Dear Mr. Ruff,
With your 2013-08-27 posting we have ample evidence now that you, along with Mr. Rogue, flunked sophomore English in high school, because (a) you seem to have no appreciation for reasoned writing, even if lengthy, (b) you get burned for the third time in the row by the misuse of over-generalizations (e.g., "everthing" and "all"), and (c)_ your ego is too big to see your ignorance in not recognizing when your argumentative position has been utterly destroyed. Case in point with emphasis added:
Once I identify intentionally misleading or deceptive information in someones work I reject all of their work because it simply cannot be trusted as accurate or truthful any longer.
There's that catchy phrase, "I reject all of their work" that is little different from your ignorant & misguided explanation in this thread "I reject everything from a particular researcher"... once, of course, intentionally misleading or deceptive information is discovered. "All" and "everything" leave no room for exceptions (e.g., those pesky gaddammit nuggets of truth that ain't nobody had no issues with).
It isn't a question about whether or not we can trust their work, because obviously, we can't.
But the proper recourse to suspected disinformation is to:
(1) Label and compartmentalize the instances of blatant disinformation.
(2) Rewind and review their past and present (and future) work with a jaundice eye to classify items as (a) probably valid, (b) probably invalid, or (c)_ don't know.
(3) Research independently to solidify classifications.
(4) [Optional] Speculate into their disinformation motives and goals.
Finding instances of disinformation -- particularly in the realm of 9/11 that has active disinformationalists practicing in government agency reports, the mainstream media, and cyberspace -- does not absolve fair & objective researchers from reviewing their work anew for items of merit. You get no free passes that permit a rejection of a body of work, its substantiating evidence, and nuggets of truth out-of-hand; you've got to justify the rejection on each and every item individually.
Remember the 20th hijacker, KSM? He was tortured so badly that he admitted to terrorists actions that he couldn't have possibly been involved with. If Mr. Rogue were rendered to Guantanamo for a thrilling weekend, he'd come back admitting bestial relations with his birds. The threats don't even have to be physically against us, but perhaps hinted at a loved one, and many of us (me) would flip-flop 180 degrees on a debate position.
The crafty ones under such pressure would bow to the disinfo demands but maintain their integrity by inserting clues:
"If you listen to the evidence carefully enough, it will speak to you and tell you exactly what happened. If you don't know what happened, keep listening until you do. The evidence always tells the truth. The key is not to allow yourself to be distracted away from seeing what the evidence is telling you. Empirical evidence is the truth that theory must mimic." ~Dr. Judy Wood
"Something maintained those hot-spots (not just NT)." ~Dr. Steven Jones
The relevance of the above quotes is that (1) we need to study the evidence presented in Dr. Wood's textbook and not get distracted (e.g., by Dr. Wood's explanations) from seeing what the evidence is telling us -- massive influx of energy; (2) we need to keep looking for that "something" that maintained those hot-spots.
Again a reflection on your poor grades in sophomore English, I love how you get burned a second time for an offense of the exact same nature. You write:
As to the rest of your insane ranting I am not going to spend my time reading it. Your reasoning is unreasonable and your logic is illogical.
Wait a minute! Rewind! Back-up!
How can you conclude that "[my] reasoning is unreasonable and [my] logic is illogical" when you admit in the preceding sentence that "[you are] not going to spend [your] time reading it"?
Really puts a fine point on who is being unreasonable and illogical when you have the ability to come to such conclusions about my statements without having read them. [Because you fall into sophomoric traps so easily, don't come back and try to say "actually I did read your work objectively and fairly and thus came to those conclusions" because I'll make hay out of you being a blowhard liar.]
This fits well into the theme of willful ignorance that you display. (Mockingly) "I reject the notion of looking for nuggets of truth, because there is no such thing. Either it is all true or everything is false; ain't no in between. And don't expect me to be pointing out sources of 9/11 information who meet my own ignorant criteria of being 100% truth, because... because... I'm too ignorant to know that there ain't such a thing."
Unlike the con-artists in the streets, who take their deck of cards with them and undoubtedly cleaned out Mr. Ruff many times over in his ignorant youth, the con-artists who ply their trade in agency reports, self-published books, mass media, and cyberspace, have to contend with fair and objective readers' ability to re-read passages, to verify with other sources, and to get a good handle on classifying each nugget of information as (a) probably valid, (b) probably invalid, or (c)_ don't know.
Mr. Ruff's habit of not reading things (and boasting about it) is akin to him giving the con-artist his money without the cards being dealt, much less flipped.
Mr. Ruff concludes:
I request that Craig McKee read over these posts carefully and admonish SEO for grossly distorting what I actually said and put him on notice that such distortions and outright lies will not be tolerated.
Oh, please do, Mr. Ruff! Please do! Being a man of letters himself, Mr. McKee will undoubtedly agree with my speculation into your high school grades for sophomore English. And he'll be scratching his head over how you could REPEATEDLY create and fall into the same stupid, ignorant, reasoning pitfalls, particularly when they were pointed out to you.
"Distortion and outright lies?" Just saying it is, does not make it so. And as my postings prove, if such exist in this exchange, they come from boastful and ignorant you (and Mr. Rogue).
Seeing how Mr. Ruff admits he can't read long "War & Peace" masterpieces, I might as well use this opportunity to address Mr. Rogue. It makes it so much easier for the ignorant readers like Mr. Ruff to scroll right over.
Mr. Rogue sets news standards for fair, objective, rational, and logical debate with these four entries:  2013-08-27 at 3:58 pm;  2013-08-27 at 8:02 pm;  2013-08-28 at 11:32 am; and  2013-08-28 at 12:01 pm. Readers should note that only two of the four are here; #2 & #3 are on Mr. Rogue's COTO homecourt where he does not allow debate. Ain't a single piece of substance to back up his hypnotic assertions regarding the demerits of my comments.
After Mr. Ruff got his hat handed to him for his imprecise usage of language and for his disinformation games that aim to REJECT entire swaths of valid nuggets of truth, Mr. Rogue's limp-wristed and misogynistic defense (2013-08-27) can only muster in its entirety:
Like I said Eleven, the most meager excuse for your perpetual twirlytwat.
Gems demonstrating his charming wit:
- arrogant son-of-a-bitch
- Señor El Nannyshit's raving postings
- delusional fuck
- complete asshole
- Señora is a nag and acts like he/she has a twat
- el Zorro
- this disingenuous entity
- flushing of his septic tanks
Mr. Rogue charges 2013-08-28:
I will here point out that the Timing of Señor suddenly flushing of his septic tanks onto this thread; 'JUST HAPPENS' to coincide with OSS finishing his Honegger Report on P4T.
Yes, let us look at the timing. Mr. Ruff and you have ignorantly bull-dozed many times that "you don't need to read no stinkin' book in order to pass judgment and REJECT all information contained therein, regardless of valid nuggets of truth not being preserved in alternative publications." Just one thread over, Mr. Ruff was trying this technique on Kevin Ryan's book, and got called on it in a major reputation-impacting way. Idiot that he is, he recycles the same exact tripe here without correcting or even acknowledging its deficiencies. In fact, he tries to spin it to the moderator (Mr. McKee) as if I've lied and distorted his words. Coincidence?
If there be any coincidences with the review of Ms. Honegger's work and my comments, it would be an admonishment for readers to be fair and objective, open-minded and tolerant, and vigilant to recognize & preserve nuggets of truth despite instances of bullshit in the same work.
I hope that "dear mister" Señor will have the decency to spare this forum another 3,000 word apologia to smother the conversation here yet more.
I can obligue your wishes. Including quotations from you and Mr. Ruff, this posting is only 1,505 words.
So as OSS said to you, make a legitimate, sourced, rational, argument or piss off.
Doesn't apply to just Mr. A.Wright. I expect the same from Mr. Ruff, who obviously can boast them as being a standard for all to follow. (In paraphrasing Mr. OSS, I wonder why Mr. Ruff left off the adjectives "mature" and "responsive"? Coincidence?)
And I expect it taken down to the nugget of truth (or disinfo) level, particularly if the disinformation ploy has been to insert these various nuggets only into a disinformation vehicle designed to fail so that they would die in its crash as well.
If this is too cryptic for Mr. Ruff, he made the unsubstantiated, hit-and-run contention (2013-08-08) that the WTC had no radiation, with which I and the illnesses of the sick first responders disagree. This contention he should prove with "a mature, responsive, legitimate, sourced, rational, argument." As part of this, he should qualify to the radiation types specifically, their expected or designed duration, the nuclear devices in question, etc.
In this endeavor, Mr. Ruff should be careful that he doesn't hoist himself up by his own petards...
I reject everything from a particular researcher ONLY AFTER FINDING DELIBERATE DISINFORMATION in their work.
... What if the "researcher" is an agency of the US Government? Other than the suppression of this report he seeks to make his case, have instances of their "deliberate disinformation" been found in other agency reports, making it worthy of rejection without reading?
[The report's suppression might have been easier to accomplish than outright lying to manipulate the measurment data in tables into the range "at or below trace background levels." Remember, to accomplish the same in the tritium papers, they had to re-define (without telling you) "trace background levels" to be 55 times greater than it was previously.]
Meanwhile, the unserious nature of Mr. A.Wright was known to the participants of this forum a couple of months before Mr. Rogue started flooding us in 2012. I probably have to use my fingers and some of my toes to count the number of times Mr. Rogue promised to throw the towel in at me [despite, or rather, because I do make "mature, responsive, legitimate, sourced, rational arguments"], yet he has never thrown the towel at Mr. A.Wright, despite being deserving. Mr. Ruff makes promises regarding whom he's not going to read or respond to, but I don't recall him making such about Mr. A.Wright, despite being deserving. Coincidence?
Here's how Mr. A.Wright needs to be handled. Option 1 is to not rise to the bait.
Option 2 is when you have nothing better to do. You respectfully address him, address the issue, and thank him for his participation, because without him, you wouldn't get the opportunity to expound upon the depths of the truth of the 9/11 or world events for all of the future, newby, lurker readers and the database archeologists. When he starts grinding around in circles over territory already covered, you provide a substantiating link for this (for lurker reader's benefit and to prove claims of "circus carousel"), and then you leave it alone. No links? No go; you forfeit for attempting hypnotic lies. Bad, irrelevant, or unsupportive links? Like Lance Armstrong (or lying on a resume), you'll eventually forfeit.
It takes more organization, but Mr. Rogue can attest that it is effective and can drive an opponent off of the rails into the weeds and to ad hominem-ville, which then depicts them as "the insane, raving lunatic" despite their attempts to afix this label to you.
P.S. "Wright is the typical Amerikan TVZombie..." ~Mr. Rogue. I disagree. Mr. A.Wright, according to him and you forgot, isn't in or from the USA. I wager he's in Alice Springs.
// Only 659 words, and my one-trick pony -- neu nookiedoo -- only gets mentioned here in my signature.
+++++ 2013-08-29 hybridrogue1
"P.S. "Wright is the typical Amerikan TVZombie…" ~Mr. Rogue. I disagree. Mr. A.Wright, according to him and you forgot, isn't in or from the USA. I wager he's in Alice Springs."~Señor
I will respond to this by noting that Canada is in Amerika…as in the North Amerikan Union. That TV and it's Zombified viewers is a "typical Amerikan" phenomena, which is extant throughout the so-called "Western World". So where ever Mr Wright is, just like anyone else suffering the hypnotic trance of television he is indeed a typical Amerikan TVZombie, as the template is in fact Amerikan.
Perhaps Mr Ruff understands these facts better than his enraged critic who takes it upon himself to treat all here as neophytes in his kindergarten class:
7] "the first-responder ailments." – This point is addressed *in the very thread I am accused of ignoring this issue; Extreme Toxicity of the WTC Dust is due to its Nano-Particulate Nature:
"*Asbestos in the WTC Dust was reduced to thin bundles and fibrils as opposed to the complex particles found in a building having asbestos-containing surfacing materials. Gypsum in the WTC Dust is finely pulverized to a degree not seen in other building debris. Mineral wool fibers have a short and fractured nature that can be attributed to the catastrophic collapse. *Lead was present as ultra fine spherical particles. Some particles show evidence of being exposed to a conflagration such as spherical metals and silicates, and vesicular particles (round open porous structure having a Swiss cheese appearance as a result of boiling and evaporation). -Materials transformed by high temperature (burning). These transformed materials include: spherical iron particles, spherical and vesicular silicates, and vesicular carbonaceous particles. These heat processed constituents are rarely, if ever, found together with mineral wool and gypsum in "typical" indoor dusts."
~RJ Lee report
This stuff was a caustic as Drano. Asbestos can cause some types of lymphoma and the towers were full of it. [*MARCH 5, 2013 – 9:30 AM]
+++++ 2013-08-29 hybridrogue1
"I expect the same from Mr. Ruff"__"And I expect it taken down to the nugget of truth.."~Señor
YOU "EXPECT"??? YOU? Who gives a fuck what YOU expect?
A Supposition built on Conjecture spiced with Speculation and wrapped in Bullshit!
Now I am sure YOU "EXPECT" to turn this thread into a debate over whether my recipe for that taco is correct or not, thus fulfilling your mandate of derailing this whole conversation into an argument over your bullshit theory again.
No dice, that is all a done deal now.
All can see the counter argument to the 12 points you claim over and again has never been made; at the URL in my last post. As far as I am concerned that's all you get. It is sufficient regardless of what YOU expect.
+++++ 2013-08-29 hybridrogue1 August 29, 2013 – 5:34 pm
So Let Us Speak to the Issue of Ad Hominem:
Of course what this anonymous entity calling itself 'Señor El Once' aka [DELETED] and who knows what else, was the source of many of my posts to his Nookiedoodoo thread – taken from his latest Defamation Jamboree on Truth and Shadows:
So Señor drops his phony veneer of 'gentleman scholar' with this:
. . . . .
FEBRUARY 25, 2013 – 3:36 PM:
"And I am defaming you, Mr. fookin' no-nookin' a$$hole Rogue."
FEBRUARY 27, 2013 – 1:25 PM:
"Let me put this in a form that your simple mind will understand: Fuck you, Mr. Rogue, and your bullshit chowder about defamation of Dr. Jones."
" I call him "simple-minded" with respect to nukes and write "fuck you, Mr. Rogue" (because I know him so well.)"
FEBRUARY 28, 2013 – 7:50 PM:
"..you write on COTO & here about "the true nature of things", then WTF? You're not just being a clueless idiot; you're being a purposeful a$$hole whose motives we'll need to question for why you are here… in overbearing quantities."
MARCH 3, 2013 – 8:28 PM:
"I called Mr. Rogue a liar, a cheat, and agent, and I stand by that assessment."
"Because Agent Rogue's superiors were not satisfied that his ad hominem against me would be adequate.."
"Liar, cheat, and Agent that Mr. Rogue is…"
"Were he not a liar, a cheat, and an agent, Mr. Rogue would have seen the light a long time ago."
"Agent Rogue, where's your little pincer buddy Mr. A Wright?"
MARCH 4, 2013 – 1:13 PM:
"I called Mr. Rogue repeatedly a liar, a cheat, and agent… each with substantiation. So desperately does Agent Rogue desire the last word to solidify his dominance, he proves again what a liar, cheat, and agent he is."
"it is more of a question of Agent Rogue failing an integrity test"
"Mr. Rogue continues playing the agent to suppress nuclear means-&-methods by spouting the lie.."
" just him demonstrating what a lying cheat he is."
"Lying, cheating agent Rogue wants to keep framing things as minuscule and "a trillionth" and to steer readers into believing it means "nothing" and is equivalent to "zero."
MARCH 4, 2013 – 7:30 PM:
"Agent Rogue does not disappoint us with a further example of his lying and cheating ways."
"But because he is an agent with an agenda to PREVENT knowledge of nuclear means-&-methods.."
"And of course, this is the song-and-dance that Dr. Jones enlightens us with to "prove" that fission or fusion nukes weren't used. This is what the ignorant cheat and liar, Agent Rogue, wants us to believe to."
" here is a "fucking lie" from Agent Rogue;
[So rather than there being LESS radioactivity from a Neutron type device we have enhanced radiation.]"
"Gloating Agent Rogue, as is true to his lying and cheating ways.."
"It ain't as cheatin', lyin' Agent Rogue frames it.."
"Agent Rogue is just paid not to see it, and to pull any trick he can to prevent others from seeing the truth, too."
"When an agent is paid to promote an agenda, he can never admit fault or error; he can never give an inch; he can never allow his target (e.g., me) the last word on the agenda topic; he has to dominate the forum; he will pull out every nasty trick in the book in order to hold the line given by the agenda…"
"Mr. Rogue isn't free to think for himself or to consider drawing different trend lines through the data points that are present. Agents never tire of going through the same merry-go-round points over-and-over, which Mr. Rogue has done not just with me, but with fellow agents Mr. A.Wright, Mr. TamborineMan, etc."
"I stand by by assessment that Mr. Rogue is a liar, a cheat, and an agent, as well as being an asshole. I'm sorry. The luster of having an agent as a sounding board has wore off; Mr. Rogue belongs back on this COTO crew-cut home court."
MARCH 5, 2013 – 5:23 PM:
"Agent Rogue demonstrates that he is a convincing liar and cheat.."
" Mr. Rogue being a liar, a cheat, and an agent."
"Why is Agent Rogue defending Dr. Jones so viciously?"
MARCH 5, 2013 – 3:28 PM:
" Mr. Rogue is a liar, a cheat, and an agent."
"Weasel, weasel, weasel! My, does Agent Rogue squirm!"
"And before I forget, here's another example of Agent Rogue's fucking "genius"
"Agent Rogue proves that he was lying about being a "genius" in any subject at any point in his life."
"proving what a lying fucking cheat Agent Rogue is!"
" Mr. Rogue, you are and have been T&S's govt infiltration, no doubt."
"[*Ear-to-ear grin with middle-fingers raised in an appreciative salute to Agent Rogue*]"
MARCH 5, 2013 – 7:05 PM:
" TEN-TO-ONE!!! Agent Rogue never shuts the fuck up!!!"
"Agent Rogue makes his living by saying "no" and ridiculing other's work."
"Agent Rogue and his clackerless cowbell needs to be put out to pasture."
"Agent Rogue may technically have his own blog, but if he doesn't use it, he's a liar to even consider himself a blogger."
"P.S. Agent Rogue acts the innocent: "NSA 'Q Team' Agent… Whatever in the fuck that is supposed to mean." It was explained several times, thereby proving Agent Rogue lied about being a genius artist among countless other lies to steer this forum."
. . . . . . . .
"Because Agent Rogue's superiors were not satisfied that his ad hominem against me would be adequate.."~Anonymous Entity known as 'Señor'
The staggering hypocrisy of a complaint of "ad hominem" – after reading the ungodly list of ad hominem 'Señor spewed onto the forum at Truth and Shadows, is a tell for anyone with the slightest lucidity.
I do believe this anonymous entity should take on a new assignment and keep his filth off of COTO.
. . . . .
I posted this reply to the URL above, that led to an Anal Hurlant of defamation and slurs against my self. So I repeated some of what he had done on Truth and Shadows in the same manner.
. . . . .
HOWEVER; a few comments later I went back to the link for Maxifucks story on COTO and found this:
ERROR 404 – FILE NOT FOUND
Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.
. . . . .
So I assume the administrators deleted the vile thing.
+++++ 2013-08-30 By: hybridrogue1 on August 30, 2013 at 10:35 pm
"Says the man without the intellect, fortitude, or integrity to read the entire textbook from Dr. Judy Wood, let alone compile any report (let alone a convincing one) on the good, the bad, and the ugly chapter-by-chapter."
~ Señor El Once on August 21, 2013 at 1:49 pm
. . . . . . . . .
So…how long has it been since I offered to return the book to raging angry Maxidoo? This is what it is all about, all of this ranting is still about THE BOOK. It has been close to a year since I first received the book. Almost a year and Max is still bleeding_that's as long as it takes most men to get over a divorce. That is why I take this guy for a twat.
+++++ By: hybridrogue1 on August 31, 2013 at 12:27 am
To continue the discussion above. For it is not just this one point about the flash of a nuclear device. It also takes into account that one of the telltale signs of explosive demolition is the rows of explosions around the perimeter of a building. And the evidence for just such events is overwhelming; video, audio, and scores of witness testimonies. Unmistakable evidence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
The published Testimonies of the First Responders is easily found in a search of the Internet. The breadth of this evidence is expansive and conclusive.
And yes there will be testimony as to the furnace-like conditions with molten metal described. But this must be taken in context with the other testimony describing an explosive demolition using the known techniques thereof.
The first assumption that then follows is: Isn't it most reasonable to consider such explosive products as the most likely culprits in keeping the rubble burn going? To reject this as the most likely prospect is a nonsequitur as far as reason in forensics. The reasons to reject it would need be compelling. I have made a long case as to why I do not find the nuclear, the DEW, nor the blend of the two as a compelling argument.
+++++ By: hybridrogue1 on August 31, 2013 at 1:13 am
To continue yet further:
The seismic evidence points to explosions in the basements. We have gone over this previously. There were explosions in the basements. There is nothing else that explains the seismic evidence.
So if a bomb went off, can the nuclear dew advocate claim it was a nuclear device? Not after all of the complex arguments describing the weapon as energizing a beam in a contained process. The proponent cannot have it both ways. Either they were bombs or they were beam weapons. If they were bombs all of the attendant arguments for the lack of substantive radiation fall flat.
And this point is augmented by all the other arguments made showing how ubiquitous these minuscule amounts of radiation are:
Why ineffective leach fields are the most likely source of most of these substances in metropolitan industrial centers. Which the city of New York most certainly is.
+++++ By: hybridrogue1 on August 31, 2013 at 9:40 pm
Now, I want you Max, to understand something.
I want this thing between us to end.
I don't understand why it is you do not comprehend that you are just hurting your own reputation by continuing your attacks on me.
It is only two days now since the last lambasting fusillade you laid down on the Truth and Shadows forum. When are you going to stop?
If I continue putting together my thoughts on the destruction of the towers here – ON MY OWN THREAD – where few ever come anyway. I want you to understand that it is not 'arguing against you' even tho' I use your arguments as a counter. I want to develop my own presentation of how I think the towers were destroyed – in doing so I have to consider all opposing hypothesis.
I don't want my final work on this to be an 'attack' on anyone. I want to address the data, that is all. But you have made it such an ugly affair that I have been totally pissed off because of your personal vile defamation.
Drop it Max. Leave it be. You will only end up destroying yourself.
El-Oh-El. Consistently missing just one tiny thing: substantiating links to the source locations so that context can be reviewed and your premises validated (or not). Afraid of the "or not", I see.