Hustler woo

[notheist]

Originally Posted by skepticalcriticalguy

I believe that the NIST report was limited in its scope. I want to know where the core went.

Are you proposing by the act of questioning that the core somehow disappeared?

Even if you believe in CD the core would be in the rubble. Unless you want to believe in some sort of disintegrating beam from space.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

Do you believe Muslim Integrists do not exist? Or do you believe they are incapable of committing terrorist acts?

OK, define "Integrist." I'm dumb.

Of course they're capable of terrorism! The Israelis and Arabs have been duking it out with terrorism for decades.

Do I think their intelligence apparatus could infiltrate our government or get that lucky? No. I don't.

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by skepticalcriticalguy

I don't speak Arabic, so I haven't personally heard the confessions you are referring to. Am I to assume you are fluent in Arabic? And did the translation correctly? (wink) (smiley's aren't working for me yet).

Here's one of his famous speeches, with video and transcription. Feel free to run it past an Arabic speaker. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/ar...ArchiveId=7403

Quote:

I think his calls for Jihad are a scam.

Who is he scamming?

Quote:

I think he is still what he was, since the 70s; a CIA asset/agent.

That's a positive claim. Please present your evidence. You can post links now.

Quote:

And Bush business partner.

Evidence? (See how this works?)

Quote:

But you asked me what I think here!

Quote:

So no, no proof. Evidence? there is plenty written about this.

When you make specific claims you will be asked to present your evidence. Plenty that is written is wrong, as CT websites make abundantly clear. You'll need to use reputable sources with verifiable information.

[JimBenArm]

Originally Posted by skepticalcriticalguy

Another fallacy. Are these my only choices?

First of all, it's not discrimination. And it's got nothing to do with faith or race.

As I mentioned before, I have spent years reading incessantly about intelligence agencies and rogue networks.

I wonder if your belief that it was the Arabs might have to do with faith and race! Again, the perfect patsies; we've been conditioned for years to believe that Arabs are crazy, after all.

OK, what is it, then? You dodge and weave around the question, and try to turn it back without answering it.

Why do you not believe it was the hijackers?

[Pardalis]

You can posts links now scg, please show us your facts.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Originally Posted by DarkMagician

There is plenty of evidence against such a relationship, and little for.

Wait, is it mere conspiracy theory that the CIA trained and funded the Mujahdeen as insurgents in Afghanistan from '79-'89, or so? They became the Taliban. And to an extent, Al Qaida. Isn't that fact? I've been reading about it since the early 80s!

Quote:

Nope, that was the bin Laden family: the one that disowned Osama back in '93.

Ah, we were told he was the black sheep, so case closed. Come on.

[The Almond]

Originally Posted by skepticalcriticalguy

I believe that the NIST report was limited in its scope.

I would highly suggest reading the legislation that provided the funding and genesis for the NIST report. It was called the National Construction Safety Team Act (PL 107-231). Congress was quite specific when it directed NIST to study the WTC collapse. Furthermore, the report was not intended entirely as an investigation, but also as a research project whose purpose was to make recommendations for making skyscrapers safer in the future.

Quote:

I want to know where the core went.

I don't understand this statement. What are you referring to?

Quote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but they only covered from the hit to the initiation of collapse.

Indeed. NIST was operating on the very valid and scientifically accurate assumption that the towers had no ability to arrest collapse once it began. Any public safety improvements generated through the NIST report would be aimed at preventing the collapse initiation state, not at designing buildings that are capable of stopping collapse once it begins.

Quote:

I have not read the entire report, but have read both sides' analysis, and several key parts.

Here is where you and I differ. I have read the entirety of the NIST report, and the bulk of it sits in my office. I have also read the various criticisms of the NIST report, and I've found all of them to be intellectually vapid. They are the product of poor research, quote mining and misleading statements.

Quote:

And no, I do not believe that airplanes, flown by islamic hijackers, attacked and destroyed the Pentagon and WTC 1, 2 and 7.

I apologize for not being clear in my question. I managed to disguise 3 seperate statements into one. For instance, do you believe that no airplanes were flown into the towers (remote or not)?

Quote:

There, I said it. You can ask me what I think did happen, but that will come out in discussion.

Why not state it here for the record? You're entitled to have your opinion, but I'm going to criticize that opinion if I think it's not based on sound rationality and backed by evidence.

Quote:

Consider the possibility that the deed was done, partly from within and partly from the outside, and our President was told who to blame. And consider that OBL could have Bin set up as the patsy this way also.

That sounds like an amazingly vague, yet convoluted answer. It appears that you're using the "God of the Gaps" fallacy. The evidence which points to bin Laden was actual evidence, but the evidence which fails to was fabricated by the FBI. If bin Laden has been set up, all of the evidence to convict him would be readily available.

Quote:

The one thing that doesn't make sense is: why would Bush falsely blame a known CIA agent and his family business partner?! Surely Michael Moore could dig that info up! (Actually, it was already dug up; Moore borrowed the work of others there). So it must have Bin Bin, right?

While it is true that the Bush family has relations with the bin Laden family, you're claiming that Bush had specific dealings with Osama bin Laden himself. That's a demonstrably false statement.

Quote:

(I know I'm going to get scolded for not providing proof. I wasn't there!)

Indeed you are. You're operating on a rather childish paradigm. In the same post, you've criticized NIST for failing to prove to you how the towers collapsed, and now you ask us to believe your opinions without a shred of proof. How is that logical? Where do you draw the line between what you require evidence to believe and what you believe because it fits with your world view?

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by skepticalcriticalguy

Wait, is it mere conspiracy theory that the CIA trained and funded the Mujahdeen as insurgents in Afghanistan from '79-'89, or so? They became the Taliban. And to an extent, Al Qaida. Isn't that fact? I've been reading about it since the early 80s!

Ah, we were told he was the black sheep, so case closed. Come on.

No, "skeptical," that's not how it works. I strongly encourage you to read this post and the sources it links to, for an understanding of bin Laden's role in leading al Qaeda and in the 9/11 attacks. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=357

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Originally Posted by Gravy

When you make specific claims you will be asked to present your evidence. Plenty that is written is wrong, as CT websites make abundantly clear. You'll need to use reputable sources with verifiable information.

Right, and plenty that was fed us by the government and media (as you allude to when you say "plenty that is written is wrong"). So my original question when I popped in here was; are we here being skeptical about the official story also? Or are we using that theory (even though it has changed several times) as the "truth" which a bunch of hack "conspiracy theorists" are attacking?

Maybe the goal of this board should be to prove the official story, before the CT folks prove otherwise. That would be a more interesting race.

[The Almond]

Originally Posted by skepticalcriticalguy

Maybe the goal of this board should be to prove the official story, before the CT folks prove otherwise. That would be a more interesting race.

That should be simple enough. I submit as proof of the NIST story the NCSTA Report. Please provide a report of equal magnitude whose conclusion opposes NIST's.

[DarkMagician]

Originally Posted by skepticalcriticalguy

Wait, is it mere conspiracy theory that the CIA trained and funded the Mujahdeen as insurgents in Afghanistan from '79-'89, or so? They became the Taliban. And to an extent, Al Qaida. Isn't that fact? I've been reading about it since the early 80s!

Nope. Bin Laden was recruiting from Arab volunteers, not the Mujahideen.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Originally Posted by skepticalcriticalguy

Right, and plenty that was fed us by the government and media (as you allude to when you say "plenty that is written is wrong"). So my original question when I popped in here was; are we here being skeptical about the official story also? Or are we using that theory (even though it has changed several times) as the "truth" which a bunch of hack "conspiracy theorists" are attacking?

Maybe the goal of this board should be to prove the official story, before the CT folks prove otherwise. That would be a more interesting race.

The events, as described by the Commission Report, the FEMA report, and the NIST report are the status quo in this debate. That they are not questioned by the majority of professional in relevant fields attests to this. Therefore you, the claimant, have the burden of proof. Your burden is twofold; first, to show that the status quo is wrong and second, to show that your alternative is right.

[stateofgrace]

Originally Posted by skepticalcriticalguy

Right, and plenty that was fed us by the government and media (as you allude to when you say "plenty that is written is wrong"). So my original question when I popped in here was; are we here being skeptical about the official story also? Or are we using that theory (even though it has changed several times) as the "truth" which a bunch of hack "conspiracy theorists" are attacking?

Maybe the goal of this board should be to prove the official story, before the CT folks prove otherwise. That would be a more interesting race.

Maybe you could actually tell us what you believe the "official story" is and what you disagree with.Just a summary, please include in it.

WTC 1
WTC 2
WTC 7
Flight 11
Flight 175
Flight 77
Flight 93
Al Quada.
UBL.

And anything esle you feel that is relevent.

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by skepticalcriticalguy

Maybe the goal of this board should be to prove the official story, before the CT folks prove otherwise. That would be a more interesting race.

Show me what's wrong in here:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Originally Posted by JimBenArm

OK, what is it, then? You dodge and weave around the question, and try to turn it back without answering it.

Why do you not believe it was the hijackers?

Well, shucks; I've been typing the whole time. You are an impatient lot, I see. I'm going to write this, then go for a beer. When I get back and read all your attacks and snide comments, which I'm fairly certain will take up a page or two here, I will have learned a lot about each of you, and what your thinking patterns are like. I doubt I'll have time to respond to everybody's requests for proof. Even though none have you have squat to prove the government's theory.

You asked me why I believe it wasn't the hijackers? Because I have read extensively about the hijackers, from investigative journalists who have tracked their comings and goings and activities. And mainstream reports as well. None of these are necessarily true. But, it's not necessarily true that they were Islamic Fundamentalists, willing to die for the cause, either. Again you asked me why I do not believe, so I'm telling you. There are several journalists out there writing about this stuff, folks. I'd say who, but you'll all tell me they have an agenda.

And here's the main reason I don't think it was the hijackers (at least not alone.) Remember the morning of 9/11, as the reporters and the firemen and the police officers in New York were reporting on all networks "huge explosions," multiple explosions, secondary devices? I remember it well. It's all on the web for us to watch again.

I remember my family watching, and the question that we all had was "how did they get bombs in the buildings, again? I know I'm not the only one who thought that same thing. Many friends remember thinking the same. Then the buildings fell. Then the word "pancake" became part of our vocabulary. Then we had vigils, and Bush gave some speeches, and we started talking about war.

Then we got anthrax.

See y'all!!! I'mma go git me a cold brewski!

[Pardalis]

Show us facts, proof, links we can see for ourselves. I'm sorry, but your word is not enough. You're a skeptic, you should know better.

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by skepticalcriticalguy

Right, and plenty that was fed us by the government and media (as you allude to when you say "plenty that is written is wrong"). So my original question when I popped in here was; are we here being skeptical about the official story also? Or are we using that theory (even though it has changed several times) as the "truth" which a bunch of hack "conspiracy theorists" are attacking?

Maybe the goal of this board should be to prove the official story, before the CT folks prove otherwise. That would be a more interesting race.

As The Almond and Pardalis have pointed out, the "official story" is in writing. It's your job, if you disagree with aspects of it, to point out specifically what is wrong and to provide verifiable evidence for your claims. This is the last time I'll be saying this to you. If you continue as you've started, I'll give your posts a pass. The majority of CTs we see here are just JAQing off, and don't have a clue about what the "official story" actually says or how to counter it with evidence. I hope you're smarter than that.

[Arus808]

scg , you ahve been given all the links needed as to why the official reports are valid and supported.

please read them, over and come back with your own analysis, and any specific questions you may have about them.


I dont expect you to be back until say... next week. as the NIST report alone will take up much of your time.

[Pardalis]

Also, some things to learn, from the BBC (unless you don't trust them as well):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3618762.stm

[JimBenArm]

Originally Posted by skepticalcriticalguy

You asked me why I believe it wasn't the hijackers? Because I have read extensively about the hijackers, from investigative journalists who have tracked their comings and goings and activities. And mainstream reports as well. None of these are necessarily true. But, it's not necessarily true that they were Islamic Fundamentalists, willing to die for the cause, either. Again you asked me why I do not believe, so I'm telling you. There are several journalists out there writing about this stuff, folks. I'd say who, but you'll all tell me they have an agenda.

Well, just give it a try. Or are you not very certain yourself about their agenda?

Quote:

And here's the main reason I don't think it was the hijackers (at least not alone.) Remember the morning of 9/11, as the reporters and the firemen and the police officers in New York were reporting on all networks "huge explosions," multiple explosions, secondary devices? I remember it well. It's all on the web for us to watch again.

I remember my family watching, and the question that we all had was "how did they get bombs in the buildings, again? I know I'm not the only one who thought that same thing. Many friends remember thinking the same. Then the buildings fell. Then the word "pancake" became part of our vocabulary. Then we had vigils, and Bush gave some speeches, and we started talking about war.

So, explosions = bombs. Got it.

This has been covered multiple times on this site. Go do a search on it.

When you get done, and figure out what is wrong with the above equation, we'll continue. But not until then.

Bye!

[notheist]

Originally Posted by skepticalcriticalguy

And here's the main reason I don't think it was the hijackers (at least not alone.) Remember the morning of 9/11, as the reporters and the firemen and the police officers in New York were reporting on all networks "huge explosions," multiple explosions, secondary devices? I remember it well. It's all on the web for us to watch again.

So in your world a massive building that was just hit by an airplane going 400mph and burning with huge fires does NOT make noise????

Super heated steel will expand and and in doing so welds, rivets and bolts will snap with explosive sounds. Things inside the plane will also explode such as oxygen generators.

All these far more logical the any wild idea that explosives were brought into the buildings.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by skepticalcriticalguy

Do I think their intelligence apparatus could infiltrate our government or get that lucky? No. I don't.

What part of the 9/11 plot required an infiltration of our gov't?

Still waiting for a fact from you, speculative questions just don't cut it here.

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by skepticalcriticalguy

Why is that? Isn't it the job of the media to watchdog the government? What I said was if inside job turned out to be true, wouldn't they have been remiss, even criminal, in not even investigating the possibility all this time?

I repeat: you are speaking nonsense. Don't make me sic Arkan Wolfshade and his compendium of logical fallacies on you.

[Pardalis]

Oh, and one other thing scg, when you get back, could you start your own thread? This thread is for lewd jokes and play-on-words about Hustler and CTists.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by skepticalcriticalguy

Wait, is it mere conspiracy theory that the CIA trained and funded the Mujahdeen as insurgents in Afghanistan from '79-'89, or so? They became the Taliban. And to an extent, Al Qaida. Isn't that fact?

No, it is not a fact.

Quote:

I've been reading about it since the early 80s!

Excellent, so it should be no problem for you to link to an article from a reliable source showing how the insurgents funded and trained by the CIA became the Taliban. As opposed to the insurgents not trained and funded by the CIA. You do know that there were many different flavors of mujahedeen fighting the Soviets, don't you? And that the CIA did not support all of them? Now you have a clear task, and such a simple thing to prove since you've been reading about this since the 1980's!

Quote:

Ah, we were told he was the black sheep, so case closed. Come on.

Told by whom? I want to see exactly how many people/groups are in on this vast conspiracy of yours.

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by skepticalcriticalguy

And here's the main reason I don't think it was the hijackers (at least not alone.) Remember the morning of 9/11, as the reporters and the firemen and the police officers in New York were reporting on all networks "huge explosions," multiple explosions, secondary devices? I remember it well. It's all on the web for us to watch again.

It's true that many people described hearing "explosions." at the WTC on that day. Most of those accounts are about the sound of the towers as they were collapsing, and some are about cars, trucks, etc. that were on fire after the collapses.

However, other accounts describe events before the collapses. For example:


Monchery, Alwish (E.M.T. E.M.S.): "Sound of popping and exploding."

Murphy, Keith (FDNY): "Sounded like bombs."

Burns, William (Lt. PAPD): "Explosions."

Terranova, Rosario (Lieutenant E.M.S.): "Kept hearing these large boom, boom."

Fitzgerald, Anthony (Lt. PAPD): "Sounded like explosions."

Rodriguez, Andrew (PAPD): "Under the assumption that the sounds were secondary bombs."

Meier, Mark (P.O. PAPD): "Like a shotgun going off."

Barriere, Wilfred (Det. PAPD): "Sounded like explosions."

Smiouskas, Richard (Lieutenant FDNY): "Like explosions."

Murray, John (Fire Marshall FDNY): "Sounded like bombs, like blockbusters."


All of the descriptions above are of bodies from the towers hitting the ground or other structures.


So, yes, many people did describe explosions, and conspiracy theorists always take these descriptions out of context. These posts of mine should help you to understand the context of these descriptions:

What they actually described hearing in and around the towers

Descriptions of the north tower elevator shaft, lobby, and basement jet fuel explosion

I hope this will help you to understand that there are rational explanations for what you feel is that strongest evidence against suicide hijacker involvement.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by skepticalcriticalguy

Whilst we joke, many more are being exposed to the conspiracy theories. Wow, what if they end up being right?

There is much better chance you are pdoh than a CT containing a fact.

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by skepticalcriticalguy

Wait, is it mere conspiracy theory that the CIA trained and funded the Mujahdeen as insurgents in Afghanistan from '79-'89, or so? They became the Taliban. And to an extent, Al Qaida. Isn't that fact? I've been reading about it since the early 80s!

I don't think that you could be any more wrong here. Are you implying that the Taliban and Al Qaida are the same thing?

[firecoins]

Originally Posted by Bell

Whaaa? Larry Flint's Hustler? I hope their not shown naked

Yes its true. These men have no dic ks. (Ghostbusters)

[beachnut]

Quote:

And no, I do not believe that airplanes, flown by islamic hijackers, attacked and destroyed the Pentagon and WTC 1, 2 and 7. There, I said it. You can ask me what I think did happen, but that will come out in discussion. And as I mentioned, I don't claim to know beyond a doubt. But here's a hint; I have, for years, read incessantly about Intel agencies and rogue networks in our government.

Wrong out of the box! good job.

How could you? You just talk like Alex Jones; dish out some more BS and never stop running to the next lie.

If you only had some facts!

Welcome; bring facts next time.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by skepticalcriticalguy

*snip* Then we got anthrax.

Concerning Anthrax: Was it a real False Flag Op? I remember that the
evidence pointed to us military sources but none to terroristic organisations.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by skepticalcriticalguy

Maybe the goal of this board should be to prove the official story, before the CT folks prove otherwise. That would be a more interesting race.

So you have zero facts and evidence to support your ideas. You are stuck in the starter box.

The 9/11 truth movement lost the race 5 years ago; you missed it! Wrong for 5 years!

Maybe you should read some of the massive information based on facts and real logic. Seems like you are living in a CT world and have ignored facts, math, and physics. I say this before you break into a victory dance after you get frustrated from lacking facts and leave.

When did you notice you were missing facts on 9/11? How long have you been suffering from this kind of Alex Jones type of rant?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by skepticalcriticalguy

See y'all!!! I'mma go git me a cold brewski!

I wish I could be around when the beer-muscled scg comes back, but I have to go to bed and my g/f needs to use the computer. I'll check back in the morning to read the hilarity that's sure to follow!

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by skepticalcriticalguy

Well, shucks; I've been typing the whole time. You are an impatient lot, I see. I'm going to write this, then go for a beer. When I get back and read all your attacks and snide comments, !

I am going to have a case of beer since you came without a single fact to support standard CT junk. As stated, 5 years wrong before you even figured out you wanted to be like Charlie Sheen and share you opinions on 9/11 truth and keep your facts a big secret.

Secret is you have no facts. Or will you ever share a real fact with us to support your CT ideas.

You rehash the stuff you read and did not even research it. UBLs past!

You say the 19 terrorist did not do 9/11 and offer no evidence.

What will your CT super ideas be? The terrorist were not good pilots?

We supported UBL and now he does not like us?

What evidence will you ignore to present total idiot ideas on 9/11?

What will you ignore to present junk on 9/11 that has nothing to do with 9/11.

What quote like "pull it" or "sounded like", or "smelled like", or "looked like" will you show proves a CT by some group of runaway idiots in the government made up of people like yourself?

Are you going to ignore all the real facts because you think it is a CT and present zero facts?

What great junk have you brought with you. So far zero facts; just talk. You now promise us your alcohol induced intelligence to show us what? No facts just talk?

What have you got that the world has missed? What great facts do you have before you earn the Pulitzer Prize?

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by notheist

So in your world a massive building that was just hit by an airplane going 400mph and burning with huge fires does NOT make noise????

Super heated steel will expand and and in doing so welds, rivets and bolts will snap with explosive sounds. Things inside the plane will also explode such as oxygen generators.

All these far more logical the any wild idea that explosives were brought into the buildings.

Do not cheat and use logic it will mess up the CT guy!

welcome - use all the logic you can, i need training

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Originally Posted by WildCat

I wish I could be around when the beer-muscled scg comes back, but I have to go to bed and my g/f needs to use the computer. I'll check back in the morning to read the hilarity that's sure to follow!

Well, I'm back. Only had 2 beers.

Ya know, this is exactly what I expected here. A bunch of smug know-it-alls. Just like "the other side." You've already "booted" me.

Let's see, there are thousands of you here, and some guy comes on, and literally gets ambushed. Several of you asked me my thoughts. Then chewed my ass for not having proof. As I mentioned, it took the whole couple hours to answer the thoughts questions.

So smug here. The time you guys spend here in one week, you could knock out some good eye-opening books that have been written over the years.

I know, I know: "Define books!" "Define years!" "Prove they were actually written!" "Prove you read them!"

So, knock yourselves out with the "hilarity that's sure to follow" my retreat. (Just so you know, I don't consider it a victory or defeat). Your world is a mess. I mean the big blue globe thingie. While you all worry about whether it was a thud or a bomb, a 45 degree angle or a 47 degree angle, some of us are waking up and have a good idea of what's going on in the governments of the world. Or at least have a glimpse of it.

The world isn't black and white. Science is, but discourse is not. And there are so many grey areas that science will never account for. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

I hope you all find some of those greay areas in your search for the truth. (If you still seek it).

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Originally Posted by beachnut

Do not cheat and use logic it will mess up the CT guy!

welcome - use all the logic you can, i need training

Smug attack. I was warned I'd be "Hannatized" here.

You're all CTers. You just believe the official CT. Both sides have presented some good evidence. But, like the other side, you all cherry pick the evidence.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Originally Posted by beachnut

I am going to have a case of beer since you came without a single fact to support standard CT junk. As stated, 5 years wrong before you even figured out you wanted to be like Charlie Sheen and share you opinions on 9/11 truth and keep your facts a big secret.

Secret is you have no facts. Or will you ever share a real fact with us to support your CT ideas.

You rehash the stuff you read and did not even research it. UBLs past!

You say the 19 terrorist did not do 9/11 and offer no evidence.

What will your CT super ideas be? The terrorist were not good pilots?

We supported UBL and now he does not like us?

What evidence will you ignore to present total idiot ideas on 9/11?

What will you ignore to present junk on 9/11 that has nothing to do with 9/11.

What quote like "pull it" or "sounded like", or "smelled like", or "looked like" will you show proves a CT by some group of runaway idiots in the government made up of people like yourself?

Are you going to ignore all the real facts because you think it is a CT and present zero facts?

What great junk have you brought with you. So far zero facts; just talk. You now promise us your alcohol induced intelligence to show us what? No facts just talk?

What have you got that the world has missed? What great facts do you have before you earn the Pulitzer Prize?

Sorry, I thought this was a discussion board. My bad for posting before I learned your mores.

You sound like a very angry person. Maybe you should have that case of beer.

[David Wong]

You've ignored the posts that contained data, read only the ones that contained humorous insults, then complained that you got nothing but insults.

Typtical. You have to make yourself blind to actual information to believe what you believe.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Originally Posted by beachnut

How long have you been suffering from this kind of Alex Jones type of rant?

First off, that makes no sense. Suffering from a rant?

Your rants sound more Jones-ian than mine.

What is this Alex Jones obsession here? I have reason to question his motives, just like you all have. But hell, you want to label me, paint me in a box, and send me away from your special group? I guess I'll go watch Terrorstorm or something. Jeesh.