50.

(1) [Upon impact] Elevator cables are severed + jet fuel droplets and/or jet fuel fireball descend shaft

(2) Car 50 falls approx. 17 floors taking no more than 5s to reach B1

(3) Jet fuel droplets and/or jet fuel fireball descend 95 floors taking approx. 30s and 15s respectively

but you still have to get that jet fuel down there AFTER car 50 reached B1.

shaft 50, 6 and 7 were the only avenues jet fuel could travel from the impact zone to the sub basement levels.

the damage was done to the basement when Griffith and Cruz were still in car 50, we know this because Mike Pecararo helped rescue them from the elevator.

how could a jet fuel fireball pass over them without being detected?

how could the correct fuel/air ration pass over them without being detected?

only logical answer to my mind, is that whatever inflicted damage in the basement did not originate from the elevator shafts.

peace.

if you are unable to intelligently answer the above questions i'm calling victory!!

 

[Disbelief]

if you are unable to intelligently answer the above questions i'm calling victory!!

And this is what your argument is really all about - winning a debate on the internet. Why do you not take your "evidence" to experts at a university near you. That way, you can get all the backing you need to break the case of the centuyry wide open.

Or, you can continue to try and win points on the internet.

 

[thewholesoul]

And this is what your argument is really all about - winning a debate on the internet.

I have met your type many times before...when you cant criticize the argument, you criticize the person.

But to address your criticism, no my argument is not soley about winning the debate however i would be lying if i said that it wasnt partly about that. I have always been a competative person and like everyone else i like winning, especially debates.

Why do you not take your "evidence" to experts at a university near you. That way, you can get all the backing you need to break the case of the centuyry wide open.

I'm going to set up my own blog. Hopefully the argument should open the minds of some individuals and give other truthers an argument that anti-truthers are unable to answer intelligently - just like you. so i want to thank you for being the first test case you performed exactly how i had expected.

Hopefully when enough individuals are woken up we can put even more pressure on politicians and the congress to hold a new and truly independent investigation. when that is achieved my friend there is so much evidence against the official story that my little argument wont be required at all.

Or, you can continue to try and win points on the internet.

My friend even if some guy tommorrow came out and said that he planted the bombs in the building you still wouldnt believe the truth. even though barry jenning came out on video and said there were explosions in building 7 before either tower fell you still cant believe the truth. there was talk going around to call jennings to face a grand jury so his testimony will be on the record and we could force a new investigation. but guess what, he's dead now at 53 for unknown reasons.

the reason you are unable to face the truth is because you suffer from cognitive dissonance – go look it up.

peace

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

thewholesoul don't stop. They have nothing.

 

[Norseman]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3756514#post3756514

ETA
You asked for it again thewholesoul, the last posts you made in this thread are obviously designed to flame. I will comment on some of your nonsense tomorrow evening yet again, but that will be the end of responding to you as far as I am concerned. I will do it partly to give the interested reader some new information in relation to the subject of this thread. Then I will leave you to pretend that you are winning your silly game as much as you want, just like Monty Python's Black Knight.

 

[Disbelief]

I have met your type many times before...when you cant criticize the argument, you criticize the person.

But to address your criticism, no my argument is not soley about winning the debate however i would be lying if i said that it wasnt partly about that. I have always been a competative person and like everyone else i like winning, especially debates.

Interesting that you took that as criticism. Must have touched a nerve.

I'm going to set up my own blog.

Set up a blog to tackle the crime of the century. Wow, I am unimpressed. Why not go to real experts, since you have tackled the ones here.

Hopefully the argument should open the minds of some individuals and give other truthers an argument that anti-truthers are unable to answer intelligently - just like you. so i want to thank you for being the first test case you performed exactly how i had expected.

Nice ad hom. By the way, I am still unimpressed with your posting your "evidence" on an internet forum.

Hopefully when enough individuals are woken up we can put even more pressure on politicians and the congress to hold a new and truly independent investigation. when that is achieved my friend there is so much evidence against the official story that my little argument wont be required at all.

Yes, hopefully after 7+ years people will be swayed by your blog on the internet. Will you be man enough to link them to this thread where your arguments have been soundly refuted?

My friend even if some guy tommorrow came out and said that he planted the bombs in the building you still wouldnt believe the truth.

No, because I would need more than one man saying he did it. He would need some evidence to back his claim, just like I would expect of anyone.

even though barry jenning came out on video and said there were explosions in building 7 before either tower fell you still cant believe the truth. there was talk going around to call jennings to face a grand jury so his testimony will be on the record and we could force a new investigation.

The same Barry Jennings who is on record on BBC as not backing CTs?

but guess what, he's dead now at 53 for unknown reasons.

Unknown to you (and us for that matter). It does not lend any credibility to your silly theories. Why not go to the appropriate thread.

the reason you are unable to face the truth is because you suffer from cognitive dissonance – go look it up.

peace

Ah, the typical CTist ego. Your arguments have been destroyed in this thread, yet you claim I suffer from cognitive dissonance.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

thewholesoul don't stop. They have nothing.

Oh the Irony!

TWS has ZERO evidence for his bombs theory. ZERO. Not one single shred of evidence to support bombs at all. hence his arguments always avoiding bombs and trying to focus on poking holes at real research (something anyone can do).

On the other hand, ignoring the absolute silly absurdity of the bombs in the basement claims and how idiotic of a concept it is to place bombs in a basement of a building for absolutely no purpose what so ever....EVERY single one of his arguments has been thoroughly debunked. There is no if ands or buts about this. While he pretends they have not been addressed, they have been addressed conclusively.

His biggest mistake which has already been pointed out is his misunderstanding of the principles of sound. This makes him think that because people think they hear something below them, that the source is below them. I have pointed out in the greatest of detail why he is absolutely incorrect about this. So he just ignores it and pretends it, like all of his other errors have not been addressed.

So let TWS claim victory. It's only a victory in his personal little universe that no one else lives in. That's what defines a crackpot.

 

[thewholesoul]

You asked for it again thewholesoul, the last posts you made in this thread are obviously designed to flame.

I apologise for that, you’ve always been a gentleman. I admit i did get carried away a little.

I will comment on some of your nonsense tomorrow evening yet again,

You accepted 1-3 on the 4 line argument. You accept that jet fuel could not have passed car 50 before it reached B1. you are forced therefore to defend the proposition that the damage to the basement [Mike Pecararo] – that actually happened – was the result of a fuel deflagration after car 50 reached B1. there is only one question i will be looking for tommorrow in your response:

how can the jet fuel [liquid/fireball] pass car 50 undetected?

but that will be the end of responding to you as far as I am concerned.

It is regretful but it was inevitable. I observe the very same behaviour from religious adherents when i press their convictions to breaking point. Think about it Norseman your explanation for the first basement explosion has changed from a backdraft, to falling debris, to a shockwave – why is that?

I will do it partly to give the interested reader some new information in relation to the subject of this thread.

i am looking forward to this new information. I do predict however that you will avoid, evade, betittle, ignore, side step and all but hop skip and jump around the most critical question as stated above.

Then I will leave you to pretend that you are winning your silly game as much as you want, just like Monty Python's Black Knight.

This is not a silly game its deadly serious, elements in the U.S. government had foreknowledge of 911 and were most likely involved. Why dont you just support a new investigation? What have you got to lose? Family members are looking for a new investigation, why be so obtuse? again what have you got to lose?

"may justice be done until the heavens fall"

peace

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Well, if you can't win an argument, you can always sit there and accuse everyone of agreeing with you. I suppose that's one way to handle it. I guess that is a pretty extreme type of denial.

 

[thewholesoul]

his arguments has been thoroughly debunked. There is no if ands or buts about this. While he pretends they have not been addressed, they have been addressed conclusively.

here is my argument. now pick a line and provide your reasons why you consider it false. if i was "thoroughly debunked" you could do that right?

(1) [Upon impact] Elevator cables are severed + jet fuel droplets and/or jet fuel fireball descend shaft
(2) Car 50 falls approx. 17 floors taking no more than 5s to reach B1
(3) Jet fuel droplets and/or jet fuel fireball descend 95 floors taking approx. 30s and 15s respectively
(4) The first basement explosion occured below car 50 and before it reached B1

Conclusion: whatever exploded below car 50 and before it reached B1 could not POSSIBLY have been caused by fuel droplets and/or jet fuel fireball.

as for evidence. well if all that damage in the basement was not caused by a fuel deflagration, well what else do you think could have cuased it?

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

so you do not dispute that no-one on B1, 2 or 4 reported smelling kerosene. good.

But didn't Rodriguez smell kerosene on B1?
"When I asked him about the reports of people smelling kerosene (Jet-A fuel is basically kerosene) in the basement levels just after the fireball erupted there, he said he also smelled the kerosene."

when i spoke with william rodriguez he told me that he never said any such thing. now i have a conflict of interest, who to believe? given that their is no public quote of william saying those words only Mark Roberts saying that he did say it, i am afraid that is not enough to convince me.

so the claim stands:
no-one on B1, 2 or 4 reported smelling kerosene

If I'm not mistaken he was on B1
He also said" "And at that terrible day when I took people out of the office, one of them totally burned because he was standing in front of the freight elevator and the ball of fire came down the duct of the elevator itself, I put him on the ambulance."

ask yourself, how would rodriguez know that Felipe was in front of an elevator and whether a fireball came down the shaft he was after all inside an office with 14 other co workers?

the truth is he was told this later much like Ed McCabe

I later on found out the reason there was an explosion was the jet fuel filled the elevator shaft and seconds later a spark triggered an explosion.

have you any more objections?

peace

 

[TexasJack]

TWS is a typical truther, anti-US government, and try to fit a square peg into a round hole not matter what. He is so blinded by his prejudice that he will never objectively look at the evidence.

Truthers live in their own little world, think that they understand simple concepts like Occam's Razor, but don't really understand how complicated their theory is. Instead of accepting the fact that a small group of Jihadists pulled off the crime of the century by using planes as missiles, they complicate the situation by having bombs in the basement. LOL Why? How?

TWS, take Disbelief's suggestion and take your "evidence" to the experts, take it the New York Times or MSNBC, who despise the Bush Administration, and quit wasting your time on an internet forum. I look forward to reading how you cracked the real reasons for the crime of the century.

 

[Kent1]

when i spoke with william rodriguez he told me that he never said any such thing. now i have a conflict of interest, who to believe? given that their is no public quote of william saying those words only Mark Roberts saying that he did say it, i am afraid that is not enough to convince me.

so the claim stands:
no-one on B1, 2 or 4 reported smelling kerosene



ask yourself, how would rodriguez know that Felipe was in front of an elevator and whether a fireball came down the shaft he was after all inside an office with 14 other co workers?

the truth is he was told this later much like Ed McCabe

have you any more objections?

peace

when i spoke with william rodriguez he told me that he never said any such thing. now i have a conflict of interest, who to believe? given that their is no public quote of william saying those words only Mark Roberts saying that he did say it, i am afraid that is not enough to convince me.



ask yourself, how would rodriguez know that Felipe was in front of an elevator and whether a fireball came down the shaft he was after all inside an office with 14 other co workers?

the truth is he was told this later much like Ed McCabe

have you any more objections?

peace

You asked for these statements and I gave them with the information I had.
I can't say who is not telling the truth or not for sure. But I have no reason not to believe Gravy and we clearly know Rodriguez hasn't been very accurate.

With regards to the rest, maybe it was because the of person who had his flesh hanging from his fingertips and others in the basement? According to his statement to NIST this person said "the elevators"


Here is what Rodriguez said to NIST

The fire, the ball of fire, for example, I was in the basement when the first plane hit the building. And at that moment, I thought it was an electrical generator that blew up at that moment. A person comes running into the office saying explosion, explosion, explosion. When I look at this guy; has all his skin pulled off of his body. Hanging from the top of his fingertips like it was a glove. And I said, what happened? He said the elevators. What happened was the ball of fire went down with such a force down the elevator shaft on the 58th (50A) – freight elevator, the biggest freight elevator that we have in the North Tower, it went out with such a force that it broke the cables. It went down, I think seven flights. The person survived because he was pulled from the B3 level. But this person, being in front of the doors waiting for the elevator, practically got his skin vaporized.

So I think we can agree at least that the explosion came from the elevators.
I don't know who told him everything else, did you ask him?

Then of course we have seen how this has changed a bit:
"Seconds after the first massive explosion below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear another explosion from way above," said Rodriguez. "Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower, it occurred moments after the first explosion."

But before Rodriguez had time to think, co-worker Felipe David stormed into the basement office with severe burns on his face and arms, screaming for help and yelling "explosion! explosion! explosion!"

David had been in front of a nearby freight elevator on sub-level 1 about 400 feet from the office when fire burst out of the elevator shaft, causing his injuries.

"He was burned terribly," said Rodriguez. "The skin was hanging off his hands and arms. His injuries couldn’t have come from the airplane above, but only from a massive explosion below. I don’t care what the government says, what scientists say. I saw a man burned terribly from a fire that was caused from an explosion below.
http://www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com/articles/article/1518131/28031.htm



"the truth is he was told this later much like Ed McCabe"

What information do you have regarding this?
Now you are telling me the story has changed again?
How do we fact check the accuracy of many of these statements?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

here is my argument. now pick a line and provide your reasons why you consider it false. if i was "thoroughly debunked" you could do that right?

(1) [Upon impact] Elevator cables are severed + jet fuel droplets and/or jet fuel fireball descend shaft
(2) Car 50 falls approx. 17 floors taking no more than 5s to reach B1
(3) Jet fuel droplets and/or jet fuel fireball descend 95 floors taking approx. 30s and 15s respectively
(4) The first basement explosion occured below car 50 and before it reached B1

Conclusion: whatever exploded below car 50 and before it reached B1 could not POSSIBLY have been caused by fuel droplets and/or jet fuel fireball.

as for evidence. well if all that damage in the basement was not caused by a fuel deflagration, well what else do you think could have cuased it?

peace

You already know the answers to those TWS. And every time they are pointed out, you just reset and pretend they have not been addressed. We're not going to keep repeating the same arguments in this thread because you keep deciding to pretend they ahve not been addressed. You just keep repeating the same thing over and over, which is a violation of the forum rules.

If you think that you can win an argument simply by repeating it so many times that others will get too tired of repeating the same answers, it's not going to work. All 4 points of yours in this thread have repeatedly been shown to be wrong. I recommend you go back and read, but you already know the answers.

Continue on with your delusions.

peace