Ed All 43 videos "Second Hit"" [Explosion]at WTC 2: Plane or No Plane?

[tsig]

Let me double check for accuracy of understanding. Do you claim that your 1 word declaration serves to refute anything, anything at all that I have posted?

I can tell you that if you think your 1 word declaration serves to refute something I have said, you are mistaken. The reason you are mistaken is that your declaration is not self-actualizing. You have failed to post up any objective reasoning in support of your declaration. Accordingly, everything I said in post # 1243 stands as valid and unchallenged as of this point in the thread.

See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6077002&postcount=1243

The fact that you posted this post shows that you didn't see the post you are responding to.

 

[fess]

“Lurkers”, please come into the light and help Jammonius get out of his hole.

And while you are here, think about this.
How many thousands of people would it take to pull off this hoax that Jammonius lays claim to?
I mean, we are talking about many “teevee” network employees, newspaper employees, radio network employees; not only from the US, but from many different countries.
Hundreds of firefighters, police officers, private sector employees, and such.
The USAF from Cheyenne Mountain to Rome NY, and various airbases. Quite possibly, members of the Army, the Navy, the Marines, and even possibly the Coast Guard also.
The list would go on and on, more than likely into the tens of thousands of people… with not one reliable whistleblower yet to come forth. Holy crap!

 

[jammonius]

I think that a direct answer can be summed up with two sentences, the first being a one word answer (Yes, no, maybe), the second a very brief reason why. This would eliminate the need to sift through a 500 word post for an answer that should be under 40 or so.

We are definitely off on the wrong foot. I do not understand you.

Your post # 1206 stated:

Witnesses saw the plane, video captured the plane, physical evidence of the plane and passengers were found.

That is your major premise and the real question. My prior post, post # 1168 showed that your major premise was not correct, and/or, not substantiated, and/or shown to be false by way of evidence:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6072024&postcount=1168

Post # 1168:

...

Your claim is false. I have proven the contention there is no sound of a jetliner in the videos in a number of ways. Let me give a few examples:

1--The passersby in the Dick Oliver video do not respond as if a jetliner is near them and the sound that can be heard is that of the buses that are next to the camera, literally, and the subway atop which the camera sits, again literally.

2--The verifiable witnesses uniformly report an "explosion" and not a "plane crash."

So, right there, I am basing my assertion on what the data show. What the direct evidence indicates. Witnesses are forms of direct evidence; even moreso than are video cameras.

3--The video evidence that informs this thread, as shown in Bill Smith's example, easily show that the videos do not properly support the claim a 767 is involved.

In the first of the two new analytical videos linked by Bill Smith, the video plane images don't match. In the second, which is actually the so-called "best angle" video, the sound of a jetliner is not heard. That sound is not that of a jetliner. True, posters can disagree about that; and so be it. However, disapgreement does not prove the one or the other. In addition to no sound of a jetliner, there is also a woefully stupid depiction of a plane crash in that video; thus falsifiying it separate and apart from the sound issue. And, recall, we have an eyewitness, Stephen Gregory, who also describes the sound as being something other than a plane. So, to the extent you say you can hear a jetliner better than I can hear a jetliner; or, as is your wont, that you are right and I am wrong, that issue is resolved on the basis of what the best eyewitness said; namely, he (Stephen Gregory) didn't think he heard a pland and he knows he didn't see one.

You are trumped, out in the open this time, Lapman, so that even the Lurkers know it now.

Even in the so-called "best video" there is no explosion on impact, no debris and no other indicator of a actual jetliner crash. And, in addition, NIST fudged their analysis in that respect by obfuscation of the obvious falsity

Note this, lurkers:

In 43 different video versions, not one of them provides an image that one can comfortably say is a Boeing 767. In the very best of the lot, the image is fuzzy, off color and opaque. In the very worst of the lot, the image doesn't even remotely look like a jetliner and could be one of a million different things, for all we know.

LOOK AT THE VIDEO

Epistemologically understood, people form their impressions based mostly on what they see and what they hear, combined and synthesized, to form what can be properly called a "database." Based on the information derived from what the actual witnesses really said (including the witnesses Edx tried to rely on), they almost unanimously say they saw and they heard an explosion. That is near onto 100% true with respect to the North Tower and is also true for the South Tower, once the ambiguity contained in the statements actually made by the PLANE SPOTTERS are taken into consideration.

Had the database they had been supportive of "a plane crash" it is very clear that they would have said "plane crash" rather than "explosion" because that is a more specific description of an event and a more dramatic and compelling experience as well. They would also have said "I saw" rather than "we saw" which is a clear attempt to say the following: "While I was standing there, I didn't see a plane, I only saw that on teevee; but someone near me must have seen the plane because I thouht I heard someone say they saw a plane."

That is how rationalization and justification of the common storyline works.

By the way, I am quoting eyewitness Asst. Commn. Stephen Gregory, the highest ranking firefighter on duty, who said "...I didn't see a plane while I was standing there, I only saw that later on teevee..." (paraphrase)

Put simply, when one sees a plane crash one does not report that one has seen an explosion.

In summary, I have supported the NO PLANE claim with live, real and verifiable witness accounts; video, audio, investigation incongruities involving, among other things, the following:

a--The cover for fraud and deception allowed by the military exercises then and there taking place that hopelessly confound any claims based on radar data or other indicators of actual flights versus imaginary ones.

b--The lack of any real identification of plane parts, thus the complete lack of verification that any crash(es) occurred.

c--The phony DNA data claims that are not data, but are, instead, "experiments" or forms of "exercises" that are misleadingly presented as being investigatory of 9/11 when they were not intended or done for that purpose, with the possible exception of identification of victims of the explosion at the Pentagon. Talk about "cannon fodder"? sheesh

d--Fraudulent NIST study that proved nothing at all and only obfuscated the nature of the event, without explaining what happened.

Lapman, I suggest you stop claiming the lack of substantiation on my part; and, instead, openly admit that the claim there are "1000s of witnesses" is false. Doing that would set you on a course leading to the right direction; namely, that direction that will enable you to distinguish the real from the unreal.

The remainder of your post is misleading, improper rhetoric for a couple of reasons:

1) It assumes what not only hasn't been proven, but what has been shown not to be true (that is what post # 1168 does, at least until someone attempts to refute it, and no one has).

2) You then change the subject to an unrelated hypothetical that really does not warrant a response as it would derail the discussion at hand. If you want to talk about proof of murder, then do so in a "proof of murder" thread.

You asked:

Tell me (briefly), if a murder was committed, and the police had eyewitnesses, video, and DNA that confirmed the identity of the murderer, would this be enough evidence to convict said murderer?

That is an unwarranted derail, imho. Your real question has, however, been fully answered.

 

[djlunacee]

We are definitely off on the wrong foot. I do not understand you.

Your post # 1206 stated:



That is your major premise and the real question. My prior post, post # 1168 showed that your major premise was not correct, and/or, not substantiated, and/or shown to be false by way of evidence:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6072024&postcount=1168

Post # 1168:



The remainder of your post is misleading, improper rhetoric for a couple of reasons:

1) It assumes what not only hasn't been proven, but what has been shown not to be true (that is what post # 1168 does, at least until someone attempts to refute it, and no one has).

2) You then change the subject to an unrelated hypothetical that really does not warrant a response as it would derail the discussion at hand. If you want to talk about proof of murder, then do so in a "proof of murder" thread.

You asked:



That is an unwarranted derail, imho. Your real question has, however, been fully answered.

Murder not relevant? I beg to differ, it is the subject, 3000 counts, like it or not, the bottom line of this entire subforum is who is responsible for the mass murder of 3000 people on 09/11/2001, you might want to keep that in mind.

 

[jammonius]

Greetings Redtail,

No, it's not. I can understand why you would want it to be but alas, wishing doesn't make it so.

We are not making a lot of progress here, IMHO. You have responded to my claim that you were engaging in an a priori declaration with a statement that includes yet another such declaration:

"No it's not" is also an a priori declaration being both the converse of and fully refuted by the declaration "Yes it is."

No progress is made in the utterance back and forth, to and fro of such declarations.

You do not support your declaration with any reasoned or substantiated response.

Instead you say:

No, "we" still includes him. I know that it throws your theory off, but you're just going to have to revise your theory.

That is a priori with a slightly different twist, but with no reasoning based on the subject matter at hand; namely, whether or not and to what extent does a declaration "we saw" create ambiguity as to what was really seen and by whom was it seen.

I will here try to get beyond the a priori stage as follows:

"We saw" is ambiguous because:

1--The group is not identified. Depending upon the size of the group, the declaration "we saw" might be strengthened or weakened as to its accuracy or its plausibility. For instance, if the group numbered say, 3 persons or fewer, then a unanimous sighting might be a bit more believable, subject to certain other conditions being assessed, because the parameters of the group would make consensus relatively easy to establish. But, the ambiguity here is that we do not know the size of Dr. Matthews viewing party, do we? Neither you nor I can add to those details in a speculative manner. We simply do not know.

2--The declaration does not establish how the observation that there was a group who saw the same thing came about or was arrived at. For instance did Dr. Matthews say "look at that" followed by a unanimous group response "yes it's a plane." Or did Dr. Matthews say "look at that plane" in a context where some or one of the others might have thought to themselves "what plane, wtf, that's an explosion"? Did anyone who might have been wanting to say "wtf, that's an explosion" have a subordinate relationship with Dr. Matthews and therefore could not easily or readily contradict him?

Or, vice versa, was, say, the Bishop present and a member of the "we" delegation? Did the Bishop say "look at that Boeing 767" and did Dr. Matthews think "wtf is this dude talking about" only to then acquiesce in the claim because it was, afterall, the Bishop who was making it? Once again, we do not know the constiutents, much less the personal relationships involved in the group giving rise to the declaration "we saw" therefore that declaration is demonstrably ambiguous.

3--What if the group were large, something that we also do not know on the basis of the information imparted to us. If there were, say, 10 or more people, it would not be easy for Dr. Matthews to have conducted a full and accurate polling of all of them. We cannot know, for instance, how many stayed for the duration of the poll? We cannot know how many walked away? We cannot ascertain whether there dissent in the group initially, only to then resolve into consensus once everyone's notes were compared? And, if there was not initial consensus, we cannot know what pressures caused the dissenters to cave in. After all, sometimes people agree to something that is not true, correct? We do not and cannot know any of this.

Thusly, is the claim that "we saw" is ambiguous demonstrated.

(Not a big deal I assure you. I had to go through many revisions on my masters thesis.)

Congratulations on your educational achievement.

A priori =

"A presumption made before an analysis is undertaken, often based on experiences, beliefs, or deductions from seemingly self-evident propositions about how the world works. "

 

[TheRedWorm]

See the problem is, you just declare the evidence to be in doubt without any firm basis in reality. There is literally no reason to discount the convergent lines of evidence, yet you do so with the wave of a hand. Evidence does not cease to exist just because you don't want to acknowledge it.

 

[jammonius]

See the problem is, you just declare the evidence to be in doubt without any firm basis in reality. There is literally no reason to discount the convergent lines of evidence, yet you do so with the wave of a hand. Evidence does not cease to exist just because you don't want to acknowledge it.

The above can fairly be described as obstinate.

As to witnesses, I have demonstrated that THERE ARE witnesses who say they neither saw nor heard a plane while being perfectly postioned to have done so had that been the case. I am entitled to draw reasonable inferences from those facts.

Equally important, among the PAPD reports, nearly all of those who called in to report an incident said they "saw or heard an explosion." That is a fact. That evidence is NOT in doubt. What is in doubt is what conclusion can be drawn from what people actually said they saw and heard?

Let me ask you this, RedWorm. Do you hold that the proposion that two Boeing 767s crashed into the WTC on 9/11 true because that is what you believe?

The fact that not one single part, piece or portion of a jetliner was indentified by serial or part number in any official investigation is true and beyond contradiction.

Do you, yourself, acknowledge that to be true, RedWorm, or do you dispute the claim?

There is no official DNA identification for any passenger that can be traced to an official, admissible as evidence forensic report for either Flight 11 or 175.

Once again, do you disbelieve this claim on the basis of evidence; or, do you disbelieve it just because?

There is no viable radar data, that is to say data that is distinguished from the exercises then and there taking place that can be shown to exist.

Once again, if you disagree, do you have a source?

The video of the event are mutually contradictory because they do not have convincing sound in most instances; do not show a truly identifiable jetliner as such, in almost all instances; and do not show a convincing impact and explosion IN ANY INSTANCE.

NIST substantiates the foregoing in a very around about way by acknowledging that their simulations are "partially validated" by the observed data which could just as accurately (and more truthfully) have been stated our results are "partially invalidated."

The passenger lists that only emerged more than 1 year after the event are completely inadmissible as evidence and have not ever been shown to exist in admissible as evidence form.

Once again, if you believe otherwise, kindly so state and source the basis of your belief.

 

[jammonius]

Well, thanks Jam. I've been lurking this thread, but really haven't felt the need to post anything. I mean..come on..."we saw the plane" somehow means they didn't see the plane? Even for you Jam, that's a stretch.

Wait a minute. You are not doing full justice to the situation we find ourselves in in talking about Dr. Matthews' statement. First of all, the statement is not evidence because it comes from a secondary "he said/he said" source. That is problem number 1.

I am surprised, but only a little, based on the tendency towards 'rationalizaion' when it comes to thinking about 9/11, by the insistence here that "we saw" is not ambiguous when, plainly, that declaration is ambiguous.

Take a look at post # 1265 and let me know your thoughts.

best

 

[jammonius]

Murder not relevant? I beg to differ, it is the subject, 3000 counts, like it or not, the bottom line of this entire subforum is who is responsible for the mass murder of 3000 people on 09/11/2001, you might want to keep that in mind.

OK, have it your way. Do you realize, however, that in putting it in that context, namely, that of murder, the burden of proving what happened becomes more difficult.

To prove someone committed murder, the level of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt," right?

The prosecution side has the burden of proof, right?

The defense side does not have to prove a darn thing and does not even have to account for their actions.

The defendants are presumed innocent.

Let me know if you disagree with any of this.

Finally, if you want to think about how a prosecution would go about proving what happened on 9/11 -- beyond a reasonable doubt -- you might begin to have a moment of awakening as to why there haven't been any real trials.

Good luck

 

[jammonius]

And while you are here, think about this.
How many thousands of people would it take to pull off this hoax that Jammonius lays claim to?
I mean, we are talking about many “teevee” network employees, newspaper employees, radio network employees; not only from the US, but from many different countries.
Hundreds of firefighters, police officers, private sector employees, and such.
The USAF from Cheyenne Mountain to Rome NY, and various airbases. Quite possibly, members of the Army, the Navy, the Marines, and even possibly the Coast Guard also.
The list would go on and on, more than likely into the tens of thousands of people… with not one reliable whistleblower yet to come forth. Holy crap!

Hey Lurkers,

Would some of you kindly send a PM to Fess and give him a heads up that his stated concerns were fully addressed in post # 1224, back on pg. 31.

That post contains, among other forms of proof of claim, the following:

"The military exercises were a means by which the deception of 9/11 was carried out and a means that could incorporate the activity of a lot of unknowing participants, such that as few as a handful of people might have known what was real and what was not."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6075620&postcount=1224

Come on Fess, please keep up with the pace.

 

[jammonius]

You can “kiss up” to Macgyver1968 until the cows come home, but, I don’t think he will turn into the “lurker” like sts75 that comes forth to pull you out of the hole you have dug for yourself. Not that sts75 managed to do that.

My apologies to you Macgyver1968, I meant no disrespect in using your name in this post.

There are more where sts75 came from, I am sure.

 

[rbanks1]

It's obvious that Jamonius cannot be reasoned with, and there is absolutley NOTHING anyone can say to cause him to re-examine his misguided position and ideas. Come on people, this person is trying to prove that no aircraft crashed into the WTC towers by showing videos of aircraft crashing into the towers?

It's also obvious that Jammonius needs an audience, and this thread is his stage to perform on. He's been made the center of attention, and he's loving it. Communicating with this obviously deluded and misguided person in hopes of somehow getting through to him is an exercise in futility. The best thing at this point would be to ignore him and stop enabling this ludicrous farce.

rbanks1

 

[Pinch]

Let me double check for accuracy of understanding. Do you claim that your 1 word declaration serves to refute anything, anything at all that I have posted?

lol...the sound of methane gas escaping from a rear-ward facing orifice is enough to refute *anything* you post here. It makes more sense, as well.

 

[tfk]

Jam,

As to witnesses, I have demonstrated that THERE ARE witnesses who say they neither saw nor heard a plane while being perfectly postioned to have done so had that been the case. I am entitled to draw reasonable inferences from those facts.

Horsepucky.

Two cars collide at an intersection. There are 100 people on the streets nearby.

10 people happened to be looking in the right direction. They all say slight variations of "the red sports car ran the red light".

The other 90 people were reading, distracted, looking the other way, etc.

Only an idiot or a troll concludes that a sensible assessment of this situation is "the evidence is 90-10 that the car did NOT run the red light.

The fact that not one single part, piece or portion of a jetliner was indentified by serial or part number in any official investigation is true and beyond contradiction.

Do you, yourself, acknowledge that to be true, RedWorm, or do you dispute the claim?

Utter bilge.

They were not empty planes that took off that morning. They were assemblies. Assemblies of 4 planes, and lots of passengers, crew & luggage.

33 people from flight 11 & 12 from flight 175 have been identified by DNA analysis.

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/evidence/dailynews_halfvictimsidd.html

Luggage has been ID'd. Airplane parts (that don't have S/N's) have been ID'd.

The absence of mountains of evidence does nothing to negate the conclusions from molehills of other, existent evidence.

In this particular case, absence of molehills of evidence does not negate the mountains of existent, conclusive evidence.

There is no official DNA identification for any passenger that can be traced to an official, admissible as evidence forensic report for either Flight 11 or 175.

It appears that Dr. Charles Hirsch, NYC's chief medical examiner (in 2002) disagrees with you.

As of 9/11/02:
Patrice O'Shaughnessy
NY Daily News Staff Writer
Sept 11, 2002
[same url reference as above]

DNA extractions were done on every one of the 19,906 remains, and 4,735 of those have been identified. ...

The 1,401 people identified include 45 of those aboard the hijacked planes - 33 from Flight 11, which struck the north tower, and 12 from Flight 175, which hit the south tower.

Using DNA alone, 673 people were identified. Using dental records only, 187 were identified; fingerprints only, 71; photo identification, 16; miscellaneous X-rays, 45.

___

Regarding your capricious qualifier:

... that can be traced to an official, admissible as evidence forensic report ...

Please provide "an official, admissible as evidence forensic report" that the earth is round.

Does the absence of such a report constitute a compelling argument that the earth is flat?


Tom

 

[TheRedWorm]

The above can fairly be described as obstinate.

As to witnesses, I have demonstrated that THERE ARE witnesses who say they neither saw nor heard a plane while being perfectly postioned to have done so had that been the case. I am entitled to draw reasonable inferences from those facts.

The only thing you can draw from that is that those specific witnesses did not see or hear the plane. This is hardly surprising, as NYC is a big place with many tall buildings that would obstruct line of sight. Also, at street level, there is a lot of noise that might drown out the sound of an aircraft.

Equally important, among the PAPD reports, nearly all of those who called in to report an incident said they "saw or heard an explosion." That is a fact. That evidence is NOT in doubt. What is in doubt is what conclusion can be drawn from what people actually said they saw and heard?

This simply means that people heard an explosion. I don't doubt that they would define it as such, since many loud, indistinct sounds are often reported as explosions, i.e. gunfire.

Let me ask you this, RedWorm. Do you hold that the proposion that two Boeing 767s crashed into the WTC on 9/11 true because that is what you believe?

I don't believe it, I accept it because that is where the evidence points. Same way that I accept gravity and evolution.

The fact that not one single part, piece or portion of a jetliner was indentified by serial or part number in any official investigation is true and beyond contradiction.

So what? Is that necessary if the aircraft took off and never landed? Is that ever a technique used to identify an aircraft?

Do you, yourself, acknowledge that to be true, RedWorm, or do you dispute the claim?

I don't think it much matters, as seen above.

There is no official DNA identification for any passenger that can be traced to an official, admissible as evidence forensic report for either Flight 11 or 175.

Once again, do you disbelieve this claim on the basis of evidence; or, do you disbelieve it just because?

The bolded sentence sounds like weasel words to me. I am unsure what exactly you mean by it.

There is no viable radar data, that is to say data that is distinguished from the exercises then and there taking place that can be shown to exist.

Once again, if you disagree, do you have a source?

What do you mean by viable?

The video of the event are mutually contradictory because they do not have convincing sound in most instances; do not show a truly identifiable jetliner as such, in almost all instances; and do not show a convincing impact and explosion IN ANY INSTANCE.

what would be convincing? Describe what you would expect to see and hear if actual aircraft struck the buildings. If you don't address any of the rest of this post, please at least anser this question.

NIST substantiates the foregoing in a very around about way by acknowledging that their simulations are "partially validated" by the observed data which could just as accurately (and more truthfully) have been stated our results are "partially invalidated."

They didn't have physical access to the towers at the time of the impact. Partial validation is all they could ever get.

The passenger lists that only emerged more than 1 year after the event are completely inadmissible as evidence and have not ever been shown to exist in admissible as evidence form.

Define what you think admissible means.

Once again, if you believe otherwise, kindly so state and source the basis of your belief.

Again, I don't believe. I accept based on multiple, independent, and convergent lines of evidence. But since you keep bringing it up, allow me to ask: What piece of evidence or line of reasoning would it take for you to accept that planes struck the WTC towers 1 and 2?

 

[fess]

Hey Lurkers,

Would some of you kindly send a PM to Fess and give him a heads up that his stated concerns were fully addressed in post # 1224, back on pg. 31.

Well, my inbox is still empty, and so far, the only messages I have received since joining were from moderators, and one from a poster questioning my avatar. So, I really don’t expect to have to sort through a large amount of messages when I get home later.

That post contains, among other forms of proof of claim, the following:

"The military exercises were a means by which the deception of 9/11 was carried out and a means that could incorporate the activity of a lot of unknowing participants, such that as few as a handful of people might have known what was real and what was not."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6075620&postcount=1224

The above was one of the biggest piles of bovine defecation I have read. The exercise going on during the week of 9/11 was a “Command” type exercise. And to think that only a “hand full” of people were involved in the planning and the carrying out of this exercise is shear nonsense. Even those involved in the day to day “real world” operations knew of this exercise. And that is why the question; "...Is this exercise or real world?..." was asked.

Come on Fess, please keep up with the pace.

Perhaps your pit crew, the “lurkers”, haven’t notified you that you have been lapped by everyone in the field. That includes all of us, or we… damn, that doesn’t include me, or “I”, or… aw, the hell with it.

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

Technically, statements on a message board from anonymous posters is not admissible as evidence <rest of meaningless drivel snipped>

And don't forget Jammie that same goes for YOUR statements ... there is NOTHING in anything that you say that has the merit you insist in others.

There are people on this board whom were actually physically present in NYC on 9/11 or personally know someone who was ... they ALL testify to a commercial aircraft hitting those buildings.

You were NOT physically present ... so therefore, by your OWN standards ... YOUR squawkings are inadmissable !!!

Your still wrong ... and showing increasingly desperation in your enfeebled denial of not just eyewitness and media testimony but the HARD science and reality of FLIGHT AND RADAR data.

YOUR personal incredulity is NOT enough !!!

You, whom has no/zero/nada/zilch experience nor expertise to adequately judge the supposed validity of videos and photographs, don't count to the greater common sense judgements of sane and rational people.

Now I know that in your mind you are coming across as some reasoned, articulate and intellectual man presenting a coherent and absolute argument ... but your NOT !!!

All this psuedo-intellectualizing is bovine fecal matter basically ... you are incredibly transparent ... in fact you remind me of a family member whom when the need to deflect from some personal iniquity would engage in these pretentious and over-blown debates to steer away from his own guilt ...

Baffle with the aforementioned fecal matter basically ... it didn't work for him and it certainly doesn't work for you !!!

You ARE just wrong Jammie ... and too wrapped up in your own self-inflated intellectual abilities to see it.

Someone has to say it Jammie, your an idiot, and all this percieved gentle intellectual arrogance of yours doesn't hide that fact that you are just proper nuts.

Grow up for all your hi-falutin' language fools no-one ... seriously ... you need help ... professional help !!!

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

There are more where sts75 came from, I am sure.

Only in your dreams Jammie boy ... only your dreams !!!

 

[fess]

There are more where sts75 came from, I am sure.

"Yawn"... I'm waiting.

 

[fess]

Jamm, while we are waiting for all of your (lurkers) support to show up and help you out, would you mind going back in this thread and address some of the questions that you refuse to answer?