Friday, August 22, 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
PLEASE SUPPORT REVERE RADIO:
SUBSCRIBE to the RSS feed
DONATE to Scholars for 9/11 Truth:
---------
(Right-click on guest name to download mp3)
SUBSCRIBE to the iTunes feed
STREAM premieres on Revere Radio
5pm CST (2300 GMT) M-W-F:
---
James, this was outstanding show w. excellent analysis and logic, so far, far much better than ur previous show on Kennedy w. ur rambling on ethics, economics, and politics.
ReplyDeleteGreat show. You really click with this guest because he is not afraid to tell the truth, even as so many " truth researchers" are. Go on his show again!
ReplyDeletem herzog is a great commentator catch him on rbn @2 eastern
ReplyDeleteLooking at the video below. I do not see how Fetzer can contend. That the towers were destroyed in 10 floor sections. When it is quite obvious that they are being destroyed floor by floor with squids leading the destruction.
ReplyDeleteNorth Tower Exploding
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8
How long have you been following Fetzer.
DeleteFetzer has done lengthy discussions debunking Wood and Bollyn.
His interview with John Keller describes how the burnt cars and paper can be explained by the nuke theory.
http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2012/11/john-keller.html
DeleteI'll surely look into ur ref., but still Judy Wood gives masterly account and very well demonstrates her pt.s. Though I haven't hrd Keller's prop., I've hrd Wood lately maintaining her account, including necessity of heat and light for nukes--which were NOT present at 9/11, on the contrary.
Oh yeah, and regarding Bollyn, note aside fm a few minor mistakes, Bollyn does great work, noting all the "Zionist," as he calls them, gate-keepers and prime suspects at every phase and pt. of the 9/11 operation.
DeleteI personally think mini-nukes were used to destroy the 47 main 6 inch columns at the base of the towers.
DeleteThe columns were only 1/4" at the top. Mini-nukes use for the top of the towers was not necessary.
I'm presently listening to the ref'd show, above, only a few mins remaining, http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2012/11/john-keller.html, and I don't hear any real serious "debunking" of Judy Wood--on the contrary, both Fetzer and Keller compliment Wood.
ReplyDeleteFinished listening to entire show--there's hardly any mention of Judy Wood, except for respectful comments and only very mild criticism or questioning of Wood's info. So maybe 911truthnc is referring to some other show.
DeleteJohn Keller describes how the burnt cars and paper can be explained by the nuke theory.
DeleteWood bashing:
http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2012/08/don-fox.html
911truthnc: I ck'd u latest citation/ref., and same thing--there's no compelling, conclusive "debunking" of Wood, and not sure if this is actually ur ref., but there's no John Keller on ur second ref.
DeleteIf Keller "describes" explanation by nukes, can u restate it? Given Occam's razor, it would seem Wood's conclusion to DEW would be simpler.
Does anyone know why Judy Wood did not authenticate all the videos and stills of 9/11 before she made such a thorough analysis of smoke patterns and scores of other details from the WTC demolition?
ReplyDeleteWe now know there were no planes, yet planes are seen in the archived videos run on all five networks. Did Wood make a note of the non-existent planes having been inserted into the videos by technicians or did she just ignore them? Isn't the handling and analysis of forensic evidence important in the scientific method?
If there were no planes, there would have been no gashes in the buildings, no billowing smoke from the rooftops, no fireballs or fires and no people trapped in the buildings. All that happened was a controlled demolition of the WTC.
We are asked to believe that the WTC was demolished having been rigged with nukes before people came to work. That seems very far-fetched to me.
Wasn't Judy Wood's only mistake assuming the photographic record shown to the public was authentic? Naturally, if you analyze CGI images of fuming, smoke and collapsing, you would have to conclude no ordinary explosives were used. She had to assume they were exotic DEWs after ruling out nukes?
This sudden return to Wood's theories seems like a regression. Given what is now known about how evidence is handled by the media. as with Sandy Hook and Boston, I would think researchers would reevaluate their work on 9/11.
In view of these recent summaries of the progress so far on conspiracies by Dr. Fetzer, the fact that these questions continue to go unanswered is disturbing.
Joannie the Jew: it seems now to be btwn DEW, as per Wood, or--something else, like mini-nukes.
DeleteAnd Wood denies she has "theories" aside fm her inductive conclusion to the DEW.
Wood doesn't have to "authenticate" "videos" or "stills," and she gives plenty of other evidence.
The rest of ur text is either non-sensical or irrelevant. All u're trying to do is, typical of Jew dis-info, continue to muddy proverbial "waters," that's all.
No one is suggesting they were "rigged with nukes before people came to work that day". An enormous elevator renovation project was long on-going and appears to have been the cover story for emplacing the nukes within the core columns. With a radius of 100' and therefore a diameter of 200', they would have been perfect for buildings 208' on a side.
DeleteWhether or not Joan is Jewish has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of her observations, much less the propriety of her questions. None of us should take anything for granted. I like her posts, even when I may disagree with some of them.
DeleteJoan Edwards said :"Does anyone know why Judy Wood did not authenticate all the videos and stills of 9/11 before she made such a thorough analysis of smoke patterns and scores of other details from the WTC demolition? "
ReplyDeleteTo date, Ms. Wood has never bothered to attempt a serious authentification process for _any_ of the photos and videos she has used to "prove" her hypothesis, nor has she ever acknowledged the requirement for an investigating scientist to even so do - in effect she completely sidesteps the issue and trusts their authenticity from the outset- making her, at the very least, a very bad scientist, and possibly an outright fraud.
Neither does she seem to have any knowledge of simple "run of the mill" legal evidentiary procedures and principles such as "false in one, false in all" and "burden of proof"- neither of which would require an actual trial in order to be implemented by an individual researcher.
In Wood's "defense", in the big picture, she is no worse than 99.9% of all claimed 9/11 researchers, even those with a claimed scientific background, including "yours truly" J. Fetzer and his band of sycophants [ Fox, Greenhalgh etc.].
Fetzer has repeatedly brushed aside/ignored any/all attempts by persons like myself to point out the almost complete lack of consistent application of both the scientific method[ and the requirement for a serious attempt by the investigator at authentication for all possible evidence, including all photos/videos ], and at the same time, to similarly point out the complete lack of application of simple legal principles when reviewing proposed 9/11 evidence, by both himself and others associated.
See: "911 Scams:Professor Jim "First Blush" Fetzer's Trashing of The Scientific Method":http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/11/911-scams-professor-jim-first-blush.html
Returning to "Professor" Wood's "research", besides her almost complete ignoring of standard authentication procedures for scientists for all photos/videos, [for a specific example see: "The WTC2 Top Tilt Scam: http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-wtc2-top-tilt-scam.html ], Wood has also gone so far as to blatantly misrepresent [lie ?] about the NOAA data she has used to "prove" her "Hurricane Erin 9/11 Involvement" thesis. See:
"9/11 Scams: The Junk-Science of Dr. Judy Wood":
http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/04/911-scams-junk-science-of-dr-judy-wood_6336.html
For legal methodology principles and their application within 9/11 research, see:
Fake 9/11 Bird Flocks = "False In One False In All""The Burden of Proof"":
http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2014/08/fake-911-bird-flocks-false-in-one-false.html
Regards, onebornfree.
Yes, brainless one, u may actually have a pt., the authentication of the vids and stills is quite legitimate pt. Otherwise, Wood seems to be fairly logical and scientific given her premises, which however, such premises may be questionable as u note. Give the brainless one a pt., by golly!
DeleteWho is Johnny Wood??? and where is the regular cotton picker?
ReplyDeleteWE WERE DUPED--ADMIT IT
ReplyDeleteI don't think it occurred to anyone that the images shown to the world "live" on 9/11 were not authentic but might have been faked--created in a studio. It was not until last year that it dawned on me that was how they did it by faking the tapes.
That's almost thirteen years of being fooled although I had long campaigned that the planes were fake from the very beginning. It hadn't occurred to me that if the planes weren't real, the gashes, smoke and fireballs couldn't be either. Also, how could 3,000 people have been killed--vaporized by non-existent planes?
I think we were all fooled including Judy Wood. She and everyone else mistook the videos for evidence. They are evidence not of what really happened but what the perpetrators created to make us believe their version--their lie--of what happened.
What bothers me is the politics of research groups is preventing the leaders of these groups from admitting they were wrong.
"It's Jews, Stupid"
DeleteSee my comments, above. Regarding Judy Wood, note she makes use of far more than mere vids. Wood pt.s out the lack of significant seismic register for the huge mass supposedly hitting ground, the lack of rubble noted by witnesses even apart fm pictures.
And HOW could all the pictures be faked which showed the removal of the bldgs., including WTC # 3, most of # 4, half of # 5, etc.
And as Chris Bollyn pt.s-out, Jews are in the thick of things for the entire events, the cover-up, the dis-info, etc. Cui bono?
Judy Wood works for the Jews just like all the rest of them. She's in tight with the ADL, SPLC and the San Diego Jewish Journal.
DeleteThe WTC buildings were nuked and Judy Wood's DEW business is just a clever ruse to distract from the true cause of the destruction on 9/11: Israeli mini-nukes.
Sept Clueless is a non-clever ruse to try to convince everyone that nobody died on 9/11 and the perps only committed fraud etc. No mass murder yada yada yada.
According to Shack et al Matt Lauer and Diane Sawyer should be questioned to find out what really happened on 9/11. No need to question Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith or Dov Zakheim.
Chris Bollyn's first wife worked for the Mossad and Bollyn spends considerable time in Israel. He has lived in Israel off and on since he was 18. How many 9/11 Truthers go back and forth to Israel?
Don Fox: problem is ur substantiation for Judy Wood working for SPLC, ADL, et al.--do u have any references or citations?
DeleteWhat exactly is ur evidence for "mini-nukes" against Wood's DEW?--Wood gives extensive info, duplicating the effects w. Hutchison's material.
U may be right about Bollyn's "first wife," but the pt. is the info in his book in which he shows OVERWHELMING Jew involvement at every stage, phase, and turn of the 9/11 event, putting things in magnificent context, regardless of any minor mistakes.
I've got emails from Judy where she had CC'd the above named organizations. She has spoken at ADL events.
DeleteI've crushed Judy Wood so many times it isn't even funny.
Here are some articles to check out: Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11, Judy Wood and DEWs: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly and Dr. Judy Wood: 9/11 Gatekeeper Extraordinaire
Ok, fair enough; I'll certainly ck out ur ref.s, thanks. A.
Delete
DeleteWell Don Fox: I've been looking through ur material--quite impressive, I must say.
I must admit I never quite entirely understood what Judy Wood had against Fetzer; she said she was "threatened" by him, but I never really caught-on to any actual threat.
Interesting u say Wood cc'd ADL, et al. Wood does have that Jewwy hook-nose, and if she ever found out about Fetzer's debunking of holohoax it might well explain her sudden aversion.
Thanks again for all ur ref.s and notes. A.
Judy's problems with Fetzer started when Jim asked Hutchison about his qualifications and educational background. Judy knows that her DEW BS can't withstand a rigorous examination.
DeleteShe knew the end was near once Jim started going over all of it with a fine tooth comb.
Believe me we went over ALL of it with a very fine tooth comb back in 2011-2012. There were a bunch of emails flying around between myself, Fetzer, Jeff Prager, Clare Kuehn and even a few from Ed Ward. I learned a TON of stuff about nukes from Jeff and Ed.
Thanks for reading my stuff.
Don: I gotta say, though ur stuff is impressive, I'm mere hist. and phil. major--not so good w. this physics stuff, u see, though I consider I can handle science (and logic) in general. So u gotta understand I'm looking for something CONCLUSIVE (which I can't say I've found yet) which nails the nuke issue.
DeleteSeems to me, since we've never before seen the effects of any DEW--or even actual nukes--question arises as to HOW one knows there's evidence only for nukes but not for DEW?--wouldn't the effects, hence evidence, be similar?--and couldn't some of that evidence also pt. to DEW too?
Perhaps u might want me to move over to ur blog, but let me know.
Joan Edwards said :" What bothers me is the politics of research groups is preventing the leaders of these groups from admitting they were wrong."
ReplyDeleteThey are unlikely to ever become humble enough to admit they were wrong- assuming they are ever even honest enough to attempt to "go back to the drawing board", and start all over.
They all have too much time invested now in what they've already "proved" to themselves to date- any more time invested will almost inevitably be spent only on defending what they believe they already "know" "for certain".
Admitting they were wrong- even only as far as the question of their still ongoing evasion of both basic scientific investigative and legal procedures, let alone any conclusions that might be reached that approximated Simon Shacks, your own, or mine, is, I am pretty certain, psychologically impossible for these characters- so don't hold your breath waiting for Fetzer et al to wake up and "see the light".
Instead, perhaps enjoy a good laugh at all of these pontificating, self-important, blow hard, know-it-all characters, and the B.S. they all spew forth on a daily basis.
Regards, onebornfree.
"Instead, perhaps enjoy a good laugh at all of these pontificating, self-important, blow hard, know-it-all characters, and the B.S. they all spew forth on a daily basis."
ReplyDelete* * * * * * * * * * *
Ho ho ho, look who's talking, "one-born-brainless," a Jew, obviously, hence a liar by his very essence, who says he's NOT "religious," then insists repeatedly in his desperate, Jewwy manner that Christ was Jew, as was Moses and Christian Apostles. Ho ho ho ho ho
OBF said: "Admitting they were wrong.... I am pretty certain, psychologically impossible for these characters- so don't hold your breath waiting for Fetzer et al to wake up and "see the light".
ReplyDeleteI don't see how reasonable people can accept the videos shown by the MSM on 9/11 as authentic. As I keep saying, if there were no planes and the WTC was a demolition, why would the perps bother to blow out real gashes in the walls to simulate entry of planes in the very last minutes before demolishing the buildings. Occam's Razor says the easiest solution wins which would be to animate events on videos and give them to the networks to play--each their separate one.
Why would smoke and fireballs be real when the buildings were rigged for a controlled demolition How could people have been "trapped" on the upper floors or in the buildings at all? What possible "witnesses" could be assembled in that short a period of time? We now know they use actors to play witnesses. Times have changed since JFK as we have seen with Boston and Sandy Hook.
To listen to Fetzer say cutter charges were used for the gashes is plain silly. That he believes the upper "cube" of one of the towers tilted backwards on its corner. (He says that's what happened in this podcast.)
The work on 9/11 will not be complete until the experts come up with an accurate account of how those first 104 minutes and the rest of the images pretending to be real were faked. You cannot just gloss over these points by latching on to the nukes did it theory. Nukes do not explain the planes seen in the videos. Also, you buildings cannot be demolished from the top down with or without nukes.
Joan, You misunderstood what I was saying. I'm trying to find a role for nanothermite, if there is one. But I was describing the top 30 floors (3 cubes) of the South Tower, which tilt over and are blown as one. You are unfamiliar with this?
DeleteJoan Edwards said: "I don't see how reasonable people can accept the videos shown by the MSM on 9/11 as authentic. "
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, as I have repeatedly stated both here and elsewhere Joan, here are only 2 broad classifications for ALL 9/11 imagery:
1] The original "live" footage of all 5 networks, as archived on line:
https://archive.org/details/911
2] Everything else.
These are [or _should_ be :-)] very important classifications/distinctions for any serious 9/11 researcher, in my opinion, because- if that original "live" footage can be all be demonstrated to be fake, then why would a serious researcher then assume "right off the bat", that _any_ of the imagery from classification [2]was genuine? [Assuming "burden of proof" principles].
You have to realize Joan, these "reasonable people" you have in mind have no intention of ever looking closely at that original footage, hell, they are not even aware of the important distinction between the 2 broad classes of 9/11 imagery, let alone being able to easily identify, say, a still taken from that original footage merely by one quick glance at it [by its overall lack of definition, resolution, weird coloration etc etc.].
These "reasonable people" you mention [assuming you are talking about "names" mentioned previously, as opposed to genuine reasonable persons] , are only interested in reinforcing what they think they already know, and will do anything in their power to, instead of starting over and taking a long, cold, hard, impartial look at that original network footage [which is basically all that Simon Shack has done], avoid so doing - they simply have too much time ,money and emotional investment in upholding their "blue pill" version of what went down on 9/11.
See: "Fake 9/11 Bird Flocks = "False In One False In All"":
http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2014/08/fake-911-bird-flocks-false-in-one-false.html
and:"NBC "Live" on 9/11, or "Armageddon"- Which Picture Is Real?":
http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2012/11/nbc-live-on-911-or-armageddon-which.html
Regards, onebornfree.
OBF, thanks for responding. You are very articulate which I am not. My background is in advertising design, architecture and drafting. I've worked in almost every medium. I've written a textbook on stagecraft for high school and designed sets for school plays and musicals. This is why I can see how they faked the videos--the ones we see archived. False in one (planes), false in all.
ReplyDeleteAs I see it, those in the conspiracy movement are very verbal--too verbal, in fact, so they are muddying the waters. The verbal types are confusing us and please--no musical backgrounds for instructive videos. What is needed are some really simple to understand videos illustrating these points. How about "9/11 For Dummies"?
PS. OBF, I read your entire website yesterday. Very well written and expressed. It's simple and easy to understand. I have trouble loading some of the sites. I don't know why some are no problem like the Read Deal. My older computer is no longer backing up Windows XP. Fakeologist site is really hard to load.
ReplyDeletePPS. September Clues, on the other hand, I have no trouble downloading. Tell Fakeologist for me. I think he has too much stuff going on on that site.
ReplyDeleteJoannie the Jew: WHY are u posting here to ur Jew buddy, brainless?--doesn't he have several sites where u can post ur msgs?
Deletewow--John Friend's blog has been removed--was getting too many hits and attn., ho ho ho ho ho
ReplyDeleteJoan Edwards said :"What is needed are some really simple to understand videos illustrating these points. How about "9/11 For Dummies"?"
ReplyDeleteEveryone inevitably has their own opinion about "what is needed", Joan.
Why not undertake for yourself what you think is needed?
It might be an interesting project for you to undertake - besides, in reality it is the only way you'll ever get close to what you believe is needed- yes?
Regards, onebornfree.
The Freedom Network:
http://www.freedominunfreeworld.blogspot.com/
onebornfree said:
ReplyDelete"First of all, as I have repeatedly stated both here and elsewhere Joan, here are only 2 broad classifications for ALL 9/11 imagery:
1] The original "live" footage of all 5 networks, as archived on line:
https://archive.org/details/911
2] Everything else.
These are [or _should_ be :-)] very important classifications/distinctions for any serious 9/11 researcher, in my opinion,......
........ they are not even aware of the important distinction between the 2 broad classes of 9/11 imagery, let alone being able to easily identify, say, a still taken from that original footage merely by one quick glance at it [by its overall lack of definition, resolution, weird coloration etc etc.]."
_____________________________________
"Everyone inevitably has their own opinion about "what is needed", Joan.
Why not undertake for yourself what you think is needed?
It might be an interesting project for you to undertake - besides, in reality it is the only way you'll ever get close to what you believe is needed- yes?"
_________________________________
Well, I'm sorry if I sounded critical or rude. I didn't mean it that way. I've been an onlooker for sometime now and I would only like to help those I see who have got the answers make their work more efficient. I think I'm a pretty good critic and no thanks, I've done my share of pro bono "interesting projects."
The public, including researchers here are dense. They don't know the difference between the live archived footage and "everything else," as you put it. This is a visual thing and best done with illustrations. The real time footage has to be shown to really get how audaciously they faked that footage and the fact that planes are in all the videos coming from the west (the right hand side of the screen) except for NBC which has the plane as a dot (in perspective) coming from the south. IMHO, you just need to tweak and maybe slow down work that already exists.
(BTW, I meant to compliment Fakeologist for his site and especially the podcasts, the best of which so far being the one on Oslo and Utoya with the three Norwegians. Very informative and fun! Fun is important in this work. When it stops being fun, that's the time to get out.)
I meant to post this awhile ago on the false flags in Norway.
http://fakeologist.com/2014/06/26/ep114-utoya-explored-with-a-gang-of-norwegians/
ep114-Utoya explored with a gang of Norwegians | Fakeologist.com
Joan Edwards said: "Well, I'm sorry if I sounded critical or rude. "
ReplyDeleteI in no way interpreted your comments as being rude, Joan, and everyone needs constructive criticism, right?.
Regards, onebornfree.
What a surprise? Don Fox not only understands apsterian, but also seems to get along with him. Ha--ha--ha
ReplyDeleteapsterian is a braying cat. This is how he
Deletecirculates his tenets with the paddock, in established jargon
Ho ho hoo hoh oho--WTF?--"braying" is what donkeys do, dumbass. Cats meow or purr, eh? Ho ho ho hoo ho
DeleteJoan Edwards said : "The public, including researchers here are dense. They don't know the difference between the live archived footage and "everything else," as you put it."
ReplyDeleteHere's my own attempt to draw attention to the "dead-giveaway" overall low quality of the original "live" MSM network footage, Joan:
"9/11 Scams: Real N.Y.C. Images Vs. Fake MSM 9/11 Media Broadcast Footage- Random Examples"
http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/08/some-examples-of-genuine-pre-911-video.html
regards, onebornfree.
christian faith was made in Judea by the Jews. You can't get it simpler than that. All Jews, the apostles and the lot. You follow jewish faith. You sir are a bigot and pretty darn confused at that.
ReplyDeleteSimon Pimon said "You sir are a bigot and pretty darn confused at that."
ReplyDeleteIn his "defense", he is no more confused/hypocritical than the original [anti-semite]Nazi's themselves, whose "Christian" ministers apparently preached the 10 commandments [allegedly given to the Jew Moses by God], both to the Nazi troops in the field, and also back home at their churches in the "Fatherland".
And they all apparently worshipped Christ [ a Jew, supposedly sent to the Jews specifically by God], as previously mentioned here. " Ho ho ho."
Yup, there ain't nothing consistent in the "philosophy" of the original anti-semites, the Nazi's, nor in their modern equivalent, as far as I can tell.
It's all so brainless, it's like something out of that old Britcom "Monty Python":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pzr6wk7FVXE
On the other hand, its great to see Fetzer/Fox/Greenhalgh et al associating themselves with clowns like this Apsterian entity. They deserve him :-)
onebornfree.
For the nazis this was a tool to spin the sheep, people like apsterian. They don't even know the true origin of christianity, and when they are bettered they still refuse to apprehend. Like they say there are no good people among jews, only the dead jew is ok. Theoretically Jeses is dead so here he is consistent, still mind fucked like a Japanese school girl.
Delete" Christianity IS Anti-Semitism..."
ReplyDeleteJesus Christ was a Nazi!!!???
LMFAO ROFLMFAO
" True origin of Christianity? "
ReplyDeleteJesus Christ.
_____________
CRapsterian:
You should stick with your pal, Plato.
You are a hare-brained, mindless halfwit and sap. You are a reed blowing in the wind. You stand for nothing. You know nothing. You are
nothing of consequence. You are lower than whale shit and that's at the bottom of the ocean where YOU belong, CRapsterian.
Kike w. a thousand names strikes again, ho ho ho ho
DeleteI stand for anti-Semitism (dear, true Christianity), scum, never doubt, ho hoh o ho
apsterian / CRapsterian:
ReplyDeleteThe usual feeble and puerile
"response" from the cognatively
challenged apsterian. LOL
And I heard you anti-semites
were supposed to be smart!! Hehehe
Looks like all you're fit for is
copying and pasting your inane, disjointed and rancid "essay" bilge, CRapsterian!! Hehehe
LOL LMFAO Hehehe
What we need on this forum is an
ReplyDeleteintelligent antisemite. What do we
get? A parrot with no bird brain. LOL
And a parrot that listens to
George Galloway!
Now, THAT is very, very, very interesting. Hehehe LOL
***********************
I thought these antisemites
were smart.
LOL
Your meds are wearing off. It's time you increased the dose! Must be tough being a schizoid where you are. Still you've got your free prescription drugs and welfare money to keep you going. LOL You still watching and listening to George Galloway? LOL Hehehe Just keep posting. We learn something interesting every
ReplyDeletetime. Every little counts...You
know? It's a small world. LOL Keep it coming!!
LOL Hehehehe