.
I beg you all please not to promote this, although of course I agree with what I said, for the simple and selfish reason that I was, in terms of radio eloquence, horrible. Far too vague, failing to make my best points clearly, repetitive. Carol brought me in as a last minute replacement and I've gotten rusty. I think Sarah Palin on a bender would have done about as well. Half of that talk had to be conducted while I was on the subway* because, um, of a Earthshakingly Important Event preceding it that caused me to be late getting back home (watching the Mets take four hours, rather than the customary three to lose pathetically, albeit within easy booing distance). And just as I was home and got more coherent near the end, the line got cut off.
Vic, I don't attack your approach or Jim's to demolition theory; especially Kevin Ryan has my respect. I greatly disagree with placing the primary focus on it, which is what people have done in practice since around 2005. Furthermore, most of those who make demolition claims are clueless in the evidence they forefront, and usually mix it all up with the Pentagon hoax, voice-morphing, etc. (Coupling, as you have called it yourself.) They have taken Griffin as their authority on everything, and he's lost much of the discrimination he once practiced. I'm talking about the "mainstream" "truthers" here, not the out-and-out conscious hoax artists we like to bash. For the sake of clarity, I wish I had said it in just so many words.
The prof who followed had a much better performance. After briefly saying he disagreed with me, he was soon hitting excellent general points about racism and imperialism, while touching on, you guessed it, the Pentagon hole as smoking gun... thus illustrating my argument, had I actually made it in a competent fashion.
See you guys.
( * - but wait, cell phone calls from the subway? Impossible! Dewdney proved this by taking the E train and never once connecting on the ride.) (This is too much of a New Yorker's in-joke, sorry.)