Two steps backward to go one step forwards? The Monty Python show was famous for this segue:
"... And now for something completely different."
And this posting would have been different, I assure you, had the "Pavlov" word not been snatched from my mind by Mr. Dwil, who wrote such poetic words:
... Bernay (sic) returns from the grave to chortle at your weak efforts to mimic his propaganda techniques... "Bernay" ---- jeez. You three need to do the Pavlov Knee-Jerk (or a Burning Man circle jerk), go find a Denny's (since that's where television taught you to go) - and eat some bacon and eggs. ...bacon and eggs made by Edward Bernay----s.
So what was the Pavlovian word that got so many 9/11 conspiracy theorists salivating and dropping their best lines yet again recently? I don't know, but here are some gems from a self-promoting professor of "logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning," Dr. James H. Fetzer:
Typical of this fake... as I have explained again and again and again. This guy reminds me of the ditty, "Liar, liar, pants on fire!" Lying is his area of specialization. Explaining why what he is saying is false can be tedious and time consuming. Think of it. He is probably the biggest liar you will ever encounter in your life.
Repetitiously posting unsound arguments with false premises hardly constitutes disproof.
... you phony shit! You are so hard up for arguments you are doing it in your pants and then displaying your stained underwear here for the world to witness.
It is well that Mr. OneSliceShort has provided links to Derren Brown - the Experiments and Derren Brown - Mind Control. I've been watching some of his videos. My word, sometimes if I don't feel like actors are all around me in this Truth & Shadows forum like in Derren Brown: The Guilt Trip to get me to spout the conspiracy theories that I do, like I'm being manipulated.
Mr. Rogue, who doesn't shy away from having been intimately involved professionally in persuassive visual arts, wrote on September 7, 2012 at 5:28 pm maybe the Pavlovian phrase that pays:
DEW-Nuke-NPT-Digital Fakery-Holograms... all 9/11 Lampoons
*Beep* *beep* *whi-irrrrrl* *nanu-nanu* *beep*
As required by my "digital fakery" trigger, I must start by saying the multiple versions of the "flying orb" video [nothing, the orb, the altered shot, the orb with wings] prove that they were at least trying some digital fakery.
The Fairbanks video was brought up for inspection not that long ago above. Maybe Mr. OneSliceShort can help us with this one. I recall a companion video to the Fairbanks one. One could call it the uncut-Fairbanks, because it shows him and his crew running from one spot to another with camera recording the whole time until, exhausted, he sets the camera down onto the hood of the pickup. We see the man loitering at the store who walks towards the truck and later has his shock immortalized of seeing the last milli-seconds of (allegedly) UA175 entering WTC-2. I am amazed at both the framing and timing of the miracle shot, as if they had been rushing about precisely to get to this pre-planned parked vehicle's location with a windshield reflecting the tower-to-be-hit. Not digital fakery. Media complicity. That's the smoking gun.
I am going to vector away from Dr. Fetzer's freshman-level physics and its limited understanding. In the game of conspiracy theory buzzword-bingo, Dr. Fetzer, the former Marine Corps Officer, still has triggers for NPT and holograms, and thanks to Derren Brown, maybe we know why, and why he's wrong and can't see it. -- *beep* *beep* *bong* -- The theme that is repeated at the upper-levels of the conspiracy theory peddling food chain is having a portfolio that contains some bat-shit wild-ass crazy, so that their larger body of work and any buried nuggets of truth can be discredited in the same go, should the nuggets be discovered and taken seriously. (Dr. Wood has this; Dimitri K. and Dr. Ward as well; even Dr. Jones.)
I must tip my hat to Dr. Fetzer and the "nuke" trigger word, because his Vancouver Hearings has brought Mr. Prager's and Mr. Fox's consolitary work -- "NUUUuuuuggets of TRUUUUuuuuth" as Mr. Rogue has accused me of aping -- regarding a multitude of "directional baseball nukes" to my attention. I've looked through their presentations for the hearings, and I must nod my head in agreement regarding some form of 9/11 nuclear hijinx.
And now for a brief intermission. After my gift of Dr. Judy Wood's textbook arrived, Mr. David Chandler offered his first impressions:
--Heavy book. Heavy pages. Extravagant use of color. Somebody put a bunch of money behind this project.
--I was rather put off by the way she implies she is the only one seriously researching 9/11.
--I'm going to have to read through it with a highlighter in hand. There's not a whole lot I agree with. I haven't gotten that far yet.
I'm only part way through Mr. Prager's two part eMagazine of a few hundred pages: Part 1 [86MB] and Part 2 [56MB]. I must borrow an expression from Mr. Chandler: "Extravagant use of color. Somebody put a bunch of money behind this project." Fonts, too. Layouts. Very impressive. When it gets printed into a real magazine, it'll be in the quality league of Dr. Wood's book, and we may be saying the same things as Mr. Chandler did about Dr. Wood.
Meanwhile, though, it is not printed and with its "eMagazine" name, it is meant to serve an online audience. [Sorry for this nitpick, Mr. Prager, but I find your eMagazine's layout totally obnoxious and inappropriate for the medium and audience. Want to know what annoys me worse that scrolling horizontally in my online experiences? Scrolling zig-zag "down-right-up (repeat for next column)" trying to read a multi-column layout. Having to re-adjust zoom ratios so that I can see the page versus conveniently reading the text is another annoyance.] Don't pay any heed to my humble first impressions of your written productions, so that focus can be placed on...
Nuggets of truth. Nuggets of truth.
Back from intermission.
Dr. Wood and Mr. Prager have overlapping concepts. One of those is that they both in effect advocate directed energy weapons. The difference is that Dr. Wood makes a wide and rather conspicuous circle around nuclear hijinx, and even inserts some unfiltered govt steering in the form of her analysis that doubts the existance of hot-spots. It is somewhat glaring that nuclear methods aren't given more consideration when trying to account for the energy requirements of pulverization and dustification, when surely her research into Star Wars would have brought up Project Excalibur. She lets others frame what a DEW is supposed to look like.
This is where Mr. Prager's work can bridge us, while clearing up misconceptions about what a directed energy weapon would look like, would be capable of, and would produce in terms of short-lived and lingering side-effects.
I expect we'll find errors in Mr. Prager's compilation, but not enough to take nuclear 9/11 aspirations off of the table. The proof is in the dust. The proof is in what little nuclear evidence was addressed.
Two steps backward to go one step forwards?
Señor El Once : compelling evidence of this fission pathway
Dear Dr. Fetzer,
"On the eve of the 11th observance of 9/11" when you published a two-part report about the Vancouver Hearings, I am curious why you are not linking to anything from:
* Jeff Prager, "Proof of Ternary Fission in New York City on 9/11?" (40 minutes)
* Donald Fox, "Mini-nukes used at the WTC and the real ‘untold story’" (40 minutes)
For those who thought that nuclear physicist Dr. Jones "was all that and more" with his no-nukes paper about the govt's report on [very narrowly & suspiciously] tritium levels, Dr. Jones represents the magician's left-hand waving about to distract you from the analysis that he and others did not perform or make public. Here is the companion PDF for Jeff Prager's presentation, Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB] that probably makes more sense than the Power-Point presentation. Here is an extract from the conclusion [with my bolding]:
The graph of Thorium versus Lithium including the Girder Coatings has exactly the same form as the graph showing Thorium versus Uranium, also including the Girder Coatings. Without the two Girder Coatings the correlation of Thorium to Lithium in the dust is completely linear.
We therefore have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium, has indeed taken place. It is out of the question that all of these correlations which are the signature of a nuclear explosion could have occurred by chance. This is impossible.
The presence of rare Trace elements such as Cerium, Yttrium and Lanthanum is enough to raise eyebrows in themselves, let alone in quantities of 50ppm to well over 100ppm. When the quantities then vary widely from place to place but still correlate with each other according to the relationships expected from nuclear fission, it is beyond ALL doubt that the variations in concentration are due to that same common process of nuclear fission.
When we find Barium and Strontium present, in absolutely astronomical concentrations of over 400ppm to over 3000ppm, varying from place to place but varying in lockstep and according to known nuclear relationships – the implications are of the utmost seriousness.
The presence of Thorium and Uranium correlated to each other by a clear mathematical power relationship – and to other radionucleide daughter products – leaves nothing more to be said.
This type of data has probably never been available to the public before. It is an unprecedented insight into the action of a nuclear device. Nuclear weapon scientists around the world will have seized this data to analyze it and try and determine exactly what type of device produced it.
September 11th, 2001, was the first Nuclear event within a major United States city and a global financial center of the world and this is the biggest secret of this century, until now.
Mr. Prager’s two part eMagazine of a few hundred pages: Part 1 [86MB] and Part 2 [56MB].
I must borrow an expression from Mr. Chandler: “Extravagant use of color. Somebody put a bunch of money behind this project.” Fonts, too. Layouts. Very impressive.
Full Discloser and Disclaimer: I've had no problems retrieving these files. I used a work computer supported by a diligent IT staff that has pretty stiff virus detection. No errors on my side.
However, Mr. Rogue informed me yesterday:
I attempted to load Prager's docs into my machine last night - my spyware alert went off like a three alarm fire alert...I was given a flag that "Malware" had entered my machine. The software was able to eliminate it.
I do not know which link caused the issue, or if the link was one sent to him via email or posted in this forum. Maybe Mr. Rogue can enlighten us? Which documents did you get? Any at all? Which link gave you problems? Mr. Rogue uses a mobile connection that already limits drastically the number of minutes per month that he can watch Internet videos. With computers, sometimes symptoms of one thing manifest themselves in other areas erroneously.
Most of the links published here go to http://www.datafilehost.com (webmaster[@]datafilehost.com) or to http://donaldfox.wordpress.com (wordpress.com). If Mr. Rogue know the link that caused the issue, maybe he should escalate it with whomever hosts it.
[My email to Mr. Rogue seems to have had one link that gmail purposely munged: Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis]
Señor El Once : flaw onion layers
Dearest Dr. Fetzer,
I was so impressed with your boasting, I felt inspired to repeat it (with my highlighting).
Well, apparently you SEO do not know that there are both FALLACIOUS and NON-FALLACIOUS appeals to authority. Domain competence is generally demonstrated by the publication of articles and books, by the presentation of lectures and such, where I was professionally employed by a half-dozen or more institutions of higher learning–Kentucky, Cincinnati, Virginia (twice), North Carolina at Chapel Hill, New College of the University of South Florida, and the University of Minnesota Duluth–to offer courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, as well as in the theory of knowledge, the philosophy of language, and the history and philosophy of science. That means an appeal to my authority in these areas is non-fallcious, for all the difference it makes to someone of your intellectual dispositions. Its meaning is parallel to someone who explains that he is a physicist, a chemist, or whatever. Different professionals have expertise in different areas. Those are some of mine.
I must thank you so much for demonstrating your domain competence here in Truth & Shadows... by being incapable of posting that where it belonged. This damn WordPress site is just too damn illogical for your critical thinking and scientific reasoning!
Elsewhere you wrote on September 12, 2012 at 1:14 am :
rogue1 seems to liken a Twin Tower to a stack of coins, say, fifty cent pieces on the bottom, then quarters, the nickels, pennies, and dimes. If you had such a stack and took a sharp instrument, such as a knife, and hit it just right, you might be able to knock a dime out of the stack without any effect on the rest. The flaw is that, in the case of a Twin Tower, these coins are welded together into a single, cohesive whole. It is like the fact that a gigantic tree is rooted to the ground and not a stack of slices, one on top of another. That he has to appeal to such flawed analogies is indicative of his intellectual deficiencies or, alternatively, of his deliberate attempts to mislead those who follow this thread.
Mr. Rogue points out that he has made no such analogies, making that the outer flaw onion layer. Peeling that aside reveals an inner flaw onion layer to the analogy in that the "Twin Tower (coins) were not welded together into a single, cohesive whole." The assemblies were welded (3 columns and 3 spandrels) but were assembled together into a cohesive whole by bolts, which in truth proved to be a weakness designed into structure so that the engineers could boast that an aircraft -- particularly an enhanced special plane-looking-missile that can fly large velocities at low altitudes -- would puncture the wall like "a pencil piercing a mosquito screen."
But hey, I'm just being nit-picky, although in an ironic way to quote a professor of logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning:
That he has to appeal to such flawed analogies is indicative of his intellectual deficiencies or, alternatively, of his deliberate attempts to mislead those who follow this thread.
And because the MKUltra directive was given to me by Mr. OneBornFree on the trigger date (September 11, 2012 at 7:36 pm):
Here’s a partial list of the continual parade of clowns here who either actually believe, or are being paid to “believe” ... señor el "I can’t write a post shorter than 1000 words because it won’t look psuedo-intellectual enough" ...
*beep* *beep* *whi-iiirrrl* *nanu-nanu* Acknowledge.
Damn. I guess I've got 1,000 or more words to write. Let's do a copy-and-paste. Fruits of my research into Jeff Prager's nuclear works. He writes these interesting conclusions from "1 - 162 • 911 America Nuked.pdf" [Part 1: 86MB] and "Prager_163 - 247 • 911 America Nuked.pdf" [Part 2: 56MB].
Page 52: Part One Conclusions
1. Leukemia, non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and Multiple Myeloma, three rare cancers, have increased dramatically and in an unprecedented number, frequency and rapidity in very young age groups never seen before.
2. All three of these cancers, increasing together in a select population have previously always indicated radiation exposure. The CDC study (K25 Workers), Chernobyl, Nagasaki and Hiroshima data are all conclusive and in agreement on this issue as well.
[See: Robert W. Miller, M.D., and William J. Blot, Ph.D., and others, US National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Japanese National Institute Of Health Of The Ministry Of Health And Welfare, Atomic Radiation, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Also see Ionizing Radiation 911, parts 1, 2 and 3 linked on a previous page. Also see: CDC study of K25 workers linked previously]
3. Increases in these cancers using September 11th as the ‘start date,’ specifically and most importantly; Leukemia, non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and Multiple Myeloma along with increases in esophageal, prostate & thyroid cancers with all of them very rapid increases often in young and otherwise healthy people indicates clearly, without ambiguity and with certainty that further study into a radioactive component of some type and design is critically required.
4. The government, in all its wisdom, decided not to cover cancer in the Zadroga Bill while cancer deaths in First Responders are exploding like the Twin Towers on 911.
5. The EPA, Congress and the military and other governmental and environmental agencies responsible for the disaster cleanup knew from the very beginning that the dust in New York City was highly toxic, caustic and contained 100s of known human poisons. Very few people knew it was radioactive. My personal opinion is that certain members of government and private organizations knew.
6. I believe it was known early on by the mainstream medical community that radiation was a factor. I emailed over 500 oncologists or people in the Oncology Departments at Sloan Kettering and Mount Sinai Hospitals, Cancer Section, with copies of pages 19-42 of the free eMagazine titled, “Dust” and I also posted it to the CDC and NISOH web sites (link for source to original ‘short’ document below) on March 14th, 2011, in a reformatted style to accommodate CDC and NIOSH web site requirements.
7. Parts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 will show that there are and were bombs tested that were ‘salted’ such or designed such that over 97% of their radiation was eliminated from the detonation. There was radiation, but not much, not easily measurable without sophisticated equipment, certainly not with a Geiger Counter, and not long-lasting. And it wasn’t alpha, beta or gamma radiation; these are the types we usually measure. But enough to kill people, as we’re seeing now. It was neutron radiation.
8. The following chapters will prove a lot more. The reasoning by Dr. Jones and others used to explain the high levels of tritium are scientific frauds and we prove that here.
After Conclusions - Me and Dr. Jones
9. Although Dr. Jones addressed the following issues partially, loosely, imperfectly in a fragmented manner using poor science that is just good enough to fool most people, he failed to adequately and properly address the increased uranium, thorium (two elements found only in radioactive form) tritium and the high levels of zinc, barium, strontium, vanadium, and especially potassium and sodium (these 2 are crucial) among other elements found in the dust as the levels increase and decrease together across 35 sampled locations by the USGS. Dr. Jones failed to use the Product Momentum Correlation and the ‘t’ test statistic, formulas he’s intimately familiar with, to discuss the various levels of these elements as they are seen in the dust, “together”.
10. Forty years of technology has come and gone since 1961 (up until 2001) so we’ll also examine nano-technology ijn susequent chapters because the nuclear industry grabbed hold of miniaturization even more quickly then the Metastable Intermolecular Compound (nanothermite or MIC) industry and well before. Why wouldn’t they? Atomic grenades were coming down the pike. It was only a matter of time. The Davy Crockett, as you’ll see in the next chapter, was a watermelon-sized nuclear bomb launched from a 3-man tripod style grenade launcher. 40 years later we have apples. But very, very special apples based on a deuterium-tritium design.
Dr. Stephen Jones himself studied Muon Catalyzed Fusion for the US Department of Energy in critical detail and is intimately knowledgeable in this area.
This report will further show that Dr. Jones’ studies in muon catalyzed fusion involved deuterium, uranium and tritium which produce uranium and tritium as a by-product of fission and fusion and were both found in high amounts in NYC. This report will suggest that Dr. Jones should be fully aware of the nuclear component to the events of 911 based on the reasoning presented herein. Since he’s obviously not and further seeks to hide the nculear component the only logical explanation is that he’s been tasked with covering it up.
11. Lawrence Livermore has a long history of developing new materials, fabrication techniques, and characterization and diagnostic methods to address the important national problems it is asked to solve. From miniaturizing nuclear weapons in the late 1950s to proving fusion ignition on a laboratory scale five decades later, Livermore’s can-do attitude consistently meets with success. 911 is certainly proof of that.
Page 77: Part Two Conclusions
1. Big Ivan left little radiation (reducing radioactive output by 97% in 1961). Forty years of technological advances could have easily produced a bomb with very, very little and very, very short-lived radioactive elements.
2. Big Ivan produced not alpha, not beta and not gamma radiation but neutron radiation which is measured differently and requires sophisticated measuring equipment to detect. A Geiger Counter will not produce results with a Deuterium-Tritium detonation.
3. Using ‘Big Ivan’ technology including advances made during 40 years of diligent study it’s not hard to imagine a micronuclear device the size of an apple. The demolition effect would then be scaled down to what we actually saw on 911. Two 1000+ foot structural steel towers destroyed with the majority of the elements turned to dust; micron sized “very small particles” that can only be formed by a fusion device, a fission device or a fusion/fission device.
4. The dust PH was as high as caustic drain cleaner which, with concrete, would require incredible heat. It was reported over 12 on the Ph scale. In fact it requires more thermal energy to calcine concrete then to turn structural steel to dust. This is the signature of a nuclear event.
5. Very fine metals were routinely seen, but while most were at low concentrations, some metals (V, Ni, Cu, As, Se, Br, and Hg) occurred at unprecedented levels in the very fine size range. A person could, in a few hours, be subject to materials in amounts and composition that they would not have had to endure in years of typical ambient conditions. Ground Zero diseases are imminent and 1,003 First Responders were dead by March of 2011.
6. According to the Delta Group, “The size fractions above 1 micrometer contained finely powdered concrete, gypsum, and glass, with soot-like coatings and anthropogenic metals, but little asbestos.” The USGS data produces the same result. AVARIS satellite images confirm. There was virtually NO asbestos at Ground Zero. This presents a serious problem. If there was very little asbestos at Ground Zero and almost none to be more accurate (and we know the buildings were filled with asbestos) and the asbestos was dispersed across lower Manhattan by the demolition then what was the source of the elevated tritium levels at Ground Zero and why wasn’t the tritium also dispersed across the city like the asbestos?
7. If the tritium, uranium, zinc and asbestos were equally dispersed across the city then why was the tritium, uranium and zinc content at Ground Zero so high and the asbestos content so absurdly low? See the map at right for asbestos (chrysotile) distribution throughout lower Manhattan.
7. The fires raged for 100 days at underground temperatures exceeding 2500 degrees and even Pyrocool® could not extinguish the fires (see Pyrocool® data in this eMagazine). Energetic compounds, especially at nano-scale, will not accomplish this feat because they are designed at nano-scale to be rapid burners exhausting their fuel in milliseconds. This is precisely how they reach such high temperatures (4500F approx.). However, they could not have reached the temperatures necessary for the time period necessary to calcine tons of concrete and demolish the towers. Only several milliseconds of 10 million degree heat is capable of demolishing the towers as they were and calcining 50,000 tons (25%) of the concrete.
8. Energetic compounds can not increase the dust content of uranium, thorium, tritium, nickel, lead, barium, strontium, potassium, sodium and other elements; all found at anomalous or high levels and all indicative of a nuclear event of some type.
9. Particle size matters. The energy necessary to create the massive quantity of very fine and micron-sized particles is far, far greater than the energy output of an energetic compound with a velocity of 300 meters per second (Jones, Harrit). “Boiling soil and glass” as stated by Dr. Cahill and “regeneration” (Dr. Cahill) of aerosols; creating particles smaller than small, is a magic feat that energetic compounds can’t perform.
Page 161: Part Three Conclusions
1. In 1961 the Russians exploded the largest nuclear bomb ever conceived in the 50 megaton range. It was designed such that it produced 97% less radiation than other devices.
2. In 1961 the United States exploded the smallest nuclear bomb ever conceived. This bomb was 11 inches by 11 inches by 17 inches. Not much bigger than a shoebox. It’s not hard to imagine that in 40 years of strides in miniaturization and nano-technology, between 1961 and 2001 that the US military industrial complex was able to produce a deuterium tritium hybrid bomb the size of an apple, more or even less.
3. Based on professional building demolition techniques developed by CDI, the worlds premier building demolition company, it would have been impossible to properly prepare the Twin Towers, two separate buildings, for a demolition using standard explosives and energetic compounds either alone or together. It would have been humanly impossible to do.
4. The images between pages 69 and 77, rarely seen by most people, show a very clear nuclear demolition. It’s virtually impossible to view these images with an open mind and believe that an energetic compound was responsible for the demolition on 911. There are NO 911 videos that show these images.
5. We discussed a variety of different types of nuclear explosive devices. They all produce different amounts and types of radiation and they all produce different disease patterns. One thing they all have in common is an increase in cancers in those exposed to the explosions.
6. Because Dr. Jones studied muon catalyzed fusion and experimented with deuterium and tritium as well as uranium and other nuclear elements he has specific knowledge as regards the device(s) being discussed here yet he avoids discussing the USGS report or the Delta Group report.
7. Dr. Jones has failed to properly address the anomalous levels of uranium, potassium, sodium, zinc, tritium, thorium and other elements of a nuclear reaction found in the dust from Ground Zero as they interact together and Dr. Jones is a fraud.
8. Cold fusion is a reality and while it doesn’t yet produce energy sufficiently for civilian use it does produce powerful explosive devices.
9. Dr. Busby’s interview was fascinating.
10. Pyrocool® should have cooled and extinguished the fires.
11. The tritium was never properly or scientifically addressed although they made the report “sound” good.
12. Building 6 is never discussed even though the damage was extensive.
"Prager_163 - 247 • 911 America Nuked.pdf" [Part 2: 56MB]
Page 173 (10): Part Four Conclusions
1. Nano technology is a child of the nuclear industry. They work with atoms for goodness sakes; obviously nano started in the nuclear industry and the historical record proves so. More importantly, nano technology started in the military, the military industrial complex and the war machine because that’s where it was needed most.
2. Nano tech has advanced beyond our wildest dreams, quite rapidly in fact. As rapidly as the 911 First Responders dying from various rare cancers previously seen only in those exposed to radiation.
3. In the following chapter we’ll see that the military desperately needed to develop cleaner nuclear weapons so that they could be used more frequently and they needed very small nuclear weapons. What’s more, they needed weapons that didn’t use uranium or plutonium, the only two fissionable materials banned under all international treaties for above ground testing and use. That’s where the deuterium-tritium fusion fission reaction comes in. Very little uranium is produced, quite a bit of tritium is produced and the radioactivity is reduced by 97% lasting just a week or so. The tritium rapidly dissipated by either rain or water or just naturally, radiation is not easily detectable after just a week or so.
Page 193 (30): Part Five Conclusions
1. Nano technology and fusion-fission demolition devices the size of an apple and smaller is a stark reality that we all must deal with. Nano technology poses a distinct threat to the civilian population, especially in the wrong hands as can be seen by examining the events of September 11th, 2001.
Señor El Bot WARNING!!! I reserve the right to re-use snippets of the above in another thread on a nuclear subject. I'm just kind of priming the pump and getting a serious topic seeding for rational discussion.
// Señor El "1000 words no post should be shorter than because it won't look psuedo-intellectual enough"