<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="Tiki CMS/Groupware via FeedCreator 1.7.2.1" -->
<?xml-stylesheet href="http://www.ae911truth.info/lib/rss/rss-style.css" type="text/css"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="http://www.ae911truth.info/lib/rss/rss20.xsl" type="text/xsl"?>
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>AE911Truth.INFO Blog</title>
        <description><![CDATA[New posts at the AE911Truth.INFO blog.]]></description>
        <link>http://www.ae911truth.info/tiki-blogs_rss.php?ver=2</link>
        <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Sep 2010 13:08:39 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>Tiki CMS/Groupware via FeedCreator 1.7.2.1</generator>
        
        <language>en-us</language>
        <item>
            <title>AE911Truth Declares 0.000166% VICTORY!</title>
            <link>http://www.ae911truth.info/tiki-view_blog_post.php?blogId=1&amp;postId=42</link>
            <description><![CDATA[<b>24,000 Architects at SF AIA Convention Come Face to Face With 9/11 Truth</b> screams <a class="wiki external" target="_blank" href="http://www.ae911truth.org/info/58" rel="external">the headline at AE911Truth</a>. A little further down, the true number is revealed: about 50 new petitioners were added, and as the videos make clear, most of these were not architects or engineers.<br />
<br />
In fact, the number of architects and engineers is up now by exactly 4, from 642 to 646.<br />
<br />
4 new architects/engineers out of 24,000 is 0.000166%. So using their numbers alone, the staggering advance of AE911Truth is laid clear.<br />
<br />
Don't be fooled by this organization.<br />
]]></description>
            <author>System Administrator &lt;boloboffin@xxxxxxxxxx.xxxx&gt;</author>
            <pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2009 17:04:59 +0100</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>AE911Truth Lies About 640 Architects and Engineers</title>
            <link>http://www.ae911truth.info/tiki-view_blog_post.php?blogId=1&amp;postId=41</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The recent AE911Truth press release concerning their April 2009 appearance at the AIA convention is headed by a lie, the same lie that is on the top of their website. They claim to have 640 architects and engineers asking for a new investigation.<br />
<br />
<a class="wiki external" target="_blank" href="http://ae911truth.info/xls/ae911truth-archeng640lie.xls" rel="external">A friend of this site recently went through their list of signees</a> and discovered this total included architect and engineering students or other people that worked in the offices. When he eliminated everyone but those with licenses and/or degrees, he found the truth - 284 names. And this was being very generous with the degrees! Several landscape engineers are in this list. There are many electrical engineers and others whose specialty has nothing at all to do with structural engineering.<br />
<br />
It will be interesting to see how many architects AE911Truth manages to soft-pedal into signing up for a "new investigation" without fully explaining the wacky things being advocated by this group. No doubt that number will again be grossly exaggerated by this group.<br />
]]></description>
            <author>System Administrator &lt;boloboffin@xxxxxxxxxx.xxxx&gt;</author>
            <pubDate>Sat, 02 May 2009 15:50:46 +0100</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>A New Picture On The Main Page</title>
            <link>http://www.ae911truth.info/tiki-view_blog_post.php?blogId=1&amp;postId=40</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Incorporating AE911Truth's new "comparison" of the Mandarin Oriental Building and Building 7.<br />
<br />
They've also published their second issue of the Blueprint, their e-newsletter. Great stuff in there, including information on the upcoming "Truth In Your Face, AIA!" tour at the AIA National Convention, more of Chandler's self-congratulatory silliness, and the like.<br />
]]></description>
            <author>System Administrator &lt;boloboffin@xxxxxxxxxx.xxxx&gt;</author>
            <pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 04:48:10 +0100</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Deadline - April 20, 2009</title>
            <link>http://www.ae911truth.info/tiki-view_blog_post.php?blogId=1&amp;postId=39</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Richard Gage and his merry band of disinformationalists are heading to the AIA convention to sign up architects. The convention starts on the 20th of April, 2009.<br />
<br />
So I'm kicking my behind into gear. I aim to have the debunking of AE911Truth's characteristic features done by April 20th. I also plan on building an nice welcome site for any architects who might find their way here.<br />
<br />
To do this by myself won't be easy. Therefore I'm thinking about opening up registration to editors that I know and trust. If you happen to be reading this and know you could be one of these people, drop me an email at boloboffin at ae911truth.net.<br />
]]></description>
            <author>System Administrator &lt;boloboffin@xxxxxxxxxx.xxxx&gt;</author>
            <pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:27:14 +0100</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Mandarin Oriental Hotel Fire at AE911Truth</title>
            <link>http://www.ae911truth.info/tiki-view_blog_post.php?blogId=1&amp;postId=38</link>
            <description><![CDATA[First off, this building is more correctly called the Television Cultural Center Building. The Mandarin Oriental Hotel was renting out a large section of it, and it was that section that burned.<br />
<br />
If this was the only mistake AE911Truth was going to make here, then it would indeed be petty of me to bring it up at all, but you know and I know that <a class="wiki external" target="_blank" href="http://www.ae911truth.org/info/47" rel="external">AE911Truth is going to jump into this with both feet</a>:<br />
<br />
<div class="simplebox">With the fiery inferno of the Mandarin Oriental Hotel (MOH) in Beijing on February 9, 2009, the obvious point of comparison is with World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7) on September 11, 2001. Yes, the buildings were very similar in size, and in some ways in construction. Their heights were comparable, 522 ft. for MOH, vs. 610 ft. for WTC 7. But the differences in the magnitude of the fires and ultimate results were dramatic, in the extreme.<br />
<br />
Fires in the MOH raged on every floor, reportedly requiring between 13 and 30 minutes before the entire building was engulfed in flame (first photo). In contrast, WTC 7 had small fires on only a few floors at a time, typically burning the office materials, then moving on. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) reported fires on only 10 floors.<br />
<br />
With the MOH engulfed by more extensive fires, the dramatic differences in eventual outcomes for the two buildings are even more astounding. Once the fires were out, the MOH remained standing (second photo). This is not at all surprising, since all previous steel-framed high rises have remained standing (other than WTC 7, says NIST) after having been engulfed by fire. WTC 7, on the other hand, was demolished, falling straight down into its own footprint, with only the smallest of office fires in comparison to the MOH fires. Remarkably, NIST finally acknowledges a 2-second freefall drop extending approximately 8 stories.<br />
<br />
Researchers at AE911Truth are very interested in making more detailed comparisons between these two buildings, the fires, and the aftermaths. Check back for the latest information.</div><br />
<br />
Things you will not be hearing from AE911Truth:<br />
<br />
<h4 class="showhide_heading" id="The_TVCC_Building_was_a_reinforced_concrete_structure_">The TVCC Building was a reinforced concrete structure.</h4>
Much like the new WTC 7, the TVCC was built with a <a class="wiki external" target="_blank" href="http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=56260" rel="external">reinforced concrete and steel structure</a>. Concrete is far more resistant to fire than steel is. One of the favorite examples of <a class="wiki external" target="_blank" href="http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/spain_fire_2005.html" rel="external">the controlled demolition crowd</a> is the Windsor Building fire in Madrid, Spain. Much is made that this building didn't collapse in the wake of a spectacular fire, but it is left to debunkers to point out that the simple steel structure actually did collapse in this building, and it was only the reinforced concrete core that remained standing and kept the rest of the building up.<br />
<br />
Similarly, the TVCC building used a reinforced concrete and steel structure. Therefore, its different performance from the WTC buildings (all structural steel buildings entirely) is not that remarkable.<br />
<br />
<h4 class="showhide_heading" id="The_TVCC_Building_was_built_with_redundant_support_while_another_part_of_the_building_was_being_built_">The TVCC Building was built with redundant support while another part of the building was being built.</h4>
(Note: this section is incorrect. See update below.) The design of the finished TVCC building was very unique. Two towers would be connected by an archway that would jut out like a cube.<br />
<br />
Because of this, the design in the two towers had to support all that extra weight in the arch. Since the design depended on this arch being in place, the Mandarin Oriental tower had been built with extra support until the archway could be finished. So not only was this building already more resistant to fire that the WTC buildings ever could have been, it was standing there with redundant support.<br />
<br />
<h4 class="showhide_heading" id="The_TVCC_Building_was_built_by_Arup_after_they_conducted_an_extensive_study_of_the_WTC_collapses_">The TVCC Building was built by Arup after they conducted an extensive study of the WTC collapses.</h4>
<a class="wiki external" target="_blank" href="http://www.arup.com/_assets/_download/download582.pdf" rel="external">The Arup construction group (pdf)</a> took the collapses of the WTC buildings very seriously. They conducted an immediate and thorough study of these collapses and used what they learned to design their high-rise buildings from then on out. So while AE911Truth wants to pretend that the non-collapse of the TVCC building is an orange-to-orange comparison, the truth is that the TVCC building's resistance was based on the lessons learned from an extensive study of the WTC building collapses.<br />
<br />
I await the detailed comparison of this building fire to the WTC collapses promised by AE911Truth. Will it be true to their regular form, full of scanty, cherry-picked evidence and logical fallacies? Or will they simply recognize the way that this building fire disproves what they assert and quietly let this comparison fall by the wayside? I'm betting on the first option. After all, those are some really spectacular videos of that TVCC fire.<br />
<br />
For more on the AE911Truth assertions about WTC 7, I recommend these pages here at AE911Truth.INFO (once they're completed, that is!):<br />
<br />
<a title="Flame-Engulfed Buildings" href='tiki-index.php?page=Flame-Engulfed+Buildings' class='wiki'>Flame-Engulfed Buildings</a>, <a title="No Precedent" href='tiki-index.php?page=No+Precedent' class='wiki'>No Precedent</a><br />
<br />
ETA: Something else you'll rarely see at AE911Truth, an acknowledgment of a mistake. The cube-like building (the CCTV building) actually didn't catch fire. The Mandarin Oriental Hotel was a separate part of the complex. It was my mistake in understanding how the buildings were being built. Also, the Mandarin Oriental Hotel was in the Television Cultural Center, not the Central Chinese Television building (the CCTV &mdash; the cube-shaped building). I've corrected that mistake above.<br />
<br />
Bottom-line, the redundancy in structure to support an arch not yet built was not a part of the Mandarin Oriental building. My bad. However, add one more thing to the list to replace that item:<br />
<br />
<h4 class="showhide_heading" id="The_TVCC_building_was_built_to_withstand_earthquakes_">The TVCC building was built to withstand earthquakes.</h4>
<a class="wiki external" target="_blank" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/11/television-cultural-centre-tower-beijing-fire" rel="external">As you can see here</a>, both the CCTV and TVCC buildings were built to withstand the earthquakes that can plague Beijing.<br />
<br />
So, very sorry for the mistake.<br />
<br />
]]></description>
            <author>System Administrator &lt;boloboffin@xxxxxxxxxx.xxxx&gt;</author>
            <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 19:38:17 +0100</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>AE911Truth Booth Confirmed at AIA Convention</title>
            <link>http://www.ae911truth.info/tiki-view_blog_post.php?blogId=1&amp;postId=37</link>
            <description><![CDATA[I'll add the link later, but I have finally found the booth for AE911Truth at the 2009 AIA convention. It's a little booth, the smallest available, over in a corner, just off the main walkway, very close to the Exhibitors' Service Area. In other words, if they cause any trouble, the guys running the show are right there.<br />
<br />
So yay for them! I don't know if the few exhibitors near them are going to be happy to see who their neighbor is, but at least that has been nailed down.<br />
]]></description>
            <author>System Administrator &lt;boloboffin@xxxxxxxxxx.xxxx&gt;</author>
            <pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 23:41:30 +0100</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>First Action Alert of 2009!</title>
            <link>http://www.ae911truth.info/tiki-view_blog_post.php?blogId=1&amp;postId=36</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Finally some signs of life over in AE911Truth land. A new speaking engagement for February and this <a class="wiki external" target="_blank" href="http://www.ae911truth.org/actionalerts/action014.php" rel="external">action alert</a> begging for donations:<br />
<br />
<div class="simplebox"><b>Some Straight Talk</b><br />
<br />
Last year, the response to our Sustaining Membership drive was less than hoped for. While we did double the number of Sustaining Members, the number still represents less than 4% of our 3,500 petition signers (approx. 100 people). This level of financial support does not allow us to meet our goals. If just HALF of our petition signers and other supporters upgraded to monthly Sustaining Memberships, it would make a HUGE difference in our ability to achieve a highly effective marketing presence in the professional architecture and engineering communities, and with our many other projects. At present we are only able to meet basic operating expenses at the beginning of this year and, in fact, are starting out in the red. Please join us and work with us actively to achieve the many goals set for us by you and the needs of the 9/11 Truth movement. Become a monthly Sustaining Member today! </div><br />
<br />
Ref over at JREF has <a class="wiki external" target="_blank" href="http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4370573&postcount=777" rel="external">a great post talking the numbers</a> implied about all of this. The most amusing point ref makes is that 100 out of 3,500 is actually under 3% of their petition signers, so they are quite correct about it being below 4%.<br />
<br />
However, even in the worst case (everyone giving $10 a month), they are looking for $210,000 a year funding for this. My guess is that the goal is around $500,000 a year, with either these Sustaining Memberships or one-time contributions. That's a lot of cash to spread their misinformation and disinformation around.<br />
<br />
Remember, this is the bottom line of this organization. It's all about the greenbacks rolling in. If there wasn't any cash, Richard Gage would just be designing his buildings and be out one European vacation.<br />
<br />
Also, they are now claiming non-profit status. That means that their records should be available for public scrutiny, right? You better believe I'm checking into that.<br />
<br />
<img src='tiki-view_blog_post_image.php?imgId=12' border='0' alt='image' align='left'/><br />
Another interesting development: they claim to have been "approved by the <i>American Institute of Architects</i>" to have a booth at the AIA Convention in San Francisco, April 2009. However, <a class="wiki external" target="_blank" href="http://www.mapyourshow.com/shows/mys_v4_01/mys_v4_01.cfm?SHOW_ID=AIA09" rel="external">this map of the exhibit</a> doesn't have their booth listed yet. Of course what they have done is applied for a booth at an exhibition hall. It's hardly the endorsement that AE911Truth is implying here. But they haven't yet come up with the cash to secure the space (over $10,000 is their estimate for the total amount, materials and all), and so the booth isn't listed yet.<br />
<br />
And according to <a class="wiki external" target="_blank" href="http://www.aiaconvention.com/imark/images/other/AIA09_ExhibitorProspectus_WEBFINAL.pdf" rel="external">this PDF for exhibitors</a>, booth space is $40 per square foot. According to <a class="wiki external" target="_blank" href="http://www.aiaconvention.com/imark/images/other/ExhibitContract_09_FINAL.pdf" rel="external">this PDF, a Exhibition Space Contract</a>, the minimum space is 10 by 10 (100 sq. feet = $4,000), and the deadline for payment was December 1, 2008. Listing in the map linked above is included in the square foot price, but a search of relevant terms and an examination of the relevant categories (Miscellaneous and Associations/Institutes/Agencies/Foundations) doesn't reveal their booth, either.<br />
<br />
So either they haven't actually secured the space and are playing some silly game with raising donations, or the AIA is purposefully not advertising the AE911Truth booth. Anybody want to shoot AE911Truth an email and ask them what's up?<br />
]]></description>
            <author>System Administrator &lt;boloboffin@xxxxxxxxxx.xxxx&gt;</author>
            <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:05:25 +0100</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>David Chandler's Latest Entry On AE911Truth.org</title>
            <link>http://www.ae911truth.info/tiki-view_blog_post.php?blogId=1&amp;postId=35</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The biggest thing <a title="AE911Truth" href='tiki-index.php?page=AE911Truth' class='wiki'>AE911Truth</a> has going for it these days are the videos of one <a title="David Chandler" href='tiki-index.php?page=David+Chandler' class='wiki'>David Chandler</a>, whose measurements of part of WTC 7's collapse has helped verify NIST's computer modeling. However, since Chandler is a CD advocate, he hasn't quite understood that he helped to do this. Rather, <a class="wiki external" target="_blank" href="http://www.ae911truth.org/info/43" rel="external">he just published a item on AE911Truth's front page, crowing about NIST having to recognize the free fall section of WTC 7's collapse</a>:<br />
<br />
<div class="simplebox">NIST has now officially accepted that WTC7 came down with the acceleration of gravity, but they still couch it as a phase in a 5.4 second interval they claim matches the 5.4 seconds required for their model to collapse 18 floors.</div><br />
Hold on there. WTC 7 didn't come down with the acceleration of gravity. As the Final Report still shows, the time it took the roofline of WTC 7 to fall 18 floors is still 40% slower than it would take to fall at the acceleration of gravity. Very sneaky language there, Mr. Chandler.<br />
<br />
What NIST has done is gone further and measure the actual rate of speed the building falls during this entire time, mimicking Chandler's own work. And with their more precise tools and better video, they do indeed isolate a 2.25 second period in which WTC 7 falls at the rate of gravity's acceleration. So kudos for Mr. Chandler, right?<br />
<br />
But NIST does no "couching" here. They're reporting the facts. During the first 5.4 seconds of the roofline's fall, it descends at "freefall speed" for 2.25 seconds. There's a period before where there is significant resistance, and then after that 2.25 seconds there's another period of significant resistance. <i>And this is something Chandler's own measurements show!</i> His chart shows a period of severe resistance, a period of free fall, and then another period of resistance. It seems unsporting for Chandler to criticize NIST for describing something found in his own numbers.<br />
<br />
NIST goes on to reference their Chapter 12 in the accompanying material for the Final Report. There, the analyses of the global collapse provide the explanation for why the building fell in the time and at the speeds that it did. The 2.25 second period corresponds to a point at which Floors 7-14 had buckled completely and left the 33 stories above with no support whatsoever. NIST shows that in the 2.25 seconds, the roofline falls 8 stories. That's exactly the distance of Floors 7-14.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, it's not just their model that "requires" 5.4 seconds. That's how long it takes WTC 7 to fall 18 stories. That's right there on the video. Chandler's effort to make it appear that this number is deceitful on NIST's part is truly deceitful on his. And the next sentence continues this new trend of open deception for Chandler:<br />
<br />
<div class="simplebox">The starting point of their 5.4 second interval is totally arbitrary.</div><br />
Actually it isn't. NIST makes very clear when they start the count. They write on page 44 (pdf 87) of the WTC 7 Final Report:<br />
<br />
<div class="simplebox">NIST tracked the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline, fitting the data using a smooth function. (The time at which motion of the roofline was first perceived was taken as time zero).</div><br />
So as you can see, NIST didn't just pluck a time out of the air, as Mr. Chandler insists, to justify their 5.4 seconds. They went to the video and started their timer when the roofline first visibly begins to descend. And since Chandler shows evidence in his video that he read the NIST final report, stating this was "totally arbitrary" shows that he cannot read or that he is purposefully lying about the NIST Report.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, if that's totally arbitrary to Mr. Chandler, then what are we to make of Chandler himself using the first perception of roofline movement to be <i>his</i> time zero? Go ahead. Watch his earlier videos. He uses the first instance of the roofline dropping visibly to start his time, just like NIST. This is not only deception on Chandler's part, it's hypocrisy.<br />
<br />
<div class="simplebox">This new video highlights the August 26 technical briefing and allows Sunder and Gross to shoot holes in their own feet.</div><br />
Interesting choice of phrase there, considering this website's use of the term "Texas Footshooters" to describe AE911Truth.<br />
<br />
I like the way Chandler mocks Sunder for stammering over his answer. It couldn't be that Sunder is trying to understand why someone representing themselves as a spokesperson for the American Association of Physics Teachers would be asking CT questions. No, Sunder must be trying to cover up the truth here. Right. I wonder if the AAPT would be happy to see Chandler bandying their name around like that. The AIA certainly put the kibbosh on Richard Gage using their logo so prominently on the AE911Truth website and materials. I wonder...<br />
<br />
Chandler continues:<br />
<br />
<div class="simplebox">Part II, which is planned to come out in a week or two, will go into detail about the implications of freefall.</div><br />
Wow, I can hardly wait. I'd had a measure of respect for Chandler up to this point. He clearly can do competent work with limited resources, and any teacher worth his salt should be commended for trying to get people to understand physics. But on the basis of his behavior following his comments to NIST, it's clear that misleading language and hypocrisy are not above him.<br />
<br />
As I've said before, the one major mistake made by AE911Truth advocates is that they think they can undermine the case for war in the Middle East by showing 9/11 was an inside job. Their chosen way of doing this is to show that the 3 WTC buildings were controlled demolition, and it appears that any means justifies the end for this group. It's a shame that Chandler seems ready to throw his reputation away for the misinformation at AE911Truth.<br />
<br />
Which is too bad. His measurements caused NIST to look at the building collapse again and recognize the basic truth behind them. Now if Chandler would be so good as to return the professional courtesy, he might come out of this with reputation intact. That shall be his irony, I suspect. As he descends further into the madness of 9/11 Truth, he actually did help truth be seen more clearly in the collapse of Building 7. That's life for you.<br />
]]></description>
            <author>System Administrator &lt;boloboffin@xxxxxxxxxx.xxxx&gt;</author>
            <pubDate>Sun, 21 Dec 2008 04:14:58 +0100</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Improvements Big and Small</title>
            <link>http://www.ae911truth.info/tiki-view_blog_post.php?blogId=1&amp;postId=34</link>
            <description><![CDATA[I've added some content, like the <a title="Sounds and Flashes" href='tiki-index.php?page=Sounds+and+Flashes' class='wiki'>Sounds and Flashes</a> page and the <a title="118 First Responders" href='tiki-index.php?page=118+First+Responders' class='wiki'>118 First Responders</a> page. But mostly this weekend was about getting the website more in line with how I want it to look and act.<br />
<br />
The biggest thing here is the creation of a couple of structures. By hovering over the Wiki menu there at the top, you'll see a menu item called Structures. What these are is guided tours, so to speak, of the content here. I've created two to start with, Personalities and Characteristic Features.<br />
<br />
Personalities is a simple structure. It just lets you click through each of the major people connected with <a title="AE911Truth" href='tiki-index.php?page=AE911Truth' class='wiki'>AE911Truth</a>.<br />
<br />
Characteristic Features is a bit more complicated. It will be the major way of negotiating AE911Truth's arguments. It includes pages I've already added content to, like the <a title="Current Characteristic Features" href='tiki-index.php?page=Current+Characteristic+Features' class='wiki'>Current Characteristic Features</a> page or <a title="Rapid Onset" href='tiki-index.php?page=Rapid+Onset' class='wiki'>Rapid Onset</a>. It has also created many other pages that are currently empty. As I get to them, the pages will all be filled out and the site will be slowly but surely rebutted.<br />
<br />
When you are in the structure format, a laddered menu appears at the top of the page, showing you how deep in the structure you are. A more accessible menu also appears next to the text. If you go to the page directly, this doesn't appear. However, a dropdown menu appears on the right of the screen, showing you which structures the page is a part of. By scrolling down and clicking a structure name, you add the structure functionality to the page you're on.<br />
<br />
Oh, go play with it. It's easier to learn it than it is to describe it.<br />
]]></description>
            <author>System Administrator &lt;boloboffin@xxxxxxxxxx.xxxx&gt;</author>
            <pubDate>Sun, 14 Dec 2008 05:57:34 +0100</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Jock DoubleDay, Is This The End?</title>
            <link>http://www.ae911truth.info/tiki-view_blog_post.php?blogId=1&amp;postId=33</link>
            <description><![CDATA[<img src='tiki-view_blog_post_image.php?imgId=11' border='0' alt='image' />Jock Doubleday, the darling little man who skulks in the shadows to the left there, has written me a letter confessing his sweet love of all I do. However, he is shy and wishes me never to reply to his email. I think it has something to do with the dark fantasies of Illuminati and the Bohemian Grove that roam restless through his head.<br />
<br />
However, I reserve the right to publish every single word ever mailed to my email address, and so I've prepared <a class="wiki external" target="_blank" href="http://ae911truth.info/pdf/JockDoubleday.pdf" rel="external">this handy PDF file</a> of Jock's protestations and my responses to them, if I had ever had the chance to hit Send. Ours was a brief love, so brief that he shall probably not remember my name when I'm strolling the halls of the FEMA camp, watching over my sweet charges.<br />
<br />
But I shall remember him. And I will slip him a chocolate chip cookie every now and again. This I promise on the Luciferian altar at Stonehenge.<br />
]]></description>
            <author>System Administrator &lt;boloboffin@xxxxxxxxxx.xxxx&gt;</author>
            <pubDate>Sat, 13 Dec 2008 00:02:17 +0100</pubDate>
        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>
