Philip Mudd (Former CIA/FBI) passes on question about WTC 7 free-fall

Originally posted by whatsecret
Unless I never knew "that" existed. Are you saying every engineer knew exactly what was provided to NIST and what was given to every other engineer for analysis? Sounds pretty ridiculous, considering that so many different engineers were involved in this project.

What is "that" though? I don't know what you believe so it could be anything from blasting caps to nuclear weapons. The engineers working on the WTC knew what they were investigating, a terrorist attack causing the destruction of a whole block of buildings. What exactly is it you imagine they didn't know existed?

It's called conflict of interest. But I don't expect you to admit it. (I read your posts)

Admit what? It's only a conflict of interest if there's some sort of criminal investigation going on that involves the other party. In what way has Bush ever been indicted on 911? The idea that the entire government and all their related agencies cannot investigate a terrorist attack on the USA due to having some relationship to the president? That's absurd.

Maybe if you were the President of US, and you first got your old, good friend the a job as the director of the lottery commission. And maybe you had personal connections to the oil industry which pays a lot more than the lottery director makes. And after you won the lottery, your friend gets a job at the oil company from your home state. You think people would have questions?

edit on 27-5-2013 by whatsecret because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-5-2013 by whatsecret because: (no reason given)

You're forgetting that the pick was filmed by hundreds, reproduced in laboratories and nobody involved has spoken out or presented evidence of it being faked.

I'm sure people would have questions, but I'm sure that questions alone mean nothing.

I can think of one good reason. But I was hoping you would give me another one.

I'm all for freedom of information. I wish NIST had stronger powers in this regard, seizing and opening information to the public completely. This isn't the case though, and I can't blame them for being tied up in bureaucracy.

I'm wondering who is saying that a conspiracy belief is proof of anything?

There was no direct argument, just explaining why I wrote what I did.

reply to post by exponent

What is "that" though? I don't know what you believe so it could be anything from blasting caps to nuclear weapons. The engineers working on the WTC knew what they were investigating, a terrorist attack causing the destruction of a whole block of buildings. What exactly is it you imagine they didn't know existed?

Are you serious? You're the one that said:

Imagine if you were an engineer working on this project and you were told "you don't need that".

So what is "that"?

Admit what? It's only a conflict of interest if there's some sort of criminal investigation going on that involves the other party. In what way has Bush ever been indicted on 911? The idea that the entire government and all their related agencies cannot investigate a terrorist attack on the USA due to having some relationship to the president? That's absurd.

No big deal since Bush was never indicted. Unfortunately that only applies to the government. I have no desire to argue about this obvious credibility issue.

You're forgetting that the pick was filmed by hundreds, reproduced in laboratories and nobody involved has spoken out or presented evidence of it being faked.

To compare the lottery and 9/11 conflict of interest... Sure the pick was filmed and seen by thousands, but who checked the balls before the draw? If it was like NIST investigation, then the director could have determined that not all balls are directly related to what is investigated.

I'm sure people would have questions, but I'm sure that questions alone mean nothing.

Questions require answers, and answer require proof.

I'm all for freedom of information. I wish NIST had stronger powers in this regard, seizing and opening information to the public completely. This isn't the case though, and I can't blame them for being tied up in bureaucracy.

You can't blame them? That's very nice of you, but as an American, I can and do blame them.

There was no direct argument, just explaining why I wrote what I did

Now that's absurd.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by amazing
Wait...you just said conspiracy theorists think that man has not been to the moon. What does that have to do with 911?

It's an example of a completely accepted truth being denied by conspiracy theorists. My point being that conspiracy belief is no proof of anything.

And are you saying that,if I have a question about a specific topic pertaining to 911 that I should be labeled a conspiracy theorist and that I must think we have not been to the moon? You implied that. Talk about an ignorant and offensive statement. Wow!

edit on 27-5-2013 by amazing because: (no reason given)

Not at all. Questions are admirable, ignoring answers is the problem here.

No, you're trying to link everything together...everyone with questions about events as a nut job. It's very ignorant.

reply to post by exponent


It was a total collapse of the building. Yet they only analyzed evidence from the top portion (which was hit by the airplanes).

Originally posted by whatsecret
reply to post by exponent

 

Are you serious? You're the one that said:
...
So what is "that"?

Ok an example that would raise a fuss: The yield strength of perimeter columns.

Imagine what would happen if the investigators were told by NISTs director "No no, you can't have that, continue your work without it". There'd be an uproar.

No big deal since Bush was never indicted. Unfortunately that only applies to the government. I have no desire to argue about this obvious credibility issue.

What 'obvious' credibility issue. Are you saying that nobody in the US government can ever speak credibly on a terrorist attack because someone might suspect that they did it? People also suspect that aliens did it, that homosexuals did it, that muslims did it. Are you going to disqualify these groups too because some people are irrational?

To compare the lottery and 9/11 conflict of interest... Sure the pick was filmed and seen by thousands, but who checked the balls before the draw?

The same people who always did.

If it was like NIST investigation, then the director could have determined that not all balls are directly related to what is investigated.

Except we have no evidence of that, no evidence of anything untoward, just so much suspicion I'm surprised you haven't interrogated your parents.

Questions require answers, and answer require proof.

So why ignore them?

You can't blame them? That's very nice of you, but as an American, I can and do blame them.

How? How can you blame NIST for the bureaucracy of leadership and the FOIA? It seems to me you're not remotely interested in finding out the truth, just in proving your beliefs.

There was no direct argument, just explaining why I wrote what I did

Now that's absurd.

Well that makes literally no sense whatsoever so congratulations on your mindless posting.

Originally posted by amazing
No, you're trying to link everything together...everyone with questions about events as a nut job. It's very ignorant.

No I'm not. Accusing other people of impropriety is a bannable offence here so please don't start telling me what I am trying to do. I already told you why I wrote those words.

Originally posted by SomeoneWatching
reply to post by exponent

 

It was a total collapse of the building. Yet they only analyzed evidence from the top portion (which was hit by the airplanes).

Who told you that? Cause they were lying. People went through the rubble tagging anything that looked interesting and NIST certainly analysed a bunch of steel from outside the collapse zones. One of the 'sulfidated steel' sections was from the 50th floor iirc.

reply to post by exponent

Ok an example that would raise a fuss: The yield strength of perimeter columns.

Imagine what would happen if the investigators were told by NISTs director "No no, you can't have that, continue your work without it". There'd be an uproar.

How would the yield strength of columns reveal evidence of explosives?

Is it necessary to have explosives on every single column for a building implosion? I'm not an expert, but you seem to know a lot about it.

How would the investigators know which columns was declared irrelevant? It seem logical to me that at least a few columns on each floor did not have a bomb attached to it. It would be pretty easy for NIST director to only choose these columns if he wanted to cover up explosives.

What 'obvious' credibility issue. Are you saying that nobody in the US government can ever speak credibly on a terrorist attack because someone might suspect that they did it? People also suspect that aliens did it, that homosexuals did it, that muslims did it. Are you going to disqualify these groups too because some people are irrational?

We are talking about a building collapse investigation. NIST had nothing to do with the investigation of who did it. If somebody wanted to cover up explosives having a old friend at the top would be very useful. But if you don't get it, I don't care.

The same people who always did.

Only this time the winner has a good friend in charge of the inspection. Plus this friend was appointed to be in charge by the winner shortly before the win, and after the win the same friend got a high paying job at the oil company based in the winners home state. And it so happens to be that the winner was already making a lot of money from the oil industry for many years.

Except we have no evidence of that, no evidence of anything untoward, just so much suspicion I'm surprised you haven't interrogated your parents.

That's right there's so much suspicion and It would be nice if it was investigated.

My parents have nothing to do with it, and you can't win an argument with these kinds of comments. So do yourself a favor and cut it out.

So why ignore them

I should ask you that question. Why are you ignoring proof of conflict of interest?

How? How can you blame NIST for the bureaucracy of leadership and the FOIA? It seems to me you're not remotely interested in finding out the truth, just in proving your beliefs.

Funny that you don't see the irony in this statement. I'm saying I blame the NIST leadership for not disclosing facts to the public, and somehow that made you thing I'm not interested in finding out the truth. Interesting...

Well that makes literally no sense whatsoever so congratulations on your mindless posting.

What makes no sense whatsoever is your remark about the moon landing in a discussion about a building collapse.

Originally posted by whatsecret
reply to post by exponent
How would the yield strength of columns reveal evidence of explosives?

It all depends on how the explosives were placed. If the yield strength were significantly higher than stated then it would obviously have a bearing on the collapse. You asked me for a relevant example and that is one, it's information which determines how the structure performs in fire.

Is it necessary to have explosives on every single column for a building implosion? I'm not an expert, but you seem to know a lot about it.

How would the investigators know which columns was declared irrelevant? It seem logical to me that at least a few columns on each floor did not have a bomb attached to it. It would be pretty easy for NIST director to only choose these columns if he wanted to cover up explosives.

It's certainly not required for explosives to be on every column, but the WTC was a unique design with a large number of closely spaced perimeter columns, so any demolition theory has to take that into account, they were built in 3x3 storey groups and offset so they formed a very strong moment frame.

In this case the debris tagging was done far before NIST got involved, I believe it was FEMA or some TLA that did it initially but I can't remember offhand. The whole site was pretty well combed and there's never been any mention of anything particularly suspicious being found (in the way of blasting caps, detcord, obvious shaped charge damage etc).

We are talking about a building collapse investigation. NIST had nothing to do with the investigation of who did it. If somebody wanted to cover up explosives having a old friend at the top would be very useful. But if you don't get it, I don't care.

Oh no I understand what you're saying, but what I am saying is that you cannot assume this bias as you will disqualify literally everyone that could possibly investigate this.

Only this time the winner has a good friend in charge of the inspection. Plus this friend was appointed to be in charge by the winner shortly before the win, and after the win the same friend got a high paying job at the oil company based in the winners home state. And it so happens to be that the winner was already making a lot of money from the oil industry for many years.

That's right there's so much suspicion and It would be nice if it was investigated.

My parents have nothing to do with it, and you can't win an argument with these kinds of comments. So do yourself a favor and cut it out.

My point is that you can suspect anyone and everyone and it does nothing to help you whatsoever. There's no evidence of any impropriety by any high level NIST employee and no engineer or employee or contractor involved in production of the paper has complained about corruption as far as I know. Disregarding this and suspecting anyway is just bias.

I should ask you that question. Why are you ignoring proof of conflict of interest?

As I said, you need to actually indict someone to have a conflict of interest in this manner. Nobody has indicted anyone in the Bush administration for being complicit in 911. Until you do that, there's not even a question of conflict of interest.

Funny that you don't see the irony in this statement. I'm saying I blame the NIST leadership for not disclosing facts to the public, and somehow that made you thing I'm not interested in finding out the truth. Interesting...

It seems to me that you've decided your position before receiving the data, despite the fact that the refusal seems to be bureaucratic and nothing to do with engineers work being covered up. In this case it would have to be the people writing the report as well. If you have to keep expanding the list of complicit people without ever having evidence of it, then you probably have a faulty theory.

What makes no sense whatsoever is your remark about the moon landing in a discussion of a building collapse.

That's why I explained it for you.

reply to post by exponent

It all depends on how the explosives were placed. If the yield strength were significantly higher than stated then it would obviously have a bearing on the collapse. You asked me for a relevant example and that is one, it's information which determines how the structure performs in fire.

This example is nowhere near relevant to what we're talking about. Give me an example of how would any scientist, architect or engineer know what PHYSICAL evidence recovered at the scene of WTC7 collapse was determined by NIST Director to be unrelated to the investigation of WTC 7 collapse.

It's certainly not required for explosives to be on every column, but the WTC was a unique design with a large number of closely spaced perimeter columns, so any demolition theory has to take that into account, they were built in 3x3 storey groups and offset so they formed a very strong moment frame.

You are changing the topic... We are talking about the final NIST report on the collapse of WTC 7. Are you suggesting that the towers and WTC 7 had the same design?

In this case the debris tagging was done far before NIST got involved, I believe it was FEMA or some TLA that did it initially but I can't remember offhand.

Exactly! Now explain to me how would NIST scientists, architects and engineers know what was tagged by FEMA or some TLA way before NIST was even involved?

And how would FEMA or some TLA know what was determined by the director to be unrelated to the NIST investigation?

The whole site was pretty well combed and there's never been any mention of anything particularly suspicious being found (in the way of blasting caps, detcord, obvious shaped charge damage etc).

If there were nothing particularly suspicious, nothing would be tagged. Think before you post.

If things like furniture, telephones, computers didn't survive the collapse why would things that were attached to the bombs themselves like blasting caps and detcords survive? that makes no sense.

As for the items with obvious shaped charge damage, that would have been given to NIST. And as you know only ONE man was authorized to determine what physical items were related to the investigation. Since people that were tagging at the site have no way of knowing what was actually given to the scientist and scientists have no way of knowing what was tagged and given to NIST, what can they possibly complain about?

Oh no I understand what you're saying, but what I am saying is that you cannot assume this bias as you will disqualify literally everyone that could possibly investigate this.

You are wrong... It's not bias, it's common sense. And it only disqualifies those who have something to loose or gain based on the results. In this case Bush Administration had a lot to loose if it turned out building 7 was rigged with explosives. Because it would be even more unbelievable that terrorists didn't have help on the inside.

My point is that you can suspect anyone and everyone and it does nothing to help you whatsoever.

That's ridiculous... who benefited more than the military industrial complex? Who had the means to pull it off more then the military industrial complex? Who gained unprecedented control over the American people and virtually the whole world more then the Government? Certainly not aliens or the homosexuals, like you stated in the previous post.

There's no evidence of any impropriety by any high level NIST employee and no engineer or employee or contractor involved in production of the paper has complained about corruption as far as I know. Disregarding this and suspecting anyway is just bias.

There's this NIST Whistleblower. It's unverifiable of course ( I think), but we know for a fact that Bush administration stone walled the creation of any investigation, then manipulated the 9/11 Commission, vital information is classified to this very day. Is it really that hard for you to believe that Bush would manipulate NIST through his friend and then bribe him with a new job at TXU? These people are pathological liars, why would anybody believe anything they say is beyond me.

As I said, you need to actually indict someone to have a conflict of interest in this manner. Nobody has indicted anyone in the Bush administration for being complicit in 911. Until you do that, there's not even a question of conflict of interest.

HA that's funny.. Don't you need evidence to indict someone? And to get evidence don't you need to investigate first?
If that's true then why did Zelikow had to assure the Commission that he will cut his ties to the White House?

reply to post by exponent

It seems to me that you've decided your position before receiving the data, despite the fact that the refusal seems to be bureaucratic and nothing to do with engineers work being covered up. In this case it would have to be the people writing the report as well. If you have to keep expanding the list of complicit people without ever having evidence of it, then you probably have a faulty theory.

What are you even talking about? Engineers are kept in the dark just like everybody else. ONE MAN DETERMINED WHAT WAS RELATED TO THE INVESTIGATION.

I'm done. nice talking to you.

Double post.

Originally posted by whatsecret
This example is nowhere near relevant to what we're talking about. Give me an example of how would any scientist, architect or engineer know what PHYSICAL evidence recovered at the scene of WTC7 collapse was determined by NIST Director to be unrelated to the investigation of WTC 7 collapse.

Again the same values apply. You keep wanting to act as if there's some secret hidden evidence but without actually having any knowledge of any hidden evidence.

You can't just guess and guess and guess and then insist you are correct.

You are changing the topic... We are talking about the final NIST report on the collapse of WTC 7. Are you suggesting that the towers and WTC 7 had the same design?

No, I'm detailing how you can't just easily cover up facts in an investigation like this.

Exactly! Now explain to me how would NIST scientists, architects and engineers know what was tagged by FEMA or some TLA way before NIST was even involved?

And how would FEMA or some TLA know what was determined by the director to be unrelated to the NIST investigation?

I see so you have literally no idea at all of anything suspicious, but because you suspect Bush, you therefore suspect the entire Government.

This is paranoia, not reasonable investigation.

If there were nothing particularly suspicious, nothing would be tagged. Think before you post.

You don't even know who did the tagging or why, yet you somehow can cast suspicion. No, this is now nonsense and illustrating your bias.

If things like furniture, telephones, computers didn't survive the collapse why would things that were attached to the bombs themselves like blasting caps and detcords survive? that makes no sense.

As for the items with obvious shaped charge damage, that would have been given to NIST. And as you know only ONE man was authorized to determine what physical items were related to the investigation. Since people that were tagging at the site have no way of knowing what was actually given to the scientist and scientists have no way of knowing what was tagged and given to NIST, what can they possibly complain about?

More useless fantasy. You have no evidence of any of this, you've just constructed a paranoid scenario in your mind and you are now insisting it was true. Many of the same people worked both. The idea that there's a NIST Director just throwing away valuable evidence because he's friends with Bush is nonsense.

You are wrong... It's not bias, it's common sense. And it only disqualifies those who have something to loose or gain based on the results. In this case Bush Administration had a lot to loose if it turned out building 7 was rigged with explosives. Because it would be even more unbelievable that terrorists didn't have help on the inside.

It's bias.

That's ridiculous... who benefited more than the military industrial complex? Who had the means to pull it off more then the military industrial complex? Who gained unprecedented control over the American people and virtually the whole world more then the Government? Certainly not aliens or the homosexuals, like you stated in the previous post.

If my wife gets shot to death I benefit most. Does that mean that no matter what the evidence says, you suspect me above all else?

There's this NIST Whistleblower. It's unverifiable of course ( I think), but we know for a fact that Bush administration stone walled the creation of any investigation, then manipulated the 9/11 Commission, vital information is classified to this very day. Is it really that hard for you to believe that Bush would manipulate NIST through his friend and then bribe him with a new job at TXU? These people are pathological liars, why would anybody believe anything they say is beyond me.

Aaand you explicitly list your biases. You have no facts, just hatred of Bush. Grow up.

HA that's funny.. Don't you need evidence to indict someone? And to get evidence don't you need to investigate first?

You do, you haven't investigated or got any evidence.

What are you even talking about? Engineers are kept in the dark just like everybody else. ONE MAN DETERMINED WHAT WAS RELATED TO THE INVESTIGATION.

I'm done. nice talking to you.

Total evidence for this: 0. Total factual knowledge of any form backing this up: 0

It's purely bias, you think Bush is responsible for 911 so you condemn everyone and anyone involved with him. The entire government can't investigate a terrorist attack because in your eyes Bush is responsible for them.

How absurd.

reply to post by exponent

Again the same values apply. You keep wanting to act as if there's some secret hidden evidence but without actually having any knowledge of any hidden evidence.

So I suppose you know what evidence was given to NIST under nondisclosure agreement, and what was unrelated according to NIST Director?

Disclaimer No. 3 Pursuant to section 7 of the National Construction Safety Team Act, the NIST Director has determined that certain evidence received by NIST in the course of this Investigation is “voluntarily provided safety-related information” that is “not directly related to the building failure being investigated” and that “disclosure of that information would inhibit the voluntary provision of that type of information” (15 USC 7306c). In addition, a substantial portion of the evidence collected by NIST in the course of the Investigation has been provided to NIST under nondisclosure agreements.

You can't just guess and guess and guess and then insist you are correct.

And what am I supposed to do if they are not disclosing the evidence? Am I supposed to ignore the FACT that a substantial portion of evidence remains undisclosed? Or should I be like you and guess that there's nothing important in the substantial portion of the undisclosed evidence?

No, I'm detailing how you can't just easily cover up facts in an investigation like this.

You are not making any sense. Let me read it again...

It's certainly not required for explosives to be on every column, but the WTC was a unique design with a large number of closely spaced perimeter columns, so any demolition theory has to take that into account, they were built in 3x3 storey groups and offset so they formed a very strong moment frame.

Hmm... Still don't make any sense..

I see so you have literally no idea at all of anything suspicious, but because you suspect Bush, you therefore suspect the entire Government. This is paranoia, not reasonable investigation.

Please refer to the Disclaimer No. 3. Tell me what exactly is undisclosed.

You don't even know who did the tagging or why, yet you somehow can cast suspicion. No, this is now nonsense and illustrating your bias.

You said it yourself... FEMA or some TLA was tagging things that would be useful for the investigation.

More useless fantasy. You have no evidence of any of this, you've just constructed a paranoid scenario in your mind and you are now insisting it was true.

Again refer to the Disclaimer No. 3. Tell me what exactly is undisclosed.

Many of the same people worked both. The idea that there's a NIST Director just throwing away valuable evidence because he's friends with Bush is nonsense.

Back this up with facts. A list of names of people who worked both. And list of evidence that NIST director did not disclose.

It's bias.

Really? Why then the Administration didn't want to investigate for so long?

If my wife gets shot to death I benefit most. Does that mean that no matter what the evidence says, you suspect me above all else?

If you or your good friend would be authorized to determine what was related or unrelated to the investigation, then yes I would suspect you above all else. Ever heard stories of people hiring hitman to kill their spouse? Sometimes the hitman is arrested and gives up who hired him for the job. Maybe that's why the Saudis are still not being investigated?

Aaand you explicitly list your biases. You have no facts, just hatred of Bush. Grow up.

I don't hate Bush, i just don't trust him and the rest of the known liars.

I don't wanna grow up, I'm a toys-r-us kid.

You do, you haven't investigated or got any evidence.

Disclaimer No. 3. Shut me up once and for all, provide a list of undisclosed evidence and back it up with facts.

Total evidence for this: 0. Total factual knowledge of any form backing this up: 0 It's purely bias, you think Bush is responsible for 911 so you condemn everyone and anyone involved with him. The entire government can't investigate a terrorist attack because in your eyes Bush is responsible for them. How absurd.

Disclaimer No. 3 Pursuant to section 7 of the National Construction Safety Team Act, the NIST Director has determined that certain evidence received by NIST in the course of this Investigation is “voluntarily provided safety-related information” that is “not directly related to the building failure being investigated”

Were there more than one NIST director?

....

Originally posted by whatsecret
reply to post by exponent

 

So I suppose you know what evidence was given to NIST under nondisclosure agreement, and what was unrelated according to NIST Director?

Nope, but I can read so I know it's “not directly related to the building failure being investigated”

And what am I supposed to do if they are not disclosing the evidence? Am I supposed to ignore the FACT that a substantial portion of evidence remains undisclosed? Or should I be like you and guess that there's nothing important in the substantial portion of the undisclosed evidence?

This is massively illogical. The existence of facts that you do not know is no proof that those facts support you. This is a ridiculous assumption to make as this is most likely just office layouts, products used, competitive aircraft procedures etc etc.

You are not making any sense. Let me read it again...
...
Hmm... Still don't make any sense..
...
Please refer to the Disclaimer No. 3. Tell me what exactly is undisclosed.

You can't even come up with a response to my explanation, so it's clear how much you're grasping at straws here. What is undisclosed is voluntary safety related information. Nothing to do with structural performance or fire performance. The disclaimer says that.

You said it yourself... FEMA or some TLA was tagging things that would be useful for the investigation.

Right and you weren't even aware of this. So you haven't even reasonably investigated the first few days of the collapse, nevermind the rest. Do you really think that's honest? Demanding every piece of evidence from NIST but not even having read up to a few days in?

Back this up with facts. A list of names of people who worked both. And list of evidence that NIST director did not disclose.

The names are public knowledge. I'm not about to go match up two lists of names because you're too lazy.

Really? Why then the Administration didn't want to investigate for so long?

Because it could indict them for their complacence and arrogance? Why do truthers avoid investigating too and instead just make claims and demands but never bother to read?

If you or your good friend would be authorized to determine what was related or unrelated to the investigation, then yes I would suspect you above all else. Ever heard stories of people hiring hitman to kill their spouse? Sometimes the hitman is arrested and gives up who hired him for the job. Maybe that's why the Saudis are still not being investigated?

It's clear you can't even comprehend alternate scenarios. Perhaps I was in a foreign country at the time. Perhaps she was shot in a hunting accident. You can only see the scenario you already believe in and you view everything through that lens. This is why you can't ever understand reality.

I don't hate Bush, i just don't trust him and the rest of the known liars.

I don't wanna grow up, I'm a toys-r-us kid.

I don't trust Bush. I don't think that assuming he's straight up complicit in murdering his own citizens is a good way to start investigating.

Were there more than one NIST director?

If you actually reviewed any of the documents you'd find who actually requested the materials from these companies and the process they went through.

In fact NIST even released hundreds of their original emails and the original documents provided through a FOIA.

Too much to expect you to bother to read them though.

reply to post by exponent


Your last post doesn't even deserve a reply. It's full of guesses, assumptions and personal attacks on me. You sir are a sore loser. Bring facts or stay out of the discussion.

One last time I ask you to back your statements up with facts.

This is a ridiculous assumption to make as this is most likely just office layouts, products used, competitive aircraft procedures etc etc.

Where is your proof for the above statement? You can't just guess and guess and guess and then insist you are correct. Remember who said that? Well it applies to you as well.