dropzone
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 24, 2009
- Messages
- 2,033
And I see this as a demonstration of why the internet went downhill when they started letting soft, sympathetic women use it.
Flight 93
- Thread starter 9/11 Chewy Defense
- Start date
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
I see your problem now. Well, one of them, anyway.
You are operating under the mistaken belief that when a law enforcement agency is through with its investigation, it must throw the door open to independent investigations by every Hardy Boys wannabee on the internet, who can then verify that law enforcement did its job properly.
That belief is naive, misguided, and frankly ridiculous.
The FBI and other law enforcement agencies deal in legal proof. That means they must gather evidence that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that what the truth is.
The fact that flight 93's flight recorder, as well as the remains of the passengers that were documented as being on the flight, were found at the crash scene more than meets that criteria. It would be overkill to demand that the entire aircraft be recovered and each individual piece be positively identified as being from flight 93. To doubt that they were from any other source is NOT REASONABLE. The FBI has to prove only beyond a REASONABLE doubt.
Again, your doubts are UNREASONABLE. So they are not relevant.
Not that you will understand any of this.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
And I see this as a demonstration of why the internet went downhill when they started letting soft, sympathetic women use it.
That's exactly why the US women's hocky team didn't win the gold medal.
Bunch of girls....
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
To a certain extent he/she is not mistaken here. Everything the FBI investigates can (and should) be reevaluated by anyone that chooses to do so. News media does it all the time. Where he/she falls off the truck is that he/she wants everything they do to be posted on the internet. Everything the FBI discovered can be found by using the same techniques they used, hard work and determination. "Truthers" are not willing to do this because they don't really want to know the truth.
jammonius
Your response to my posts proving you are a liar, hypocrite, and are full of it is exactly what I expected from someone who just realized they are all those things.
Let me point out that in your first response, post #729, you validate post #716's findings by again making the claim "...that there has not been a valid investigation of the event" without providing any sources. The event being 9/11
And again in this post, #729, you acknowledge HistoryCommons.org as not a "valid source." You go further, like many times before, as stating that there are no "valid sources" for the events of 9/11. This claim, though, is not accompanied with a "valid source." You have also stated, many times, that there are no "valid sources", without providing any "valid sources," that prove or disprove the events of 9/11 which calls into question your presence here. If there is no "valid sources" you can show that disprove the events of 9/11 then you wouldn't be here attempting to disprove them. If you truly believed your own statements then you would have simply posted a simple statement proclaiming "there is no valid sources to prove or disprove the events of 9/11" and left. Instead you stayed and attempted to prove that there is no "valid sources" for the events of 9/11. Though you provided not one "valid source" for your claim.
Also in this post, #729, in an attempt to call me a liar, you failed to provide any "valid sources" of support.
At the end of your post, #729, you make the claim, "lack of on page responses to the factual postings that I have made." It must not have been my post, #716, you were responding to because in that post I, without a doubt, proven you failed to provide one "valid source" for all the claims you made. This means that it is not at all possible that you posted any facts. Again, I have proven, with your own statements, that you are a liar, a hypocrite, and are extremely full of it.
In post #735, your response to agglerithm, you complete show that you didn't understand my post, #716, by stating, "wargord at least made an attempt to recall that I have already painstakingly laid out the basis for determining what is and is not a valid investigation." I did not such thing. I painstakingly proved how you demand sources from others and provide none yourself. I have also proved that you have provided no sources to validate your claim that no proper investigation was conducted. Even if you make the attempt later on your sources will not meet your standards of "valid sources."
You made the claim that the "FBI botched the investigation" and failed to provide any "valid sources" for it. You then declared that it was proven that the "FBI botched the investigation" and now it was time to make them accountable for it. We all are still waiting for your "valid sources" that show the "FBI botched the investigation." Hell, we are all still waiting for your "valid sources" for your claim there was no investigation.
Continuing on in post #735 you made the claim, "it should not be assumed that wargord did a proper job of summarizing what I actually said" but failed, as always, to provide any "valid source" as to why it shouldn't be assumed. It would seem that the only person here who doesn't think I did a good job, let alone a great job, is you.
Your claim, "the fact that the FBI's investigation and what it did to thwart the determination of what happened in Shanksville has been farily thoroughly derailed," has found its way into your post, #735, and, like every other time you have made this claim, you failed to provide a "valid source."
And another arbitrary post number was given for us all to comment on accountability in your claim: "I now give it to post # 775 for posters to address the issue of accountability."
I assure you, jammonius, once you can finally provide a "valid source" showing that the "FBI botched" their investigation or that "there was no investigation" or both we will all start to demand accountability. But to remind you, you must first provide the "valid sources" proving your claims which you have not once done yet. For a source on that claim see post #716.
Your last claim in post #735, "I think it fair for me to ask this of you as I have here dealt in detail with wargord's dirty little syllogism and did not try to skip over it at all. See more below" shows, once again, your aptitude for lying as you failed to address anything of my post in detail. You simply claimed what I posted was a sad attempt to derail everyone, nothing could be further from the truth. Once again, with your own statements, I have shown you to be a liar.
In post #736 you referenced my exceptional post proving you to be a liar by asking about only one of the many examples of your lies. This would be post #226. In your post #736, regarding your post #226, you make the claim, "The misrepresentation in the above is based on the kind of evidence involved; namely: photographic evidence. You, wargord, and apparently you alone, will have noticed that I have said that photographs can be valid evidence and provide the sort of evidence that citizens can analyze, or words to that effect. I think the context of that statement also contained a reference to the work of Dr. Judy Wood. I think I also mentioned the fact that the recent story about the release of 3000 new photographs were said to be an important source. I think I also said those photos were not actually new and were already on Dr. Wood's website. Do you recall that post and is it one of those you've mentioned by number but not by content?" This claim and what your post 226 are at complete odds with each other. Here you seem to think you said that photographs are "valid sources" and somehow your are under the impression that you referenced Judy Wood and other such rubbish. Well, here is your post 226 in its entirety, if you would be so kind as to point out where you made those statements:
And in post #165 you ask this question to beachnut, "Did someone in authority make a declaration that the photo is proof that Flight 93crashed there? If so, post it up." You are directly saying that if a person in authority doesn't declare that a photo of an incident is proof of said incident then the photo cannot be used as a "valid source." The only thing you have ever claimed to be a valid source are the first responders, but only Wallace Miller, and only his out of context quotes.
I particularly like your next claim, "So, the point is, anyone can look at a picture (and its equivalent of '1000 words' as the saying goes) and make a determination as to what it shows. That is what I did and that is what I invite others to do." It as if you are saying that one photograph is of whatever the viewer wants it to be. I, mean, that is simply not true and a completely stupid remark. One picture is said to be worth a thousand words because of the thoughts and emotions it may provoke in its viewers, not that each viewer can individually determine what the picture shows. My source for this is logic and common sense.
I engaged in no such misrepresentation when showing your claims about beachnuts photo. You made a claim, you didn't provide a "valid source" for said claim, you did what you keep telling others not to do. Plus, it doesn't matter what you think a photo shows or not, the fact that the photo is of the debris from UA Flight 93 crashing will never change just because you say it isn't debris. You actually said it was a better picture for a UFO or ghost, again without providing any "valid sources."
It has been shown to you, using logic, that the picture in question is from UA Flight 93, a Boeing 757-222. You failed to accept anyone's proof because you kept claiming none of it was a "valid source."
And the last sentence of this post is, yet again, "So, up to post # 775 we go to see if anyone will comment on the FBI's wanton destruction of the Shanksville investigation." No "valid sources" provided at all.
In post 745 you make the most blatant of your lies yet.
As a response to aggle-rithm asking for your evidence of the "FBI's wanton destruction of the Shanksville investigation," you state "Already done. The standard here consisted in the process of using multiple sources. They are:" This lie cannot stand as I have already proven you only accepted "valid source" is Wallace Miller, but only his out of context quotes, from newspapers you have already declared invalid of ever being a "valid source."
Your evidence is a list of what you have already said could not be used as a "valid source." You use the Moussaoui trial, HistoryCommons.org, and your questions to posters asking for sources and then saying they weren't "valid sources." You must not recall that you have already declared that the Moussaoui trial is not a "valid source." The same with HistoryCommons.org, you acknowledged they are not a "valid source" but now you use them again as a source.
Must I always have to point out how wrong you are all the time jammonius. I don't even have to correct my two year old this much. You have failed to get one thing right in any of your posts. You declare things as not being a valid source and then go on to use them as a source and claim you provided a valid source for your claims. Even when this is proven to you, you say you didn't do, and then go right on to do it again. What is wrong with you? Seriously! I have never come into contact with someone so against logic and reason, and reality, as you. I fear that you truly believe everything you say. And that makes me pity you. I am sorry that someone has damaged you to this point. Please try to get the help you need and really try to live the rest of your life in peace and happiness.
I strongly urge everyone to abandon all hope of trying to educate this poor damaged child. If we all just ignore his gibberish then maybe he will understand he needs help and actually seek it out. It is our duty to help this little one get better and continually engaging him in his delusions is counterproductive to that end.
jammonius, get help, get well. Peace.
Your response to my posts proving you are a liar, hypocrite, and are full of it is exactly what I expected from someone who just realized they are all those things.
Let me point out that in your first response, post #729, you validate post #716's findings by again making the claim "...that there has not been a valid investigation of the event" without providing any sources. The event being 9/11
And again in this post, #729, you acknowledge HistoryCommons.org as not a "valid source." You go further, like many times before, as stating that there are no "valid sources" for the events of 9/11. This claim, though, is not accompanied with a "valid source." You have also stated, many times, that there are no "valid sources", without providing any "valid sources," that prove or disprove the events of 9/11 which calls into question your presence here. If there is no "valid sources" you can show that disprove the events of 9/11 then you wouldn't be here attempting to disprove them. If you truly believed your own statements then you would have simply posted a simple statement proclaiming "there is no valid sources to prove or disprove the events of 9/11" and left. Instead you stayed and attempted to prove that there is no "valid sources" for the events of 9/11. Though you provided not one "valid source" for your claim.
Also in this post, #729, in an attempt to call me a liar, you failed to provide any "valid sources" of support.
At the end of your post, #729, you make the claim, "lack of on page responses to the factual postings that I have made." It must not have been my post, #716, you were responding to because in that post I, without a doubt, proven you failed to provide one "valid source" for all the claims you made. This means that it is not at all possible that you posted any facts. Again, I have proven, with your own statements, that you are a liar, a hypocrite, and are extremely full of it.
In post #735, your response to agglerithm, you complete show that you didn't understand my post, #716, by stating, "wargord at least made an attempt to recall that I have already painstakingly laid out the basis for determining what is and is not a valid investigation." I did not such thing. I painstakingly proved how you demand sources from others and provide none yourself. I have also proved that you have provided no sources to validate your claim that no proper investigation was conducted. Even if you make the attempt later on your sources will not meet your standards of "valid sources."
You made the claim that the "FBI botched the investigation" and failed to provide any "valid sources" for it. You then declared that it was proven that the "FBI botched the investigation" and now it was time to make them accountable for it. We all are still waiting for your "valid sources" that show the "FBI botched the investigation." Hell, we are all still waiting for your "valid sources" for your claim there was no investigation.
Continuing on in post #735 you made the claim, "it should not be assumed that wargord did a proper job of summarizing what I actually said" but failed, as always, to provide any "valid source" as to why it shouldn't be assumed. It would seem that the only person here who doesn't think I did a good job, let alone a great job, is you.
Your claim, "the fact that the FBI's investigation and what it did to thwart the determination of what happened in Shanksville has been farily thoroughly derailed," has found its way into your post, #735, and, like every other time you have made this claim, you failed to provide a "valid source."
And another arbitrary post number was given for us all to comment on accountability in your claim: "I now give it to post # 775 for posters to address the issue of accountability."
I assure you, jammonius, once you can finally provide a "valid source" showing that the "FBI botched" their investigation or that "there was no investigation" or both we will all start to demand accountability. But to remind you, you must first provide the "valid sources" proving your claims which you have not once done yet. For a source on that claim see post #716.
Your last claim in post #735, "I think it fair for me to ask this of you as I have here dealt in detail with wargord's dirty little syllogism and did not try to skip over it at all. See more below" shows, once again, your aptitude for lying as you failed to address anything of my post in detail. You simply claimed what I posted was a sad attempt to derail everyone, nothing could be further from the truth. Once again, with your own statements, I have shown you to be a liar.
In post #736 you referenced my exceptional post proving you to be a liar by asking about only one of the many examples of your lies. This would be post #226. In your post #736, regarding your post #226, you make the claim, "The misrepresentation in the above is based on the kind of evidence involved; namely: photographic evidence. You, wargord, and apparently you alone, will have noticed that I have said that photographs can be valid evidence and provide the sort of evidence that citizens can analyze, or words to that effect. I think the context of that statement also contained a reference to the work of Dr. Judy Wood. I think I also mentioned the fact that the recent story about the release of 3000 new photographs were said to be an important source. I think I also said those photos were not actually new and were already on Dr. Wood's website. Do you recall that post and is it one of those you've mentioned by number but not by content?" This claim and what your post 226 are at complete odds with each other. Here you seem to think you said that photographs are "valid sources" and somehow your are under the impression that you referenced Judy Wood and other such rubbish. Well, here is your post 226 in its entirety, if you would be so kind as to point out where you made those statements:
And in post #165 you ask this question to beachnut, "Did someone in authority make a declaration that the photo is proof that Flight 93crashed there? If so, post it up." You are directly saying that if a person in authority doesn't declare that a photo of an incident is proof of said incident then the photo cannot be used as a "valid source." The only thing you have ever claimed to be a valid source are the first responders, but only Wallace Miller, and only his out of context quotes.
I particularly like your next claim, "So, the point is, anyone can look at a picture (and its equivalent of '1000 words' as the saying goes) and make a determination as to what it shows. That is what I did and that is what I invite others to do." It as if you are saying that one photograph is of whatever the viewer wants it to be. I, mean, that is simply not true and a completely stupid remark. One picture is said to be worth a thousand words because of the thoughts and emotions it may provoke in its viewers, not that each viewer can individually determine what the picture shows. My source for this is logic and common sense.
I engaged in no such misrepresentation when showing your claims about beachnuts photo. You made a claim, you didn't provide a "valid source" for said claim, you did what you keep telling others not to do. Plus, it doesn't matter what you think a photo shows or not, the fact that the photo is of the debris from UA Flight 93 crashing will never change just because you say it isn't debris. You actually said it was a better picture for a UFO or ghost, again without providing any "valid sources."
It has been shown to you, using logic, that the picture in question is from UA Flight 93, a Boeing 757-222. You failed to accept anyone's proof because you kept claiming none of it was a "valid source."
And the last sentence of this post is, yet again, "So, up to post # 775 we go to see if anyone will comment on the FBI's wanton destruction of the Shanksville investigation." No "valid sources" provided at all.
In post 745 you make the most blatant of your lies yet.
As a response to aggle-rithm asking for your evidence of the "FBI's wanton destruction of the Shanksville investigation," you state "Already done. The standard here consisted in the process of using multiple sources. They are:" This lie cannot stand as I have already proven you only accepted "valid source" is Wallace Miller, but only his out of context quotes, from newspapers you have already declared invalid of ever being a "valid source."
Your evidence is a list of what you have already said could not be used as a "valid source." You use the Moussaoui trial, HistoryCommons.org, and your questions to posters asking for sources and then saying they weren't "valid sources." You must not recall that you have already declared that the Moussaoui trial is not a "valid source." The same with HistoryCommons.org, you acknowledged they are not a "valid source" but now you use them again as a source.
Must I always have to point out how wrong you are all the time jammonius. I don't even have to correct my two year old this much. You have failed to get one thing right in any of your posts. You declare things as not being a valid source and then go on to use them as a source and claim you provided a valid source for your claims. Even when this is proven to you, you say you didn't do, and then go right on to do it again. What is wrong with you? Seriously! I have never come into contact with someone so against logic and reason, and reality, as you. I fear that you truly believe everything you say. And that makes me pity you. I am sorry that someone has damaged you to this point. Please try to get the help you need and really try to live the rest of your life in peace and happiness.
I strongly urge everyone to abandon all hope of trying to educate this poor damaged child. If we all just ignore his gibberish then maybe he will understand he needs help and actually seek it out. It is our duty to help this little one get better and continually engaging him in his delusions is counterproductive to that end.
jammonius, get help, get well. Peace.
Seeing as you are in such an accepting mood, could you know be so kind as to answer BigAls question as to how the DNA from those who went through manifest and got onto flight 93 - got to Shanksville 120mins later?
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
I was thinking mainly about the notion that the FBI has to maintain a documented chain of custody in perpetuity after the investigation is complete. Apparently, jammonius thinks that the evidence must be kept pristine forever AND be available for all manner of trolls to rifle through and put their grubby hands all over it, all the while scratching their heads and hooting in frustration as they attempt to comprehend the significance of what they're looking at.
That's a standard that guarantees no evidence will ever be good enough.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
Excellent post. Unfortunately, it will be lost on jammonius, who will try to respond by besting your word density and font sizes without actually taking in much of the content.
I'm starting to feel sorry for him, poor little troll.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Bingo! Thus keeping the conspiracy alive forever. He/she is a perfect example of Jay Windley's quote in my sig.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
I would be interested in the answer too.
dafydd, and others,
I do not think you want an answer to Big Al's question. Rather, you want the rhetoric of Big Al to be understood as meaning that since Big Al claims there are human remains at Shanksville that come from Newark, therefore Big Al has proven that Flight 93 crashed at Shanksville and therefore further, all is well with the common myth and that myth cannot be challenged.
Clearly, when evidence is presented showing that the claim Flight 93 crashed at Shanksville is false or unproven, that evidence is not welcomed and dialogue on the matter is purposefully ignored and denied.
Even wargord, in seeking to say s/he has read the posts that have shown Flight 93 has not been proven to have crashed at Shanksville, skips right over that proof and seeks, instead, to rely on syllogistic replies coupled with epithets.
Still, others ask for additional responses based on Big Al? That is a bit odd, in and of itself.
This is now right at the post #775 limit, posters.
There clearly is no desire here in this thread, on the part of you posters, to acknowledge that proof that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville hasn't been established and that the investigation of that area has been purposefully and willfully trashed out such that no determination of what happened can be made.
I will close with a reference to a basic, raw data document. that was made available through a variety of sources, including 911myths, History Commons and the 9/11 Commission. This is a document that reconfirms that there was a reference to FL 93 being near Hagerstown MD at or about the time it was said to have crashed in Shanksville.
Please see pgs 37-39 of the following DOT document. Please note that on pg 2, it contains a certification of accuracy, something that serves as a form of document validation of the type I have discussed:
http://www.historycommons.org/sourcedocuments/2003/usdepartmentoftransportation031014.pdf
The context of the above document consists in the following:
"United Airlines official Sandy Rogers calls Ellen King at the FAA’s Command Center to discuss Flight 93. The timing of the call is not known specifically, although it appears to be after the Pentagon was hit and could not be long after Flight 93 is thought to have crashed, which is shortly after 10:00 a.m. (see (10:03 a.m.-10:10 a.m.) September 11, 2001 and (10:06 a.m.) September 11, 2001). Rogers tells King that Flight 93 has been hijacked, and King responds, “Oh God… thank you,” indicating she was previously unaware of the hijacking. However, the FAA had been aware of the situation since a few minutes after the hijacking took place (see (9:33 a.m.) September 11, 2001 and 9:34 a.m. September 11, 2001). Rogers also says: “It’s over Hagerstown now and you’re not aware of it. It’s heading toward Washington, DC, and we are under a threat of a hijacking on board and this flight is out of our control now heading toward Washington, DC.” Rogers states that United Airlines is “advising the military” about the plane and King also says that the FAA will do the same. [Federal Aviation Authority, 10/14/2003, pp. 37-39 ] However, there are no other reports of Flight 93 ever being over Hagerstown, which is in Maryland. Flight 93 is said to crash in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, and is thought never to reach Maryland. There will be some—apparently mistaken—reports that the plane is still airborne after it is thought to have crashed (see (Between 10:10 a.m. and 10:15 a.m.) September 11, 2001 and 10:10 a.m.-10:11 a.m. September 11, 2001), and this may be another such report."
In an earlier post in this thread, I have already shown the following:
1--No analysis of the debris field, and therefore no way to determine cause of crash of whatever crashed at Shanksville.
2--The time of crash cannot be determined because NTSB was not allowed to do necessary investigation to make a determination of time of crash.
3--Existing data show an up to seven minute discrepancy in time of crash, as follows:
"Exactly when Flight 93 crashes remains unclear. According to NORAD, Flight 93 crashes at 10:03 a.m. [North American Aerospace Defense Command, 9/18/2001] The 9/11 Commission gives an exact time of 11 seconds after 10:03 a.m. It will claim this “time is supported by evidence from the staff’s radar analysis, the flight data recorder, NTSB [National Transportation Safety Board] analysis, and infrared satellite data.” It does note that “[t]he precise crash time has been the subject of some dispute.” [9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004] However, a seismic study authorized by the US Army and drafted by scientists Won-Young Kim and Gerald Baum to determine when the plane crashed will conclude that the crash happened at 10:06:05 a.m. [Kim and Baum, 2002 ; San Francisco Chronicle, 12/9/2002] The discrepancy is so puzzling that the Philadelphia Daily News will publish an article on the issue, titled “Three-Minute Discrepancy in Tape.” This notes that leading seismologists agree on the 10:06 a.m. time, give or take a couple of seconds. [Philadelphia Daily News, 9/16/2002] The New York Observer will note that, in addition to the seismology study, “The FAA gives a crash time of 10:07 a.m. In addition, the New York Times, drawing on flight controllers in more than one FAA facility, put the time at 10:10 a.m. Up to a seven-minute discrepancy? In terms of an air disaster, seven minutes is close to an eternity. The way our nation has historically treated any airline tragedy is to pair up recordings from the cockpit and air traffic control and parse the timeline down to the hundredths of a second. However, as [former Inspector General of the Transportation Department] Mary Schiavo points out, ‘We don’t have an NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) investigation here, and they ordinarily dissect the timeline to the thousandth of a second.’” [New York Observer, 2/15/2004]"
The above sources range from newspaper to 9/11 Commission to Norad to NTSB and so on. The indisputable point is that the time of the crash has not been reliably established.
When the lack of time of crash is combined with the certified DOT data that show discussion of FL 93 being near Hagerstown when it was supposed to have crashed elsewhere combine to confirm that Big Al merely wants us to ASSUME FL 93 crashed, irrespective of the data found in this post and irrespective of witnesses like Wally Miller who say they saw no plane debris or remains.
Not only that, Big Al isn't even required to post up his DNA data that, as I have said before, isn't persuasive either as far as I know. But, maybe Big Al has some DNA data I haven't seen. I know he refers to AFIP and I know that Big Al knows the AFIP data is inconclusive.
So, posters, please feel free to go on your merry way, content in your 'group think' and in the processes you have used to ignore my query that you deal with the issue of accountability for the botching of the FL 93 investigation.
Let me here remind you that my last post on this topic, like most others, is sourced with available information. In this instance, certified source data is relied on.
all the best
Last edited:
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
So how did the passenger's DNA get from Newark to Shanksville in 120 minutes?
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
What is odd is that you post paragraph after paragraph of filler without ever giving a straight answer to a simple question.
jammounius makes insane posts, off topic, spewing lies, fantasy, and pure stupid. Self debunking posts.
The FDR shows all systems working prior to impact, making a shoot down another failed delusion.
The FDR shows all systems working prior to impact, making a shoot down another failed delusion.
Last edited:
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
I was about to write a caution about this post causing Jam's brain irrepairable harm, but then I realized that if his head hasn't exploded yet from that much cognitive dissonance, it'll never explode.
Either that, or his cranium's saving up enough to be the biggest boom since Bikini Atoll
. Maybe minimum safe distance is called for here...aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
Yep, he appears to just be repeating himself now. He has clearly traded logic and critical thinking for repetition, sophistry, and large, colorful fonts.
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
I was about to write a caution about this post causing Jam's brain irrepairable harm, but then I realized that if his head hasn't exploded yet from that much cognitive dissonance, it'll never explode.
Either that, or his cranium's saving up enough to be the biggest boom since Bikini Atoll
There will be no safe distance.