Steven Jones is protecting the 9/11 perps and betraying us

[CB_Brooklyn]

It’s been almost two years since Jones went on C-SPAN with his “hard evidence” of thermite. The only reason he wouldn't present this "hard evidence" to a Court of Law is to protect the perps. He has betrayed us all. Why?

If Jones isn't going to present this evidence to the court system, where the perps can be held accountable, he should give this "hard evidence" to someone who will. Short of that, Jones is betraying us. Jones is betraying our country!

[AZCat]

1. I don't think that's the only reason.

It might also be that he doesn't have any "hard evidence".

[LARED]

2. Maybe if you ask him he will send his hard evidence to you, then

you could take it to the court system.

[victordrazen]

3. I don't know who to trust in this

As I recall, his testing was on steel that someone had sent him and I don't know how valid that would be. I also don't know if thermite is the best explanation for what happened, I think there is a problem with the way it works in a charge, he never answered how it would actually be applied, did he? Something like, the stuff takes too long to detonate for a traditional charge and he never said what kind of charge would be used. It's impossible to know who is for real and who has "someone" behind him misleading us.

[petgoat]

7. Thermate can explain the molten metal in the basements.

It can't explain the pulverization of the concrete/floor pans/carpets.

It can't explain the dust clouds.

It can't explain the squibs.

[vincent_vega_lives]

9. Since we continue to recycle old crap

I though I'd post this for the new truthers on board.

By folks who know the difference between shaped cutting charges and "squibs".

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

[petgoat]

11. By "squibs" I mean the energetic isolated expulsions of powdered

building materials that can be seen emanating from the collapsing
buildings many floors, sometimes as many as 20 floors, below the
collapse zone.

[hack89]

15. Assuming the squibs were explosives

placed in needlessly conspicuous places to give away a covert demolition, what physical manifestation would you expect of the compression and expulsion of all the air that the WTC contained?

[petgoat]

16. Compressed air will blow out all the windows on a floor simultaneously.

My introduction to 9/11 Truth was seeing full-page pictures of the
side of the WTC with conspicuous squibs blowing out in isolated locations
at the center of the wall, 10-20 stories below the collapse zone.
I decided they had to be photoshopped hoaxes, somebody's sick joke.

Then I supposed that collapsing floors forced air down the elevator
shafts, causing the squibs.

Compressed air would push up the false hanging ceiling, and blow out all
the windows at once.

Those blasts of pulverized building material are emanating from the core
at 200 feet per second.

[LARED]

20. Why do you think all the window should fail simultaneously? - n/t

[petgoat]

33. That's the way compressed air works. It expands in all directions. nt

[LARED]

35. Not really, It expands via the path of least resistance - nt

[petgoat]

38. Given the open plan, same difference. nt

[Flatulo]

39. Windows in highrises are usually glued in. The joint strength can

vary quite a bit, so the weaker joints would fail first under the air pressure.

The John Hanckock tower in Boston had problems for years with poor glue joints. Windows were falling out quite frequently.

[LARED]

41. Good lord man/women, get a clue

why would an open plan have any bearing on this issue. The air compresses, something fails first as the pressure mounts, that something is the place were the structure is weakest, A window, a vent cover, whatever

[petgoat]

42. I've got a clue. How come the squibs were almost always in the center of the wall? nt

[AZCat]

49. If I were to guess...

Not that I've confirmed your claim that the "squibs" were placed as you state, but it makes sense. Even though gases do expand in all directions, rapid changes in volume result in pressure waves throughout that expand radially from the source. In our case, that means that the decreased volume at the center of the building (where all the shit was falling) produces a pressure wave that expands from the center of the building, reaching the centers of the sides first.

But that's just a guess.

[petgoat]

55. How was all the shit falling in the center? That's where the resistance/mass ratio was highest.

Change in volume should have been less in the core than in the open floor region that
had 70% of the mass (from concrete) and less resistance because each floor was
designed only to hold up itself (with certain excess capacity) while the core
was designed to hold up the entire building.

[AZCat]

70. It's only a guess.

I'd have to look at it more closely to give you a better answer.

[petgoat]

73. IOW you can't say, because nobody can say without explosives. nt

[AZCat]

78. How fucking arrogant of you. n/t

[LARED]

56. Perhaps the center of the wall

is where a ventilation system that runs along the building.

Perhaps the center of the building has a pipe or telecommunication chase, that provides a weak spot in terms of a pressure wave.

[petgoat]

60. So why don't you FOIA the blueprints for us and prove your theory? nt

[LARED]

61. Why bother, I know how building mechanical systems

are designed and installed. I already know what why we see so called squibs.

[petgoat]

64. I see, you invent the indestructable ductwork you need, and place it where you want,

and assume it's there, to reinforce your complacency.

I did that when I was ignorant. I assumed we had four simultaneous
hijackings, and the air war was all over in 15 minutes, because
that's the only thing that made sense.

When I found out that my assumption was wrong, I took a step toward
becoming wise.

[SDuderstadt]

65. Man, I'd say you have a LOT more steps to go before...

becoming wise if you keep parrotting debunked CT website bullshit.

[petgoat]

66. Your belief that those juvenile debunking sites have any wisdom whatsoever is misplaced. nt

[SDuderstadt]

67. Yeah, facts you can't refute are so....

juvenile, Petgoat. I thought you were going to point to specific falsehoods in them. Having trouble?

[AZCat]

71. Who needs indestructable ductwork?

Just build it per SMACNA and you should be fine.

[petgoat]

74. You get burst of air that will blow out individual windows but not blow out the ducts? nt

[AZCat]

79. Do you know what pressures the HVAC ducts in the WTC towers...

were designed to handle? Do you know what magnitude of pressure it takes to burst a window? Do you know how to calculate it?

[petgoat]

83. You're making it complicated again. The engineering priest must stand between us and god.

The windows were engineered for a hurricane. I doubt the ductwork was.

[AZCat]

86. I don't even believe in a god. I do, however, believe you don't know jack about engineering.

I think my belief is sufficiently backed up by the evidence in your many posts here at DU, just like this one (for example).

You have no fucking clue how to determine the numbers necessary to draw an informed conclusion, so you just pull something out of your ass. You don't care what it is, as long as it supports your theory.

[petgoat]

90. It's simple logic. Windows engineered for hurricane. Ducts not. nt

[AZCat]

92. It's stupid logic.

Don't confuse simplicity with sageness.

[SDuderstadt]

103. Quite frankly....

when "truthers" start trying to expound on Logic, it's time to review "Unskilled and Unaware of it". In a nutshell, illogical people (like "truthers") lack the cognitive skills to recognize their own lack of Logic. It's the ultimate catch-22.

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

[AZCat]

117. Yes, I agree.

petgoat has been an excellent example of the thesis of the paper for quite some time.

[hack89]

14. How?

You know as well as I that the truth community has never presented a physical mechanism for how thermite was responsible for the molten metal in the rubble pile? How could it - the thermite was consumed before the building had finished collapsing.

[petgoat]

18. The thermate was consumed, but the molten metal from its operation remained. nt

[LARED]

19. So how did the metal stay molten for weeks? - n/t

[LARED]

29. PG, where are you? n/t

[petgoat]

34. I don't know. Insulated by the pile, maybe. Blanket of hot dust. nt

[LARED]

36. So let me see if I understand

You believe it is possible that the molten material stayed molten because the material was well insulated. But you completely discount that well insulated underground fires could be responsible for molten materials in the first palce.

[petgoat]

37. You can't have insulation and oxygenation. You don't have coke or charcoal for fuel.

No one reported any 2000 degree chimneys.

[LARED]

40. Based on that bit of information

it's a wonder any type of furnace manages to work.

BTW, do you know how charcoal is made?

[petgoat]

43. Of course I know how coke and charcoal are made-- in O2 starved fires.

You "Pile cooking melts steel" guys are conflating the process
of making charcoal in a pile with the process of smelting
steel in a blast furnace.

[AZCat]

44. But you can have insulation and high temperatures.

High enough to melt steel, in fact. If you'd bothered to do any research on your own (I know how hard it is to work that Google thingy) you'd know that.

But you didn't.

So you stayed ignorant.

As usual.

[petgoat]

45. I didn't say you couldn't. I said you couldn't have insulation and ventilation.

Unless you've got some kind of bellows to force air on the fire.

[AZCat]

46. Who gives a shit about ventilation?

You don't need good ventilation to reach the required temperatures - that's your argument, not ours.

[petgoat]

47. You can't have a hot fire without air. nt

[AZCat]

48. Now that's just fucking ignorant.

It's not like Google costs money to use or anything. You don't even need to learn any science to check that point - it's right up your alley!

[petgoat]

50. Prove that a 1200 degree fire can melt steel. nt

[AZCat]

51. How is that relevant to the discussion in this thread?

More importantly, where have I been stupid enough to make that claim? Oh wait, I haven't. It's you who hasn't a fucking clue.

[petgoat]

53. You won't support your claim that hydrocarbon fires in the piles can melt steel. nt

[AZCat]

68. Trying to change the subject won't work.

In post #47 you made an absolutely moronic statement and now you're trying to run from it. It won't work.

[petgoat]

75. It's you trying to run from your claim that hydrocarbons in the pile can melt steel.

There's nothing moronic about saying you can't have hot fires without air.
In fact you need forced air.

[AZCat]

80. Bullshit. In fact, it's so obvious that everyone else here in this forum...

is familiar with it, except (apparently) you.

[petgoat]

84. Why do you keep slamming petgoat instead of supporting your claim?

How does any old hydrocarbon in an airless fire in the debris pile melt steel?

Tell us oh wise one!

[AZCat]

87. That's not the topic.

Try the other thread if you want to ask that. This one's about your stunningly idiotic statement several posts above.

[petgoat]

91. My idiotic statement that fires require air. nt

[AZCat]

93. Your statment that "You can't have a hot fire without air."

Yeah, that was pretty fucking stupid.

[petgoat]

96. How do you have a hot fire without air? nt

[AZCat]

98. My ***, petgoat - it's not like there aren't a million fucking ways to do it.

One in particular you have been promoting for months (if not years). Are you really this fucking oblivious?

[petgoat]

99. I thought we were talking "practical." nt

[AZCat]

100. I have absolutely no idea what you mean by that.

How do you determine if a reaction is "practical"? Is this some sort of arcane ritual practiced by the worshipers of the golden armchair?

[petgoat]

101. Oh I get it. You're drunk. You see the jig is up. WTC7 column 79 is bullshit. nt

[AZCat]

102. I think you might be projecting.

Just because my posts don't make sense to you doesn't mean the rest of us are drunk, too.

[SidDithers]

58. And the lulz continue...nt

Sid

[AZCat]

52. I'm going to have to bookmark this shit for later.

More laughs for the fellows.

[petgoat]

54. In other words, you can't answer the question. nt

[AZCat]

69. What question?

You mean, "why is petgoat maintaining such a stupid position regarding fires?"

You're right - I can't answer that.

[petgoat]

76. How hydrocarbons in the pile without air can melt steel. nt

[AZCat]

81. Can't you keep to the topic?

Running away from your statement sure is going to get you in good shape.

[petgoat]

85. You're spamming to hide your inability to support your claim. nt

[AZCat]

88. Try the other thread if you want to discuss that.

Otherwise, you might want to address the statement you made several posts back. Care to rethink it?

[LARED]

57. Why do you need to force air with a bellows? -nt

[petgoat]

59. You can't even have a forge, let alone a foundry, without bellows. nt

[LARED]

62. Once again trying to illuminate your understanding is a pointless

activity

[petgoat]

63. No forced air, no smelting. nt

[AZCat]

72. For fuck's sake, can't you learn something about these subjects first?

You look like an ignorant jackass.

[petgoat]

77. You're bullshitting again. No forced air, no blast furnace, no smelting. nt

[AZCat]

82. The foundation of your arguments is a steaming pile of bullshit.

Why are you so reluctant to go check those little things called "facts"? It's not like you have to depend on me.

[petgoat]

89. I've checked. No forced air, no molten steel. nt

[AZCat]

94. No you haven't.

Because that's the wrong answer. And now you look stupid.

[petgoat]

107. I don't look stupid, even if I'm wrong. You look dishonest even if you're (technically) right. nt

[AZCat]

116. Redefining reality to suit your needs...

does not change the basic truths of the matter. You're wrong, and you look like an idiot.

[petgoat]

120. Sez you, anonymous internet poster. nt

[AZCat]

123. You are wrong.

Reality doesn't shift to suit you just because you're too immature to admit you half-assed your "research".

[petgoat]

127. I'm wrong, you're not an anonymous internet poster?

I really should call the mods on you, AZ. You're a disruptor.
You provide no value, only spam to the threads.

Redeem yourself. Tell us about column 79.

[AZCat]

129. Fine. Alert away.

I think it is plenty obvious who is doing what here. Are you done covering up for your pathetic excuse for "research"? (or "checking", whatever you're calling it this week)

[petgoat]

132. YOUR Spamming is disruptive to this forum, nt

[AZCat]

134. Don't fucking lecture me. The "alert" button is in the lower left-hand corner of my post. n/t

[petgoat]

136. I don't call mods. That's Sid Sawyer tactics. nt

[AZCat]

138. Then maybe you shouldn't fucking threaten to do so. n/t

[petgoat]

140. Ididn't.

[AZCat]

141. Have you been drinking?

I don't mean the question as a slight against your character - I myself am fond of imbibing and posting on forums (much to the other poster's dismay, I'm sure) - but it would provide a reasonable explanation for the string of posts you've made tonight where you went straight in the face of rather obvious evidence to the contrary of your position.

[LARED]

95. So why do you need forced air - nt

[petgoat]

97. I don't know. Do you? To get a hot fire, I guess. nt

[SDuderstadt]

104. A post or two ago you said...

you checked this. Now you're saying you don't know? Oy.

[petgoat]

106. What I said was, I checked that forced air was needed. I did not say I checked why it was needed.

Go play on the railroad bridge, okay kid?

[SDuderstadt]

108. Do you really expect us to believe this?

At the very least, if you were researching this because it's important, are you honestly claiming you stopped short of learning WHY it's needed? Either you are being lazy again or this is just more of your intellectual dishonesty. Or both.

[petgoat]

109. I wasn't researching. I was checking AZ's stupid claim that "any old hydrocarbon" could melt steel

in the debris pile.

You and AZ have been spamming like hell to try to cover up that
howler ever since, and trying to shift the issue on to me.

[SDuderstadt]

110. Considering I have all of two posts in that subthread....

either math is not your strong suit or this is more of your intellectual dishonesty. Or both.

P.S. Could you kindly explain the difference between "researching" and merely "checking"?

[petgoat]

111. That you don't know the difference speaks volumes, Sid.

You've been spamming, AZ's been spamming. Who cares about subthreads?

You guys are pathetic.

[SDuderstadt]

112. Okay...then what is the difference, Marv?

If I say that I am going to check the difference between two things, how is that NOT researching the difference? Oy. I have a hint. When you're digging yourself into a hole, you should stop digging.


P.S. I'm really interested to see how you'll try to spin checking as not a form of research.

P.P.S. What's really funny is you're now having to back-pedal on your claim that I was spamming trying to cover-up AZ's "howler" (actually, it was more like he nailed you over and over) when the debate is confined in that subthread and I only commented twice. I guess while you're explaining the difference between "checking" and "researching", you'd also be kind enough to enlighten us as to how 2 comments out of scores of them total is "spamming". BTW, is there some sort of "truther dictionary" we could buy so we don't have to constantly ask you how things are defined in "TrutherWorld"? Seems to me it would save ALL of us a lot of time, especially since you usually have to try to answer a simple question with 4-5 posts. Actually, floundering is more like it.

P.P.P.S. Have you and SLAD ever thought of getting married? You two seem perfect for each other.

[SDuderstadt]

113. I'd be glad to contribute the first entry in the "truther dictionary"

Molten metal: Can only be molten steel, irrespective of its actual composition.

[petgoat]

114. When I research, Sid, I research. When I check I check. Apples and raisins. nt

[SDuderstadt]

115. I see, Marv....

why didn't you just say you couldn't answer the question? Wouldn't that have been easier? I mean, it's pretty silly to claim checking smething isn't a form of research.

[petgoat]

118. You don't know the difference between checking and research. I rest my case, nt

[SDuderstadt]

135. Then tell us what it is...

and quit stalling. Try to think of it this way. All checking is a form of research. But research can be more involved than merely checking. Have you ever heard of a Venn diagram, Mr. Logic?

[AZCat]

121. Shift? Shift?!

Just because you won't get your lazy ass away from the couch and do a little fucking research on your claim (which was made first, by the way) you expect me to provide an explanation of the same sort you refuse to provide. Fucking hypocrite.

[petgoat]

124. Poof. Prove it.

This is the kind of bullshit the mods disapprove of.
You wouldn't be trying to get me in trouble, would you?

Looks to me like you're just trying to buy a license for
spam with more spam.

[AZCat]

126. Jesus fucking Christ, petgoat.

All I'm trying to do is get you to back up your fucking claim (properly, not the bullshit you posted) before I go through the trouble of doing the same. Tit-for-tat and all that. Is that really so much to ask?

[petgoat]

130. YOU said any old hydrocarbon will melt steel in the debris. I never said anything so dumb. nt

[AZCat]

133. Go discuss it in the other thread. n/t

[AZCat]

119. And you were wrong.

Now you look fucking stupid.

[petgoat]

122. Honestly, AZ. Did your grammar school teachers never explain to you the necessity of backing up

your points with examples?

You're a home-skooled engineer, I take it?

[AZCat]

125. Why should I have to provide 'back up" for something so painfully obvious to the rest of us?

Just because you seem incapable of working a search engine doesn't mean I have to fucking spoon-feed you.

For fuck's sake - it took me a whopping two clicks to find information contrary to your claims. Is that little effort beyond your capability? How in fuck's name do you manage in the real world?

[petgoat]

128. Ah, in two clicks you proved I'm stupid. Silly AZ. nt

[AZCat]

131. I didn't prove you were stupid.

You looked stupid. There is a significant difference. Even the brightest people do dumb things.

[petgoat]

137. I didn't say you did. I said you CLAIMED you did. Still trying to spam your way out of stupidty?

[AZCat]

139. That is untrue (and pathetically so).

The title of your post (for those unable to check post #128) was the following (at least as of 9:20 PM Arizona time):

Ah, in two clicks you proved I'm stupid. Silly AZ. nt

I leave it up to the audience to determine who exactly is trying to "spam" their way out of stupidity.

[petgoat]

142. You try to spam your way out of the stupid claim that debris pile fires melted steel, AZ nt

[AZCat]

143. Not only are you in the wrong thread for that discussion...

but you managed to fuck up the argument when you paraphrased it. Nice job.

[hack89]

21. Would it produce that much molten metal?

the smoking gun photo of the column cut at 45 degrees would indicate that only a very narrow strip of metal was actually melted. The cuts are very clean and the remainder of the column was intact with no deformity or sign of melting. Plus the solidifies slag shows that much of the molten metal cooled almost immediately.

If the molten metal was produced prior or during the actual collapse, how would it collect into pools before it cooled and solidified?

[victordrazen]

22. Thanks

:hi:

[jberryhill]

4. Too busy on the lecture circuit

Jones, Gage, the lot of them, are too busy at "truth" events to engage in any actual political or legal effort to do anything.

[petgoat]

6. What would you suggest Jones and Gage do? They try to educate people. nt

[jberryhill]

12. I would suggest they support a class action suit on behalf of victims

Any victim's estate, believing in the stuff of Gage and Jones, should file suit against the perpetrators.

The damages would be monstrous, and Gage and Jones would not only be heroes, but they would clean up as experts.

Why don't they do that?

[petgoat]

17. Maybe they've been made leery of 9/11 lawsuits

by the incompetent work of Stanley Hilton and Philip Berg,
both of which filed suits in federal court that were
practically illiterate.

[jberryhill]

25. ...and which would have no bearing on any other action

Lots of stupid lawsuits are filed.

Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood are both pursuing lawsuits under a quirky theory of the whistleblower statute, but at least they are doing what someone with belief in their own convictions would do. At present those cases are awaiting rulings on various motions for sanctions by the defendants.

Gage and Jones won't submit publications to recognized journals. They won't make themselves available as experts for legal action. They won't even rent time on late night cable, which is really cheap. Instead they go from presentation to presentation at truth soirees put on by the already convinced.

Preaching to the choir at truth events isn't "educating" anyone in anything that they don't already know.

[Laurier]

30. More likely, they don't believe the crap that Jones and Gage are selling.

Somewhere around 90 or so family members of victims did sue, with competent counsel, not idiots like Berg or Hilton, and none of them sued the U.S. government or alleged any conspiracy involving the U.S. government.

[Laurier]

5. All those other members of the "truth" movement who claim to have "smoking guns" and do nothing...

Are they also betraying you? Perhaps you should ask Jones and other "truthers" to turn their "smoking guns" over to you and you can present it to a D.A. Please report back when you've done so, as I'm sure the readership here will be most interested to hear about the results.

[greyl]

8. Sharp point. nt

[victordrazen]

10. who says they have a smoking gun, specifically?

that is a media figure.

[AZCat]

13. It has been said before in this very forum.

Top 10 9/11 Smoking Guns

The Movement Will Now Have Smoking Gun Proof For An Inside Job...The PentaCon

A 9/11 "Smoking Gun" Hidden In Plain Sight

The Smoking Gun - Sept. 11th Plane Impact Time Discrepancies

Smoking Gun #523 - Change to "Stand Down" order June 2001

9/11 SMOKING GUNS - Found in the Mainstream Media

A new 9/11 smoking gun: the WTC was fortified for aerial attack before 911

These are just the threads from 2005 on that had "smoking gun" in the title. When I did a search for "smoking gun" in this sub-forum, I had 57 hits.

[victordrazen]

23. Yeah, and I can list a bunch of misleading "official" theory

stuff - like Victor Prainmeth watching a plane "land" in the wtc while hiding under his desk, that none of you question. I, personally, never say "smoking gun" or proof" and neither does Jones, as far as I know. Plenty of ridiculous stuff is said in the name of the OCT, too.

[AZCat]

24. You make an assumption...

and the consequences are well known. You have no idea what we do or do not question. I'm not even sure if you know what the so-called "official story" is. Have you ever read any of the "texts" of the OCT or do you just parrot what you read on crappy CT sites?

[jberryhill]

26. Az, VD just outed itself

(Victor Praimath is only witness to plane) = (no planer)

[AZCat]

28. Then there's no point in trying to have a discussion with him at all.

The no-planers are so far gone they are not worth the effort.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Laurier]

31. Numerous "truthers" claim to have "smoking gun" evidence that allegedly proves an "inside job"

Are you really so new to this that you are unaware of the numerous ludicrous claims by truthers that they have "smoking gun" evidence that supports their conspiracy theories, and are you really so new to this that you are unaware of the fact that their alleged smoking gun evidence is nothing of the sort?

If it is a matter of you having an issue with the specific term "smoking gun" (even though that is a term that truthers have used and claimed repeatedly - just take a look at the links that AZCat has provided or search the forum for many, many more examples), substitute the word "evidence". So, what do you think about all of those self-professed truthers who purport to have evidence of an "inside job" and do absolutely nothing with it other than post mostly incoherent and unfounded nonsense on Internet message boards?

To loop back to the OP, are they also, as the OP suggests, betraying you? Perhaps you should ask Jones and other truthers to turn their evidence over to you so that you can present it to a D.A. Please report back when you've done so, as I'm sure the readership here will be most interested to hear about the results.

[Laurier]

32. So, still nothing victordrazen?

Cut and paste:

Numerous "truthers" claim to have "smoking gun" evidence that allegedly proves an "inside job"

Are you really so new to this that you are unaware of the numerous ludicrous claims by truthers that they have "smoking gun" evidence that supports their conspiracy theories, and are you really so new to this that you are unaware of the fact that their alleged smoking gun evidence is nothing of the sort?

If it is a matter of you having an issue with the specific term "smoking gun" (even though that is a term that truthers have used and claimed repeatedly - just take a look at the links that AZCat has provided or search the forum for many, many more examples), substitute the word "evidence". So, what do you think about all of those self-professed truthers who purport to have evidence of an "inside job" and do absolutely nothing with it other than post mostly incoherent and unfounded nonsense on Internet message boards?

To loop back to the OP, are they also, as the OP suggests, betraying you? Perhaps you should ask Jones and other truthers to turn their evidence over to you so that you can present it to a D.A. Please report back when you've done so, as I'm sure the readership here will be most interested to hear about the results.


Edit: oops, typo in the subject line.

[SidDithers]

105. Jones, is he a hero or disinfo agent?...

I can't keep track.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x114064#114599

Sid

[petgoat]

144. Dr. Jones is a very nice man who tells us what we want to hear.

I am grateful for his work, and anxious to hear his latest,
and I'll feel a lot better about it when it's been replicated
in another lab.