Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Ignorance and Bashing

Hide All / Expand All

Señor El Once : Think about the victims and simVictims


Dear Mr. McKee,

If you felt like poking at their emotional wound, the response to "think about the 3000 victims" becomes:

Yeah, let's! Did 3,000 victims really die? I mean, they can't prove that commercial airplanes even took off. And it has been sure disproven that some special aircraft other than a commercial airliner hit the towers, so the "victims" attributed to them reduces the 3,000 number. The Pentagon aircraft also wasn't a commercial one, and even if it were, that aircraft flew over the building. The Shanksville aircraft crash had no seats, no luggage, and no body parts. Where are the victims from the planes?

Now if we go into the towers to tally their numbers, they were under-occupied with an exodus starting with their 1993 bombing, plus several floors had doors govt front companies with prominent nameplates and employees in name only. Certainly people died, but the numbers only add up to 3,000 in funny ways.

One of the funny ways is seen by the wiped out division of the Office of Naval Intelligence, its agents, and its records that dealt with the missing $2.3 trillion in DoD budget that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld spoke of the day before 9/11 to the media. Another funny one are the SEC records that were killed when WTC-7 went down with one of its demolition stages having 100 feet of observable free-fall. Another funny way are the instances of simVictims.

Think about the victims, because the lives that stoked "USA patriotism" took in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan each exceed the proven facticious 3,000 number from 9/11.

Hide All / Expand All

Señor El Once : bashing Dr. Jones


Señor El Once : a very similar line


Señor El Once : no innocent or pure angel


Señor El Once : simVictims sours the notes in your mind


Señor El Once : tabulation and highlighting of evidence originally presented by USGS data should have pointed in another nuclear direction


Señor El Once : swiping with broad brushes


hybridrogue1 : Not interested in getting into the specifics, so I go my own way


Señor El Once : Reasonable arguments and counter arguments


Dear Mr. Rogue,

You seem eager to "go your own way", like into "EUTECTIC". More power to you.

You are "not interested in getting into the specifics of these arguments over DEW/Nuclear."

Then kindly refrain from making Public Relation statements as hyponotic definitive directives to the readers:

I read Prager’s first ebook. I will say flat out, it is bunk. I looked into his assertions carefully. His argumentation is mortally flawed. And this can be addressed from numerous angles.

Your "careful look into his assertions" involved only one eBook out of at least four download links provided by me. I'm not even sure which one it was, but one of them was pretty short and concise (and appears in whole or in part within at least one other download). It simply talks about the elements found in dust samples, and what finding them in correlated (e.g., proportional) quantities at different measuring points signifies. The data comes from the USGS. Not that this in itself means it should be trusted.

Your quick draw labeling "bunk" and "mortally flawed" from "numerous angles" should be reserved for after you have read all the books, for when you are "interested in getting into the specifics of these arguments over DEW/Nuclear", and for when you can address your assertion from at least a couple angles of the "numerous". Otherwise, it comes off as premature and resembling what I accuse you of:

... evidently nuclear topics are still part of your agenda to keep serious researchers from exploring.

Maybe you lacked the time to find more appropriate words when you used the adjective "reasonable."

I still do not agree that you are making reasonable counter arguments.

I've provided my sources. Recently, the links were given. I've spent my own money to get a book into your hands. I've stated what I'm preserving as nuggets of truth, and flagging what might be dubious, lest there be confusion. I'm eager to have my views changed when new information and analysis becomes available.

What could be more reasonable?

I will tell you what hasn't been more reasonable: your efforts to dissuade me from nuclear DEW.

Unlike the numerous and wide gaps in every conventional and non-conventional (e.g., thermite, thermabaric) demolition method that you have ardently defended, nuclear DEW has fewer and tighter gaps. It can explain the energy of pulverization, the unquenchable hot-spots, the tritium reports, the fast-dissipating radiation, the anomalous vehicle torching, the first-responder ailments, the ease in logistics, the elements in dust pile, the government's disinformation song-and-dance away from nuclear topics...

I want serious researchers to do their own research as to their own judgement. I want any to make their case in a reasonable manner, and to be able to defend in such a manner any counter arguments.

Yeah, well, the counter arguments have to be presented in a reasonable manner as well, and not simply have crass (agenda-toting) judgments projected at readers in a PR manuever that by design lacks substantiation.


No comments: