Dec 29, 2014

9/11 Mysteries: The Funniest Popular Mechanic Report I Ever Did Read (Another Report Debunked)

Background:
1. An Overview Of The Strange Inconsistencies In The OFFICIAL Account Of The 9/11 Incident Using The Daily Show
2. 9/11 Mysteries: Popular Mechanic's "WTC 7 Report" Debunked
3. This is what a controlled demolition of two towers looks like;



It's like, you see a story on TV, they tell you what it is so you're like, OK. That's what it is.

But first, have you noticed how the beheading isn't played on TV not even the preamble that much? IT's because it extremely violent. It's like watching a whole building of people being attacked and set on fire. Keep in mind that playing the two towers getting it that way, again and again, throughout the years has caused serious psychological trauma for idiots, so their brains will essentially shutdown and they will walk around like zombies. If they are ever able to put aside those images then maybe they will begin to think clearer. Since most people are consumed with revenge (though it's oh so socially unacceptable to say so), lets do a quick tally.... for the 3000 killed on 9/11 for an incident that hasn't yet been transparently investigated, so far, 1.2 million brown people in Iraq have died not to mention so many war crimes committed in Afghanistan (a nation used to it) that I'm sure the tally for bombing innocent lives into oblivion (the civilized way of killing - beheading being the barbaric one) is in the several hundred thousand by now... so an eye for an eye has long since past, now what are we doing? The consistent demolition of a race like we did with the Native Americans? Following instead of an eye for an eye, what are you following? "in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes." Deuteronomy 20:16 ? (Some things can be hard to swallow).

Sigh!


Popular Mechanics: "Melted" Steel

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). 


Turns out jet fuel can't burn hot enough to melt steel... and if it was to - magically - happen, the building would sever and fall where the metal got weak from the heat (it's called "melting" for a reason), looks like this:


Building Demolition Goes Wrong by DiagonalView



Popular Mechanics: "Melted" Steel

Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F).  {Editors Note: This means the GOP thought of the excuse before figuring out the science of it... something I would expect the anti-science party to do}: However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks." 

i.e. like this





Popular Mechanics: "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat. 

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F. 


Not only did these pockets of fire NOT encompass the entire building, but it wasn't hot enough to melt steel anyways, i.e. it was about 900 degrees too cool IN THOSE POCKETS OF FIRE.


The rest of the building was NOT on fire. It couldn't melt enough to bend much less collapse like a pancake ALL THE WAY FROM THE TOP! WHAT WAS ON THE TOP FLOORS? THE MOON?

Pockets of VERY HOT fire would still only cause a collapse like this (not a pancake like effect, i.e. the top of the building would fall over sideways around the weak area of the building like this):


Building Demolition Goes Wrong by DiagonalView


It other words, JUST using the words in this popular mechanic article , you can debunk this popular mechanic article!



Popular Mechanic: "The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down." 


i.e. he's saying that the Jet Fuel didn't cause the collapse the tower (as science has noted that jet fuel doesn't burn that hot) but the other stuff in the towers - that's NOT that combustible! - led to this immense fire (which we couldn't see, not like the fire had anytime to spread building wide like in the Madrid Building) which led to a sudden, demolition like collapse of the two towers of WTC;




The North Tower's (demolition) collapse is particularly telling (where's the immense fire?);





To begin with the plane hit so far up that there was no way the whole building could catch on fire in the time the building took to fall so the melting steel hypothesis just falls apart under any logical scrutiny (something which emotionality tends to cause here... it's why the media, esp Fox News, play the two towers plane hit repeatedly)

In other words, there is absolutely no reason for the North Tower to fall like it did and NOT like this (unless explosives were used):


Building Demolition Goes Wrong by DiagonalView


FYI: This is what a real fire looks like (& this building didn't collapse like a pancake!):





9/11 Archive Footage-South Tower collapsing



Notice that you can see molten metal DRIPPING from the crash site right in the beginning of the video on the South Tower.



Most likely scenario based on vetted evidence I have, thus far:

Dick Cheney was informed about the attacks. His entire "security" staff was aware of it (security for whom?). 

More about accountability in the US under Bush (example of Rice)...





Jet fuel, rugs, furniture... and PAPER can't burn hot enough to melt steel and the whole building wasn't on fire long enough to even affect the metal in the skyscraper anyways, so the question is moot

So they seemed to have planted a bunch of demolition bombs to increase the fatality rate of the incident for the emotional effect (the lower building could have been evacuated and the upper building could have been helped with copters which would still leave the attack as "spectacular" but not "the greatest attack on US soil out of envy for our freedoms" we have ever seen). The smoking gun was WTC 7, that's why Fox resorted to bullying tactics as "news" to hide the truth. With no big fires, and no biulding having fallen from fire before anyways, WTC 7 was a dead giveaway that explosives were being used on 9/11. 

& if they were being used on WTC 7 then why not the two towers of the world trade center? This building also "fell into it's footprint", not as good as WTC 7, but they were amougnst the tallest buildings in the world, made to last a long time... until weight caused a never before heard of effect (cause it's architecturally impossible) to cause WTC to fall like it was made of powder. 

A very suspicious story... if it wasn't for the emotional effect of 2 buildings have fallen, in the middle of a city, with a heavy death toll, an enemy identified quickly from the two that claimed to be the ones. There would have been a real investigation. A transparent one. As one would expect in greatest DEMOCRACY in the world. Not this tactic...

Cheney's Assassination Squad (which he says he never used. lol!):



And then two quick wars - one for heroin and the other for oil - in the name of 9/11 that left the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in shambles. (NSA, so unpopular under Obama ... was started by Reagan through executive action and made popular by Bush). 

In any case, the biggest threat to our National Security seems to be us.



BEWARE:

From About.com - Question: What Is Cognitive Dissonance?

Answer:People tend to seek consistency in their beliefs and perceptions. So what happens when one of our beliefs conflicts with another previously held belief? The term cognitive dissonance is used to describe the feeling of discomfort that results from holding two conflicting beliefs. When there is a discrepancy between beliefs and behaviors, something must change in order to eliminate or reduce the dissonance.

Examples of Cognitive Dissonance Cognitive dissonance can occur in many areas of life, but it is particularly evident in situations where an individual's behavior conflicts with beliefs that are integral to his or her self-identity. For example, consider a situation in which a woman who values financial security is in a relationship with a man who is financially irresponsible.

The conflict:

  • It is important for her to be financially secure.
  • She is dating a man who is financially unstable.
In order to reduce this dissonance between belief and behavior, she can either leave the relationship or reduce her emphasis on financial security. In the case of the second option, dissonance could be further minimized by emphasizing the positive qualities of her significant other rather than focusing on his perceived flaws.

A more common example of cognitive dissonance occurs in the purchasing decisions we make on a regular basis. Most people want to hold the belief that they make good choices. When a product or item we purchase turns out badly, it conflicts with our previously existing belief about our decision-making abilities.

How to Reduce Cognitive Dissonance: There are three key strategies to reduce or minimize cognitive dissonance:

  • Focus on more supportive beliefs that outweigh the dissonant belief or behavior.
  • Reduce the importance of the conflicting belief.
  • Change the conflicting belief so that it is consistent with other beliefs or behaviors.
Why is Cognitive Dissonance Important?Cognitive dissonance plays a role in many value judgments, decisions and evaluations. Becoming aware of how conflicting beliefs impact the decision-making process is a great way to improve your ability to make faster and more accurate choices.








9/11 Mysteries: Popular Mechanic's "WTC 7 Report" Debunked

Background: An Overview Of The Strange Inconsistencies In The OFFICIAL Account Of The 9/11 Incident Using The Daily Show


I like to read. I used to read all the time. Non-fiction mostly. Actually, non-fiction & fiction would have their time, sometimes years reading non-fiction followed by years of reading fiction. The following report seems to be a bit of both.

First, a look at the building in question:



  Same, empty, building from another angle:



Popular Mechanic; GAITHERSBURG, Maryland -- The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has released its long-awaited report on the collapse of World Trade 7 following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "Our take-home message today is that the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder told journalists at this morning's press conference in Gaithersburg, Md. "WTC 7 collapsed because of fires fueled by office furnishings. It did not collapse from explosives or from diesel fuel fires.

Note: The report says WTC7 didn't collapse from diesel fuel fires because that seems to be the main argument for the collapse of the main WTC's two towers. The other excuse, 'it was the building furnishings' seems to be the main argument here... except for the cartoon collapse NIST came up with.

The building was BARELY on fire (not to mention showing NO MAJOR DAMAGE). Here is a video proving that fact:





FYI: This is what a real fire looks like (& this building didn't collapse like a pancake!):




Popular Mechanic; Conspiracy theorists have long pointed to the collapse of the 47-story structure as key evidence that the U.S. government orchestrated or abetted the 9/11 attacks. No planes struck the building, and the commonly available views of the exterior didn't show significant damage. Yet, at 5:20 pm, 7 hours after the collapse of the Twin Towers (WTC 1 and 2), WTC 7 rapidly fell in on itself. Since WTC 7 housed Secret Service and CIA offices, conspiracy theorists claimed that the building was destroyed in a controlled demolition in order to obliterate evidence of the U.S. government's complicity in the terrorist attacks. "It is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved," stated actress and TV personality Rosie O'Donnell of ABC's The View in March 2007. "For the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible," she said. 

One of the most important offices in WTC 7 was the Securities fraud office & Bush was being investigated for securities fraud... a link which NEVER became a part of mainstream media "conversation".


Popular Mechanic; Today's report confirms that a fire was, indeed, the cause. "This is the first time that we are aware of, that a building taller than about 15 stories has collapsed primarily due to fires," Sunder told reporters at the press conference. "What we found was that uncontrolled building fires--similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings--caused an extraordinary event, the collapse of WTC7." The unprecedented nature of the event means that understanding the precise mechanism of the collapse is important not just to answer conspiracy theorists' questions, but to improve safety standards in the engineering of large buildings. 

Here is video evidence of news anchors/reporters knowing the impossible before it happened... 



Strange that although this was the first time anyone had heard of this skyscraper falling from fire phenomenon, Rudy Giuliani knew about it (shows the discrepancy between academics and the anti-science party who couldn't even imagine that architects would find this incident suspicious & telling)

There is Rudy explaining (before running away) how he knew a building was going to fall but was surprised that it imploded... 



Above Video:He admits the buildings imploded in a surprising fashion and that he knew they would collapse that day "over a period of time". Never happened before, but he says the way other buildings collapse.

Interesting testimony: Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Fire Commissioner Thomas Von Essen inside building 7




So, despite a building never haven fallen so bizarrely before, the building that Rudy Giuliani seemed to have visited fell exactly like a controlled demolition. Watch






Popular Mechanic; The final report describes how debris from the collapse of WTC 1 ignited fires on at least 10 floors of WTC 7 at the western half of the south face. Fires on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 burned out of control, because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system had failed. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply. Those water lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. These uncontrolled fires in WTC 7 eventually spread to the northeast part of the building, where the collapse began. 


A very strange narrative. Here is another look at the building THAT REALLY WAS ON FIRE IN MADRID... in pictures:

By comparison, this is an image of a building that caught fire in Madrid, Spain;



Here is a close up of the building after a several hours of the fire... the fire is so hot the metal is bending (WTC7 isn't even a tenth as on fire as this building);



This last picture is the same building after the fire has been put out...it's still standing! (WTC 7 was on less fire & still collapsed FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY because of some cartoon NIST came up with using building architecture that does not exist);



Popular Mechanic; After 7 hours of uncontrolled fires, a steel girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to one of the 81 columns supporting the building. Floor 13 collapsed, beginning a cascade of floor failures to Floor 5. Column 79, no longer supported by a girder, buckled, triggering a rapid succession of structural failures that moved from east to west. All 23 central columns, followed by the exterior columns, failed in what's known as a "progressive collapse"--that is, local damage that spreads from one structural element to another, eventually resulting in the collapse of the entire structure. 


7 hours of uncontrolled fire, once again, science is founded on observation...

First, there were VERY few fires


Second, the collapse wasn't eventual. It was immediate. Exactly like a demolition, i.e....


demolicion estadio-Atlanta Fulton County... by Kimaras




Popular Mechanic; The report clarifies a number of widely debated issues concerning the collapse, particularly the role of the building's many diesel fuel tanks and the importance of structural damage from falling WTC 1 debris. Both of those factors have been cited by investigators as possibly contributing to the collapse; the 2006 Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts mentions both hypotheses. However, the final NIST report downplays both scenarios, concluding that the diesel fuel stored in tanks (and intended to power backup generators) did not burn long enough or hot enough to account for structural failures. And, while debris damage to WTC 7's southern exterior was considerable (and initiated the destructive fires), the collapse originated in the northeast portion of the building. In fact, the report concludes: "Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires." 


I just underlined this because I distinctly remember Megyn Kelly arguing that it was debris from WTC 7's two towers that led to the collapse of WTC 7 which sounds really good on paper (especially if you're trying to push the idea that the main WTC 7 collapse because of jet fuel - which can't burn hot enough to melt a steel biulding in hours, much less seconds)... but when you're dealing with video then the problem of debris... and fires... in Dick Cheney's official excuse, becomes apparent.



Popular Mechanic; The report determines that the actual culprit in the collapse was the combustion of ordinary building furnishings: "These uncontrolled fires had characteristics similar to those that have occurred previously in tall buildings." If the sprinkler system in WTC 7 had been working, it is likely that "the fires in WTC 7 would have been controlled and the collapse prevented." The report also suggests that current engineering standards for coping with fire-induced thermal expansion need to be re-examined, particularly for buildings like WTC 7 that have long, unsupported floor spans. A key factor in the collapse, NIST concluded, was the failure of structural "connections that were designed to resist gravity loads, but not thermally induced lateral loads." According to Sunder: "For the first time we have shown that fire can induce a progressive collapse." 


For the first time? Why doesn't the ON THE GROUND FACTS and the explanations add up? (see videos above of Rudy Giuliani as well)






 Popular Mechanic; Spurred by conspiracy theorists' questions, investigators did look specifically at the possibility that explosives were involved. "Hypothetical blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7," the report states, adding that investigators "found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event." Moreover, the smallest charge capable of initiating column failure "would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB [decibels] to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile." Witnesses did not report hearing such a loud noise, nor is one audible on recordings of the collapse. 

This sent shivers down my spine...

Firemen Explosion Testimony




9/11 Firemen claiming they heard explosions





11 Truth: NYFD say Explosives brought down Towers






Popular Mechanic; NIST will accept public comment on the final report until Sept. 15, 2008. 


Really? Why not AFTER Bush's term? It's not like his security team ever left anyways.


Popular Mechanic; NIST's press release and other material on the report can be found here. Click here to download the full report in pdf form. The cartoon video NIST made up using computer graphics is here.


Dec 11, 2014

An Overview Of The Strange Inconsistencies In The OFFICIAL Account Of The 9/11 Incident Using The Daily Show



9/11 was the biggest crime on American soil in recorded history (except for maybe our genocide of the Native Americans). After a crime, the normal procedure is to investigate the crime scene. Strangely enough rather than do forensics on the crime scene the Bush Administration put all their efforts into removing the debris from the World Trade Center towers as fast as possible. A transparent official forensics investigation still hasn't been done, last I checked.

Keeping this in mind I began a search for answers about this strange occurrence. Why did the Bush Administration not carry out a proper investigation of the 9/11 crime scene. That's when I ran into a series of other inconsistencies.

Here is the most interesting one:

 There is Rudy explaining (before running away) howhe knew a building was going to fall but was surprised that it imploded... 



Above Video:He admits the buildings imploded in a surprising fashion and that he knew they would collapse that day "over a period of time". Never happened before, but he says the way other buildings collapse.

Interesting testimony: Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Fire Commissioner Thomas Von Essen inside building 7


So, despite a building never haven fallen so bizarrely before, the building that Rudy Giuliani seemed to have visited fell exactly like a controlled demolition. Watch



Same, empty, building from another angle:


Since a demolition generally takes months to plan I am assuming that the Bush Administration, rather than heading this warning...

Moment of Zen - Condoleezza Rice testifies before the 9/11 investigation commission regarding Osama Bin Laden. (0:23):













Choose, instead, to prepare for it by arming at least one building with demolition bombs for a cover up. Why? To hide securities fraud... at the very least, i.e.

An Independent Investigation By Me: BREAKING NEWS: Building #7 Of The WTC Was Demolished By Bush-Cheney To Cover Up Securities Fraud

In other words, either they prepped the whole building to fall in a few hours on that one day after the planes hit the towers OR this demolition was planned weeks in advance.

The object of this post is to lay out these inconsistencies in the 9/11 official account and strangeness of official behavior in as light of a form as possible.


First, the following video compares and contrasts the difference in which an investigation was handled in the UK as opposed to here in the US... and makes it clear that this was a VERY strange investigation as Bush & Cheney seem to have dictated the rules of the inquiry and didn't even put their replies on the official record!

Accountability in the U.K. - David Cameron Kills it 







Secondly, the Bush Administration was literally warned that there was a danger of attack months and even a year in advance but Bush was mostly on vacation.


The Clinton administration left the Bush administration with only a series of actionable items listed together on a piece of paper, not a plan. (8:11) {This is what the whole 'Clinton should have got Bin Laden' episode was about, Bush's "incompetence"}:






Then there was the opposition to the 9/11 commission followed by reports of 9/11 commission shenanigans by the Bush Administation (Why?)


• O'Reilly falsely claimed Bush didn't oppose 9-11 Commission. O'Reilly defended President George W. Bush from a Kerry-Edwards '04 TV ad highlighting Bush's opposition to creation of the 9-11 Commission by denying that Bush had ever opposed the commission. In fact, Bush did oppose the creation of the 9-11 Commission. (10/21/04)


Daily Show: Dick Cheney doesn't recall Richard Clarke warning the White House of an imminent terrorist attack months before 9/11:




On The Censuring Of The 911 Commission: "I think there are things they knew which they didn't share with the public" Philip Shenon...






Thomas Kean talks about the process of getting over two million documents in spite of bipartisan resistance to the 9/11 commission. (7:17):




The sheer lackof accountability that existed in the Bush Administration just boggles the mind;

Vice President Dick Cheney took time out of his busy schedule of not revealing anything to deliver a harsh anti-John Kerry speech. (4:54):




Related posts:




Relevant Moments Of Zen:

President Bush justifies torture in the past by asking his detractors about which attack we'd rather have not stopped. (0:12):




Moment of Zen: "President George W. Bush and Dick Cheney had a good conversation with the 9/11 commission." 



I Give Up - 9/11 Responders Bill - Despite Anthony Weiner's passion and a clear majority, the House Republicans defeat a bill providing health care for 9/11 first responders. (10:32)



Daily Show: Here's a tribute to a few Republican senators who find comfort and advantage in invoking the heroes of 9/11 but refuse to give them health care. (8:16)



Nov 12, 2014

The GOP have been destroying the economy & opposing their own bills JUST to oppose Obama!



Americans say yes, Republicans say no on working with Obama
Rachel Maddow points out that Republicans have embraced a policy of denying President Obama anything he pursues, despite the preference by Americans overall, as shown in a new Pew survey, that they work together.





Notice the outright hypocrisy of the GOP, which they maintain by controlling the only news outlets that the Republicans will listen to:


Bogus story exposes risks of conservative ‘invented news’ - Rachel Maddow shows the right-wing hypocrisy on prostitution scandals when the political advantage is in their favor, and points out the danger of the conservative movement’s preference of their own version of news instead of real news.


 




Conservative media creates parallel universe
Rachel Maddow discusses how the conservative media has built a narrative based on what people want to hear, not on the facts, about President Obama’s nominee for Attorney General Loretta Lynch.









Colbert Report: Tip/Wag - Breitbart
Breitbart News publishes an article that could have completely destroyed the credibility of Obama's pick for attorney general, Loretta Lynch -- if it wasn't completely untrue. (3:31)








Some past revelations:

 On raising the debt ceiling OR 'putting the debt ceiling in context of modern economics':




Above: George Bush increased the debt ceiling in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006. 2007 and twice in 2008 (The Democrats have used the same strategy, though ineffectually i.e. they are cowards) Rather than defaulting on debts it makes more sense to raise the ceiling and solve the budget problem. THEN, over time, the debt will decrease if that is how the budget is balanced.

Here is the hypocritical plan McConnel came up with...



1. "I would advocate that we pass legislation giving the president the authority to REQUEST of us an increase in the debt ceiling that would take us past the end of his term" - "that [legislation] would be subject to disapproval. That resolution of disapproval, if passed, would then go to the president, he could sign it or he could veto it." - McConnell - Theme: Passing legislation to 'disapprove it later.

2. "The reason default is no better idea today than when Newt Gengrich tried it in 1995, is it destroys your brand [i.e. America's credit rating] and would give the president the opportunity to blame Republicans for bad economy" - Defaulting was seriously tried by Newt in 1995.

3. "Look, he owns the economy. He's been in office almost 3 years now and we refuse to let him entice us into co-ownership of a bad economy" McConnel - The co-ownership is referring to the United states economy.

Important Republican Party Position: McConnel admits that making sure Obama is a one term President is his primary political goal. This means that the worse the economy is the better chances are that Obama will be a one term president.

At one point, McConnell said: "I have little question that as long as this president is in the Oval Office, a real solution is unattainable." In an interview with CBS News, the president noted that McConnell has described his major political goal as making Obama a one-term president.







Advice for Democrats:



Rachel Maddow points out to Senate Democrats that just because they’ll be losing the majority, that doesn’t mean they can’t do anything with the time they have left, particularly with President Obama’s nomination for Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, awaiting confirmation.






Rachel Maddow points out politically impulsive behavior by Senate Democrats that are ostensibly strategy based, but are actually foreseeably damaging to the Democratic image and political interests, as well as President Obama’s policy priorities.








NRA’s midterm failures encourage push for surgeon general
Sabrina Siddiqui, political reporter for The Huffington Post, talks with Rachel Maddow about the renewed push to confirm Vivek Murthy as surgeon general in the wake of the Ebola scare and now that the NRA has performed poorly in the midterm elections.





Related Posts: