kimmy

Bullshit. A relative of mine has two autistic children who are both attending "regular" school with regular children and with the help of an aide paid for by the province. And this is in a small town in the far north of the province. -k

I think that a tube filled with explosives would act just like a pulse jet engine. I listened to Hawkings and find his theories to make sense. I have a bachelors degree in engineering and a little bit of tactile experience playing with gasoline as a kid. (it was a hobby when my parents were not home) What were you doing with the gasoline? Sniffing it? Why jamming a bunch of explosives into a tube and blowing them up doesn't act "just like a pulse jet engine": -a pulse jet engine is a cyclical process: detonation, exhaust, refueling, reignition, repeating over and over. -a tube jammed full of explosives and detonated is a non-cyclical process comprised of just 2 of those steps, detonation and exhaust. It has no way of refueling the combustion chamber, and in the case of a jetliner filled with explosives, no combustion chamber left to refuel since the aluminum skin and glass windows comprising the "combustion chamber" would be blown to pieces after the first detonation. well, maybe, but I'm not the one claiming that a little BC aircraft maintenance and repair company can turn a jetliner into a pulse-jet engine, and I'm not the one claiming that an airliner outfitted as Hawkins described would create an EMP. This guy has a PhD in Thermodynamics? he couldn't possibly. They don't give PhDs to people this dumb, do they? Maybe he used to be be a respectable scientist but he suffered some kind of blunt head trauma that left him stupid. Maybe he went senile or crazy. Or maybe he's a "PhD in thermodynamics" in the same sense that Fetzer is a "theoretical scientist" or you're an "applied physicist" or I'm a "logistics and deployment expert". I don't have any way of verifying that Hawkins is a "PhD in Thermodynamics", so I can't judge him based on his alleged qualifications, I can only judge him based on what he says. And what he says is just sooooo stupid. I was going to go into a whole thing on how an EMP could be created-- massive electrical discharge (like lightning...), or photoelectric effect on a massive scale (like in a nuclear explosion) or maybe kinetic energies to "plasmafy" matter ("doomsday asteroid" scenario) and ask which of these sound like blowing up an airliner with conventional explosives. I was going to challenge you to use your Phat Engineering Skillz to calculate the temperature materials would have to combust at to create a similar effect. Or explain what mechanism you envision that converts even a small portion of a conventional explosion into electromagnetic energy. I was going to try to appeal to your common sense by asking things like "if hundred-MegaWatt electrical transients like lightning bolts create an EMP that at worst interferes with TV and radio reception, then how does a mechanical explosion cause lights to flicker?" But you know, why bother. Everybody can see that your (and Hawkins') position on the subject is laughable. To me, the more interesting thing that's emerged from this exchange is the different standards you apply to different fields of scientific knowledge. When it comes to speculating why a pulse-jet engine would create an EMP, you defer your opinion because you don't know enough about "high energy physics" or chemistry to speculate on the matter. But when it comes to structural engineering, you say over and over how "it's obvious" or "anybody can see" why this or that should have happened. You're unwilling to speculate as to whether blowing up an airplane with conventional explosives would create an EMP, and yet you believe that anybody with two eyes and a computer is qualified to assess the structural damage done to the twin towers. And what's really funny is that you apparently don't see any contradiction between the two positions. -k

uh-huh. You should go back to finding lima beans that look like Jim Fetzer. -k

Well, uh, some context would be nice. Like, what did Danson say, and when and in what context did Danson say it? As Danson has a long-term involvement with the Bernardo/Homolka circus, it seems to me that people in the press would probably seek him out for a comment whenever Karla pops up in the news. And it seems likely to me that he probably has strong opinions regarding Homolka whether he's "on the clock" or not. -k {how can Karla travel internationally? and how'd she have a baby? what kind of jackass would father a child with *that*?}

All those planes being allowed to fly across America air space for so long shows he has a point. Keith Olbermann checks out the tapes from NORAD. While this video was provided to us by "Jenna", one of the Truthies as proof of ... I forget what she was trying to prove, but what it clearly shows is: -confusion over how many planes had been hijacked. -inability to determine which planes had been -confusion over whether they were authorized to shoot down hijacked planes -shootdown authority was not granted until after all of the hijacked planes had already been crashed. Why didn't the Air Force shoot down the planes before they crashed into targets? They didn't know which planes to shoot down. And they weren't given the authority to shoot planes down until it was too late. As Olbermann's guest states: "If these tapes prove anything, it is not complicity, it is not conspiracy, but it is total ineptitude." -k

I'm an engineering grad who did very well in electromagnetic theory. I am not convinced that is pulse EMP engines would not create an electromagnetic pulse because I am not a high energy physicist. First off, as we already discussed, a jetliner loaded with explosives isn't a "pulse jet engine". You know that, I know that, and everybody except for your dumb little buddy David Hawkins knows that. Also, since when are conventional explosives considered "high energy physics" anyway? That statement is hilariously ironic, coming from you, a guy who has talked over and over again about how you don't need to know anything at all about structural engineering to know the towers couldn't have collapsed from the planes and fires. "Hyuk, 6 times overbuild factor times half core damaged by plane-crash times half strength because of fire means the building still had 1.5 overbuild factor! HYUK! Structural engineering is easy, hyuk-hyuk!" uh-huh. You need to be a high-energy physicist to know whether conventional explosives can create an EMP, but any highschool drop-out can assess the structural damage done to the Twin Towers. Riiiiight. Nice one. -k

To update the Everybody Loves Allah ratings story... Previous week: This week... So, that puts the Mosquetracker line at: #1: 2.1 million #2: 1.2 million #3: 1.085 million #4: 1.2 million #5: 1.2 million After the initial interest for the first episode died off, the ratings have actually been very steady. They have actually dropped off by much less than I expected. I believe this proves that the sort of people who watch sit-coms are easily amused. -k

How do you know that ? The NY Times article mentions that the contract specifies these emergency detention centers are not actually built except in case of emergency. The article cites the New Orleans evacuation as one instance where the contract actually came into play, as KBR built emergency accommodations for some of the evacuees. The article talks to politicians grumbling about not getting much for the taxpayer's money. But, I suppose, you could be of the view that KBR actually has been building these facilities, but doing so in secret. But why? You and your fellow Movementarians have started with a hypothesis (that there are death-camps) and gone looking for evidence to support it (a hefty contract for a Halliburton subsidiary.) Is that in the spirit of scientific inquiry? No, it is not. Scientific inquiry starts with observable evidence (say, a hefty contract for a Halliburton subsidiary) and forms a hypothesis that seems to fit the observations. What did KBR actually do with the money that they were given under the last detention center contract? Some of it was spent on facilities for Hurricane Katrina evacuees. The rest went somewhere else. But where? To me, the most likely explanation is: "into the pockets of Halliburton stakeholders." Obviously there could be other explanations as well. But what reason is there to assume "death camps" as being the most likely? None, except for the preconceived belief that the government is building death-camps. Is there any actual evidence of any of these "death camps"? Even one? (are you going to show me the video where a cameraman walks around an empty rail-yard and the narrator explains how the ventilation fans on this building are for a gas-chamber, and the chimneys on that building are for mass cremation furnaces? Because that was quite funny.) Or, let's approach it from another angle. Suppose you were a member of a secret conspiracy and you were in charge of building death camps. How would you finance it? You've got access to literally trillions of dollars, and cost of constructing these camps would be pocket change. Do you tap into your secret reserves? Or set up some sort of elaborate money laundering ruse that gets the money to KBR? Or would you instead finance your "death camps" through a government contract that's approved through Congress and reported on by mainstream media and labeled as "detention facilities"? If you were a secret conspiracy, which would you do? You guys have started with the belief that the government has plans to exterminate large numbers of citizens, and worked backwards. That's not how real inquiry works. Someone starting with your evidence and working forwards wouldn't arrive at your conclusion without that preconceived belief. Forgive me for finding this situation hard to believe. You have connections with the handful of elite Conservative Party insiders who would be aware of such a plan? And they just casually mention it when people ask? I'm sorry, but you do realize that this sounds completely ridiculous, right? Rhodes Scholarships are part of a NWO plot? When did this come out? Where can I read more about this? -k

He was describing how the explosive would work and what the shockwave would do and how it matches the evidence. I think you misunderstood. So, he's actually just saying that Cascade Aerospace jammed the cabin full of hidden explosives? And all the talk about "pulse jet engines" was just a bunch of pseudoscience thrown in to confuse the uniformed and gullible? Ok, I suppose that could be the case. Whichever the case, his article makes ridiculous claims. -airliners packed full of explosives would not "operate as Pulse Detonation Engines". -detonating these explosives would not "generate a strong electromagnetic pulse". Like, either he's a flat out liar trying to deceive people who are too ignorant to know that what he's saying is pure crap, or else he himself is too ignorant to know that what he's saying is pure crap. Either he's a liar, or an idiot. Either way, why would I put any faith in any other scientific claims he makes? And yet his article sounded reasonable to you? I'm not a person with a degree of technical sophistication. I'm a waitress. (if I was in the 9/11 Truth Movement, I would describe my occupation as "Logistics and Deployment Expert", but that's beside the point.) I'm just a highschool graduate who reads stuff. That's all. I have enough general knowledge to know that planes packed with conventional explosives wouldn't create an EMP. I have enough general knowledge to know that the lady comparing the Twin Towers to tall trees with Keebler Elf homes carved into the sides is being utterly dishonest. But I'm afraid I don't have detailed information about what damage was actually done to WTC7 (nor do you.) And I don't have the specialized knowledge to know what effect that damage would have on WTC7 (nor do you.) I don't know enough about the collapse of WTC7 to form a definite opinion of why it came down. I will agree that of all the stuff that happened on Sept 11, 2001, it is the thing that seems most unlikely on the surface. But why are you changing the subject? You guys have been talking about this "mountain of evidence", but whenever somebody presses you on it, it's always back to WTC7. You were advancing David Hawkins' theory about insulation that burns at 5000 degrees, and when we look at the guy and discover he's a kook, it's "well what about WTC7? huh?" I can't be certain of what caused WTC7 to fall, but what does that have to do with David Hawkins? WTC7 seems unexplained, so jetliners packed with explosives can operate as pulse-jets and create EMPs? Sorry, that doesn't follow. Even though I can't be certain of what happened at WTC7, that doesn't add any credibility to theories about airliners turned into Pulse-jets, or space-stations with ray-guns, or nuclear bombs that dustify steel and concrete instead of exploding, or insulation that burns at 5,000 degrees, or the Latino KKK destroying the Twin Towers by driving nuclear-armed low-riders into the parkade, or Keebler Elves taking up residence in the sides of the towers. If there's a "mountain of evidence", then each piece of evidence has to stand up. The fact that WTC7 seems unexplained does not make the rest of this supposed evidence valid. -k

You should have stopped at: On the "detention centers" according to the New York Times: ... While Jones and his ilk have been harping about these supposed death camps for months, it is worth noting that KBR has held the same contract since 2000, and hasn't actually even built anything. Americans should be asking questions about this contract, alright... they should be asking "why are we giving Halliburton hundreds of millions of dollars for this? Did we get good value on the last contract?" As for "Doctor Death"... on the one hand we have mainstream accounts that the speech was about sustainable development, overpopulation, the likelihood of a population crash, and the future. And on the otherhand, we have a conspiracy kook and a creationist with an axe to grind claiming the speech was advocating genocide. hmm. Who to believe? Well, a creationist blog apologizes for taking what Jones and Mims said at face value after reading a transcript of Pianka's speech. In short, Jones and Mims performed a smear campaign that got a conservationist a visit from the Department of Homeland Security. I'm sure they're proud of themselves. -k

what a shock. Nothing sounds unreasonable to you, provided that it's paranoid enough. He doesn't sound unreasonable to me. These things are likely possible. I don't know about the EMP but I'm not a high energy physicist. I'm not sure if you're actually familiar with the idea of a pulse-jet engine. It's a cyclical process, with the following steps: 1: a detonation of gaseous fuel/air mixture inside a tuned chamber results in rapid expansion, which slams shut the fuel valves. 2: the rapid expansion of gases creates thrust exiting the chamber and a vacuum inside the chamber 3: the vacuum inside the chamber sucks open valves which admit gaseous fuel/air mixture into the detonation chamber. 4: the vacuum inside the detonation chamber also sucks a portion of the burning exhaust gases, which ignite the fuel/air mixture and resume the cycle at step 1. The process relies on mechanical resonance (the characteristics of the combustion chamber must be correct, or the process will not continue as a cycle.) The 4-step cycle occurs at regular mechanical frequency, resulting in a tell-tale sound. (Nazi Germany's V1 flying bombs of World War 2 got the nickname "buzz bombs" from their pulse-jet engines.) In short, while pulse-jets aren't high-tech, that doesn't mean you can make a pulse jet just by ripping the tail off of a jet airliner and blowing up a bunch of crap inside the cabin. If this guy really did mean "pulse detonation engine", as his article states, then the theory becomes even more retarded. Nobody has yet built a practical PDE, which is essentially a pulse-jet engine of extraordinarily sophisticated design to achieve a higher thermal efficiency and to cycle at thousands of Hertz instead of hundreds. GE and Pratt & Whitney are busily researching ways to achieve this by modifying the basic pulsejet design with specially shaped combustion chambers, specialized valves, and more. It's advanced aeronautics, and if GE and Pratt & Whitney are still struggling to make this a viable technology, it seems odd that the small Canadian aircraft maintenance and repair company Hawkins cites would be able to convert the passenger cabins of jetliners into the combustion chambers of these sophisticated engines... without any modifications that were noticeable to the passengers. As for his conclusion that a Pulse Detonation Engine would cause an EMP... uh, right. Nuclear explosions create an EMP. Electronic devices can create an EMP. But combustion? Come on, seriously? Ok, you're an electronics engineer, so why don't you crank up Maxwell's Laws and calculate what they were burning and how hot it had to have burned to create an EMP. Admit it, Newb: this guy has no idea what the fuck he's talking about. His idea about a PDE are idiotic, his ideas about an EMP are idiotic, so why would I assume his idea about some magic substance that looks and feels like insulation but burns at 5000 degrees are anything less than idiotic? Why do you feel this guy has credibility about that claim when his other "scientific" theories demonstrate that he's a fucking moron? -k

By that yardstick, what makes you so sure that Anna Nicole Smith has done any better than Melanie? I don't know whether Melanie has kids, or how many, or any of that. But Anna Nicole Smith died having produced 2 offspring, one of whom has already died childless. Her 5 month old daughter is now her sole descendant. Anna Nicole Smith just has one surviving descendant, and that kid is already at the disadvantage of a dead mom and uncertain father-- she could wind up being as messed-up as her late mom and her late uncle. If the yardstick of success is how much of your DNA is in the gene-pool 50,000 years from now, I don't see that Anna Nicole Smith has done a very good job of ensuring her legacy. Probably below average. I like Melanie's odds better. I like my odds better too, and I haven't yet got any offspring. And the direction this has taken probably does make it more suited to "Moral and Religious issues" than US Politics... -k

Thanks for this one as well. This guy is a hoot! http://www.hawkscafe.com/051406.html He has the cabins of jetliners being converted to pulse-jet engines? He has a pulse-jet engine causing an Electromagnetic Pulse? I don't know where you picked this one up, Newb, but you might want to put him back down; he's obviously mental. -k {I'm out of time for right now, but maybe later we can look at the space stations with the ray guns. That should be great fun!}

This is an excellent example of why Alex Jones is not just an idiot and a nutjob, but also a bloody liar. Dr Pianka gives a speech about overpopulation and the inevitability of a population crash, probably as a result of ebola or similar deadly disease... but in the hands of Alex Jones it's a UN Conspiracy ™ to decimate the human race through mass extermination. The real story: http://seguingazette.com/story.lasso?ewcd=751d52c8fcce3017 Some creationists got pissed at Pianka because his beliefs about overpopulation and the inevitability of a population crash are in direct opposition to where the Bible says "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it" so they filed complaints with the Texas Academy of Science. That's where the facts end, but it's just a starting point for Alex Jones and his psychotic imagination. -k

And that is not cause for some alarm at all? Why does so much money go missing? So no money trail, or a covered up one. What was this money being used for? Where did it go? Who benefited from it? What was bought with it? Who knows it is UNACCOUNTED FOR. Money goes missing all the time yeah, but. Rumsfeld said it was a matter of life and death to find out where this money goes. He wanted to crack down on Pentagon spending. Ok. Rumsfeld goes out and talks about cracking down on waste and shoddy accounting. He talks about $2.3 trillion in transactions they can't track. And he gives this speech a day before they execute this supposed master plan to cover all of it up? Does that make sense? You've got a gigantic operation planned on Tuesday to cover up the "missing money", so you go on TV on Monday to tell everybody about the "missing money"? Come on. Really? That's ridiculous. Face it: Even if the government did plan and execute September 11 (and I'm not saying they did) you have to admit that it's ridiculous to think that the motive was revealed by Rumsfeld's speech on September 10. Actually, I doubt that claim. Other than fixed costs like rent and tuition, most people tend to budget their money into broad categories like "groceries" and "clothes" and "entertainment" and "car expenses" (...if they budget it at all.) You can probably tell me how much you spent on rent in 2006. You might even be able to tell me how much you spent on "groceries" in 2006. But I strongly doubt whether you have the receipts to prove what grocery items you bought in 2006, or whether some of your "grocery" money was actually misappropriated to buy Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter, or beer, or lottery tickets. In short, I strongly suspect that you can't account for most of the transactions you made last year either. OMG, were you robbed? Embezzled? Again, there was never any claim that this money was stolen or lost. The claim was that they can't track $2.3 trillion worth of transactions. Nobody doubts that $2.3 trillion is a lot of money. What we doubt is the "Truthie" claim that this amount of money was stolen or embezzled, or that a massive plan was conceived of to cover it up. Again, I insist on seeing some evidence to support that claim. The 1999 budget was $256 billion. At that level of spending, $2.3 trillion would represent every penny of the budget for 9 straight years. For $2.3 trillion to represent 25% of the budget for some period, the period we're talking about must go all the way back to the Korean War. In short, what you're saying simply doesn't add up. -k

What about Black Dog, and Kimmy??? Black Dog and Kimmy care not for the antics of the monkey-puppet "Bush" or his warm-blooded confederates. Black Dog and I receive our marching orders directly from His Scaly Eminence, Thaaar-Hssss, Prime Adjudicator for this sector of the galaxy. Soon shall come the day when we can unveil our true shapes. -k {hiss}

If I had posted this, I'd probably have filed it in the "15 minutes of fame" thread. I think "bimbo" is a terrible thing to say about any woman, but if there's anybody on earth that fit the description, Anna Nicole Smith was probably the one. One person I imagine is glad Smith died is Lisa Nowak, who is no doubt relieved to be knocked off the front of the tabloids. Remember, kids, don't do drugs. -k

To me, by far the most interesting ad I saw on Superbowl Sunday was the Coca Cola ad which is based on the Grand Theft Auto video game series: (the premise is that a video game character, obviously patterned after the antisocial thugs in the GTA games, drinks a Coke and has a change of heart. Rather than continue his antisocial rampage, he goes about doing good deeds-- gives his jacket to a homeless guy, extinguishes a fire, foils a purse-snatching, etc. The theme of the ad is "Give a little love and it all comes back to you.") I thought the ad was not just entertaining, but also interesting because it gives an idea of how pervasive video games have become in our culture. -k

I don't believe it, and I insist on seeing a credible source for that claim before I'll take it seriously. It says here that the DoD had a budget of $257 billion for that year. Not $9.2 trillion. ( http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/1998/b...8_bt026-98.html ) I claim again: $2.3 trillion would represent every penny of the DoD budget for Clinton's 2nd term, plus every penny of the DoD budget under Bush Jr prior to Sept 11 2001, plus a bunch more. Does it make any sense that this $2.3 trillion figure Rumsfeld mentioned means what the Truthies think it represents? Of course. Nobody likes government waste. But the question wasn't whether the Pentagon does a good job of accounting. The question was whether this is a believable motive for faking a terror attack. Is it? Do you think so? Does PolyNewbie think so? The bureaucratic waste, shoddy accounting, and outrageous spending of the Department of Defense have been well known for many years. (it's the reason Rumsfeld was making that speech, in fact.) If the supposed motive of the "9/11 plot" was to cover up waste at the Pentagon, they were definitely closing the gate after the horses were gone: ( http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/...ain325985.shtml ) (amazing that Franklin Spinney exposed this corruption 20 years ago, yet hasn't been made to "disappear.") The same article gives some insight into how the Pentagon *really* covers up its finances: They cook books. They reassign accountants. They "write off" missing money. They don't fake terror attacks. They don't need to, and never did. -k

Thats a stupid excuse. Thats like saying "I can't find my TV in my house. I lost it somewhere" or "I can't find my car in my driveway". A trillion dollars is probably enough to stack $100.00 bills from here to Jupiter. No one can lose that kind of money through transactions and old poorly connected computers. You would have to be a retard to believe that. No, it's like saying I used to have $1000, and now instead of $1000 I have a bunch of clothes and shoes and computer gear. I don't have the receipts anywhere, and I didn't record how I spent the money. In short, I have $1000 of transactions that I can't account for. OMG, was I robbed? Was the money embezzled from me? Or lost? Or did I just buy $1000 of stuff and fail to do proper book-keeping? The fact that I have all this stuff lying around seems to suggest that I spent the money and just didn't record how I spent it. Just as the fact that the Department of Defense has trillions of dollars worth of stuff lying around seems to suggest that they spent the money rather than losing it. $2.3 trillion would have been every penny of the Defense budget from the time Bush took office right up to September 10, 2001 PLUS every penny of the Defense budget of Clinton's whole second term. Could every penny of the Defense budget for 5 straight years have been stolen? All the stuff they bought during that span of time proves it wasn't. You still haven't addressed the other two points I raised about the $2.3 trillion as a motive: (1) if you've got a massive operation planned to cover something up, why would you talk about this thing you want to cover up in a speech the day before your big cover-up is set into motion? How does that make any sense? (2) you keep talking about how bankers can create money at will, and you keep talking about how 9/11 was planned by the banking oligarchy. Well, if it was all planned by bankers, why would the bankers even bother stealing money when they can create it at will? How does that make any sense? Whatever else you believe, at least admit that the supposed "$2.3 trillion" is a ridiculous motive. -k

The missing $2.3 trillion? That thing? Here's the actual speech where Rumsfeld mentions the $2.3 trillion: http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2001/s...910-secdef.html He never said there's $2.3 trillion "missing" or unaccounted for. He says that they can't track those transactions because of outdated record keeping technology. The whole thing is a rather boring speech about modernizing the Department of Defense's book-keeping and bureaucracy. Bombs didn't target the section of the Pentagon where they were investigating the stolen $2.3 trillion, because there was no investigation into the stolen $2.3 trillion, because there was no stolen $2.3 trillion. Even if you believe the US government planned and executed 9/11, it's ridiculous to think Rumsfeld's speech on Sept 10, 2001 reveals the reason why. Seriously: why would he tell the world about all this "missing" money, if they were planning a massive cover-up operation for the very next day? If the whole thing was to cover up this supposed $2.3 trillion, why would Rumsfeld give that speech the day before? Why wouldn't he phone in sick and postpone that speech until Sept 12? And if they were supposedly trying to cover up all this missing money, why didn't they even bother to take Rumsfeld's speech off of the Department of Defense website? You have to admit, even if you believe the US gov't was behind 9/11, the supposed $2.3 trillion just doesn't add up as a motive. And, for you in particular, the "missing" $2.3 trillion would be a weak motivation. After all, you believe that the whole thing was planned and executed by bankers, and you believe that bankers can create money at will. Given your beliefs, what reason would bankers have to steal money, or do anything like this to cover up the paper trail? -k

Oh, come on. If, and I'm just saying if, it was all a set up, and they'd planned to destroy the White House as well, then they'd have destroyed it. I mean, if they used bombs to destroy the WTC buildings, and a missile to attack the Pentagon, why would they use a real plane to take out the White House? If, and I'm just saying if, everything else on 9/11 was *made* to happen by a government conspiracy, they'd have made that happen too. You yourself posted a Keith Olbermann video where he had footage of the total chaos at the Air Force command. The Air Force didn't shoot down crap on that day. They had no idea what they were doing until far too late. -k

Go Iran. Go Venezuela. Yee-haw. Somebody who'd get excited about these clowns banding together against Anglo-American dominance probably would have got excited about Germany and Japan banding together against Anglo-American dominance in 1940. -k

That's actually a really dumb article. Grossman didn't blow the game with 1 bad pass. He blew the game by earning no confidence from his own team. (the 2 fumbles and 2 interceptions didn't help much, mind you.) Lovie Smith went in to the game with the strategy of treating Grossman like a toddler riding a bike with training wheels. Keep the training wheels on and he won't fall down. Rely on the running backs to move the ball. Rely on the defense to keep Manning off the field. Except that the Chicago running backs couldn't move the ball. Everybody knew that the Bears weren't going to be throwing anything risky so it allowed the Colts defense to key on the running backs. Why would the Colts believe Grossman was a threat when throwing, when Grossman's own coach didn't even believe that? Aside from the one long run by Jones, the Bears running attack was pop-gun and led to the continual 3 and outs. Which led to the defense getting completely gassed. Which led to the Colts being able to run the ball. Which is what buried the Bears. The adage is that defense wins championships, but I think the adage should have an asterisk that says your defense can't win you a championship if your offense isn't good enough to give your defense any time to rest. What was the first half time of possession, something like 22 minutes to 8 minutes? That's what killed the Bears. The Bears defense got gassed even worse and far sooner than the Patriots defense got gassed, and the Patriots defense got gassed bad in the second half of the AFC championship game. The Bears defense was gassed badly in both halfs. Manning didn't even half to throw the ball in the 2nd half, because the Bears defense was completely exhausted. The Chicago offense's inability to earn any 1st downs is what cost them the game, and the root of that problem was that everybody knew that Coach Smith wasn't going to let Grossman throw the ball. I can almost picture the conversation at the start of the 4th quarter... Coach Smith: "The running attack isn't working, and we need to move the ball. We need to put the ball in the air. It's up to you, Rex!" Grossman: "Awwwwwright. It's tiiiime for the Air Show." (throws 2 interceptions resulting in the Colts' game-clinching touchdown.) Grossman: "Awwwwwright. The Air Show is over." I'm sure that Grossman will probably be a good quarterback some day, but he was utterly not ready for the big-time. People might have thought that the Bears could win in spite of Grossman because the rest of their team is strong, but having such an inept boob at quarterback is such a huge barrier. It would have really destroyed my faith in the entire sport if the Bears could have won with that hapless peon at quarterback. -k {yay for Peyton!}

The Mennonites did it, right Catchme?