ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 2nd September 2009, 12:41 AM   #1
Undesired Walrus
Penultimate Amazing
 
Undesired Walrus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 11,679
Insane admissions of guilt

Why do you even bother to debunk claims like 'pull it' means 'pull them out'? Is it not so self-evidently ridiculous to suppose that the owner of three large buildings that sank to the ground on 9/11 would admit on national television to mass murder? Did he phone Cheney later that night from his bath of money and say 'Gee Dick, I can't put my finger on it, but I think I may have made a mistake today'?

The same goes for the FBI admitting that they have no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11. Leaving aside the fact that no truther will ever believe what the FBI tell them usually, and leaving aside the fact that Bin Laden is the spiritual head of Al Qaeda and not the mastermind of the Planes Operation, did an incompetent FBI administrator one day mindlessly type in this (So truthers would have you believe) devastating fact, only to scratch his pimply face and phone up his boss with: 'Uh, Sarge, I may have made a mistake!'. What's more, nobody ever corrects this seemingly glaring error that leaves open the conspiracy to the world.

And these are the kind of people truthers believe are capable of pulling off a mass conspiracy?
__________________
Man's material discoveries have outpaced his moral progress. - Clement Attlee, 1945
Undesired Walrus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2009, 12:53 AM   #2
MikeW
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,910
And there are others, like Rumsfeld "admitting that the Pentagon was hit by a missile" or "saying that Flight 93 was shot down".

The strangest thing about all of these, though, is if you say the person mis-spoke then truthers act like that's some kind of implausible excuse. When the reality is that everyone mis-speaks all the time, while as a rule no-one ever accidentally confesses their crimes to the media. Still, when you're as short of evidence as the truthers are, I suppose you have to grab whatever you can.
MikeW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2009, 01:10 AM   #3
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus View Post
Why do you even bother to debunk claims like 'pull it' means 'pull them out'? Is it not so self-evidently ridiculous to suppose that the owner of three large buildings that sank to the ground on 9/11 would admit on national television to mass murder? Did he phone Cheney later that night from his bath of money and say 'Gee Dick, I can't put my finger on it, but I think I may have made a mistake today'?

The same goes for the FBI admitting that they have no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11. Leaving aside the fact that no truther will ever believe what the FBI tell them usually, and leaving aside the fact that Bin Laden is the spiritual head of Al Qaeda and not the mastermind of the Planes Operation, did an incompetent FBI administrator one day mindlessly type in this (So truthers would have you believe) devastating fact, only to scratch his pimply face and phone up his boss with: 'Uh, Sarge, I may have made a mistake!'. What's more, nobody ever corrects this seemingly glaring error that leaves open the conspiracy to the world.

And these are the kind of people truthers believe are capable of pulling off a mass conspiracy?
Follow that thought a little further Mike. Obviously they are not stupid. Where does that lead ?
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'

Last edited by bill smith; 2nd September 2009 at 01:21 AM.
bill smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2009, 01:36 AM   #4
boloboffin
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,986
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Follow that thought a little further Mike. Obviously they are not stupid. Where does that lead ?
Well, if they're not stupid and they admitted to mass murder on camera, then they aren't afraid of being punished. That means they're rubbing your nose in how they got away with it, you and everybody else smart enough to realize what they've said. They're daring you to do something about it, knowing that everyone will think you're the crazy ones.

The monsters.

Is that where it leads, bill?
boloboffin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2009, 02:10 AM   #5
eromitlab
Muse
 
eromitlab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 919
I've called out a few truthers who cite these "they slipped up and accidentally told the truth" instances, usually by mentioning they don't believe anything else the subject says unless they "slip up" and say something that (coincidentally, I'm sure) is beneficial to the conspiracist side. That's when the insults start flying, the goalposts start shifting and the linkbombs start dropping.
It's almost as though conspiracists can't bear to admit that's exactly what they're doing, so they get angry and throw up a distraction.

Another example, when truthers say that the BBC reported WTC7 collapsed 20 minutes before it did. Yes, there are still kiddies out there in TroofWorld that throw that out there as proof of the inside jobby job. IIRC, AJ uses that an awful lot.
__________________
With my reputation, I do expect everyone to take what I say at face value.
-Galileo
eromitlab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2009, 02:12 AM   #6
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,169
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Follow that thought a little further Mike. Obviously they are not stupid. Where does that lead ?
It's fairly obvious, to anyone not stupid, where it leads. It leads to the conclusion that those particular snippets don't mean what conspiracy theorists like to pretend they mean, and never did.

It works like this: When faced with two possible interpretations of events, one of which contains a massive internal contradiction and the other of which doesn't, the sane person chooses the one which doesn't. If "pull it" means "pull back the group of firefighters preparing to enter WTC7 for search and rescue", there are no contradictions. If "no hard evidence" means no physical evidence (eg fingerprints, DNA samples or similar) but doesn't exclude testimony and documentary evidence, then there are no contradictions. If Donald Rumsfeld, a public figure well known for awkward and misleading slips of the tongue and tortuously opaque phrasing, made a slip of the tongue a couple of times, then there are no contradictions.

On the other hand, conspiracy theorists don't want to understand events correctly, and particularly don't want anyone else to understand events correctly. Therefore, they will automatically insist that the self-contradictory explanation is the only possible explanation - normally by refusing even to discuss the possibility of a self-consistent explanation - in order to give the false impression that something doesn't make sense. The next step, of course, is to hint at the possibility of a conspiracist explanation that does make sense, but never, never to actually construct a hypothesis; because, in the end, the most carefully contrived hypothesis is somehow never quite as plausible as what actually happened.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2009, 02:14 AM   #7
TheBigKahuna
Thinker
 
TheBigKahuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 162
Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus View Post
Why do you even bother to debunk claims like 'pull it' means 'pull them out'? Is it not so self-evidently ridiculous to suppose that the owner of three large buildings that sank to the ground on 9/11 would admit on national television to mass murder? Did he phone Cheney later that night from his bath of money and say 'Gee Dick, I can't put my finger on it, but I think I may have made a mistake today'?

The same goes for the FBI admitting that they have no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11. Leaving aside the fact that no truther will ever believe what the FBI tell them usually, and leaving aside the fact that Bin Laden is the spiritual head of Al Qaeda and not the mastermind of the Planes Operation, did an incompetent FBI administrator one day mindlessly type in this (So truthers would have you believe) devastating fact, only to scratch his pimply face and phone up his boss with: 'Uh, Sarge, I may have made a mistake!'. What's more, nobody ever corrects this seemingly glaring error that leaves open the conspiracy to the world.

And these are the kind of people truthers believe are capable of pulling off a mass conspiracy?
Because, sometimes when people are having problems in their life they can get sucked in by the truth movement. Debunking the pull expression, especially when you show Alex Jones' deceit, as well as the fact he used it to accuse FDNY being in on the plot, helps destroy the credibility of the truth movement to people who don't understand the scientific arguments, and helps win the PR battle. It never hurts to debunk a couple of softballs!
TheBigKahuna is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2009, 02:19 AM   #8
TheBigKahuna
Thinker
 
TheBigKahuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 162
Originally Posted by eromitlab View Post
I've called out a few truthers who cite these "they slipped up and accidentally told the truth" instances, usually by mentioning they don't believe anything else the subject says unless they "slip up" and say something that (coincidentally, I'm sure) is beneficial to the conspiracist side. That's when the insults start flying, the goalposts start shifting and the linkbombs start dropping.
It's almost as though conspiracists can't bear to admit that's exactly what they're doing, so they get angry and throw up a distraction.

Another example, when truthers say that the BBC reported WTC7 collapsed 20 minutes before it did. Yes, there are still kiddies out there in TroofWorld that throw that out there as proof of the inside jobby job. IIRC, AJ uses that an awful lot.
If you really want to mess with them, tell them BBC got the information from CNN, who announced the collapse of WTC 7 about an hour before it actually occurred. The guy at Debunking 9/11 links to it on his WTC 7 page. So, it's CNN that's actually part of the NWO.
TheBigKahuna is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2009, 02:27 AM   #9
CompusMentus
Waiting for the Worms
 
CompusMentus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,584
Originally Posted by MikeW View Post
And there are others, like Rumsfeld "admitting that the Pentagon was hit by a missile" or "saying that Flight 93 was shot down".
The strangest thing about all of these, though, is if you say the person mis-spoke then truthers act like that's some kind of implausible excuse. When the reality is that everyone mis-speaks all the time, while as a rule no-one ever accidentally confesses their crimes to the media. Still, when you're as short of evidence as the truthers are, I suppose you have to grab whatever you can.
Of course.

The selective word-games the truthers play are endless and always lop-sided. Silverstiens words "pull it" are interpreted only as a definition of a means of demolishing WTC7, but Rumsfeld "missile" cannot be defined as "something thrown or hurled", it never works both ways in twoofertown. Geese always get more than the Ganders there.

ETA

+ What Dave Rogers wrote above.

Compus

Last edited by CompusMentus; 2nd September 2009 at 02:32 AM.
CompusMentus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2009, 04:34 AM   #10
cludgie
Critical Thinker
 
cludgie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 312
eromitlab had it right. By the conventions of troofer logic then authority figures, people in the pay of the Government or advocates of the 'Official Story' always lie all of time. Except of course when they say something the troofers like the sound of and in such instances they're 100% telling the truth.
cludgie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2009, 07:16 AM   #11
sylvan8798
Master Poster
 
sylvan8798's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,683
And don't forget G. W. saying he saw the first plane hit the north tower. After all, he's known worldwide for his blisteringly accurate phrasing of anything and everything, right?
sylvan8798 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2009, 07:33 AM   #12
Carlos
Critical Thinker
 
Carlos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 285
Another point: did the interviewer know that "pull it" is a "demolition jargon"?
Carlos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2009, 07:45 AM   #13
Praktik
Philosopher
 
Praktik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,244
And here's a thread we had on another "admission of guilt" - the Rockefeller quote from his memoirs.
__________________
“ it has become my conviction that things mean pretty much what we want them to mean. We’ll pluck significance from the least consequential happenstance if it suits us and happily ignore the most flagrantly obvious symmetry between separate aspects of our lives if it threatens some cherished prejudice or cosily comforting belief"
-Iain Banks
Praktik is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2009, 07:47 AM   #14
Praktik
Philosopher
 
Praktik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,244
And yes - I agree - It's incredibly inane to have to argue these points.

Lord knows - I've done so for far longer than is prudent..
__________________
“ it has become my conviction that things mean pretty much what we want them to mean. We’ll pluck significance from the least consequential happenstance if it suits us and happily ignore the most flagrantly obvious symmetry between separate aspects of our lives if it threatens some cherished prejudice or cosily comforting belief"
-Iain Banks
Praktik is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2009, 09:53 AM   #15
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 15,564
These are what I refer to as "Merry Pason" confessions. I'm sure most of us remember the old Perry Mason shows, where Raymond Burr would get criminals to confess to their crimes on the witness stand via a series of clever questions. In the Bizarro world the Truthers inhabit, criminals just blurt out their guilt without the clever series of questions.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2009, 10:15 AM   #16
willhaven
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,049
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Follow that thought a little further Mike. Obviously they are not stupid. Where does that lead ?
So, for the sake of argument, let's say the administration, FBI, CIA and Al Qaeda all collaborate to carry out these attacks. Where do cruise missiles, bombs/thermite and airliner interceptions come in?

Couldn't they just conspire to crash 4 planes into buildings? Why the need to run with the possibilities to illogical extremes and defend those illogical positions vehemently?
willhaven is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2009, 11:01 AM   #17
TexasJack
Penultimate Amazing
 
TexasJack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10,906
The irony is that they see all of these as admissions of guilt, yet when KSM or OBL confess, they dismiss it.
TexasJack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2009, 11:33 AM   #18
Havermayer
Student
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 35
Originally Posted by TexasJack View Post
The irony is that they see all of these as admissions of guilt, yet when KSM or OBL confess, they dismiss it.
That reminds me of that very amusing Onion video. A Truther was pitted against a spokesperson for Al Qaeda.
Havermayer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2009, 12:39 PM   #19
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,199
Originally Posted by Havermayer View Post
That reminds me of that very amusing Onion video. A Truther was pitted against a spokesperson for Al Qaeda.
the best part of that video is the comments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_OIXfkXEj0
Originally Posted by hawks281979 on youtube (2 hours ago)
So, an american news agancy can get a al-qaeda operative on but the USA government can't find them to arrest them. What a crock of *****
whew lol
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
Justin39640 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2009, 03:34 PM   #20
mythstifieD
Critical Thinker
 
mythstifieD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 386
How about that PNAC document where they lay out the masterplan, publicly, and have everyone sign their names.
mythstifieD is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2009, 03:37 PM   #21
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 26,471
If The Onion didn't exist, we'd have to invent it!
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2009, 03:59 PM   #22
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,609
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
These are what I refer to as "Merry Pason" confessions. I'm sure most of us remember the old Perry Mason shows, where Raymond Burr would get criminals to confess to their crimes on the witness stand via a series of clever questions. In the Bizarro world the Truthers inhabit, criminals just blurt out their guilt without the clever series of questions.
[truther] That's why getting them to testify under oath is so important, then they can't lie. [/truther]
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2009, 04:16 PM   #23
Carlos
Critical Thinker
 
Carlos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 285
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Carlos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2009, 04:17 PM   #24
Kafka
New Blood
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 15
Originally Posted by willhaven View Post
So, for the sake of argument, let's say the administration, FBI, CIA and Al Qaeda all collaborate to carry out these attacks. Where do cruise missiles, bombs/thermite and airliner interceptions come in?

Couldn't they just conspire to crash 4 planes into buildings? Why the need to run with the possibilities to illogical extremes and defend those illogical positions vehemently?
In order to fabricate the fantasy of an inside job (specifically, the MIHOP scenario), the truthers need elements in the alternative narrative which could not be carried out by Muslim extremists. As a result, this narrative grows so unwiedly and contradictory that most truthers can not supply the specific details of one without looking foolish.
Kafka is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2009, 04:42 PM   #25
eromitlab
Muse
 
eromitlab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 919
Originally Posted by TexasJack View Post
The irony is that they see all of these as admissions of guilt, yet when KSM or OBL confess, they dismiss it.
In addition, when KSM or OBL deny their involvement, they're absolutely, 100%, telling the truth.

I mean, really... what criminal out there says they're innocent of what they're accused of when they actually did it?
If truthers ran the world the prisons would be largely empty of real criminals. Just makes more room for NIST, Popular Mechanics and all their internet opponents, right?
__________________
With my reputation, I do expect everyone to take what I say at face value.
-Galileo
eromitlab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2009, 05:05 PM   #26
Matthew Cline
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 875
Originally Posted by eromitlab View Post
Another example, when truthers say that the BBC reported WTC7 collapsed 20 minutes before it did. Yes, there are still kiddies out there in TroofWorld that throw that out there as proof of the inside jobby job.
Why in the world would the conspirators tell the BBC ahead of time that they were taking down WTC7? The conspirators would have to be David Icke's reptilians, or some other form of space alien, because no humans could be so fiendishly clever and so mind-boggling incompetent at the same time.
Matthew Cline is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2009, 08:24 PM   #27
sylvan8798
Master Poster
 
sylvan8798's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,683
Originally Posted by Matthew Cline View Post
Why in the world would the conspirators tell the BBC ahead of time that they were taking down WTC7? The conspirators would have to be David Icke's reptilians, or some other form of space alien, because no humans could be so fiendishly clever and so mind-boggling incompetent at the same time.
Any good truther will tell you that this was either an "easter egg" (a clue put there on purpose to let people in the know find the "real" truth) or maybe a whistleblower secretly trying to get the message out that it was an inside jobby job. Trust me, they can rationalize ANYTHING.
sylvan8798 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2009, 06:57 AM   #28
Praktik
Philosopher
 
Praktik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,244
Originally Posted by mythstifieD View Post
How about that PNAC document where they lay out the masterplan, publicly, and have everyone sign their names.
Ya - the plan to contain Iraq for a decade instead of launching a war?
__________________
“ it has become my conviction that things mean pretty much what we want them to mean. We’ll pluck significance from the least consequential happenstance if it suits us and happily ignore the most flagrantly obvious symmetry between separate aspects of our lives if it threatens some cherished prejudice or cosily comforting belief"
-Iain Banks
Praktik is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:03 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.