WTC-7: EMERGENCY WARNING !!!
Möbius Pretzel
With this latest revision of our understanding of the universe
by NIST
I will never enter a steel-framed building again.
And neither should anyone else...
haterof...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Yeah, the neocons and the "anti-conspiratists" wanted to say 1) that
the building came down due to fires inside the building and then,
when that failed 2) that the building was brought down by flaming
debris from WTC1 and WTC2. I sure didnt see any flaming debris from
the other buildings on WTC7 when it came down - from all the various
angles of WTC7 coming down.
WTC7 was pulled - not the firefighting of it, but by explosives!
optix
Equally scary is the complete lack of media interest in the
examination of 9/11 issues.
WTC 7 - "Pull It" By Larry Silverstein (24 seconds)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100
There were so many screwups by the 9/11 team because the actual number
of operatives was very small. Where are the investigative reporters
pulling on all these "loose threads"?
--
Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices.
Voltaire
Al Dykes
optix <op...@refractor.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:08:53 -0700 (PDT), Möbius Pretzel
><Mobius_S...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>This is really scary.
>>
>>With this latest revision of our understanding of the universe
>>by NIST
>>I will never enter a steel-framed building again.
>>
>>And neither should anyone else...
>>
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7U22m9xLrQ
>
>
These k00ks hide behind Web pages and YouTube videos to make their
claims. They refuse to speak in public with other people with relevant
expertise
Nobody with relevant expertise believes what they post on the interned.
They won't address polite, relevant questions.
Why should anyone believe them?
--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
optix
>
>These k00ks hide behind Web pages and YouTube videos to make their
>claims. They refuse to speak in public with other people with relevant
>expertise
>
>Nobody with relevant expertise believes what they post on the interned.
>
>They won't address polite, relevant questions.
>
>Why should anyone believe them?
Wrong again Dykes.
Scroll down a little on the left hand side, look for the (free)
streaming video:
Part I: "WTC Building #7 – A controlled demolition?" (45 min.)
Parts I & II – "WTC Building #7 and Twin Towers – Controlled
Demolitions?"
(2 hours)
-----------------------
Shortly after 9/11, Bin Laden was being publicly blamed by BushCo.
Bin Laden released a statement to the press:
" I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States
nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government
within a government within the United States. The United States should
try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the
people who want to make the present century a century of conflict
between Islam and Christianity. That secret government must be asked
as to who carried out the attacks. ... The American system is totally
in control of the Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United
States."
This statement was broadcast in the foreign news media. Bush ordered
the US news media to blackout this statement because he was afraid of
Bin Laden transmitting secret orders to "terrorist" cells in the US.
Yeah right. Fact is, the most dangerous terrorist cell in America is
being run from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.....
Al Dykes
optix <op...@refractor.net> wrote:
>On 29 Aug 2008 13:18:03 -0400, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>
>>
>>These k00ks hide behind Web pages and YouTube videos to make their
>>claims. They refuse to speak in public with other people with relevant
>>expertise
>>
>>Nobody with relevant expertise believes what they post on the interned.
>>
>>They won't address polite, relevant questions.
>>
>>Why should anyone believe them?
>
>
>
>
>Wrong again Dykes.
>
>
>
>
>
>http://www.ae911truth.org/
>
>
>Scroll down a little on the left hand side, look for the (free)
>streaming video:
>
>
>Part I: "WTC Building #7 – A controlled demolition?" (45 min.)
The "Half Truth Movement" hides behind YouTube videos. None of the
people that make the claims will speak in public and address polite,
relevant questions from other people.
Why should I believe anyone who refuses to speak in public?
optix
>
>The "Half Truth Movement" hides behind YouTube videos. None of the
>people that make the claims will speak in public and address polite,
>relevant questions from other people.
>
>Why should I believe anyone who refuses to speak in public?
>
>
>>http://www.ae911truth.org/
>>
>>
>>Scroll down a little on the left hand side, look for the (free)
>>streaming video:
>>
>>
>
>>Part I: "WTC Building #7 – A controlled demolition?" (45 min.)
Where do you think the videos above were recorded?
Have you even bothered to look over the ae911truth.org website?
Looking at 9/11 from a technical approach is not a popularity contest.
It is an examination of physics and evidence, to wit:
Technical Articles
• Mysteries of the Twin Towers —
A Survey of the Available Evidence On the Collapse of the World Trade
Center Towers
— Footnotes
Rodger Herbst; BAAE, ME
• Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Stories of
WTC 1
Gordon Ross Journal of 9/11 Studies
• Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and Widespread
Impact Damage
Dr. Crockett Grabbe
• Lies about the WTC by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories
Kevin Ryan - U.L. whistleblower - former Site Manager
• Physical Chemistry of Thermite, Thermate, Iron-Alum-Rich
Microspheres at Demise of WTC 1 & 2
Jerry Lobdill 6/15/2007
• The Destruction of WTC 7
Vesa Raiskila
• The NIST WTC Investigation -- How Real Was The Simulation?
Eric Douglas, Architect
• Revisiting 9/11/2001 -- Applying the Scientific Method
Prof. Steven E. Jones, Ph.D., Physics
• DR. BAZANT - NIST's 911 FALL GUY
by Gordon Ross, ME [1], June 4, 2007*
• Open Letter to Purdue President France Córdova
Kevin Ryan, B.S. Chem.
• Jones vs. Robertson:
A Physicist and a Structural Engineer Debate the Controlled Demolition
of the World Trade Center
Gregg Roberts, Associate Editor, 911Research.com
Spend a few minutes looking over the info.......
Al Dykes
optix <op...@refractor.net> wrote:
>On 29 Aug 2008 14:24:49 -0400, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>
>
>>
>>The "Half Truth Movement" hides behind YouTube videos. None of the
>>people that make the claims will speak in public and address polite,
>>relevant questions from other people.
>>
>>Why should I believe anyone who refuses to speak in public?
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>>http://www.ae911truth.org/
>>>
>>>
>>>Scroll down a little on the left hand side, look for the (free)
>>>streaming video:
>>>
>>>
>>
>>>Part I: "WTC Building #7 – A controlled demolition?" (45 min.)
>
>
>
>
>Where do you think the videos above were recorded?
>
Who cares? None of the videos are of any alleged expert claiming
man-made demolition-or any other "Truth Movement" claim where people
with relevant expertise can ask polite, relevant questions about the
claims and hear the answers and ask follow-up questions,
That'show progress in made in and field where resasonable people
disagree on a subject.
Until these people come out from behind their web pages and YouTube
videos and face the relevant questions, they are just cowards speaking
to the ignorant.
optix
>>
>>Where do you think the videos above were recorded?
>>
>
>
>
>Who cares? None of the videos are of any alleged expert claiming
>man-made demolition-or any other "Truth Movement" claim where people
>with relevant expertise can ask polite, relevant questions about the
>claims and hear the answers and ask follow-up questions,
>
Ignorance is not a virtue:
9/11: Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko on WTC #7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T3_mmGvfQQ
The physics of 9/11 is not open for debate. There is one-and-only-one
solution set for the events of 9/11.
Besides, how many pro-government debunkers are offering academic
debate? All I see is name calling, put downs and ignoring the
available info.
I've put the info before your eyes. If you can't or won't examine the
facts of 9/11 as presented by the real experts, there is nothing more
I can do for you.
I wish you the best.....
David Johnston
wrote:
"Pulled" is not the word used to mean "destroy with explosives".
Al Dykes
>
>
>>
>>The "Half Truth Movement" hides behind YouTube videos. None of the
>>people that make the claims will speak in public and address polite,
>>relevant questions from other people.
>>
>>Why should I believe anyone who refuses to speak in public?
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>>http://www.ae911truth.org/
>>>
>>>
>>>Scroll down a little on the left hand side, look for the (free)
>>>streaming video:
>>>
>>>
>>
>>>Part I: "WTC Building #7 – A controlled demolition?" (45
>
>Where do you think the videos above were recorded?
>
>Have you even bothered to look over the ae911truth.org website?
Yes. They began to lose it when they allowed that computer programmers
could join in as "engineers". My Aunt Fanny knows more about
"engineering & Architecture" than any computer programmer that doesn't
have a relevant degree in something relevant to A & E. .
>Looking at 9/11 from a technical approach is not a popularity contest.
>It is an examination of physics and evidence, to wit:
AE911 members say says things that sound silly to the world's
engineers. Each AE911 member must speak in public and elaborate on
his claims and address polite relevant questions from other engineers
in order to have a chance of being taken seriously.
I have specific questions for Scott Forbes, the "IT Guy". He claims
there was a power-down at WTC and that, if true, it had something to do
with 9/11,
I have 30 years of experience managing computer facilities and
participating in several major construction projects in large
Manhattan buildings,
He says things that sound silly to me.
I have been watching for him to appear in the NYC area in some
dignified forum of IT professionals where my questions can be raised.
I know he has been invited to some.
He never shows up.
Al Dykes
optix <op...@refractor.net> wrote:
>On 29 Aug 2008 18:02:42 -0400, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>
>>>
>>>Where do you think the videos above were recorded?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Who cares? None of the videos are of any alleged expert claiming
>>man-made demolition-or any other "Truth Movement" claim where people
>>with relevant expertise can ask polite, relevant questions about the
>>claims and hear the answers and ask follow-up questions,
>>
>
>
>
>
>Ignorance is not a virtue:
>
>
>9/11: Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko on WTC #7
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T3_mmGvfQQ
>
When Jowenko was tapes, he didn;t know he was looking at a building
that was on fire from teh south side and that already beginning to
visibly fail hours earlier.
optix
>>
>>Have you even bothered to look over the ae911truth.org website?
>
>Yes. They began to lose it when they allowed that computer programmers
>could join in as "engineers". My Aunt Fanny knows more about
>"engineering & Architecture" than any computer programmer that doesn't
>have a relevant degree in something relevant to A & E. .
>
>
I had a TS clearance when I was 17 years old. Don't tell me that
programmers are less relevent.
>>Looking at 9/11 from a technical approach is not a popularity contest.
>>It is an examination of physics and evidence, to wit:
>
>
>AE911 members say says things that sound silly to the world's
>engineers. Each AE911 member must speak in public and elaborate on
>his claims and address polite relevant questions from other engineers
>in order to have a chance of being taken seriously.
>
>I have specific questions for Scott Forbes, the "IT Guy". He claims
>there was a power-down at WTC and that, if true, it had something to do
>with 9/11,
>
What questions? Specifically?
>I have 30 years of experience managing computer facilities and
>participating in several major construction projects in large
>Manhattan buildings,
>
>He says things that sound silly to me.
>
What specifically? Details are required.
Billzz
news:a0dhb4d1vcp8fvh3r...@4ax.com...
> On 29 Aug 2008 22:38:39 -0400, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>Have you even bothered to look over the ae911truth.org website?
>>
>>Yes. They began to lose it when they allowed that computer programmers
>>could join in as "engineers". My Aunt Fanny knows more about
>>"engineering & Architecture" than any computer programmer that doesn't
>>have a relevant degree in something relevant to A & E. .
>>
>>
>
>
> I had a TS clearance when I was 17 years old. Don't tell me that
> programmers are less relevent.
I was just passing by, and the above caught my attention. I do not know
what a Top Secret clearance has to do with the subject, and I do not know
why any architect or engineer, in the civilian world would need one.
Anyway, Top Secret clearances are usually associated with the military (I
had one) and are only for "need to know" projects. Firstly, it takes about
a year to get a Secret clearance, then another to go to Top Secret because
of the background checks, NAC checks, etc. Secondly, no seventeen year old
can get in the army without parental permission, and then there is the basic
training, etc. before they get to a school where they would even start the
paperwork, and then only for a Secret. So I find it hard to believe that
any seventeen year old had any security clearance, let alone a TS. Of
course I could be wrong. Maybe you could divulge what agency was bestowing
TS clearances on seventeen year olds?
Truth...@nospam.net
>"optix" <op...@refractor.net> wrote in message
>news:a0dhb4d1vcp8fvh3r...@4ax.com...
>> On 29 Aug 2008 22:38:39 -0400, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>Have you even bothered to look over the ae911truth.org website?
>>>
>>>Yes. They began to lose it when they allowed that computer programmers
>>>could join in as "engineers". My Aunt Fanny knows more about
>>>"engineering & Architecture" than any computer programmer that doesn't
>>>have a relevant degree in something relevant to A & E. .
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> I had a TS clearance when I was 17 years old. Don't tell me that
>> programmers are less relevent.
>I was just passing by, and the above caught my attention. I do not know
>what a Top Secret clearance has to do with the subject, and I do not know
> why any architect or engineer, in the civilian world would need one.
>Anyway, Top Secret clearances are usually associated with the military (I
> had one) and are only for "need to know" projects. Firstly, it takes
>about a year to get a Secret clearance, then another to go to Top Secret
>because of the background checks, NAC checks, etc. Secondly, no
>seventeen year old can get in the army without parental permission, and
>then there is the basic training, etc. before they get to a school where
>they would even start the paperwork, and then only for a Secret. So I
>find it hard to believe that any seventeen year old had any security
>clearance, let alone a TS. Of course I could be wrong. Maybe you could
>divulge what agency was bestowing TS clearances on seventeen year olds?
A commander can grant an interim secret clearance with a national agency
check. It doesn't take a year. Nor does a TS take two years.
Al Dykes
optix <op...@refractor.net> wrote:
>On 29 Aug 2008 22:38:39 -0400, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>Have you even bothered to look over the ae911truth.org website?
>>
>>Yes. They began to lose it when they allowed that computer programmers
>>could join in as "engineers". My Aunt Fanny knows more about
>>"engineering & Architecture" than any computer programmer that doesn't
>>have a relevant degree in something relevant to A & E. .
>>
>>
>
>
>I had a TS clearance when I was 17 years old. Don't tell me that
>programmers are less relevent.
>
Huh?
Al Dykes
What age were you when you entered the service?
What does that have to do with structural engineering?
Why won't the people like Richard gage soeak in fron of groups of
relevant engineers and answer questions?
haterof...@yahoo.com
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:13:33 -0700 (PDT), haterofneoc...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Pulled was "le codeword du jour" that day, David, and you know it.
haterof...@yahoo.com
> In article <n9rgb4961mmeak33ggjaiilkkdn5aqk...@4ax.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Somehow I doubt it would be you asking the "relevant questions" Al.
Just who/what do you represent? It surely is not the pursuit of
truth.
haterof...@yahoo.com
> "optix" <op...@refractor.net> wrote in message
>
> news:a0dhb4d1vcp8fvh3r...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 29 Aug 2008 22:38:39 -0400, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>
> >>>Have you even bothered to look over the ae911truth.org website?
>
> >>Yes. They began to lose it when they allowed that computer programmers
> >>could join in as "engineers". My Aunt Fanny knows more about
> >>"engineering & Architecture" than any computer programmer that doesn't
> >>have a relevant degree in something relevant to A & E. .
>
> > I had a TS clearance when I was 17 years old. Don't tell me that
> > programmers are less relevent.
>
> I was just passing by, and the above caught my attention. I do not know
> what a Top Secret clearance has to do with the subject, and I do not know
> why any architect or engineer, in the civilian world would need one.
> Anyway, Top Secret clearances are usually associated with the military (I
> had one) and are only for "need to know" projects. Firstly, it takes about
> a year to get a Secret clearance, then another to go to Top Secret because
> of the background checks, NAC checks, etc. Secondly, no seventeen year old
> can get in the army without parental permission, and then there is the basic
> training, etc. before they get to a school where they would even start the
> paperwork, and then only for a Secret. So I find it hard to believe that
> any seventeen year old had any security clearance, let alone a TS. Of
> course I could be wrong. Maybe you could divulge what agency was bestowing
> TS clearances on seventeen year olds?
That person can't - Top Secret, after all. The TS contains non
disclosure.
You should already now that, Billzz. By you asking that question, it
makes many of us here doubt you really are the decorated military
veteran you claim to be.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>Looking at 9/11 from a technical approach is not a popularity contest.
> >>>It is an examination of physics and evidence, to wit:
>
> >>AE911 members say says things that sound silly to the world's
> >>engineers. Each AE911 member must speak in public and elaborate on
> >>his claims and address polite relevant questions from other engineers
> >>in order to have a chance of being taken seriously.
>
> >>I have specific questions for Scott Forbes, the "IT Guy". He claims
> >>there was a power-down at WTC and that, if true, it had something to do
> >>with 9/11,
>
> > What questions? Specifically?
>
> >>I have 30 years of experience managing computer facilities and
> >>participating in several major construction projects in large
> >>Manhattan buildings,
>
> >>He says things that sound silly to me.
>
> > What specifically? Details are required.
>
> > --
> > Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to
> > make you commit injustices.
>
> > Voltaire- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Al Dykes
<haterof...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Aug 29, 6:02=A0pm, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>> In article <n9rgb4961mmeak33ggjaiilkkdn5aqk...@4ax.com>,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> optix =A0<op...@refractor.net> wrote:
>> >On 29 Aug 2008 14:24:49 -0400, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>>
>> >>people that make the claims will speak in public and address polite,
>> >>relevant questions from other people.
>>
>> >>Why should I believe anyone who refuses to speak in public?
>>
>> >>>http://www.ae911truth.org/
>>
>> >>>Scroll down a little on the left hand side, look for the (free)
>> >>>streaming video:
>>
>>
>> >Where do you think the videos above =A0were recorded? =A0
>>
>> Who cares? =A0None of the videos are of any alleged expert claiming
>> man-made demolition-or any other "Truth Movement" claim where people
>> with relevant expertise can ask polite, relevant questions about the
>> claims and hear the answers and ask follow-up questions,
>>
>> That'show progress in made in and field where resasonable people
>>
>> Until these people come out from behind their web pages and YouTube
>> videos and face the relevant questions, they are just cowards speaking
>> to the ignorant.
>>
>> --
>> Al Dykes
>ising.
>> =A0 =A0 - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail- Hide quoted text=
> -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Somehow I doubt it would be you asking the "relevant questions" Al.
>Just who/what do you represent? It surely is not the pursuit of
>truth.
Scott Forbes claims to have proof of a power-down at WTC days before
9/11 as proof that there were construction crews in a tower. These
people could have planted explosives, he says. We can find nobody else
that can substantiate the claim of a power down.
What he says sounds silly to people with actual experience with what
he says he knows. If his claims are true, there should be a trail of
recrds and countless number of people that can verify his claims once
we find out the specifics.
I have about 30 years experience in managing of floor-sized computer
facilities running 24x7 in very large Manhattan buildings including a
couple large construction projects.
I've been looking for an opportunity to chat with Forbes. Over 7
years, he hasn't appeared in front of any group of relevant
professionals. I know he's been invited.
I know people with can prove their provable engineering expertise that
want to speak with "Truth Movement" people that claim similar
expertise and make claims that sound silly.
So far, nobody in the "truth movement" will speak in public and
address questions relevant to their specific claims are.
They hide behind web sites and YouTube videos and speak only to people
that are ignorant of any relevant knowledge.
Why should we believe them?
i_hate...@yahoo.com
> In article <e7bbd846-a885-4a3e-ac79-68cdd99d0...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
You still have not said who you are aligned with.
Al Dykes
<i_hate...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Aug 30, 9:50=A0am, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>> In article <e7bbd846-a885-4a3e-ac79-68cdd99d0...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> =A0<haterofneoc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Aug 29, 6:02=3DA0pm, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>> >> In article <n9rgb4961mmeak33ggjaiilkkdn5aqk...@4ax.com>,
>>
>> >> >On 29 Aug 2008 14:24:49 -0400, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>>
>the
>> >> >>people that make the claims will speak in public and address polite,
>> >> >>relevant questions from other people.
>>
>> >> >>Why should I believe anyone who refuses to speak in public?
>>
>> >> >>>http://www.ae911truth.org/
>>
>> >> >>>Scroll down a little on the left hand side, look for the (free)
>> >> >>>streaming video:
>>
>>
>> >> >Where do you think the videos above =3DA0were recorded? =3DA0
>>
>> >> Who cares? =3DA0None of the videos are of any alleged expert claiming
>> >> man-made demolition-or any other "Truth Movement" claim where people
>> >> with relevant expertise can ask polite, relevant questions about the
>> >> claims and hear the answers and ask follow-up questions,
>>
>> >> That'show progress in made in and field where resasonable people
>>
>> >> Until these people come out from behind their web pages and YouTube
>> >> videos and face the relevant questions, they are just cowards speaking
>> >> to the ignorant.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Al Dykes
>dvert=3D
>> >ising.
>> >> =3DA0 =3DA0 - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail- Hide quot=
>ed text=3D
>> > -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >Somehow I doubt it would be you asking the "relevant questions" Al.
>> >truth.
>>
>> Scott Forbes claims to have proof of a power-down at WTC days before
>> 9/11 as proof that there were construction crews in a tower. These
>> people could have planted explosives, he says. We can find nobody else
>> that can substantiate the claim of a power down.
>>
>> What he says sounds silly to people with actual experience with what
>> he says he knows. If his claims are true, there should be a trail of
>> recrds and countless number of people that can verify his claims once
>> we find out the specifics.
>>
>> I have about 30 years experience in managing of floor-sized computer
>> facilities running 24x7 in very large Manhattan buildings including a
>> couple large construction projects.
>>
>> years, he hasn't appeared in front of any group of relevant
>> professionals. I know he's been invited.
>>
>> I know people with can prove their provable engineering expertise that
>> want to speak with "Truth Movement" people that claim similar
>> expertise and make claims that sound silly.
>>
>> So far, nobody in the "truth movement" will speak in public and
>> address questions relevant to their specific claims are.
>>
>> They hide behind web sites and YouTube videos and speak only to people
>> that are ignorant of any relevant knowledge.
>>
>> Why should we believe them?
>>
>> --
>> Al Dykes
>ising.
>> =A0 =A0 - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail- Hide quoted text=
> -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
Nobody but me.
Searching the Usenet archives for my "handle" will show an unbroken
opposition to the Bush administration and their wars from 2000, on,
and much more about me.
I've had the same user id since 1985 although the Usenet archives have
holes now and you won't find many posts prior to 1990.
It would be trivial for any serious investigator to connect my Usenet
ID to my real identity and biography, and that bio would show active
opposition to most of presidential military efforts since the mid-60s.
Who cares, anyway? Most of what I say is provided with a citation to
sources that can be read by everyone. Were I Dick Cheney, himself, it
wouldn't make any difference. The sources are to be discussed on their
own merits and by reading deeper into more citations.