It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

9/11 Pentagon: The Mystery of the Moved Taxi

page: 10
3
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 11:42 PM
link   
I've posted this before but I figured I'd post it again (plus the original post is apparently missing).

None of the witnesses were credible.

I refer all of you to an experiment done Elizabeth Loftus in 1979 regarding memory. As a basic psychology textbook I have (Psychology: Concepts and Connections) explains (emphasis mine):


An experiment reported by Elizabeth Loftus (1979) shows that people may reconstruct their experiences according to their prejudices. Subjects in the study were shown a picture that contained an African American man who was holding a hat and a European American man who was holding a razor. Later, when they were asked what they had seen, many subjects erroneously recalled the razor as being in the hands of the African American. The subjects recalled information that was consistent with their schemas, but it was wrong.


Loftus (currently a distinguished professor of the departments of psychology and social behavior; law, crime, and society; and cognitive sciences at UCI) also has some literature out on the subject, of which there used to be more info available for reference online, but since it's now apparently missing as well from Amazon.com (the book in particular is Eyewitness Testimony).

Pretty much, though, it runs as follows (and I may be throwing in additional info that wasn't in the other post anyway):

Memory can be manipulated, biased, or fudged/fuzzied up by the following (among other influences I'm probably forgetting), even retroactively:

  • Expectations
  • Information biases after-the-fact (especially someone running by saying "A 757 has just hit the Pentagon!!" right after the impact - that would almost certainly guarantee the subject remembering a 757, despite what he or she may have actually seen). This would be a HUGELY influential factor for someone who is already in a state of confusion/panic, trying to make sense of what's going on. Certainly wouldn't be hard to have set up, either.
  • Schemas in general
  • Viewing conditions (including both the position of subject relative to the event, and the visibility of the objects themselves)
  • Length of time in which the subject has to observe the event (in this case, the object would be moving incredibly fast and low to the ground - not much time to view)
  • Trauma, other emotional excitement, etc. (serves to critically cloud judgment in general)
  • Any expertise/experience relevant to the event (ie, what 757s look like)


Those can all have great influence over remembering things, or even memories after they've been stored. There are probably other influential factors that I'm forgetting, but the point is, these were absolutely horrible conditions for people to witness something and recall it accurately. Any bias presented at the scene just afterwards could and probably would throw off the recollections of every single influenced individual at the site.

In the above-mentioned experiment, the subjects were all calm, stared directly at the picture, and yet STILL recalled incorrect information based on their schemas. On 9/11, something had just unexpectedly flown by and blew up in a very dramatic fashion into the side of the Pentagon.

With the conditions at the Pentagon, how could anyone expect any accurate witness accounts? Such recollection is not scientifically reliable, as illustrated by the above experiment, along with another done by Loftus and Palmer in 1974, and one done in 1932 by Carmichael, Hogan, and Walter (all exploited the dramatic effects of information biases on memory).

Put short, again, ANY eyewitnesses to the Pentagon event are unreliable. I would believe that they saw something hit the building, or that they saw a second plane fly over afterwards (which the government has confirmed anyway - a C130 apparently), but as to what exactly they were seeing, I wouldn't trust. Some even attested to seeing a helicopter. This would be something that would be hard to fudge, especially considering the relative lack of claims of helicopters.

Did they say they saw a 757 hit the building? Not reliable. A missile? Not reliable. Ronald McDonald? Erm... Odd, and probably not very reliable.

You'll need the tapes to tell exactly what happened.




posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

You'll need the tapes to tell exactly what happened.


THIS I agree with. And this is one of the concerning issues of the Pentagon attack that absolutely can't be brushed off. It is a point that the government has been (I believe) extremely disingenuous about. And it is a point that there is no acceptable or reasonable excuse for not resolving.

It is NOT a matter of National Security to release a video tape of a plane full of people who are all dead. There is no intell or otherwise that could be compromised from the release of this video.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 11:54 PM
link   
I followed this thread from the catherder thread and one thing I still haven't seen addressed is why the moving of the cab has anything to do with whether a 757 hit the pentagon.
Don't hate me yet.
On 9/11 something hit the pentagon and caused damage.
100 or more people(put their affiliations to the side for now) saw a plane fly overhead apparently headed directly at the pentagon. Some saw it hit the pentagon.
A cab driver saw a plane fly overhead. It knocked a light pole over which landed on his windshield.
His cab was moved ...............to......for........because............
The administration claims Islamic terrorists hijacked a plane and piloted it into the pentagon.
So the CIA/FBI/NSA/Black Ops moved the cab to prove.........that they can?
Sorry but I tend to view things literally and logically and I just don't see why the moving cab matters in the grand scheme of things.
Why was it important for the cab to be in position b as opposed to position a. Maybe I'm being simplistic here but I just don't see why the position of the cab has any bearing on what happened that day.
Certainly it doesn't have any affect on the cabbies account since he didn't say anything about his position or the cabs positon relevant to the happenings. He didn't say " well before my car was moved I saw etc, etc". And he didn't say anything about angle of view or in which direction he was looking.
Did I miss something? Feel free to enlighten me.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by longhaircowboy

Did I miss something? Feel free to enlighten me.


No, you didn't miss anything. It makes not a muffin's bit of difference, no matter what theory you are trying to research. It's not even a supportable theory because you have to rely on a character in a play you are hypothesizing and then declare that "players" account of merit.

It is a deflection at a very assinine level. That's my opinion.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by longhaircowboy
I followed this thread from the catherder thread and one thing I still haven't seen addressed is why the moving of the cab has anything to do with whether a 757 hit the pentagon.


Not trying to be rude but maybe you should try following this thread from the beggining, maybe then you will get it?

It's not about whether a 757 hit the pentagoon, but whether it was all staged. A set up. A cover up. Lies. Lies. Lies.

Get it yet?

It may well have been a 757, but not one being flown by an Arab who could barely fly a single engine prop plane.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
THIS I agree with. And this is one of the concerning issues of the Pentagon attack that absolutely can't be brushed off. It is a point that the government has been (I believe) extremely disingenuous about. And it is a point that there is no acceptable or reasonable excuse for not resolving.

It is NOT a matter of National Security to release a video tape of a plane full of people who are all dead. There is no intell or otherwise that could be compromised from the release of this video.


You might want to go Flight77.info. They have all the FOIA information on the videos...

In case you're new to this site, here's the quick 411:

1) we're waiting for the final judgment on the original lawsuit which asked for the govt's images of flight 77 impacting the pentagon (1 recording on a CD ROM).

2) the govt admitted having 84 other recordings related flight 77, but since none of the 84 show the "impact", we had to file a second FOIA request for those recordings. that FOIA request was denied, and we've since filed an appeal. so we're waiting for the response to the appeal.









posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by longhaircowboy
I followed this thread from the catherder thread and one thing I still haven't seen addressed is why the moving of the cab has anything to do with whether a 757 hit the pentagon.



Go back and reread. It's in there.

And if you still don't get it, then trying surfing some of the different theories out there.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 02:26 AM
link   
Answer this: why can you discredit all the eyewitnesses that saw an American Airlines jet impact the Pentagon and believe the few that are uncertain.

ANSWER THAT FREAKING QUESTION.

ANSWER THAT FREAKING QUESTION.

Prove to me that I'm wrong that your a bunch of sycophantic profiteers. Please.

Explain to us how so many can be wrong. That's what you need to do. Freaking prove it.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Narc

You might want to go Flight77.info. They have all the FOIA information on the videos...

In case you're new to this site, here's the quick 411:

1) we're waiting for the final judgment on the original lawsuit which asked for the govt's images of flight 77 impacting the pentagon (1 recording on a CD ROM).

2) the govt admitted having 84 other recordings related flight 77, but since none of the 84 show the "impact", we had to file a second FOIA request for those recordings. that FOIA request was denied, and we've since filed an appeal. so we're waiting for the response to the appeal.



I'm not new to this site, and I'm not new to researching the 9/11 events. Cease promoting your website now and cease promoting your CD now. You are in severe violation of the T&C. You are not allowed to engage in this activity without first getting consent from one of the owners of ATS.

Is that what all of this is about?

As pistolpete just requested, and I have requested numerous times now, please prove all of these eye-witnesses were lying...

www.oilempire.us...

[edit on 1-20-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 07:44 AM
link   
If this were a political discussion, regarding serious implications of fraud and corruption in the government, the Flight77.info website would be immediately discredited as a source that is too biased to be included in the discussion.

Mister_Narc... please consider this clause in our terms and conditions you agreed to when joining:

17.) ATTENTION MARKETERS: You will not engage in efforts of viral or "stealth marketing" on these discussion boards without prior approval of AboveTopSecret.com, LLP. If marketing activity for the promotion of any other commercial entity outside of these boards is discovered you agree that you are responsible for paying AboveTopSecret.com, LLP $2.00 US for each "thread view" of the thread(s) in which your marketing messages are contained. Your acceptance of these Terms & Conditions for joining these discussion boards signifies your approval of these payment terms.



The reason many "conspiracy profiteers" end up disliking ATS is because of our singularly intense efforts to maintain a well-balanced discussion. The very fact this post was pulled from the main 757 thread is strong evidence that we desire to examine issues from all possible angles, and give that examination a fair hearing.

However, when someone promoting (for profit) one narrow viewpoint of an event, we grow cautious and begin using derogatory labels like "conspiracy profiteer". These people are unable to tolerate a dissenting or alternative viewpoint in the course of mature and open discussion... because, of course, popular dissenting viewpoints may inflict harm on their bottom line... especially if those viewpoints are on the Internet's most popular conspiracy discussion board.

Make no mistake, we are not, will not, and never have squashed any mature discussion of any angle of any conspiracy topic or other topics on ATS. The primary reason there has never been an "Official ATS Opinion" on any issue, or that we've never supported causes other than literacy, is because we must be seen as the one place that embraces all sides of an issue.

However, we will not embrace or tolerate "conspiracy profiteers" and their inherent disinformation techniques (primarily through omission of mountains of contrary evidence) in an attempt to steer opinion in their direction for motives of unethical profit off those who have been fooled. This is not to say "all" conspiracy theorists with books, websites, and videos are doing this... only that we invariably see this from those "conspiracy profiteers" who come here with a "chip on their shoulder".

Mister_Narc, if you wish to continue your discussion on these topics, that's fine. But given your brief history, I would ask that you refrain from sourcing websites that promote 9/11 conspiracy theory products in your posts. Your credibility has suffered, and this would go a long way toward mending it.

Thank you.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis

Looks like the polls were accounted for and designed to pop out if struck, since the alternative would be a very hard target for the wings to have to get through. Light polls are designed to stand straight in strong winds, they aren't made to pop out if hit by something - that equals hard targets in the flight path.


Please refer back to this typical specification. On page 1, you will note that in the material specification it lists “frangible transformer base.” According to the dictionary, “Frangible” means: “capable of being broken.”

This is in accordance with the FHWA safety specifications for a breakaway base for luminary supports

In layman’s terms, the poles are designed to “pop out” when they are hit by cars. I imagine they would do the same if hit by an airplane.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Man talk about the f-up of the week.

Let me break this down for those who have a problem with looking before leaping.


Valhall, I was doing you a favor. You wrote:


Valhall wrote:

It is NOT a matter of National Security to release a video tape of a plane full of people who are all dead. There is no intell or otherwise that could be compromised from the release of this video.



Then I wrote:

You might want to go Flight77.info. They have all the FOIA information on the videos...

Translation: You might want to go to Flight77.info. They have all the FOIA documents on jpegs that pertain to requests for the release of the the video tape of the Flight77 attack and the subsequent response from the gov't.

Then I copied his last entry that would bring you up to speed and put it in italics. The following is from HIS site:

UPDATE 1/6/6

In case you're new to this site, here's the quick 411:

1) we're waiting for the final judgment on the original lawsuit which asked for the govt's images of flight 77 impacting the pentagon (1 recording on a CD ROM).

2) the govt admitted having 84 other recordings related flight 77, but since none of the 84 show the "impact", we had to file a second FOIA request for those recordings. that FOIA request was denied, and we've since filed an appeal. so we're waiting for the response to the appeal.



(1 recording on a CD ROM)=the govt's images of flight 77 impacting the pentagon.

Get it?

If not, the top of the page would have said it all. If you had bothered to pull up the page:


Welcome to Flight 77.info -
Documenting the legal process to obtain government-held video recordings related to Flight 77 on 9/11




I am pretty much through with you. I have to take this moderator in moderation. If you really desire me to 'answer your questions'...funnel them through someone else. Because I refuse to have any further interactions with you.


And as for...



SkeptiCoverlord

If this were a political discussion, regarding serious implications of fraud and corruption in the government, the Flight77.info website would be immediately discredited as a source that is too biased to be included in the discussion.

...we will not embrace or tolerate "conspiracy profiteers" and their inherent disinformation techniques (primarily through omission of mountains of contrary evidence) in an attempt to steer opinion in their direction for motives of unethical profit off those who have been fooled. This is not to say "all" conspiracy theorists with books, websites, and videos are doing this... only that we invariably see this from those "conspiracy profiteers" who come here with a "chip on their shoulder".

Mister_Narc, if you wish to continue your discussion on these topics, that's fine. But given your brief history, I would ask that you refrain from sourcing websites that promote 9/11 conspiracy theory products in your posts. Your credibility has suffered, and this would go a long way toward mending it.


No, your credibility has suffered.

If you ACTUALLY went to the site. You would see. "Bruno" doesn't sell ANYTHING!!!!!!!

It's merely a site documenting the process of the FOIA requests for obtaining the video tapes of the Flight 77 attack. No videos, no books, no audio tapes, NO pop-ups. Just a site with his blog entry of updates and plenty of scans of the original documents and responses from the Gov't. Just some guy, with the assitance from his lawyer. And from best I can tell, he actually wants to believe that Flight 77 *did* hit the Pentagon. So I think he is on YOUR side.



Now. I will kindly accept an apology for this "mix-up".



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
Now. I will kindly accept an apology for this "mix-up".

We misunderstood the CD-ROM reference.

The Flight77.info source is still exceptionally biased in favor of one viewpoint.

However, promoting another website (repeatedly) without permission violates the quoted paragraph from our T&C. Please refrain from linking to websites that sell their own 9/11-conspiracy-related products for the time being.

Thank you.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
First of all, you don't know me. You don't know what I feel or how I feel.

Where did I minimize human loss? Or bastardize the historical record? Deflect from real research. I hate to break it to you, but this is as real as it gets. You want "real research" go to team8plus.org. Those are real 9/11 researchers.


One thing I notice is myself or Valhall (and many others) have said we COULD believe this or that or even that we do see some inconsistancies here or there.

You don't seem to notice any willingness to evaluate and learn on our part.

On the other hand, you are unwilling to see any other ideas. Unwilling in fact with anything other than what you claim is a factual (like the cab moved or that it WAS a psy-op). Your approach is biased, singular, and frankly...very one sided even though you have yet to actually prove anything even with repeated attempts by others asking you.


You don't know that I eat, breathe and live this stuff. In hopes of getting real answers for those who lost their life even if I am wrong. AND I WANT TO BE WRONG!


No you don't. Someone that wants to be wrong would constantly check themselves and be willing to back up a second or say "good point" and then modify the theory accordingly. That's called research.

It's not research when you have a fixed idea and then you go about accepting only the info that supports that theory while rejecting everyone else's input.

I know, I know...she and I are staff members and must be bias government disinfo agents, other people are covering up, others are just blind, some are stupid, the fire crews incompetent, the witnesses are unreliable, the concrete of the Pentagon was fixed, the poles were set up to fall, the cab was moved, the explosions fakes, the real passengers duped, the media misled, etc, etc, etc...

Pretty much every excuse in the book to deny what facts are known in support of a grandious theory that has no proof at all.

Yeah, that's real research alright.


I wake up nearly everyday thinking about those people, this world, my daughter, my fellow human beings. I cried when I thought of those firemen lugging all that heavy gear up all those flights of stairs, not knowing what was going to happen to them all to save some average joe or josephine like me or you. Those children who now have no mother or father because this. Those children, nationally and internationally, who subsequently lost a mother or father because of the BS event.


Wait, are these the human beings that lied or were coerced? Are these the same neo-con cover-up agents? Are these the firemen who were in on the plot and never really found black boxes and other wreckage? You feel sorry for everyone you just spent a few pages discrediting because a taxi appears to have moved in different angle photos?

These are the people you have this great well of sorrow for, yet you label it a BS event with zero proof and total conjecture and you don't see that as minimizing their loss?

I guess cannonization is just around the corner.


Don't you dare insult my efforts or motivation. You know nothing about either.


Yeah, but you insult everyone that doesn't just buy your version it seems. Then you act all offended when questioned.

Personally, I don't buy it. I don't buy the "how dare you" attitude.

Yeah, I think you're bitter on people that don't swallow your pill. Bitter that people question your theory. And certainly bitter on people that have been asking for reasonable motivation or proof regarding the "smoking cab."

If just once you would have acknowledged a counter-point (as many of us have), I would think we were going somewhere. Instead you just belittle others and run the same dogma over and over.

Yeah, it's a personal opinion...and yes I dare agree with what she said.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   
you are tripping haaaaaaard zeddster.

why are you even responding to this?

since mr. narc was responding to vallhal and you decided to respond to mr. narc i'm going to throw my 2 cents in.

this is the 2nd time i've seen you take posts out of context and refer to some generalized bigger picture to try and save face.

mr. narc called vallhal out for being anatagonistic and she responded not with a denial but a fake apology followed up quickly with a JUSTIFICATION!
which was this:

"But I will apologize for the fact that it is extremely hard on me to try to discuss this very important event with a person who wants to minimize the human loss, bastardize the historical record, and whose efforts tend to deflect from real research into an event that begs for serious research efforts. The exasperation sometimes gets to me - and I say things a little rough."

who is she talking about? why is she saying such things?

extremely hard for her? then why the heck is she a moderator in a conspiracy forum??

spare me.

mr. narc obviously took offense because he assumed she was talking about him.

if you don't "buy" mr. narcs concern for our country, the world, and the victims of this false flag terror event and want to make it seem like he has some sort of agenda then you are clearly the misconceived one here.

i happen to know mr. narc from other forums and i happen to know about the countless hours of research that he has done.

there comes a point when the evidence is so overwhlelming that OF COURSE you are going to present what you believe as fact.

who are you to tell him that he is unwilling to concede when he is wrong??

i have personally witnessed him do this on many occasions.

i find your out of context attack on mr. narcs response to vallhal to be entirely lame and unwarranted.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 07:30 PM
link   
merc-the-perc/mr_narc/lytetrizzle,

I think this is the fourth time or more that I am asking you to prove that all of these people

www.oilempire.us...

are lying. Since you're convinced it was all staged you most assuredly have researched every one of these eye witness accounts and found them to all be fake, else there would be no way you could be convinced.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Some more eyewitness reports. I think the reports themselves should tell you something isn't right.

Steve Anderson..

Saw a commercial jet barrel into the Pentagon. "To say it was like a dream is an understatement," he says. "It was unbelievable. This giant, incredible, orange ball of fire shot into the air."
- A few moments later, as I was looking down at my desk, the plane caught my eye. I thought to myself that I couldn't believe the pilot was flying so low. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke.


Where is the mark on the grass from the wing?

Afework Hagos

was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. "There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance It hit some lampposts on the way in."

"Afework Hagos, a consultant who was commuting to his job, saw the plane bank around and fly into the Pentagon, its wings see-sawing before it disappeared ''It created a huge smoke,'' Hagos said, before a man in an FBI windbreaker whisked him off to get his eyewitness account." - Boston Globe (09/12/01)


Fred Gaskins, national editor at USA TODAY

"(The plane) was flying fast and low and the Pentagon was the obvious target," who was driving to his job... near the Pentagon when the plane passed about 150 feet overhead. "It was flying very smoothly and calmly, without any hint that anything was wrong."


So which is it?

D.S. Khavkin

- my husband and I heard an aircraft directly overhead. At first, we thought it was the jets that sometimes fly overhead. However, it appeared to be a small commercial aircraft. The engine was at full throttle. First, the plane knocked down a number of street lamp poles, then headed directly for the Pentagon and crashed on the lawn near the west side the Pentagon.


Kelly Knowles, 22

- Another Hampton Roads native says she saw a second plane in the air over the Pentagon as a hijacked jet plunged into the five-sided military fortress Tuesday.
Kelly Knowles, a First Colonial High School alumnus who now lives in an apartment a few miles from the Pentagon, said some sort of plane followed the doomed American Airlines jet toward the Pentagon, then veered away after the explosion.
"Thank God somebody else saw that. There was most definitely a second plane," Knowles said. "It's so frustrating because nobody knows about the second plane, or if they do they're hiding it for some reason."
FBI spokesmen say they have not heard about it, although both Knowles and Keith Wheelhouse, the Virginia Beach man, were interviewed by FBI agents. A Pentagon official said late Friday no other plane was flying with the jetliner. But he said it was possible a military plane was in the area at the time of the attack.
Planes never pass over her Fairfax County apartment, she said, so when a low-flying, high-speed plane buzzed the high-rise, she jumped up, ran to the windows and saw the rear of a jet heading toward Washington, D.C. A few seconds later, a second plane that seemed to be chasing the first passed over at a slightly different angle, she said. - Daily Press/Newport News (09/15/01)


David Marra, 23, information-technology specialist

"It was 50 ft. off the deck when he came in. It sounded like the pilot had the throttle completely floored. The plane rolled left and then rolled right. Then he caught an edge of his wing on the ground." There is a helicopter pad right in front of the side of the Pentagon. The wing touched there, then the plane cartwheeled into the building.


So if it cartwheeled into the building how did it manage to go through like a missile? If it cartwheeled it could not have hit straight on. There would have been more wreckage IMO.

John O'keefe

“The eeriest thing about it, was that it was like you were watching a movie. There was no huge explosion, no huge rumbling on ground, it just went ‘pfff.’ It wasn’t what I would have expected for a plane that was not much more than a football field away from me.


This contradicts the reports of a huge explosion.

Lon Rains, Editor at Space News

With the Pentagon to the left of my van at about 10 o’clock on the dial of a clock, I glanced at my watch to see if I was going to be late for my appointment.
At that moment I heard a very loud, quick whooshing sound that began behind me and stopped suddenly in front of me and to my left. In fractions of a second I heard the impact and an explosion. The next thing I saw was the fireball.
I was convinced it was a missile. It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane. Friends and colleagues have asked me if I felt a shock wave and I honestly do not know.


Hmmmmm, so which witnesses should we believe? For every witness there seems to be another that contradicts what they said.

Doesn't that seem just a little fishy to you?

Source for quotes thewebfairy.com...

[edit on 20/1/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 08:13 PM
link   
No, it doesn't.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 08:15 PM
link   
LOL I just got done posting that, you have NOT had time to read through those reports...Give me a break!



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 08:23 PM
link   
I did too! I read everything in your post!

And I answered you. Unlike some other folks on this thread
Give me a break!




top topics



 
3
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join