posted 10-15-2003 10:01 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:

If the damage in the North Tower, the first one hit, was more extensive, why did it then collapse second instead of first? More jet fuel,more heat, more weight, and thus more damage -- but the second one to fall. This is according to Larson's theory of course.

---

quote:

---

To whisk away the eye witness accounts as not believable is to destroy the whole legal system of evidence. But Larson accomplishes this in a single sentence.

---

In the legal system, you are afforded the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. Since I do not have that ability in this case, nor have I seen any impartial interviews with these witnesses, I am in no way obligated to regard their testimony as accurate or factual.

quote:

---

Larson explains the dust clouds that eject pulverized particles of matter below and above the impact sights as merely dust from compaction, but the clouds were recorded as ejecting BEFORE the collapse itself. Again, this is ignored.

---

quote:

---

Larson refuses to look at surrounding evidence of complicity in terms of building ownership and connections with other building owners. None of this could have a bearing on the reality of any outcome in Larson's mind. In a court of law, it's called MOTIVE. Again, he sweeps the courtroom clean of such trivialities by ignoring them.

---

quote:

---

Larson continues to claim that the buildings' collapsed mess was quite large. All photos show amazingly little refuse radiating out from the building foundations. So Larson must be right.

---

quote:

---

Larson seems to have inside information on whether a whole floor was burning with jet fuel, even though people were escaping from upper floors after the impact in both towers. More were trapped in the North tower, but yet some managed to get out. Yet Larson's theories contain the assumption that all heat factors were constant and extremely high in order to facilitate a perfect pancake collapse! How wonderful to be so smug in one's absolute assuredness!

---

A high rise structure is a remarkable think. There is a certain amount of redundancy built in. You can loose one, two or more columns and the building will not collapse, The load merely shifts to the remaining columns. BUT, and this is important, if some of those columns are subsequently weakened, they will also shift their weight to the adjacent columns. Eventually the remaining columns will no longer be able to support the weight. At this point, the collapse of these columns will occur. Once this happens, the failure will propagate so rapidly that it will seem to be instantaneous. The failure will propagate to the remaining columns on the affected floor, and then to the columns above the floor as they also loose their supports, shift, move and twist.

quote:

---

Common sense, along with quite well- documented links and information on heating, fuel capacities, weight of aircraft, and load-bearing capacities of the structure were given, but that wasn't good enough for Larson. His views over-rode the information and he wouldn't even accept the numbers given. He must have inside information is all I have to say.

---

quote:

---

After all was given, and I did read his links, his theory holds less weight than the demolition theory according to all information.

I have concluded my research for now and will concentrate on the Pentagon situation in the next few weeks.

---

Oh, good, let me guess, you are going to try to show that there was no plane right? Figures.

posted 10-15-2003 10:18 AM            

Sounds like you are trying your damnest to prove what BushLaden Productions is saying what the cause of the collapse, is correct.

You could be a leftist, whose line goes, "Foreign policy was to blame for 9/11. It's exactly what the government said happened".

You could be a rightist, whose line goes, "Bad security and jealousy of our freedoms by insane Arabs is to blame".

Either way, left or right,you are following the government propaganda.

You snort under the breath nasty comments at Boomerchick, when nowhere did I see her do the same to you.

Didn't expect a Female person to match wits with you, huh?

Empirical evidence!!! From your Point of View....And that's all it is.......Your Opinion........Nothing more..nothing less. You're working on as many theories as anyone else.

posted 10-15-2003 10:45 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by chumbawala:
Hi, I have been studying footage and material from the WTC collapse and have come to one conclusion. George Bush's brother, Marvin, owned the company in charge of security on the WTC. That is how they got the explosives on the towers. Make no mistake, Bush and Co. are vbehind the WTC collapse, because it justified their invasion and massacre of thousands in Afghanistan, and later Iraq. The American government orchestrated Sept 11th and engineered the whole event. Sorry to break the news like this, but that is the truth.

---

Hi! Chumbie!

Don't regret sharing your views with us! We've been researching the same as you and most of us have come to the same conclusion as you. If, after reading through the threads, you have more information and articles to post, please do!

This horse or thread is almost dead, but do contribute if you feel so inclined. I'm done with it, personally.

Welcome!

bc

posted 10-15-2003 07:22 PM            

should I be afraid to use my kerosene heater this winter?

After all kerosene fires cause much better built buildings to disintegrate into dust.

When will that kerosene heater melt down the thin sheet metal housing which has stood up for four years, (so far) and destroy my entire house? (ecxept for my passport of course)
And when did passports become indestructable?

Should I no longer believe any Fire Chief?

Did that Fire Chief's dying declaration (admissible in court) become a lie because BushLaden Productions decreed it so?

When did steel beams become so weak that they collapse lengthwise while people stand nearby and talk on cellphones?

My dues to ASME should stop if they fail to notify me of such considerable changes.

I tried to torch weld a steel exhaust pipe with no oxygen.
It wouldn't even melt the coathanger I was using as filler.

Why won't the Bush Administration release those earthshaking exceptions to physical laws they are privy to?

Imagine no longer having to fill one's oxygen tank!

Just a normally aspirated kerosene flame to cut or weld the highest grade steel!

Talk about suppression of technology.

"Looking about house fearefully;
contemplating lighting that kerosene heater and:
hours later:
only a passport and ashes remain."

Perhaps faith in Bush's minons' every word as gospel will save me.

posted 10-16-2003 11:26 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by shatoga:
The one most important question (for me) from this entire discussion is:

should I be afraid to use my kerosene heater this winter?

After all kerosene fires cause much better built buildings to disintegrate into dust.

When will that kerosene heater melt down the thin sheet metal housing which has stood up for four years, (so far) and destroy my entire house? (ecxept for my passport of course)

---

Once again, you are confusing heat and temperature.

Lets take a look at this argument, shall we?

Lets take a typical kerosese generator. According to the catalog, the model K50-FA (see page 6) kerosene heater Puts out 50,000 BTU per hour. It has a four gallon tank and will run for 11 hours on those four gallons. That means a full tank of fuel will have a potential heat output of 550,000 BTUs.

Now let’s just say, for the sake of argument, that we were to burn up all of that fuel in 15 minutes, thus releasing all of that heat energy.

Since the weight of the heater is not given, we’ll just say for the purposes of this discussion that it weighs 100 lbs.

Now from this table we will use the specific heat value for stainless steel (at room temp. for now we will ignore the fact that the specific heat changes with temperature).

Now if we assume that only 5% of the heat energy released from our 15 minute burn of the 4 gallons of fuel is absorbed by the heater, the increase in the temperature of the heater will be approximately 2,300° F. Is that hot enough for ya?

So why doesn’t our heater melt under normal operation? Because it is designed to transfer the heat to the air, not to heat itself up!!!

The above is highly simplified, but it illustrates the issue well.

Note that at a standard rate of about 135,000 BTUs per gallon, the energy value of 10,000 gallons of kerosene is 1.35 billion BTUs. That’s a lot of heat.

quote:

---

I tried to torch weld a steel exhaust pipe with no oxygen.
It wouldn't even melt the coathanger I was using as filler.

---

Try using about 50 torches all at once

posted 10-16-2003 12:26 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by swamp gas:
Apologist - Someone who makes excuses for the shortcomings of someone or something else.

Sounds like you are trying your damnest to prove what BushLaden Productions is saying what the cause of the collapse, is correct.

You could be a leftist, whose line goes, "Foreign policy was to blame for 9/11. It's exactly what the government said happened".

You could be a rightist, whose line goes, "Bad security and jealousy of our freedoms by insane Arabs is to blame".

Either way, left or right,you are following the government propaganda.

---

No, not the government propaganda, but rather the professional opinions of a myriad of architects and engineers from all ends of the political spectrum.

quote:

---

You snort under the breath nasty comments at Boomerchick, when nowhere did I see her do the same to you.

---

quote:

---

Didn't expect a Female person to match wits with you, huh?

---

quote:

---

Empirical evidence!!! From your Point of View....And that's all it is.......Your Opinion........Nothing more..nothing less. You're working on as many theories as anyone else.

---

quote:

---

Since Shatoga worked on buildings and matched every one of your posts, why should we believe you?

---

I hardly think that he matched everyone of my posts. What about the temporary flooring theory? I don’t see him rushing to support that one. I am sure that Shatoga has worked in construction. I did too (I worked my way through school as a sprinklerfitter and as a pipefitters apprentice. I have also worked in many high rise buildings in various Midwest cities. I know how buildings are operated, maintained, and managed. I have dealt with construction work in tenant spaces that contain financial, investment, and legal organizations. I know how these people think when it comes to work in their spaces. Most of these tenants have specific clauses in their lease agreements limiting the time, type and extent of the work that the building can perform in their space. Many have security systems that are independent of the building system. Many are staffed 24/7 (international banking and investment markets do not sleep).

I will accept that Shatoga is an experienced construction worker (although he admits to using a coat hanger to weld an exhaust pipe. Isn’t there a Home Depot nearby that carries brazing rods? ) But, I base my opinions based on my direct experience.

posted 10-17-2003 08:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wolf_Larson:
Try using about 50 torches all at once

[Edited 1 times, lastly by Wolf_Larson on 10-16-2003]

---

How cute!

heat is not additive.
50 times the exact same temperature does not increase the temperature.
Only the quantity of fuel buring at exactly the same temperature will result.

Get real.

No material will burn at a higher temperature without a relative increase in oxygen.

the WTC beams. clips and joists could not possibly have failed with the fuels the official lies provide.

Controlled demolition is the only rational explanation.
Especially given that Operation Northwoods is an established fact.
(Project Mongoose 'appendix A' Operation Northwoods)
Only explanation that fits all events and all anomalies of 911; with no exceptions!

posted 10-17-2003 10:16 PM            

HEAT IS NOT THE SAME THING AS TEMPERATURE!!!!

But even more to the point: The average temperature of a candle flame is about 2550 deg F. Yet you can pass your hand through a candle flame and not get burned (hopefully ). This is because the total amount of heat released by the candle is rather small. If you had 100 candles right next to each other the total amount of heat would be much greater. I would not advise trying to pass your hand through that.

posted 10-17-2003 11:17 PM            

Same applies for any other fuel.

Wanna up the temperature?
Add more oxygen.

Steel beams can stand while millions of gallons of kersosene burn around them.

Crematoriums don't collapse.
Hitler's ovens didn't collapse.

The temperature will never rise enough to cause structural beams to lose temper or melt unless more oxygen is added.

That's why a barbecue grill is not consumed if too much lighter fluid is poured on.,
yet a oxygen (any fuel) torch quickly burns through plate steel.

All factors of pressure and atmospheric oxygen content being constant;
Temperature of combustion remains constant.

An oxygen reducing atmosphere like:
a burning building lowers the relative percentage of available atmospheric oxygen.

Less oxygen = lower combustion temperature.

So simple a concept.

For me:
it's like telling Jim Jones' Guyana disciples to not drink that kool-aid.

Frustrating.

posted 10-18-2003 08:41 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by shatoga:
Doesn't matter if you burn one piece of paper or a whole library.
Each page still burns at Farenheight 451

---

Try to explain this, then. Here is a temperature plot from a forest fire experiment the different lines indicate different heights above the ground. Note that 800 deg C = 1472 deg F.

quote:

---

Same applies for any other fuel.

Wanna up the temperature?
Add more oxygen.

---

The flame temperature of any type of combustion is very high. The amount of heat released varies depending on the amount and type of fuel.

quote:

---

Steel beams can stand while millions of gallons of kersosene burn around them.

---

quote:

---

Crematoriums don't collapse.
Hitler's ovens didn't collapse.

---

That is because they are lined with refractory brick. Since you brought up the issue, how did Hitler’s ovens reach such a high temperature. I am guessing that they were fuel oil fired. Did they have oxygen tanks at Auswich? How about modern crematorium’s?

quote:

---

The temperature will never rise enough to cause structural beams to lose temper or melt unless more oxygen is added.

---

quote:

---

That's why a barbecue grill is not consumed if too much lighter fluid is poured on.,

---

I certainly hope you don’t pour 10,000 gallons of lighter fluid on your barbeue grill.

quote:

---

yet a oxygen (any fuel) torch quickly burns through plate steel.

---

Close, but not quite. When you squeeze the handle of an oxy-acetylene torch, the flame heats the excess oxygen. It is the chemical reaction of this superheated oxygen with the steel that actually cuts the hole. You are literally rusting out a hole in the steel as the iron atoms are oxidized by the high temperature gas.

quote:

---

All factors of pressure and atmospheric oxygen content being constant;
Temperature of combustion remains constant.

---

quote:

---

An oxygen reducing atmosphere like:
a burning building lowers the relative percentage of available atmospheric oxygen.

Less oxygen = lower combustion temperature.

---

quote:

---

So simple a concept.

For me:
it's like telling Jim Jones' Guyana disciples to not drink that kool-aid.

Frustrating.

---

posted 10-19-2003 02:17 AM            

Wolf Larson and I will never agree on this.

I take all evidence and he takes that evidence which supports herr bush.

One of us is unable to see the big picture.

Personal political bias is getting in the way.

It ain't me!

Northwoods was conceived under kennedy and executed under bush.

posted 10-19-2003 10:52 AM            

In my opinion, Wolf had an excellent way of presenting his OPINION. But that's all.

Like Patrick Minnis coming here, paid and proxy mouthpieces for Herr Bush and His Sour Band of Neo-Con Fundamentalists.

When Wolf starts with the "under the breath ridicule toward everyone who doesn't agree with him, I simply don't want to hear it.

For some reason, debunkers will always present their personal views as "the Truth", or start posts with, "Don't make me laugh", "You communist idiot", " and other disrespectful terms.

My motto is, go into something slightly friendly, and wait for the next respence. If somebody calls me an idiot because I detest Neo-Cons, why would I thinbk the people who support them have anything worthwhile to say?

posted 10-19-2003 08:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by swamp gas:
Shatoga,

In my opinion, Wolf had an excellent way of presenting his OPINION. But that's all.

Like Patrick Minnis coming here, paid and proxy mouthpieces for Herr Bush and His Sour Band of Neo-Con Fundamentalists.

When Wolf starts with the "under the breath ridicule toward everyone who doesn't agree with him, I simply don't want to hear it.

For some reason, debunkers will always present their personal views as "the Truth", or start posts with, "Don't make me laugh", "You communist idiot", " and other disrespectful terms.

My motto is, go into something slightly friendly, and wait for the next respence. If somebody calls me an idiot because I detest Neo-Cons, why would I thinbk the people who support them have anything worthwhile to say?

Good job everyone for expressing very strong opinions!!!

---

I am a government agent? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA, that’s a good one.

Where have I ever, ridiculed anyone under my breath and how can you tell that something is said "under the breath" in a written post?

I don’t think that I ever started a post with "the Truth," "Don't make me laugh," or "You communist idiot." (OK I did start this post laughing, but it was at your sugestion that I am some kind of paid agent not at your political views or your knowlege and experience. I wish I was paid for this, I could use the extra cash these days )

OK, Shatoga, lets go back to the torch analogy, since that is something you are familiar with.

There are two types of torches. Air-fuel (commonly used by plumbers to solder pipe) and the oxy-fuel torch, used for high temperature welding and cutting.

What is the different between them? In both types the hydrocarbon fuel burns according to the following general reaction

HC + O2 -> H20 + CO2 + Energy (Heat)

In the first type of torch, the oxygen is supplied by the ambient air. The concentration of oxygen in air is about 21%. The rest consists of inert gas, mainly nitrogen (N2).

If we assume that the combustion is 100% complete, the maximum fuel that we can burn for a given size burner tip is determined by the oxygen content of the air at ambient pressure. At this point, we have reached the maximum amount of energy that can be released by the combustion process. The amount of heat produced by the combustion is the same in either case. However, the inert nitrogen absorbs some of the heat that is produced by the combustion. Therefore some of the heat from the combustion is lost to you before you can use it. If we increase the fuel flow further, we start to get a sooty, diffuse flame. BUT, the amount of fuel that is burning is still the same. The amount of heat produced is also the same. Although due to the fact that you now have a diffuse, guttering flame, the heat is more dispersed.

Now lets look at an oxy fuel flame. If we replace the air with pure oxygen do we get a hotter flame? Yes and no. Is the oxygen somehow different from the oxygen in the air? No, it is just more concentrated. If we keep the fuel flow at the same rate and pressure as with our air fuel set up, the limiting factor is no longer the amount of oxygen present, but the amount of fuel present. In this case, the amount of heat released by the combustion is exactly the same with the oxy-fuel combustion as with the air fuel combustion. Now, If the oxygen flow is optimized to the exact amount needed to combust the fuel, then the amount of heat available is higher because you are no longer heating the nitrogen in the air (at the point of combustion).

Now, in the above case the total amount of gas we need to push through our torch tip is a lot lower, since we don’t have to draw all of that excess inert nitrogen through. Therefore, the size of our burner will be a lot more compact, concentrating the heat in a smaller area.

Since we are no longer limited to the amount of oxygen in the air at ambient pressure, we can increase the amount of both fuel and oxygen going through the burner. This increases the amount of heat released which make up for some of the heat lost to the surrounding air and torch components. Therefore, it appears that our flame temperature is higher. But the reality is that we now have amore heat available in a smaller space.

Adding oxygen doesn’t magically increase the temperature of the combustion, rather it increases the amount of fuel that can be burned in a given area. If the amount of fuel present is the same, and if we are close to 100% efficiency in a air fuel mixture, then increasing the percentage of oxygen will NOT increase the amount of heat released. It might change the efficiency and speed of the heat release, but it will not change the amount of heat released.

posted 10-20-2003 08:11 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wolf_Larson:I am a government agent? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA, that’s a good one.

---

If you read my post, you'd see I said PROXY or paid.

Proxy means exactly what it says, qouting the government line, directly or indirectly.

If you are stating the corporate/CIA controlled media, line by line, then you are working for them, whether you get paid by them or not.

posted 10-20-2003 10:02 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by swamp gas:

If you are stating the corporate/CIA controlled media, line by line, then you are working for them, whether you get paid by them or not.

---

What if I simply support the opinions of the overwhelming majority of structural engineers and architects through out the world? Would that make me a proxy for the engineering and architectural elite?

posted 10-20-2003 10:23 AM            

There is one thing that no one has yet adequately explained.

If the demolition charges were indeed placed in the basements, wouldn’t that have caused the collapses to start in the basements? In other words, wouldn’t the buildings have dropped intact into the basements with the pancaking starting from the bottom as the top of the building came down?

When I look at the video evidence of the collapse, the first floors to give way were the impact floors. The pancaking started from the impact floor as the top portions dropped onto the lower portion of the building

How could charges placed in the basement have caused the impact floors to collapse first?

posted 10-20-2003 10:34 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wolf_Larson:
What if I simply support the opinions of the overwhelming majority of structural engineers and architects through out the world? Would that make me a proxy for the engineering and architectural elite?

---

Where is your proof of "The Majority"? Even if that were true, since when does a majority always come up with the correct assertion? Case in point......Hitler....and George W Bush.......

I work in the field of Video Production. A "majority" say that the networks DO NOT put 1 frame subliminals in broadcastTV.

a) Technically, this can be done, and look at the "Rat" blipvert commercial against AL Gore.

b) Because a majority say they don't do it, does that make it so? I have done it myself, to see if there is subliminal reaction.

This is like the chemtrail argument. A lot of PILOTS say that such a thing can't be done. However, an accredited Jet Mechanic, Mech, gets thrown off an ridiculed at Maverick's site, because he actually gets in the innards of a jet, whereas pilots simply fly, and know some theory. All it takes is a few brave individuals to go against the Lemming-Like consciousness of the pack.

I have read everyone of your arguments on the WTC collapse, and I am still not convinced. I lean 60% toward controlled demolition, simply because of the fact that BushLaden Productions is lying just about everything.

So, the 40% of me that is still listening to people like Wolf Larsen, says:

a) prove to me that Bin Laden's boys actually did it.

b) Bin Laden was under direction to brainwash jihadists to perpetrate action agianst USA.

c)prove that Dubya is not a third-rate president.

If you can't, then you are using science to further the Neo-Cons agenda.

posted 10-20-2003 03:01 PM            

The ENTIRE Sept 11th event has too many questions unanswered.

Many people are no longer buying the controlled medias story...which is a good sign. It will only be a matter of time before THE TRUTH comes out.

Much like FAKE stories from the past...like...

*JFK was killed by a "lone gunman"

*The alleged Tonkin Gulf incident.

*The INCUBATOR story of Gulf war #1

*Nero burning Rome and blaming it on the Christians

* Hitler burning the Reichtag government
building and blaming it on "terrorists"

* How Roosevelt knew of Admiral Yamamotos
communique to attack Pearl harbor

*How McKinnleys Navy blew up their own ship
"The Maine" to get the U.S. Involved with a "war with Spain"

Its only a matter of time.

You can debate with Wolfie untill you are blue in the face but i'm sure he is convinced he thinks it was-- "that them thar towelheads that left their Koran in a nudie bar."

We know better.

Its the same people who think the Bush family had no connections to the Nazi party.

The same people who voted for Bush and support the unconstitutional "Patriot" (SIC) Act and TWAT (the wars against "terror").

Time is on our side Swamp.

Mech smiles.

posted 10-20-2003 03:51 PM            

Repeat:

If the demolition charges were indeed placed in the basements, wouldn’t that have caused the collapses to start in the basements? In other words, wouldn’t the buildings have dropped intact into the basements with the pancaking starting from the bottom as the top of the building came down?

When I look at the video evidence of the collapse, the first floors to give way were the impact floors. The pancaking started from the impact floor as the top portions dropped onto the lower portion of the building

How could charges placed in the basement have caused the impact floors to collapse first?

posted 10-20-2003 04:09 PM            

Many NY firefighters like 52 year old Lou Cachioli were saying "bombs were going off" all around them on their way out of the WTC.

You can defend the status quo and call it "data" and "scientific fact" all the way up till the end if you want to wolfie..makes no difference to me.

I know the real story.

This illigitimate, corrupt government SURE AS THE SUN RISES carried out Sept. 11th.

"WHAT IS AT STAKE IS NO SMALL COUNTRY...IT IS A BIG IDEA...A NEW WORLD ORDER."

posted 10-20-2003 05:43 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mech:
Who's to say it wasn't just "in the basement"?

Many NY firefighters like 52 year old Lou Cachioli were saying "bombs were going off" all around them on their way out of the WTC.

---

BTW, I noticed that you did not really answer the question.

quote:

---

You can defend the status quo and call it "data" and "scientific fact" all the way up till the end if you want to wolfie..makes no difference to me.

---

If something is a fact, based on sound scientific principles, then it is still a fact no matter what your personal political beliefs are.

quote:

---

I know the real story.

This illigitimate, corrupt government SURE AS THE SUN RISES carried out Sept. 11th.

"WHAT IS AT STAKE IS NO SMALL COUNTRY...IT IS A BIG IDEA...A NEW WORLD ORDER."

--GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH. SEPT 11TH 1990

---

Don’t try to change the subject. You posted how proud you were to have started this thread, so stick with the topic.

You have no real evidence that there were any controlled demolitions other than the fact that it fits your personal political views.

OK, let me toss some more questions out there. If there were explosives planted on the impact floors, how come they were not prematurely detonated by the force of the explosion and the subsequent fire?

posted 10-20-2003 06:21 PM            

Go ask Bush SR's CIA friends that question Wolfie.

They were the ones who carried it out.

posted 10-20-2003 06:24 PM            

If you were my child I might pay to get cult deprogrammers to free you from the grip of that cult of conservatism you belong to body mind and SOUL.

fortunately we are not related and I can let you languish in that hell that observes only pseudo information which agrees with your cult.

Fire chief says only two fires and your cult leaders say chimney effect melting steel beams?
Go with your cult leaders and ignore reality.

What humans do you know who can talk on cell phones while steel beams next to them melt and collapse lengthways?

Fire fighters speak of explosions and your cult leaders claim chimney effect sudden catastrophic failure?
Go with your cult leaders and ignore reality.

History and facts prove military stand-down on 911 and your cult leaders claim coincidence?
Go with your cult leaders and ignore reality.

Believe that a few itenerant Arabs overcame the trillion dollar Federal government and defeated the bush Administration?
Go with your cult leaders and ignore reality.
It was an inside job!

giving up on trying to debate with someone who disregards any source not from his own cult of conservatism.

Drink that kool-aid Wolfie!

The world is better off without cult followers who ignore reality and slavishly follow their cult leaders.

The rest of us will let the facts pro and con convince us.