Onelung, if you read my earlier comments you will know I don't believe that. However I also don't go round calling people imbeciles for questioning why there are so many anomolies about what happened. Or maybe I should type in CAPITALS because as everyone knows that makes things FACT.
Up until the middle of the 18th Century the political and religious establishment had the 'anwers' to anything and everything, anyone not conforming to their ideological version of events were labelled heretics, imbeciles, witches etc...
When scientific evidence was slowly introduced by the 'thinkers' such as scientists, anthropologists, evolutionists etc, they were described by the establishment as intellectual 'terrorists' against the norm...
As scientific techniques develop more and more 'answers' are redefined and new explanations are accepted, it's only those that have the most to lose that choose to not accept new explanations/answers...
That's why organisations such as the church and the US governement refuse to debate any other version of accounts other than their own, they've got too much to lose...
[cite]Posted By: colthe3rd[/cite]Onelung, if you read my earlier comments you will know I don't believe that. However I also don't go round calling people imbeciles for questioning why there are so many anomolies about what happened. Or maybe I should type in CAPITALS because as everyone knows that makes things FACT.
+
maybe I SHOULD HAVE used ITALICS ....
Plus I had not cross referenced your earlier comments, i was just reading the final comment you had made.
oh - FACT.
If anyone reads that and still believes there was some CIA/NSA conspiracy, that the towers were demolished in controlled, pre-planned explosions, that the planes weren't passenger airliners, or that a missile (not a plane) hit the pentagon then you have the intelligence, reasoning and cognitive ability of a child.
[cite]Posted By: Leroy's link[/cite]But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
Jet fuel burns to 1500°F and rugs, curtains and paper managed to raise this to 1832°F? Apologies for being an imbecile but how does that work?
[cite]Posted By:Leroy's link[/cite]But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
Jet fuel burns to 1500°F and rugs, curtains and paper managed to raise this to 1832°F? Apologies for being an imbecile but how does that work?
Heat transfer. Combustible materials in a fire including gases, soot, plastics, foam rubber etc. raise the temperature very quickly from the initial burn. This in turn causes multiple 'flashovers', each of which raises the ambient heat by varying degrees.
There is a whole heap of dodgy crap linked to 9/11. For me, there is definitely more than meets the eye on this one.
The scenario of the Building 7 collapse is extremely suspect.
US Airforce all out on wargames/drills?
There was no sign of a plane at the Pentagon. With the plane allegedly incinerated, the passports from the hijackers were found & they were 'identified'. Then found to be alive anyway.
The fact that the flight that crashed into the woods(Flight 93?) Wasn't actually there when reporters got there. They found a pile of burning rubbish in a hole, & reported it as such. The same channel changed that story some time later when further details, 'facts', & scapegoats' emerged.
Some 'truths' are hard to believe, especially with high power & industry pulling the strings that we never see. The world has been this way for a long time. Not saying I believe it all, but we certainly don't live in wholly truthful times.
That two planes flew into the the twin towers causing massive loss of life and exstensive damage is absolute fact. I don't think anybody is arguing that one.
The rest is theory, speculation, conjecture and in some cases nonsense. There are a lot more questions than answers and some of the 'official' results of the incidents, don't bear up to scrutiny.
I certainly have never heard any plausible answers as to:-
1) The virtual immediate identification of the suspects - at least one of whom has proved to be alive and well.
2) The collapse of WTC7, which by all standard calculations of fire loads on steel framed buildings is an impossible event.
3) A 'plane' hitting The Pentagon, leaving no debris, no marks on the adjacent manicured lawn, no film footage (despite being the most CCTV covered building in the US) and hitting directly on the only specially reinforced sixth of the building.
4) The debris at the Flight 93 site showed little signs of a 767 (?) having crashed there, compared with (for example) the debris of the 747 crash site at Lockerbie - and that was blown up in flight.
Of course, the conspiracy theorists will have a field day about issues like the insurance of the twin towers, the amount of asbestos in the buildings, passports in the debris, CIA/SS/IRS at WTC7, the US quest for oil, Haliburton, the 'War on Terror' etc, etc, but the US Government can dispel this if they wished, but deem it not in the National (or indeed global) interest.
I wonder why that is?
There is certainly more to 9/11 than what is commonly believed - . At least accept that Leroy, then we can all be freinds again.
[cite]Posted By:Leroy's link[/cite]But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
Jet fuel burns to 1500°F and rugs, curtains and paper managed to raise this to 1832°F? Apologies for being an imbecile but how does that work?
Heat transfer. Combustible materials in a fire including gases, soot, plastics, foam rubber etc. raise the temperature very quickly from the initial burn. This in turn causes multiple 'flashovers', each of which raises the ambient heat by varying degrees.
[cite]Posted By:Leroy's link[/cite]But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
Jet fuel burns to 1500°F and rugs, curtains and paper managed to raise this to 1832°F? Apologies for being an imbecile but how does that work?
Heat transfer. Combustible materials in a fire including gases, soot, plastics, foam rubber etc. raise the temperature very quickly from the initial burn. This in turn causes multiple 'flashovers', each of which raises the ambient heat by varying degrees.
Have you watched Loose Change..?
No - why, does it say something that contradicts a man with 28 years' experience fighting fires in everything from houses, to schools, to high rises, to offices to chemical plants?
[cite]Posted By:Leroy's link[/cite]But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
Jet fuel burns to 1500°F and rugs, curtains and paper managed to raise this to 1832°F? Apologies for being an imbecile but how does that work?
Heat transfer. Combustible materials in a fire including gases, soot, plastics, foam rubber etc. raise the temperature very quickly from the initial burn. This in turn causes multiple 'flashovers', each of which raises the ambient heat by varying degrees.
Have you watched Loose Change..?
No - why, does it say something that contradicts a man with 28 years' experience fighting fires in everything from houses, to schools, to high rises, to offices to chemical plants?
[cite]Posted By: Addickted[/cite]That two planes flew into the the twin towers causing massive loss of life and exstensive damage is absolute fact. I don't think anybody is arguing that one.
The rest is theory, speculation, conjecture and in some cases nonsense. There are a lot more questions than answers and some of the 'official' results of the incidents, don't bear up to scrutiny.
I certainly have never heard any plausible answers as to:-
1) The virtual immediate identification of the suspects - at least one of whom has proved to be alive and well.
2) The collapse of WTC7, which by all standard calculations of fire loads on steel framed buildings is an impossible event.
3) A 'plane' hitting The Pentagon, leaving no debris, no marks on the adjacent manicured lawn, no film footage (despite being the most CCTV covered building in the US) and hitting directly on the only specially reinforced sixth of the building.
4) The debris at the Flight 93 site showed little signs of a 767 (?) having crashed there, compared with (for example) the debris of the 747 crash site at Lockerbie - and that was blown up in flight.
Of course, the conspiracy theorists will have a field day about issues like the insurance of the twin towers, the amount of asbestos in the buildings, passports in the debris, CIA/SS/IRS at WTC7, the US quest for oil, Haliburton, the 'War on Terror' etc, etc, but the US Government can dispel this if they wished, but deem it not in the National (or indeed global) interest.
I wonder why that is?
There is certainly more to 9/11 than what is commonly believed - . At least accept that Leroy, then we can all be freinds again.
1 - yeah, that's ridiculous. Clearly ordered by the Bush administration to give a focus for the rage of the US people. I will grant you that one - it's pretty ludicrous to suggest they could find those passports that quickly. Doesn't point to anything other than ill-judged cack-handedness by the CIA's propaganda wing though (something that they've been accused of on countless times before!).
2 - Utter nonsense. The problem with believing this is that the internet somehow gives equal weight to the ravings of people who don't comprehend HOW something like this could have happened - and the thousands of people who KNOW how and why buildings collapse under extreme stress. Understand - you are NOT a structural engineer. I am NOT a structural engineer. There are, however, thousands of people who ARE structural engineers - who have explained exactly how and why WTC7 collapsed. Read the wiki page for it here - under 'Collapse' for a decent explanation of what caused the structural damage that led to the collapse.
3 - This, again, is crap. Put yourself in the situation of people isnatlling CCTV in and around the Pentagon (or other buildings nearby). Firstly, do you think the CCTV would be aimed at capturing the moment of impact of a jet airliner? I'm guessing when you put CCTV in you're pretty much looking to catch petty crime, or maybe someone driving a truck laden with explosives through a gatehouse and up the front lawn. Not particularly likely (even less so since it had never happened before) that CCTV would be set up with the express intent of someone crashing a jumbo f***ing jet into a building. Secondly, all the people moaning that the CCTV of the plane hitting the Pentagon that WAS released shows nothing more than a white blur - I work with CCTV systems. The vast majority of them couldn't reliably identify a vehicle registration plate from ten yards away when driven past a camera at ten mph. It's hardly surprising that they couldn't reliably get a nice picture of a jet airliner with people screaming in the portholes, considering it was flown into the f***ing building at 500mph. What about the testimonies of thousands of people who saw the plane flying low and then straight into the Pentagon? All lies? WHat about the debris from the plane spread all over the Pentagon lawn? All planted by the CIA? What about finding a reason to completely 'disappear' a plane in mid flight and instead fire a missile into a building (when, if you take as belief that 9/11 was a set up, the logical conclusion is that it would have been far easier just to fly the f***ing plane into the Pentagon?)
4 - Again - crap. You are taking as rote things that are said by people who weren't there - things that directly contradict with the eyewitness testimony of hundreds of people who were there, together with the crash recovery team who pulled bits of bodies out of wreckage. And why on earth would the conspiracy theorists want to suggest that United 93 never crashed in the field? Don't they say that it was hit by a missile? In which case there most definitely WOULD have been debris from a crashed plane?
Everyone needs to take a step back, analyse things properly and then realise how utterly laughable all this really is. Honestly - one day all of you will look back on this and think 'wow - how stupid could I have been?'. At least, I hope you will. Otherwise, I feel that in the future there's probably a Darwin Award out there with your name on it somewhere.
Here's an analogy. When you are diagnosed with a brain tumour, and you want a second opinion (perfectly valid) - who do you go to for it? Another man who actually - y'know - 'knows' about brain tumours.... or a bloke on the Internet who says he knows about brain tumours?
oooooooooooo dear Leroy what have you done !!! now your giving a structured answer to a total pile of poo that deserves to be laughed at not answered LAUGHED AT !!!!
what next Elvis aint dead JFK murdered Monroe Monroe dressed like Osworld murdered JFK 5 people with Tommy guns hiding behind a tuilip shot JFK No one landed on the moon Aliens ate my hampster Area 51 Men in Black Human combustion Kidbrooke Village
Leroy being arrogant and aggressive doesn't make your opinion any less ignorant than the ones you are slamming mate. Watch the films on the internet like the one I posted above and it may help you see why some of us, who are not tin foil hat, anti- establishment, commie loons choose to question the official line on things.
For every expert on one side of the fence there is an equally qualified expert giving an opposing view and that's why this debate is still going round and round almost a decade after the tragedy.
i think a lot of the conspiracy theories are pretty plausible really, but that's all they are. the reality is that they have all pretty much been thoroughly debunked by many of the links given above. but then everyone can believe what they want to believe.
and that's not the real paul mccartney, he actually died in 1966
[cite]Posted By: RodneyCharltonTrotta[/cite]Leroy being arrogant and aggressive doesn't make your opinion any less ignorant than the ones you are slamming mate. Watch the films on the internet like the one I posted above and it may help you see why some of us, who are not tin foil hat, anti- establishment, commie loons choose to question the official line on things.
For every expert on one side of the fence there is an equally qualified expert giving an opposing view and that's why this debate is still going round and round almost a decade after the tragedy.
See that's the problem though. It isn't an 'opinion', any more than evolution is an 'opinion'. There are NO credible experts on the other 'side' of the fence - just crackpots, and people who should frankly being f***ing well ashamed of themselves in creating and perpetuating a cottage industry based on the deaths of thousands of people. Pathetic - last word.
[cite]Posted By: Leroy Ambrose[/cite] Understand - you are NOT a structural engineer. I am NOT a structural engineer. There are, however, thousands of people who ARE structural engineers - who have explained exactly how and why WTC7 collapsed. Read the wiki page for ithere- under 'Collapse' for a decent explanation of what caused the structural damage that led to the collapse.
Understand this Leroy.
I AM a structural engineer.
I deal specifically with Fire Safety and for the passed 6 months have been dealing specifically with Fire Safety to High Rise Blocks - as a result of the deaths at Lakanal House.
The most edifying quote for the 'wiki' page is this.
The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time.
[cite]Posted By: Leroy Ambrose[/cite] 3 - This, again, is crap. Put yourself in the situation of people isnatlling CCTV in and around the Pentagon (or other buildings nearby). Firstly, do you think the CCTV would be aimed at capturing the moment of impact of a jet airliner? I'm guessing when you put CCTV in you're pretty much looking to catch petty crime, or maybe someone driving a truck laden with explosives through a gatehouse and up the front lawn. Not particularly likely (even less so since it had never happened before) that CCTV would be set up with the express intent of someone crashing a jumbo f***ing jet into a building. Secondly, all the people moaning that the CCTV of the plane hitting the Pentagon that WAS released shows nothing more than a white blur - I work with CCTV systems. The vast majority of them couldn't reliably identify a vehicle registration plate from ten yards away when driven past a camera at ten mph. It's hardly surprising that they couldn't reliably get a nice picture of a jet airliner with people screaming in the portholes, considering it was flown into the f***ing building at 500mph. What about the testimonies of thousands of people who saw the plane flying low and then straight into the Pentagon? All lies? WHat about the debris from the plane spread all over the Pentagon lawn? All planted by the CIA? What about finding a reason to completely 'disappear' a plane in mid flight and instead fire a missile into a building (when, if you take as belief that 9/11 was a set up, the logical conclusion is that it would have been far easier just to fly the f***ing plane into the Pentagon?)
I admit that CCTV technology ten years down the line is infinitly superior to what was available in 2001.
However, I believe there were over 200 CCTV cameras pointing directly at The Pentagon, the security compunds and grounds around the building, on the roof at points every 20m around the perimeter, some with the ability to record sound and utilise infra red technology, yet not one of them picked up a 200 tonne jet flying in at almost 500mph at virtually ground level?
Not one pixel?
Anywhere?
I'm sure you do work with CCTV systems, but I've bet you've not worked with the systems that the American Security Services, the CIA and the FBI were and are using?
Conversely, how many of those testimonies are accurate? You hear the sound of a plane travelling at 500mph and when you react to look in ti's direction it's half a mile passed you and travelling at speed - the Coreollis Effect I believe. Give me a blurred photograph over a blurred recollection anytime.
[cite]Posted By: Leroy Ambrose[/cite] 1 - yeah, that's ridiculous. Clearly ordered by the Bush administration to give a focus for the rage of the US people. I will grant you that one - it's pretty ludicrous to suggest they could find those passports that quickly.
And finally, at last even you admit, all is not what it seems.
That is all the idiotic imbiciles on here are trying to suggest.
Comments
http://www.debunking911.com/towers.htm
When scientific evidence was slowly introduced by the 'thinkers' such as scientists, anthropologists, evolutionists etc, they were described by the establishment as intellectual 'terrorists' against the norm...
As scientific techniques develop more and more 'answers' are redefined and new explanations are accepted, it's only those that have the most to lose that choose to not accept new explanations/answers...
That's why organisations such as the church and the US governement refuse to debate any other version of accounts other than their own, they've got too much to lose...
maybe I SHOULD HAVE used ITALICS ....
Plus I had not cross referenced your earlier comments, i was just reading the final comment you had made.
oh - FACT.
Conspiracy debunked
If anyone reads that and still believes there was some CIA/NSA conspiracy, that the towers were demolished in controlled, pre-planned explosions, that the planes weren't passenger airliners, or that a missile (not a plane) hit the pentagon then you have the intelligence, reasoning and cognitive ability of a child.
And Microsoft.
The scenario of the Building 7 collapse is extremely suspect.
US Airforce all out on wargames/drills?
There was no sign of a plane at the Pentagon. With the plane allegedly incinerated, the passports from the hijackers were found & they were 'identified'. Then found to be alive anyway.
The fact that the flight that crashed into the woods(Flight 93?) Wasn't actually there when reporters got there. They found a pile of burning rubbish in a hole, & reported it as such. The same channel changed that story some time later when further details, 'facts', & scapegoats' emerged.
Some 'truths' are hard to believe, especially with high power & industry pulling the strings that we never see. The world has been this way for a long time. Not saying I believe it all, but we certainly don't live in wholly truthful times.
The rest is theory, speculation, conjecture and in some cases nonsense. There are a lot more questions than answers and some of the 'official' results of the incidents, don't bear up to scrutiny.
I certainly have never heard any plausible answers as to:-
1) The virtual immediate identification of the suspects - at least one of whom has proved to be alive and well.
2) The collapse of WTC7, which by all standard calculations of fire loads on steel framed buildings is an impossible event.
3) A 'plane' hitting The Pentagon, leaving no debris, no marks on the adjacent manicured lawn, no film footage (despite being the most CCTV covered building in the US) and hitting directly on the only specially reinforced sixth of the building.
4) The debris at the Flight 93 site showed little signs of a 767 (?) having crashed there, compared with (for example) the debris of the 747 crash site at Lockerbie - and that was blown up in flight.
Of course, the conspiracy theorists will have a field day about issues like the insurance of the twin towers, the amount of asbestos in the buildings, passports in the debris, CIA/SS/IRS at WTC7, the US quest for oil, Haliburton, the 'War on Terror' etc, etc, but the US Government can dispel this if they wished, but deem it not in the National (or indeed global) interest.
I wonder why that is?
There is certainly more to 9/11 than what is commonly believed - . At least accept that Leroy, then we can all be freinds again.
2 - Utter nonsense. The problem with believing this is that the internet somehow gives equal weight to the ravings of people who don't comprehend HOW something like this could have happened - and the thousands of people who KNOW how and why buildings collapse under extreme stress. Understand - you are NOT a structural engineer. I am NOT a structural engineer. There are, however, thousands of people who ARE structural engineers - who have explained exactly how and why WTC7 collapsed. Read the wiki page for it here - under 'Collapse' for a decent explanation of what caused the structural damage that led to the collapse.
3 - This, again, is crap. Put yourself in the situation of people isnatlling CCTV in and around the Pentagon (or other buildings nearby). Firstly, do you think the CCTV would be aimed at capturing the moment of impact of a jet airliner? I'm guessing when you put CCTV in you're pretty much looking to catch petty crime, or maybe someone driving a truck laden with explosives through a gatehouse and up the front lawn. Not particularly likely (even less so since it had never happened before) that CCTV would be set up with the express intent of someone crashing a jumbo f***ing jet into a building. Secondly, all the people moaning that the CCTV of the plane hitting the Pentagon that WAS released shows nothing more than a white blur - I work with CCTV systems. The vast majority of them couldn't reliably identify a vehicle registration plate from ten yards away when driven past a camera at ten mph. It's hardly surprising that they couldn't reliably get a nice picture of a jet airliner with people screaming in the portholes, considering it was flown into the f***ing building at 500mph. What about the testimonies of thousands of people who saw the plane flying low and then straight into the Pentagon? All lies? WHat about the debris from the plane spread all over the Pentagon lawn? All planted by the CIA? What about finding a reason to completely 'disappear' a plane in mid flight and instead fire a missile into a building (when, if you take as belief that 9/11 was a set up, the logical conclusion is that it would have been far easier just to fly the f***ing plane into the Pentagon?)
4 - Again - crap. You are taking as rote things that are said by people who weren't there - things that directly contradict with the eyewitness testimony of hundreds of people who were there, together with the crash recovery team who pulled bits of bodies out of wreckage. And why on earth would the conspiracy theorists want to suggest that United 93 never crashed in the field? Don't they say that it was hit by a missile? In which case there most definitely WOULD have been debris from a crashed plane?
Everyone needs to take a step back, analyse things properly and then realise how utterly laughable all this really is. Honestly - one day all of you will look back on this and think 'wow - how stupid could I have been?'. At least, I hope you will. Otherwise, I feel that in the future there's probably a Darwin Award out there with your name on it somewhere.
Here's an analogy. When you are diagnosed with a brain tumour, and you want a second opinion (perfectly valid) - who do you go to for it? Another man who actually - y'know - 'knows' about brain tumours.... or a bloke on the Internet who says he knows about brain tumours?
what next Elvis aint dead
JFK murdered Monroe
Monroe dressed like Osworld murdered JFK
5 people with Tommy guns hiding behind a tuilip shot JFK
No one landed on the moon
Aliens ate my hampster
Area 51
Men in Black
Human combustion
Kidbrooke Village
all total twaddle.
For every expert on one side of the fence there is an equally qualified expert giving an opposing view and that's why this debate is still going round and round almost a decade after the tragedy.
and that's not the real paul mccartney, he actually died in 1966
Understand this Leroy.
I AM a structural engineer.
I deal specifically with Fire Safety and for the passed 6 months have been dealing specifically with Fire Safety to High Rise Blocks - as a result of the deaths at Lakanal House.
The most edifying quote for the 'wiki' page is this.
The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time.
I admit that CCTV technology ten years down the line is infinitly superior to what was available in 2001.
However, I believe there were over 200 CCTV cameras pointing directly at The Pentagon, the security compunds and grounds around the building, on the roof at points every 20m around the perimeter, some with the ability to record sound and utilise infra red technology, yet not one of them picked up a 200 tonne jet flying in at almost 500mph at virtually ground level?
Not one pixel?
Anywhere?
I'm sure you do work with CCTV systems, but I've bet you've not worked with the systems that the American Security Services, the CIA and the FBI were and are using?
Conversely, how many of those testimonies are accurate? You hear the sound of a plane travelling at 500mph and when you react to look in ti's direction it's half a mile passed you and travelling at speed - the Coreollis Effect I believe. Give me a blurred photograph over a blurred recollection anytime.
And finally, at last even you admit, all is not what it seems.
That is all the idiotic imbiciles on here are trying to suggest.