Allow me to offer you encouragement to make more frequent postings to your blog. They are very representative and hold up well, but not quite in the direction that you would surmise.
In one of your previous postings, you lamented:
How (do you) deal with the incorrectly held view that refuses to be educated, and worse still, continues to peddle its nonsense to others?
The onus is on you to prove that the adverb incorrectly and the noun nonsense apply. As for the phrase refuses to be educated, does this branding apply to you?
Mr. Limey wrote:
I, like many sensible and critically thinking people, can not comprehend why there is still a vocal movement who denies the truth of what happened on that awful September 11th, when the WTC towers were struck by passenger planes, in a terrorist attack.
We have points of agreement.
Yes, it was a terrorist attack. But as our own government regularly proves, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, so that definition is rather arbitrary. And your definition seems to focus on foreigners, when domestic terrorists would have had a better chance of succeeding. Patriotic Americans swear to defend the Constitution against enemies, both foreign and domestic, yet the domestic ones -- whose legislative actions at home and empirical actions abroad really have imperiled the Constitution -- have gotten a free pass.
Yes, something struck each tower. Yes, you and I and the whole world saw on the telly the pixels resembling commercial planes. But when you actually scratch below the surface of the 9/11 Hollywood production, the doubt of commercial planes starts with the last plane [Pennsylvania, with no luggage, seats, bodies, or plane parts, just a hole in the ground], increases with the 2nd to last plane [Pentagon, also with no luggage, seats, bodies, and a hole smaller than expected], and reaches a crescendo with the towers [exhibiting no crash physics, having inconsistent flight paths, flying at sea level unrealistic speeds]. And before the tight control of the media -- a typical military objective for the PYSOPS team -- cranked into high gear with the endless looping of the fake plane crashes to challenge and change everyone's perceptions, eye witnesses were saying it was a small plane or even a cruise missile. (You would be well served to study www.SeptemberClues.info)
Thus, when you banty about those who deny the truth, it is paramount that you not only state the truth but also prove it and have it align with the laws of physics. An obvious example is 2.25 seconds of free-fall (that even NIST acknowledges) that WTC-7 experienced over the course of 100+ feet (8 stories). Despite the asymmetric damage from falling debris and despite the asymmetric fires on at least 3 floors, WTC-7 fell pretty damn symmetrical, neatly, and completely.
A not-so-obvious example is the energy requirement of the observed destruction that pulverized structure and content, that ejected content horizontally at high speeds (to lodge even the steel "chex" sections into neighboring buildings), that vaporized the "commercial planes" and humans within the towers, that had buried fires burning foundry-hot for months, that burned or melted anomalous patterns into vehicles but not combustible debris like paper, ... these energy requirements can be Occam Razor explained with milli-nukes.
The thing about sensible and critically thinking people is that in their education -- whether or not willing -- into considering these facts does not leave out connecting the dot with the tenants (and owners) of WTC-7. Aren't Means, Motive, and Opportunity three main factors in determining likelihood that some suspect did a crime?
Mr. Limey wrote:
In the last few weeks I have found myself discussing these events on a couple of blog posts. The detail went further than I anticipated, but then I should have realised that, given the level of denial by those who insist on calling themselves ‘truthers’. Truth, is the last thing they are peddling.
Let us also peddle the truth about those discussions. Subsequent to you not anticipating how far the details would go, you were unprepared and possibly even uneducated. Thus, when we suppose about which side of the discussion is in denial, let us consider your response when "the detail went further than you anticipated": silence. You stopped engaging me. You've ignored all my questions, even the easy ones like: "Of all the pictures of EMP damaged vehicles that Dr. Judy Woods collects on her website, which one(s) were you favorite?" You've played little sophomoric repetitive games and asking for busy-research about distracting topics that you are too lazy to do.
Mr. Limey wrote:
During some research on the topic of the collapse of the buildings I found the following PDF document which I had not seem before. It’s a few years old, dating from 2006. As a result it does not address a new form of demolition that I had not encountered before, that of milli nukes.
If it does not address milli-nukes, then it is practically irrelevant. Why are you peddling it?
Mr. Limey wrote:
I found the document easy to read, and it does a good job of explaining why the collapse of the buildings, as seen by millions on TV, is a natural collapse. This is done simply and without recourse to technical jargon.
I applaud you for your Kindergarten book review. Allow me to remind the sensible and critically thinking people that the phrase "as seen by millions on TV" becomes a critical piece of the PYSOPS for the pixel forgery it depicts. Moreover, while the PDF jumps through hoops to lamely explain a gravitational collapse, it "simply and without recourse to technical jargon" omits explanations for under-rubble fires burning foundry-hot for months and damage to vehicles.
Mr. Limey wrote:
I am sure it’ll never convince a hard lined truth denier, but it ought to help put straight anyone who is prepared to consider the real truth and not constantly look for ulterior motives and underhand tactics.
When you sell it with such convincing language, Mr. Limey, what ironically comes to mind for me is that I look forward to many more of your witty postings here on "A limey's ramblings" blog. Please. Do continue, good sir. If it survives, database archeologists and scholars in the future will be eager to hold it up as a representative example relating to (but not being) the Zeitgeist of our time and its manipulation.
I am particularly fond of your mesmerizing assertion straight to "anyone who is prepared to ... not constantly look for ulterior motives and underhand tactics": nothing to see beyond this; ignore the man behind the curtains; move along now; nothing (more) to see here, folks.
Thank you for the straight humor!
Señor El Once