no navigation lights seen on any of films

[masonfree party]

this is proof that the planes were faked..if you look at any airborne airliner you will see flashing navigation lights...this would have been impossible to do on faked digital images of planes that we saw on TV during 911.
You'll probably get some prat saying on here that the ficticious ragheads switched them off..or some other pathetic excuse

[thematrix]

this is proof that the planes were faked..if you look at any airborne airliner you will see flashing navigation lights...this would have been impossible to do on faked digital images of planes that we saw on TV during 911.
You'll probably get some prat saying on here that the ficticious ragheads switched them off..or some other pathetic excuse


the ficticious rag... oh sorry...

The hijackers turned off the transponders on all the flights - it's very odd that not one of the flight crews managed to punch in the hijack code but anyway..

When you turn off the transponders - the "navigation lights" as you call them go out. So yeah the hijackers turned them off.

Lets see... "impossible to do flashing lights on faked digital images"

pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffft.

If the perps did fake the tv footage and found a way to render a convincing fake plane *real-time* on unstabilised footage (which is impossible to to today - never mind 7 years ago with known about technology, to the level of sophistication to completely fool digital effects experts for all this time) then they could have got around the flashing lights bit.

*If* the perps faked the plane footage they also managed to create in *real time* fake wake vortices from the impacting aircraft which are clearly visible. which have completely fooled all of the physicists since then.

To do that they blew an airplane shaped hole in the building somehow - using explosives that create none or very little smoke - then painted in fake smoke complete with fake vortices in order to fool everyone.????? So they did all that but lacked the ability to paint in convincing flashing lights???

puh-leeeeeeeeease.

In order to account for what we see the no plane theory has to get insanely complicated, and uses all knds of technology years in advance of what we know about now - never mind what was known about in 2001.

That doesn't seem to stop the usual suspects here from loudly advocating NPT - and loudly deriding or insulting (even in advance) people who don't subscibe to their views on 911.

[oiram]

No I think they will say the landing lights are only swished on just before landing approach & they are not on for crash landings!:D

But don't you know why they created the Economical crises?
Because they like you to not concentrate on the 9/11 problem anymore! Why? because the Economical crises has a higher importance rating then only 3000 dead Americans and all the ones which got murdered in the consequently created bogus wars! :eek:

[graflok]

When you turn off the transponders - the "navigation lights" as you call them go out.

Please provide evidence to support this claim

[ukor]

this is proof that the planes were faked..if you look at any airborne airliner you will see flashing navigation lights...this would have been impossible to do on faked digital images of planes that we saw on TV during 911.

Please provide evidence for this claim.
We'll wait while you toddle off back to your mentor.

[keystone]

this is proof that the planes were faked..if you look at any airborne airliner you will see flashing navigation lights...

Nav lights don't flash. Anti-collision beacons (the red ones top and bottom of fuselage) and the bright white "look I'm here" strobes do. The strobes are NOT always on. Anticollision beacon lights are on from the time the engines are started until they are turned off. They would only be off in flight if they were disconnected.

[acebaker]

the ficticious rag... oh sorry...

The hijackers turned off the transponders on all the flights - it's very odd that not one of the flight crews managed to punch in the hijack code but anyway..

When you turn off the transponders - the "navigation lights" as you call them go out. So yeah the hijackers turned them off.

Lets see... "impossible to do flashing lights on faked digital images"

pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffft.

If the perps did fake the tv footage and found a way to render a convincing fake plane *real-time* on unstabilised footage (which is impossible to to today - never mind 7 years ago with known about technology, to the level of sophistication to completely fool digital effects experts for all this time) then they could have got around the flashing lights bit.

*If* the perps faked the plane footage they also managed to create in *real time* fake wake vortices from the impacting aircraft which are clearly visible. which have completely fooled all of the physicists since then.

To do that they blew an airplane shaped hole in the building somehow - using explosives that create none or very little smoke - then painted in fake smoke complete with fake vortices in order to fool everyone.????? So they did all that but lacked the ability to paint in convincing flashing lights???

puh-leeeeeeeeease.

In order to account for what we see the no plane theory has to get insanely complicated, and uses all knds of technology years in advance of what we know about now - never mind what was known about in 2001.

That doesn't seem to stop the usual suspects here from loudly advocating NPT - and loudly deriding or insulting (even in advance) people who don't subscibe to their views on 911.

The 2 live airplane videos were mechanically stabilized. There is a simple test for your claim that the live shots were not stable enough to composite on. If that's true, then the airplane motion on the raw shot would not be trackable with a constant velocity.

I've done the test, and you can track the airplane motion perfectly with just 2 keyframes. When you stabilize the video, the motion of the airplane becomes slightly LESS stable.

Vortices? I've studied every video I can find, and I don't see anything resembling the vortex we would expect behind a 767.

Please let us know where you see a wake vortex.

[axel]

For the interest of clarifying the general term "navigation lights", and hopefully help quell any arguments that may arise from misunderstanding:



The external lights on aircraft fall into two general categories. The first is navigation lights or beacons that are always illuminated while the aircraft is in operation. A second type includes takeoff and landing lights that are used to improve visibility when the plane is close to or on the ground. Several of these lights are discussed in greater detail below.

Navigation lights: All aircraft are equipped with a steady light near the leading edge of each wingtip. When facing forward from the perspective of the pilot, the light on the right wingtip is green while that on the left wing is red. The different colors make it possible for an outside observer, such as the pilot of another aircraft, to determine which direction the plane is flying. These navigation lights are most useful at night when it is more difficult to tell the direction the plane is going without them.

Navigation or Position lights: In addition to the red and green lights, most planes are also fitted with other steady white navigation lights in various locations. Large airliners, in particular, will often have such lighting on the trailing edge of each wingtip. These lights are also sometimes placed along the trailing edges of the horizontal tail. Another popular location is at the very aft end of the fuselage or at the top of the vertical tail. One of these latter lights placed along the aircraft centerline is especially common on smaller airliners and commuter planes. Whatever the location, the purpose of these steady white lights is to improve the plane's visibility from behind the aircraft.

Anti-Collision Beacon lights: Two beacon lights are fitted to aircraft near the center of the fuselage. One is located on top of the fuselage and the other on the bottom. These lights are colored reddish orange and rotate to produce a flashing effect. The beacons are turned on just before the engines are started and they remain active until the last engine is shut down. The beacons help to serve as a safety warning to ground personnel that the engines are operational.

Strobe lights: High-intensity strobe lights that flash a white-colored light are located on each wingtip. Most smaller planes are only equipped with one of these strobes near the leading edge just behind the red or green navigation light. Larger airliners may be equipped with an additional strobe at the trailing edge as well. These flashing lights are very bright and intended to attract attention during flight. They are sometimes also used on the runway and during taxi to make the plane more conspicuous.

Logo lights: These lights are not required but are common on most commercial aircraft. The lights are usually located on the surface of or at the tips of the horizontal stabilizer. The steady white lights are used to illuminate the company's logo painted on the vertical tail. While useful for advertising, the primary purpose of these lights is safety since the bright lights help to make the plane more visible.

Wing lights: Many airliners feature lights along the root of the wing leading edge that can be used to illuminate the wing and engine pylons in flight. These lights may be used to make the plane more visible during takeoff and landing or to inspect the wings for damage in flight. Pilots can also use the wing lights to inspect the wings and slats for any ice accretion that might build up when flying through clouds.

Taxi lights: A bright white lamp is located on the nose landing gear strut of most planes. This light is typically turned on whenever the aircraft is in motion on the ground for greater visibility during taxi, takeoff, and landing.

Landing lights: Bright white landing lights are usually fitted to most planes for enhanced visibility during the landing approach. These lights can also be used to illuminate the runway at poorly lit airports. They are often required for night landings but also commonly used during the day as well to make the plane more noticeable. While the usage of these lights is common, their location can vary from plane to plane. Landing lights may be located in the wing root, in the outboard wing, or somewhere along the forward fuselage. Some aircraft are equipped with multiple sets of landing lights in more than one of these locations. The 737, for example, has inboard landing lights located in the wing root as well as outboard landing lights in the outboard flap fairings.

Runway Turnoff lights: Usually located in the leading edge of the wing root, these bright white lamps are intended to provide side and forward lighting during taxi and when turning off the runway. These lights are most useful at poorly lit airports but are usually unnecessary. The lights can also be used in flight if greater visibility is required.

Wheel Well lights: Some planes are equipped with additional lights in the nose and main gear wheel wells. These lights are provided primarily to assist ground personnel in making pre-flight inspections of a plane at night.

Original source: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/electronics/q0263.shtml

[graflok]

Anti-Collision Beacon lights: Two beacon lights are fitted to aircraft near the center of the fuselage. One is located on top of the fuselage and the other on the bottom. These lights are colored reddish orange and rotate to produce a flashing effect. The beacons are turned on just before the engines are started and they remain active until the last engine is shut down. The beacons help to serve as a safety warning to ground personnel that the engines are operational.

I don't see these anti-collision beacons in any of the 9/11 videos. Can someone post a video with the
anti-collision beacons visible?

[mynameis]

I don't see these anti-collision beacons in any of the 9/11 videos. Can someone post a video with the
anti-collision beacons visible?

It appears that the anti-collision beacon lights can be switched on and off. These are not persistent.

[graflok]

It appears that the anti-collision beacon lights can be switched on and off. These are not persistent.

Based on what?

[mynameis]

Based on what?

Navigation lights in civil aviation are required to be operational and to be turned on from sunset to sunrise. High-intensity white strobe lights are part of the anti-collision light system, as well as the aviation red or white rotating beacon. The anti collision light system (either strobe lights or rotating beacon) is required to be operational and to be turned on for all airplanes built after March 11, 1996 on all aircraft operations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navigation_light


Just to elaborate a bit more...

The (anti-collision) beacon is the (usually) red thing on the top and bottom. This is usually turned on immediately prior to engine start/push back and turned off after engine shut down.

The strobes are very brilliant dazzling white flashers usually located on the wingtips (on large commercial aircraft). Boeing ones tend to do a single flash while Airbus ones generally do a double flash. These are usually turned on when entering an active runway and remain on until vacating the runway after landing. They must not be used on the ground as the energy levels involved are very high and represent a risk around things such as fuel bowsers. They can also bring about epileptic fits in certain individuals and have been known to cause such distraction to other taxying aircraft that their use on the ground tends to increase ground collisions!

Nav lights are the red, green and white steady lights. They are only legally required for flying at night however most airlines SOP's suggest using them at all times, The red light is located on the left wing tip and is visible from the front and left, the green light is on the right wing tip and can be seen from the front and right. The white light(s) are usually located on the tail (although the 757 had them on the back of the wingtips) and are visible from the rear.

Hope this is of interest.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=44132

[graflok]

The (anti-collision) beacon is the (usually) red thing on the top and bottom. This is usually turned on immediately prior to engine start/push back and turned off after engine shut down.

So, where is the video of the 9/11 plane with anti-collision beacon visible?

[mynameis]

So, where is the video of the 9/11 plane with anti-collision beacon visible?

There wouldn't be one active on the 757-200ER if the T's killed the transponder and all light switches to be safe.

[graflok]

I take that as an "I can't find one."

[mynameis]

I take that as an "I can't find one."

I take it as it doesn't exist, one because I haven't seen one. I haven't tried to search for one either, the evidence suggests that there shouldn't be one to find to my knowledge. Do you know of one?

[graflok]

I already said I couldn't find one and I asked if anyone else could.
That's all I asked for.

[mynameis]

I already said I couldn't find one and I asked if anyone else could.
That's all I asked for.

I understood that but I am explaining why there isn't one to my knowledge. If there was one it would be a marvelous thing that would cast doubt in the transponders being turned back on...P-Tech drills maybe stopped or confused the ATC'ers.

[graflok]

OK, Fine -- there isn't one to your knowledge. Got it. Thanks for stopping by.

Anyone else know of a video showing a plane hitting the WTC in
which any lights on board the plane are visible?

[mynameis]

OK, Fine -- there isn't one to your knowledge. Got it. Thanks for stopping by.

Anyone else know of a video showing a plane hitting the WTC in
which any lights on board the plane are visible?

No problem. I trust some of the information is helpful? If I ever do come across one that I see that's September 11th related, I will post it for consideration and send you a PM. Good luck with the search. Happy hunting....;)

[graflok]

^ Don't bother.

[mynameis]

^ Don't bother.

It's no bother friend...If I find it I'll posted. No worries. :D

[talulah]

not being funny but i think its common knowledge who was beind 9/11 eh?Wether there were lights or not.

[stealth_0073]

nbc live 4 plane blinks when adding emboss filter !!! the Compositing of the plane was to cover up the orb AKA beam weapon.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=06MGIZYA

[graflok]

This is what anti-collision beacons look like. One above and one below the
fuselage. Red/orange in color and they rotate.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/2/19/1770022/2684085483_0fc7c6ab0f.jpg

[ukor]

I'm still waiting for MFP to back up his assertion about the lights in the first place.

I've got a link to a B767 captain's checklist and exterior lights are item 8 on the pre-start checklist, beacon lights are item 4 on the after start checklist, and strobe lights are item 3 on the pre-take off checklist.

So it looks like yet more desperate NPT lies to me.
But let's give the benefit of the doubt and see what the NPTers evidence is first.

[ukor]

nbc live 4 plane blinks when adding emboss filter !!!

This nicely highlights your (lack of) understanding of what your filters are actually doing.

What any connection to the real world might be, only you can say.

I know I for one can't wait to hear what the relevance is.

[stealth_0073]

This nicely highlights your (lack of) understanding of what your filters are actually doing.

What any connection to the real world might be, only you can say.

I know I for one can't wait to hear what the relevance is.

hmm i no what the filter is doing noob or i wouldn't be using it
did you watch the video or did you just post a snide remark

how come no other plane videos blink? adding the same filter!!!!

[mynameis]

hmm i no what the filter is doing noob or i wouldn't be using it
did you watch the video or did you just post a snide remark

how come no other plane videos blink? adding the same filter!!!!

It is my personal opinion this is not a beacon light. The white you point out should be black, and shouldn't be cast as wide. The observable effect is that it is off its rhythm; which isn't the case of normal beacon lights. The effect looks to be the wing flaps flickering the light as the plane descends. I almost hoped graflok's question was answered to certainty.

Watch about 20 seconds to see where the crash lights are located. The picture graflok has posted is correct in the position. The video is either shadow and sun on the flaps or some kind of anomaly the video couldn't distinguish while recording.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtVUo92g2Vw

[ukor]

hmm i no what the filter is doing noob or i wouldn't be using it

So you say. But that doesn't convince me.

did you watch the video or did you just post a snide remark

Yes I watched your video. For the last time I might add. Life's too short.

how come no other plane videos blink? adding the same filter!!!!

Well if arsing around enhancing pixel edge contrasts for reasons known only to yourself, you'll find the backgrounds in other videos have something to do with it. You might notice your blinking blob "flies" over light and dark pixels.

[banoyes]

Don’t forget, it was a crystal clear sunny day, so why can’t we see those markings or any other color than gray?

Notice how the buildings have color visible

http://danieltowsey.livejournal.com/tag/gray+plane
Cool plane"crash" pics too

[lightworks]

interesting read later

[mynameis]

Don’t forget, it was a crystal clear sunny day, so why can’t we see those markings or any other color than gray?

Notice how the buildings have color visible

http://danieltowsey.livejournal.com/tag/gray+plane
Cool plane"crash" pics too

The appreciable distance from the lens of cameras is why you can't see any markings.

[banoyes]

The appreciable distance from the lens of cameras is why you can't see any markings.
You KNOW this because ... and ..at what distance do colors disappear????

[mynameis]

You KNOW this because ... and ..at what distance do colors disappear????

Colors can blend and can be obscured by the atmospheric conditions. The plane is grey along with the building. On recordings it is observed that the distance along with the color can't be easily distinguished because of the technical limitation of the camera equipment and distance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_length

[banoyes]

Colors can blend and can be obscured by the atmospheric conditions. The plane is grey along with the building. On recordings it is observed that the distance along with the color can't be easily distinguished because of the technical limitation of the camera equipment and distance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_length


it was a crystal clear sunny day , what other colors disappeared...
hhhmmm none
You,ll just say anything won't you
don't bother
I am not responding again to ANYTHING you post
(should rename you thread killer)

[mynameis]

it was a crystal clear sunny day , what other colors disappeared...
hhhmmm none
You,ll just say anything won't you
don't bother
I am not responding again to ANYTHING you post
(should rename you thread killer)

Get a grip. Oh wait. I forgot you're a scarecrow strawman without a ....

[thematrix]

it was a crystal clear sunny day


Yeah - and you are looking through air above Manhattan.

Generally speaking air above a city isn't "crystal clear" - it has stuff in it. Dust particles, water droplets, smog/smoke particles to name just three - and there can be oodles of those kinds of things in the air and it will still look "crystal clear" even when you are looking at it through your eyes.

Looking thorugh a camera lens adds all kinds of limitations to what can be seen because of things like focal length, perpective, resolution, frame rate, how much light is being let in through the lens, the contrast/brightness/colour settings set on the camera in question and a whole ton of other stuff.

[banoyes]

Yeah - and you are looking through air above Manhattan.

Generally speaking air above a city isn't "crystal clear" - it has stuff in it. Dust particles, water droplets, smog/smoke particles to name just three - and there can be oodles of those kinds of things in the air and it will still look "crystal clear" even when you are looking at it through your eyes.

Looking thorugh a camera lens adds all kinds of limitations to what can be seen because of things like focal length, perpective, resolution, frame rate, how much light is being let in through the lens, the contrast/brightness/colour settings set on the camera in question and a whole ton of other stuff.

"oodles"," whole ton of other stuff" -tells
What other color disappeared?

[mynameis]

"oodles"," whole ton of other stuff" -tells
What other color disappeared?

Have you been reading anything everyone stated? There are no disappearing colors. Why must NPT distort physical reality to make their theories work?

[thematrix]

"oodles"," whole ton of other stuff" -tells

tells?

What do your imagined tells tell you - pray tell?

What other color disappeared?

?? - what do you mean - ??

Are you referring to the fact that the plane looks grey and drab in the videos available - when we know that UA aircraft are er mostly grey - with occasional bits of airline livery on them?

Do you understand what happens when you compress images?

[banoyes]

tells?

What do your imagined tells tell you - pray tell?



?? - what do you mean - ??

Are you referring to the fact that the plane looks grey and drab in the videos available - when we know that UA aircraft are er mostly grey - with occasional bits of airline livery on them?

Do you understand what happens when you compress images?

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/4/7/1/0188174.jpg
Click will enlarge image,but even at this size you can clearly see markings and colors

http://www.airlinepictures.net/photopost/data/509/007673003.jpg

All United airplanes have distinguishing markings
http://www.airplanephotozone.com/search.php?Airline=United+Airlines

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTrGtC_NtM0&feature=related
Who knows WHY an aluminum planes reflects nothing
chech the sun light on the buildings
watch the plane morph around

[ukor]

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/4/7/1/0188174.jpg
Click will enlarge image,but even at this size you can clearly see markings and colors

http://www.airlinepictures.net/photopost/data/509/007673003.jpg

All United airplanes have distinguishing markings
http://www.airplanephotozone.com/search.php?Airline=United+Airlines

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTrGtC_NtM0&feature=related
Who knows WHY an aluminum planes reflects nothing
chech the sun light on the buildings
watch the plane morph around

Banoyes, before answering your question, maybe you'd like to remind us what direction that thick, black, shadow producing smoke was blowing in, and what direction the plane flew in from?

[banoyes]

Banoyes, before answering your question, maybe you'd like to remind us what direction that thick, black, shadow producing smoke was blowing in, and what direction the plane flew in from?

Are you implying the 540MPH airplane is covered in soot??
O dear
I have no response to this revelation ..wow

[ukor]

Are you implying the 540MPH airplane is covered in soot??
?
O dear
I have no response to this revelation ..wow

I was just thinking the same thing myself about your inference.

[banoyes]

?


I was just thinking the same thing myself about your inference.



Banoyes, before answering your question, maybe you'd like to remind us what direction that thick, black, shadow producing smoke was blowing in, and what direction the plane flew in from?

Whats your point ?

[ukor]

Whats your point ?

I think you just illustrated it beautifully.

[banoyes]

I think you just illustrated it beautifully.

[/QUOTE]
Here's another illustration for ya
ukor

Isn't having Bush apparatchik and scientific thicko Morgan Reynolds leading your crusade a bit like having Josef Fritzl leading a crusade against incest and child abuse?. curious reference

Your purpose is clear .. from the tenor of your origional rhetorical question
I had a good idea .. no purpose but creating confusion, not one post that is not obtuse or demeaning ,, an instructed suporter of the OCT
what you cannot argue you obscure ,,, thanks for the insight

[mynameis]

Here's another illustration for ya
curious reference

Your purpose is clear .. from the tenor of your origional rhetorical question
I had a good idea .. no purpose but creating confusion, not one post that is not obtuse or demeaning ,, an instructed suporter of the OCT
what you cannot argue you obscure ,,, thanks for the insight

We've explained how the plane is out of focus. Markings and exact lines are not in focus, when the depth and focus is lacking in the camera devices used.

[banoyes]

We've explained how the plane is out of focus. Markings and exact lines are not in focus, when the depth and focus is lacking in the camera devices used.
Who's we?
They can't help themselves
If you pay attention you will notice a pattern
Classic tactics ,,, tells all over ... no doubt in my mind

[ukor]

Your purpose is clear .. from the tenor of your origional rhetorical question
I had a good idea .. no purpose but creating confusion, not one post that is not obtuse or demeaning ,, an instructed suporter of the OCT
what you cannot argue you obscure ,,, thanks for the insight

Banoyes, instead of devising yet more of your paranoid conspiracies, try working out that the airplane passes from light into the shadow of the smoke, which on a clear bright day produces the silhouette-like effect.

The reference 'shadow producing smoke' was in my first reply to you, but apparently you missed that or maybe thought I put the smoke reference in to make the sentence prettier, or whatever.

[banoyes]

Banoyes, instead of devising yet more of your paranoid conspiracies, try working out that the airplane passes from light into the shadow of the smoke, which on a clear bright day produces the silhouette-like effect.

The reference 'shadow producing smoke' was in my first reply to you, but apparently you missed that or maybe thought I put the smoke reference in to make the sentence prettier, or whatever.

Well . there it is reader, watch the video, the above, an "explaination" from a "plane" person ,, do you think the truth matters or is the "shadow of the smoke" good enough for you?

[thematrix]

Click will enlarge image,but even at this size you can clearly see markings and colors


All United airplanes have distinguishing markings


ooooh pretty pictures.

OK try finding a photo of a UA 757 from approximately the same distance and flying at approximately the same speed as in the video shots you are looking at. Then make sure that the camera and post production image processing is a close as can be to the video of UA175 - THEN you have something to compare.

Comparing brochure shots as a plane is coming in to land, that are taken by a still camera, and most likely have been subsequently retouched to look better is worthless.

Oh and while we're at it - *ALL* planes have distinguishing markings.


Who knows WHY an aluminum planes reflects nothing
chech the sun light on the buildings
watch the plane morph around

You really are astoundingly,completely, and totally ignorant of basic physics aren't you.

IF an "aluminium plane reflected nothing" then you would not be able to see it AT ALL.

I also note you didn't answer either of my questions.

Here is the important one again.

"Do you understand what happens when you compress images?"

[banoyes]

Is a Pattern begining to emerge. Do you see it?
They can't help themselves..it's training
If that..then do this
I,ve seen it many times and if you look you will see the same pattern on many threads on this site.
By the same people,generaly
Funny , in a perverse way.

[ukor]

Alternatively, there ya go readers.
Yet another no-planer who has no analysis, shows no comprehension of events and runs out of answers beyond some lame cheap swipes faster than Sarah Palin.

[thematrix]

Is a Pattern begining to emerge. Do you see it?
They can't help themselves..it's training
If that..then do this
I,ve seen it many times and if you look you will see the same pattern on many threads on this site.
By the same people,generaly
Funny , in a perverse way.

You just once again exactly described your own reply.

Are you ever going to answer my simple question Banoyes?

here it is again. (this time in bold text)

Do you understand what happens when you compress images?

If you would prefer not to answer then could you at least be polite enough to say so.