Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 16

message: Or perhaps someone wants to refactor?  If people are still debating this during the summer, I'd be happy to refactor the archives... perhaps move all the conspiracy discussions to one archive.
I moved all the discussion to Archive 15, aside from this one and the latest thread.--MONGO 09:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: *Normal nick 03:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: In Favour of Moving This Talk Section Somewhere Else

message: *Tom Harrison Talk 20:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Doesn't understand what this vote is for

message: Moved this here as it relates to the content of this article and I don't want to have to repeat myself more than necessary.
If I a car crashes into a bank, is it an "attack on the United States"?
If there were unidentified people on board not known to have been at the wheel, was it the unidentified people who crashed the car?
If the bank turns to dust after numerous witnesses describe the events as having seemed like the bank was blown up by explosives, and no bank has ever turned to dust because of a car crash before, would you describe that 'turning to dust' as a "collapse" ?
If four cars disappear, and then later four cars crash, would YOU assume it was the same four cars... and if the people who disappeared in the first 4 cars were never seen again would you state as a fact that they died in the 4 crashes, even though there were no bodies found, nor other evidence?
If the unidentified people on board not known to have been at the wheel were said to have been Mr Brown, Mr. Smith, Mr. Jones and Mr. Green by people who had no evidence, AND later Mr Brown, Mr. Smith, Mr. Jones and Mr. Green turned up in other places AND there is no proof that any of them worked for Mr. Fizzle, would it be correct to say that they were the ones who crashed the cars, and were doing so under Mr. Fizzle's orders?  Would it not be just as meaningful to say they either worked for Mr. Fizzle or a rival bank?  Especially if there was evidence that Mr Brown, Mr. Smith, Mr. Jones and Mr. Green were impersonated by Mr. X, Mr. Y, Mr. Z, and an unknown person, all of whom were suspected of working for the rival bank?
This is regarding your unsigned comment on my user page and your rash characterization of  my good edit as vandalism.  
Please sign all comments, per wikipedia policy..  Please refrain from calling me a vandal, per wikipedia policy. I will refrain from calling you a misguided fool, per wikipedia policy.  
If you have any good evidence that there was any factual error in my evidence, I would be very happy to see it.  Are you interested in seeing evidence contrary to your point of view?  Or is it perhaps your mission to delete any assertion that it was not a foreign terrorist attack that occured on 9/11/2001 but actually a well-coordinated group of covert operations intended to justify the United States going to war against several uninvolved nations for the purpose of establishing economic and military bases of operation for the economic gain of multinational NGO's?
I welcome further discussion in the former case.  Pedant 18:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I agree with you (Mmx1) that it amounts to vandalism in the general sense of the word, but under WP policy Pedant's edit would be considered a NPOV violation and a Mistake. Esquizombi 18:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree, it's not even POV.  The temperatures required to create pools tons of molten steel are not opinions.  Definitely aircraft struck the buildings.  There has been no evidence that it was the 'hijacked aircraft' that struck the buildings.  No forensic work was done on the crime scene.  No bodies or parts of plane passengers were found in Pennsylvania or at the Pentagon.  It is not possible for buildings to fall at free-fall speed unless they are not supported.  I'm not trying to push a POV at all, just alternative explanations that are equally provable as what was in the article.  Note my edit was "this OR this" certainly something happened, but it is not certain it happened as the article stated it was before my edits.  I'm not a vandal.  One day that article will include the more likely truth, not just what was rammed down our throats by collusionist media puppets.  Imagine how the articles on JFK's assassination would have looked had they been contemporaneous with the assassination.  They called people conspiracy nuts who claimed there was more than one assassin in the team, but the official report said that Connally and Kennedy's wounds were from one single undamaged bullet.  That assertion no longer has any credibility whatsoever.  Whether you believe it or not, it is absolutely impossible, physically, structurally etc, for the towers to have collapsed to dust, at free-fall speeds, and leave a pool of molten steel weeks-months (depending on different reports) later.  Why do you think all that rubble was scooped up and carted off, if not to cover up the crime?  Also it is inherently POV to state that is was an attack "on the United States", The Pentagon is a US target, the WTC was a commercial target, it would be just as accurate or actually more so to say "two attacks on property of the WTO and one attack on property of the US" and attacks on the respective airlines.  Of course it was a conspiracy, and of course the discussion about it is theory, until more facts are known it will remain theory.  The whole article is of necessity a conspiracy theory, the term conspiracy theory is essentially meaningless, unless it is used as you use it, as a way to merely disparge one possible explanation of events most of us can have no more than theoretical knowlege of, because the evidence has been, in a literal sense, covered up.  But I'm not a vandal, and I made my edit very carefully.  I would no more vandalise Wikipedia or its sister projects than I would rape my mother.  It is very hurtful of you to call my actions vandalism.  If you value wikipedia as much as I do, you would never call a fellow editor a vandal without clear-cut reasons.  One day you will look back on this and regret your behavior, but today, you are behaving as a misguided bully.  Pedant 19:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The debate over the proper wording has been discussed ad-nauseum on that article's talk page. To edit the intro to such a prominent and controversial topic without even commenting on the talk page (I won't assume anything about whether or not you read it), does constitute vandalism. It's not just POV of your content, which would be excusable if there was some debate on the talk page. It's not like you're a newb that doesn't know about the talk page and consensus. You have been here long enough to know better. Anon putting in POV is NPOV violation. Established user defying consensus and DAILY discussion on the talk page - vandalism.
As for the "attack on the US" hair-splitting, attacks on prominent institutions is typically considered an attack on the nation, particularly as they were on different types of installations. It clearly wasn't just military or financial concerns they were targeting, so the common thread is bigger than just financial or military. Unless you believe that the attacks weren't coordinated or had one backer? --Mmx1 19:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I call a spade a spade. You're telling me Todd Beamer, Barbara Olson, et al just dissapeared? Were murdered and buried in an unmarked plot? Or in hiding somewhere? If you think the standing orders were to shoot down hijacked planes, then you're misinformed or delusional. Please, do dig up the orders if you can. --Mmx1 00:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is constrained by a set of policies and guidelines that help us in our goal of writing an encyclopedia.  These include using reliable sources and no original research.  This article needs to stick to these policies and guidelines.  It's not up to us to use Wikipedia to prove that the "mainstream media" is misportraying anything. -Aude (talk | contribs) 00:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A talk page like this is to be used for presenting new material for the article or critiquing the material already in the article. Text like that above -- presenting a argument without verifiable, reliable sources -- belongs in a blog or discussion board. patsw 03:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypothetical - Moved from my talk page 

message: I'm shocked at how many people seem to be ignoring all of the true evidence regarding the events of September 11th. It is a dishonor to all of those who died to ramble on about conspiracy theories which have no validity.
As such, this link should be added.
Conspiracy theories debunked —This unsigned comment was added by 146.244.137.154 (talk • contribs) .
:I think we link to that from 9/11 conspiracy theories. The conspiracy theories as well as the reaction to them should go there. Tom Harrison Talk 23:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My God, im shocked to see poeple link to that piece of garbage. Did you know that it states that there was one single airplane intercepted prior to 9/11? In fact, over 60 happened just the year before 9/11! --Striver 15:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My Allah, even if your claim was true, it wouldn't make the entire piece garbage.  I don't have time to investigate all of your wild claims and get into the maze-like psyche of a conspiracy theorist. The point is that there is overwhelming expert consensus regarding the validity of mainstream 911 accounts. The page 9/11 conspiracy theories is highly convoluted and full of debunked theories, therefore, overall, it is not a representation of controversy, but a representation of confused reasoning.--146.244.137.154 22:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggested link 

message: :::I agree with that last arguments of yours. And they conflict with mine regarding that the versions you propose contain a black-and-white fallacy. I have one sugestion that may solve this problem:
:::*Recalling this section "Controversy" BUT:
:::*Adding the two subsections: "People oposing to the official Account" and "Conspiracy Theories".
:::I hope this is prone to a consensus. If you don't agree, please explain why so we can reach somewhere. Normal nick 21:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why isn't anyone commenting on this? I guess this can be seen as the "cataloging" info Sdedo has mentioned.Normal nick 21:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with two subsections, just for the reason that this article is quite long as it is.  There's no good way to really summarize the People questioning the 9/11 Commissions account article as it's just a list.  But, where the paragraph says "...questioning the mainstream account...", that could be wikilinked to the "People questioning the 9/11 Commissions account" if it's kept or the "Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11" article. -Aude (talk | contribs) 21:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *It doesn't work because this article is about a particular historical event, not specifically about the "official account" of that event, which has its own article. Peter Grey 02:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sub-Sectioning

message: The version as of 23:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *This is the version I support. Peter Grey 23:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: *I support this version as well.--MONGO 02:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: *I've seen nothing proposed that's not worse than this. Tom Harrison Talk 22:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal Zero

message: I object to MONGO's archiving of selected portions of this discussion, it seems to me that he is trying to cover up the discussion of the appriateness/inappropriateness of someone who claims to work for the 
Department of Homeland Security editing an article about the event that sparked the forming of that department. To me it seems that a lot of the editing of this article and the careful excision of only selected portions of this discussion is motivated by very specific goals, not the goal of producing as clean fact-based article, but a goal of discrediting anyone who doesn't agree with the 9/11 commission report's findings.  When archiving discussion, is it not appropriate to archive the entire discussion and not just portions?  Pedant 07:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can all look up the history, there was nothing 'selective'.  Peter Grey 07:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: As it was done to me before in this discussion, i sugest you to  assume good faith. Normal nick 08:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you accusing me of something? I really want to know, as it is a personal attack if you are and I will deal with it appropriately. The page was long, I have been doing the archiving...that part of the discussion was 50 kb in the past...are you suggesting that I am some kind of government paid operative sent here to spam this article? If that is the case, then prepare your case and prepare to defend such an allegation. The belief that I am paid to post information here is definitely a conspiracy theory.--MONGO 02:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't play games with me...I meant prepare your defense for arbitration. You and Pendant better read carefully...innuendo or accusations that I am a paid webspammer with zero proof is a personal attack. You can say whatever else you want, but I do not have to tolerate misrepresentations of this nature.--MONGO 03:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I restored my old archiving back to this page...now the page is 127kb long. I also recently created an archive at Collapse of the World Trade Center as that talk page was 271 kb long...archiving is normal to keep active discussion pages from becoming too big, for those that misunderstand why I archived.--MONGO 19:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Object to the archiving of 'carefully selected portions' of this discussion

message: something less controversial.  Are there any pics of the first plane hitting?  I can't find any on Wikipedia, so it may be that if they do exist, someone needs to upload them. --Midnighttonight 09:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A screen cap from one of the two videos known to have captured the event may be allowed for demostration purposes, if such a screen cap can be found.--MONGO 13:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pics 

message: Hi all, Sdedeo peeking in. Two thoughts:
# the short para should represent the article of 9/11 conspiracy theories as accurately as possible.
# I believe the long-term solution will be to have the 9/11CT stuff mirror the way in which we handle the JFK assasination theories as closely as possible. Not saying we should aim for that in this particular dispute, but we should be describing, cataloging, handling and discussing these fringe theories in the same way we do the JFK material.
OK, will step back out again -- just two suggestions to help. I'll come back on the 12th and we can start again proper.
Sdedeo (tips) 14:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: two suggestions

message: I've noticed that many conspiracy theorists (not all) seem to be obsessed with biases, but fail to see their own. They seem to think that any information which comes from inside the government comes from people with ulterior motives and cannot be trusted. Ironically, it is those within the government who would best understand how the government actually works. How strange that there isn't a huge movement by leading democrats to try and uncover the right wing conspiracy of 911. I mean, everyone knows about bill Clinton getting a blow job? It’s not like there isn't party warfare. Are the republicans just that much better at uncovering and covering lies? Or could it be that there isn't a big secret waiting to be revealed by the glorified anarchist "V". Maybe, instead of focusing on the motives of government officials, these conspiracy theorists should take a look at the biases of the 911 conspiracy theory websites whose authors are making money by selling books and coffee mugs. The page 9/11 conspiracy theories tries to put theories about a missile intercepting the pentagon on equal footing with what really happened. It's absurd. If you want a page about alternate scenarios, get rid of the nonsense, or make it clear that such outlandish ideas have been debunked. Quite frankly, I think conspiracy theories are too generous a term. Debunked speculation is actually a more appropriate label for the page.--146.244.137.154 23:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to agree. I've discussed many of the "points" brought up by the theorists with a lot of people I know and I am usually responded to with a laugh. I mentioned that Charlie Sheen, et al may also agree with the theorists and the responses I get range from, "is he on drugs" to "he must be an idiot".--MONGO 00:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 911 Conspiracy theory 

message: When I first heard of the attacks, a car bomb was also mentionned.  I believe they claimed it was in New York.
Has anyone else heard of this?
Evilbu 17:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember an initial report of a car bomb in central Washington, D.C. - very old versions of our Timeline of the September 11, 2001 attacks include the mention of a report of a car bomb at the State Department at 10:35 am. I wonder why that article was cut down so much. Rmhermen 18:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions about car bomb rumor on 9/11 

message: Hi, I think it violates WP:NPOV by calling them terrorist attacks, and calling al qaeda a terrorist organization. It is better to remove terrorist from terrorrist attack and call al qaeda a fundamendalist group, as it is called on its article page. Nr9 10:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not violate the NPOV. The article is written to provide facts. As such removing content you or anyone else doesn't like makes the article inaccurate. --Scott Grayban 10:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorism 

message: Did Bush know about the attacks before they happened? Many people seem to think so. Hillary Clinton said so in a speech. Of course, she'd say anything to get herself in the news and further her own political agenda. But, did Bush know? I don't think he did. Even though he's made some prety dumb decisions in his life, I seriously doubt that he would make the super dumb decision to let this happen. It's like saying that Franklin Roosevelt knew about and approved Pearl Harbor. ITS JUST NOT TRUE!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.132.176 (talk • contribs) 
: 1) The question is not whether he knew, but how much he knew. 2) This is not the place for speculating on what someone was thinking.  Peter Grey 17:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Illegal is not part of the question that was asked. Peter Grey 01:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm American, I'm 19, I was older than you are now when the WTC attacks occurred, and I also know that ever since the dawn of time that governments know way more than what they tell us. I am a Civil Air Patrol cadet, so don't call me unpatriotic, but I'm also not a drone and I think for myself. Don't be so quick to dismiss anything. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 17:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the bombngs in 1993, when I was just 33, the WTC was always better protected from terrorist attack from the ground. Intelligence analyst did indeed see patterns in a few of the future hijackers and their travels in and out of the U.S. Immigration inspectors oftentimes do note numerous trips in and out of the u.s. by foregn nationals but the standard questions include, "how long do you plan to stay in the U.S?", "Who is your employer", "What is your business here", etc. which are easily lied about. Immigration Inspectors have 45 seconds to determine if an applicant for entry in the U.S. will be allowed to proceed or if they will be taken to secondary inspection for further questioning. If these hijackers demonstrated few red flags, they would have all easily been able to enter the U.S., a few had student visas. In at least one known example, the FBI was contacted about foriegn nationals attending flight school and only wanting to learn manuvering, not take off and landing procedure. There were a number of clues and tidbids of information the intelliegence community had, but none of them were enough to act on, even if combined.--MONGO 17:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The statements above "...because I happen to be right. Also, I am in America, not Canada, so I know slightly more about it than you do..." have no place on Wikipedia.  To me they sound like a personal attack on Peter Grey.  Being in America, consuming American media does not necessarily make one more knowledgeable about Bush, 9/11, or other such topics. -Aude (talk | contribs) 03:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being 14 years old does not make you a authoritive contributor then. You have no "real" clue how the world is even run muchless the U.S. Gov. When you growup and have experienced real life then you can come back and make your claims. I am 42, did 20 years in the military and witnessed the attacks and lost a uncle in it. I am sure the U.S. Gov knew what was going to happen but because there is so much fighting between the Agencies, CIA and FBI, no one put the connections together until afterwards. That came out in the Congress Hearings. --Scott Grayban 06:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the government knew per se, as they only had limited clues that were not enough to raise suspicions above a miminal threat level. The feds get this level of threat all the time, even well before 9/11. I do agree wholeheartedly that the agencies tend, even now, to be somewhat possessive of "their" own intelligence gathering results.--MONGO 06:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Hello. It's me again. I am the kid who started this whole section called "Did Bush know?". Sorry about all that. I guess I got a little out of hand. The thing is, I just really do not appreciate when people keep things from me in an attempt to keep me safe. They think that just because I am under the age of 18, that I don't deserve to kow some things. I feel that this sort of thing has happened to the entire nation. They think that we do not deserve to know some things because we don't work in the White House or CIA or FBI. I want an end to the secrets. And an end to the lies.  PLEASE feel free to comment!!!!!! Later!!! 70.124.132.176 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi:  you'll find that the 9/11 pages are highly controversial.  There is a subsection on the page here where conspiracy theories are mentioned.  There's also an entire page called, appropriately enough, 9/11 conspiracy theories.  I suggest that you focus your changes in these two places in order to get the most effect.  And especially, post to the discussion area here.  Make sure to source your comments (give reference to specific html links, for example: ).  And most important of all, create a user ID under which you make your changes. Kaimiddleton 04:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All and I do mean ALL Governements have secrets they keep from there citizens. From the U.S. to the U.K. to Saudia Arabia to even Iraq. How and what they use it for is up to them. Some use it to protect there country others use it to terrorize there country and I am sure all use it to hide there own illegal activities. People do not make war, Governements do. That is a fact of life and history has shown that. --Scott Grayban 08:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even Iraq??,... Don't you mean especially Iraq.--146.244.137.197 22:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks! Later!!! User:70.124.132.176 20:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Bush know? 

message: Hello all -- I am back after a week to see if people are still interested in mediation about the 9/11 conspiracy theory paragraph. Looking at the discussion page here, it seems that things have moved on which is fine. If people still want my help, I'd be happy to join in -- just let me know. Sdedeo (tips) 18:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK -- haven't heard back, so I'll assume that things are moving along well. I'll strike off the medcabal; please feel free to reinstate if problems show up. Sdedeo (tips) 19:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All is well...the truth has emerged...interestingly, it was here all along--MONGO 05:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Im still rejectnig the current branding of all alternativ theories with pejorative labels. --Striver 20:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: medcabal back

message: Some "trolls" here are trying to hide (move to 9/11 conspiracy ghetto) even the plain and corroborated fact that the government authorized passenger aircraft shootdown during that day! The legitimate question remains though is it true that the government didn't use that order afterall. 
For instance in Norman Mineta's Senate testimony he asserts that according to the orders
given during the morning session in the White House bunker he eyewitnessed the 4th plane was
ordered to be shot down. This Hamilton-Mineta clip is on the record/video for Christ sake..
::What's the issue here about this? --Scott Grayban 00:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From all accounts that I remember was Bush gave orders to shoot down the 4th plane if it got within a certain range although I don't remember what that distance was. But I can find out if that seems to be the issue. I have a  buddy when I was in the AF still that was one of the fighter pilots involved with the protection of the White House during that time. --Scott Grayban 05:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend this page for info on the shootdown/standdown issue.  The trouble with the whole issue is that there are multiple timelines because the Commission created its own timelines which do not agree with NORADs. Bov 00:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 4th plane and the general government shootdown of passenger aircrafts authorization censorship on wikipedia

message: Sorry about all the reverts today. We seemed to have a few more vandals then usual hitting this page and if any of them did something wrong we are sorry. --Scott Grayban 20:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sorry about all the reverts 

message: *The article currently is very long with too much detail. Many of the sections can be combined into others and reorganized. Also, pictures tend to be a little disorganized with many randomely inserted into sections. I want this article to be featured so if you can help, please do so.--Ryz05 19:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have created a Pending tasks box, which people can use to help in the improvement of this article.--Ryz05 20:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for better summarization of the article

message: *The sections in the article is really disorganized. I propose a new organization and some change of names. The sections will be like:
#Background- Who's accountable for the attack, what led to the attack (Motive), and what was United States doing at the time.
#The attacks- What happened in the attacks. Section can include Other planned attacks, Collapse of the WTC, etc.
#Aftermath- what happened after the attacks: international and national responses, War on Terror, Media, Fatalities, etc. 
#Memorials- subsections can include Arts and literature, etc.
:Basically, this article can draw on some organization ideas from the featured article Attack on Pearl Harbor. --Ryz05 20:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the idea of better organizing the sections.  I've made a few changes, including moving the "Fatalities" and "Survivors" subsections to "the attacks" section.  These don't really belong in the "aftermath" section (as suggested above).  And the "Collapse of the WTC" section, as discussed here is more focused on the follow-up investigations.  As such, I think it fits better in the "aftermath" section and sequential to the "Congressional inquiry" section. -Aude (talk | contribs) 02:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for new section names and reorganization

message: Is that in the first photo? Wouldn't that be the second attack, since there's already smoke coming out of the other tower in the picture? Ëvilphoenix Burn! 17:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which tower? 

message: Usage of terrosit in lead is unacceptable as pwer WP:NPOV. WP:NPOV is a non negotiable polciy. I know a lot of people are watching this article so I am not going to get involved too teribly much. Thanks --Cool CatTalk|@ 18:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice that even Al Jazeera refers to the "September 11 terrorist attacks", likewise the United Nations (pdf), and the vast majority of countries around the world do. -Aude (talk | contribs) 19:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The term terrorism is largely synonymous with "political violence" or the threat of violence, and refers to a strategy of using coordinated attacks that typically fall within the time, manner of conduct, and place commonly understood as unconventional warfare. Kaimiddleton 21:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Usage of terrorist...