Over-acting tag-teaming on Truth & Shadows. Here are special messages for Mr. Rogue, "compelled to tell lies to bolster your arguments", and Mr. Huff, "sick of SEO claiming we have not done so." They both fancy debate tricks to bolster impressions in their favor.
Forewarned is forearmed. Nookiedoo, my hobby-horse, is ready to take them for a ride, even though the gate to T&S pastures is closed for the Spring grass to grow.
Your WWF highlights: Mr. A.Wright was mentioned by Mr. Ruff, appears, and is taken on by Mr. Rogue who's mighty enough to handle Mr. Owen Meister at the same time.
x3 Señor El Once : caste my chits with the jaded
Dear Mr. Dennis,
I'm sorry that I must caste my chits with the jaded and their view on "The High-Rise Safety Initiative." The initiative is another way to scope-limit the needed investigations.
I see it as another money-suck that will distract with minutia of "building codes" instead of "tenant selection" [CIA, FBI, SEC] whose enemies alone -- foreign and domestic, external and internal -- would be crafty enough to literally nuke whatever high-rise safety conclusions are proposed and implemented.
You wrote:
... the "building what?" statement by judge leaner that i elicited impromptu and it turned into a movement of sorts. there's more that flowed from this but i won't bore you with that.
Actually, I'd be very interested in the "more that flowed from this." Take your time; lots of detail. Such insider details don't get out to the troops in far-flung stations. It would be very informative, I think.
//
x4 Pomeroo : Jump, jump, cheroo!
pomeroo
March 1, 2014 – 9:12 am
I will cheerfully take on any conspiracy liar who grows a sack.
pomeroo
March 1, 2014 – 9:08 am
Yeah, actually debating is not a good idea when you're peddling lies.
pomeroo
March 1, 2014 – 9:40 am
The impacts of the planes severed load-bearing perimeter and core columns. The resultant fires further weakened structural steel until the perimeter columns started bowing inward, as shown in many videos and still photos. Eventually, the inward bowing caused the floor trusses to fail.
Your turn: tell us why the real engineers are wrong.
pomeroo
March 1, 2014 – 10:33 am
Please explain the total absence of significant dissent from NIST's conclusions in the worldwide community of structural engineers. You fabricate nonsensical charges to slander the structural engineers, physicists, fire scientists, metallurgists, demolition professionals, chemists, and computer programmers with whom NIST consulted, but you have no technical background whatever. Who are you to pit your ignorance against their professional expertise?
There isn't a single demolition professional who swallows your cult's snake oil. NO evidence for explosives–physical, seismic, or auditory–was found anywhere in the WTC complex.
NOBODY thinks the towers collapsed solely from the fires. For some reason, your cult tends to overlook the role played by the PLANES.
pomeroo
March 1, 2014 – 10:01 pm
The portion of the building underneath the impact floors collapsed when the top portion of the building fell on it.
Duh!
pomeroo
March 1, 2014 – 9:25 am
Gee, I featured Tony in a two-part debate with Ryan Mackey. Maybe you should watch it.
fremo
March 1, 2014 – 3:20 am
pomeroo is actually a kangaroo's arse. Its a southern thaing.
anyone willing to take on the machine at this real legal/political level….good on them. I'll throw a tenner at it.
But that 'the machine' don't have several more judge Johhny WALKERS and Alvin Hellersteins up its sleeve is fait accompli.
They will fuck it any way they can.
And if we get past this latest US provocateuring by McCain and Nuland in Kiev telling Putin to 'not interfere' with a nazi revolution right on his doorstep
well. Maybe WTC7 free fall can fuck the machine…
pomeroo
March 1, 2014 – 10:46 am
Fine. Tell us what NIST got wrong in its analysis of the collapse of WTC 7.
pomeroo
March 1, 2014 – 9:41 pm
Your uninformed slanders of real engineers discredit YOU and your evil cult. You are an anonymous troll infesting the bowels of the internet because you have NOTHING that can stand scrutiny.
pomeroo
March 1, 2014 – 10:17 pm
Danny Jowenko, as you know, stated that the collapses of the towers looked nothing like demolitions. He was sold a bill of goods by conspiracy liars regarding the collapse of WTC 7. When I spoke with him over the phone, it turned out that he had not seen photos of the 20-story gash in the south side of WTC 7. For whatever reason, he never recanted his error. The liars don't much like to talk about his opinion of the towers' collapses.
pomeroo
March 1, 2014 – 10:40 pm
So, when I write that Mr. Jowenko NEVER recanted his error, you take this mean that he DID recant his error??
Well, you are a twoofer.
pomeroo
March 1, 2014 – 9:03 pm
The 2.25-second period of free fall within the entire collapse period of WTC 7 was explained by NIST. Perhaps you should make a minimal attempt to learn something about the science you want to criticize.
I offered many of Gage's frauds and fools the opportunity to face a real structural engineer on 'Hardfire.' It seems that all of them needed to study the subject a bit more…
pomeroo
March 1, 2014 – 9:53 pm
I have pondered.
You are an ignorant fraud who will never face a real engineer or attempt to publish in any engineering journal.
As you enjoy slandering your superiors, why not take the NIST to court? Surely you have nothing to fear from the real science? After all, you have all that silly rubbish you fabricate to oppose to it.
pomeroo
March 1, 2014 – 9:57 pm
A quick demonstration will settle this matter definitively.
Conspiracy liars have ranted mindlessly for years about their magic soundless explosives. When real shaped charges are attached to structural steel and detonated, they leave behind a chemical signature. ALL metallurgists and demolition professionals can immediately state what that common substance is. NO conspiracy liar has yet been able to pass this test.
Let's see how this crowd of geniuses fares: WHAT would we expect to find on the recovered steel?
pomeroo
March 1, 2014 – 10:18 pm
Don't all rush to answer at the same time, frauds.
pomeroo
March 1, 2014 – 10:32 pm
Nothing was more certain than a trapped fraud's feeble attempt at evasion.
Let us note that you proved utterly clueless about the substance EVERY metallurgist and demolition professional can identify.
We all get the idea that people heard stuff blowing up in the fires. The characteristic sounds of controlled demolition were CONSPICUOUSLY ABSENT on 9/11. They were neither heard nor recorded.
It is 2014 and you still haven't bothered to read Dr. Frank Greening's paper on sulfidation and sources of sulfur in the towers. As I find you a rather dull-witted fraud, I feel no urge to spoon feed you.
NIST did not test the recovered steel for explosives because OVER FIFTY FORENSIC TEAMS FROM THE FBI and teams of metallurgists from various universities (the Lehigh team was led was led by Emeritus Professor of Metallurgy Dr. Alan Pense) DID test for explosives residue and found NONE.
pomeroo
March 1, 2014 – 10:35 pm
Does your crap really work in the schoolyard? Well, we understand why you're an anonymous troll.
The "observed and forensic evidence of Demolition at the site" was NONEXISTENT.
There is a reason why NO–ZERO–demolition professionals swallow your cult's snake oil.
pomeroo
March 1, 2014 – 11:06 pm
"We" ARE the educated portion of society. You don't know us, but we're out there.
Craig McKee
March 1, 2014 – 11:35 pm
Pomeroo,
I have run out of patience with your condescending attacks that are based on nothing. Anybody who uses terms like "twoofer" and "evil cult" is a shill who isn't worth the time of day. Go troll somewhere else.
x5 Señor El Once : Not for Mr. Pomeroo's benefit
2014-03-02
{Incomplete and not published in forum.}
I accept the 2nd and 3rd hand accounts of Mr. Pomeroo's online reputation, mostly because he doesn't dispute it. His actual words here only underscore that reputation as wells as the fact that I have no hopes of convincing Mr. Pomeroo of another opinion.
Therefore, this isn't written for his benefit, but for that of truth.
Mr. Pomeroo taunted us 2014-03-01 - 9:57 pm:
When real shaped charges are attached to structural steel and detonated, they leave behind a chemical signature. ALL metallurgists and demolition professionals can immediately state what that common substance is. NO conspiracy liar has yet been able to pass this test.
In order to pass or fail this test fairly, one would have to be able to reference a body of tabulated measurements (1) that were promptly and systematically undertaken, (2) that were scientifically analyzed, and (3) whose results were published and put into the public domain.
It turns out that these three hurdles are stumbling blocks not only for those who say that chemical-based explosives and incendiaries destroyed the WTC, and for those who say that it wasn't, which is essentially the official story on 9/11. Such reports are considered Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). Is the anomaly that SOP were not followed from the earliest moments after 9/11? Or is the anomaly that the SOP data collection did not result in analysis and reports? Or is the anomaly that the SOP reports were never published and made public?
When the controlled demolition is framed a chemical-based explosives and incendiaries, then this
Let's see how this crowd of geniuses fares: WHAT would we expect to find on the recovered steel?
Conspiracy liars have ranted mindlessly for years about their magic soundless explosives.
I would expect to find evidence of embrittlement in the steel, which is a side-effect that neutron emissions can have. I would expect to observe at the atomic level strange anomalies in the molecule's bonds and structures.
x6 Señor El Once : Next Level 9/11 Nukes {unpublished}
{Due to the number of URLs, this got stuck in the moderation queue and was not published live.}
Mr. Rogue should be wary of the age-old computer expression: "garbage-in, garbage-out."
The "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" was scope-limited into attributing tritium to presumed building content. Out-of-scope was considering tritium coming from a destructive mechanism. It re-defined "trace or background levels" in cases to be 55 times greater than previously. Dates for samples (9/13, 9/21) -- aside from being delayed -- allow for tritium dissipation (from rain and firefighting efforts) and imply that tritium levels from 9/21 would be the same as from 9/11. They stopped taking additional samples when their testing of them revealed tritium levels well below the EPA threshold of what constitutes a health risk.
Mr. Rogue seems to point to the Paul Lioy report for his 0.14 pCi measuring of tritium. Tritium wasn't the purpose of that report; lamely explaining away radioactive isotopes was. It had elements of "garbage-in":
- Limited its analysis to three (3) "representative" dust samples (Cortlandt, Cherry, and Market Streets).
- Samples were only collected at "weather-protected" locations East of the WTC; nothing from North, South, or West. The dominant wind direction in summer months including September is to the North.
- Samples collected on 9/16 and 9/17, which is enough delay to allow for dissipation of certain radiation traces.
- Does not provide actual measurements or levels for trace measurements. It just writes that what was measured was at trace levels.
Whereas one might be able to say that the tritium report and the Lioy reports achieved their goals -- which were to underscore minimal health impacts from tritium and radio-active isotopes --, these reports with their limited scopes serve as the "garbage-in" to other efforts that try to "garbage-out" conclude that no nuclear devices were used.
Mr. Rogue confidently writes:
... the minute amount of tritium ... an infinitely small amount.
First of all, we are taking it on faith that no juking of the measured amounts happened, which would be a large leap of faith given issues already identified in their methodology and limited scope.
Secondly, tritium was measured, and the reports lamely try to cover it over. They have never fully explored all possible sources for the tritium, because associating it with nuclear weapons was out-of-scope.
Thirdly, the readers should inform themselves about the design aims and capabilities of fourth generation nuclear devices, which aren't that far from the neutron nuclear DEW devices that I had been championing.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071v5.pdf
Fourth generation: 25 mg DT => 1 ton yield at 50% efficiency
Consequently, going from the first to the fourth generation implies a total change of perspective about nuclear weapons: A "change of paradigm" where the concept of very-large-yield and big nuclear weapons for deterrence-use is shifting towards the concept of very-high-precision and compact nuclear weapons for battle-field-use — with yields in the 1 to 100 tons range, that is intermediate between conventional and contemporary nuclear weapons.
...
Third generation nuclear weapons are basically "tailored and special effects" warheads and systems developed between the 1960s and 1980s, mainly for tactical uses or ballistic missile defense. Examples of these developments comprise the following concepts:
- ERW — Enhanced Radiation (neutrons, hard X-rays)
- RRR — Reduced Residual Radiation (enhanced blast)
- EMP — enhanced ElectroMagnetic Pulse
- DEW — Directed Energy (plasma-jet or X-ray laser-beam)
- EPW — Earth Penetrating Warhead
- ETC —
...
[M]ost third generation concepts can be reconsidered in the context of fourth generation nuclear weapons. This is because the suppression of the fission-explosive trigger, and the reliance on fusion rather than fission as the main source of yield in FGNWs, enable to envisage devices of much lower yield and much reduced radiological impact.
My wild-ass, bat-shit crazy ~speculation~ into this theme begins with the fact that nuclear devices can make trade-off's during the design with regards to the expected yields and side-effects. Low-radiation or "reduced radiological impact" weapons have been a goal of weapons design for decades.
As an example of design trade-offs, neutron devices -- based on (fission-triggered) fusion devices -- expell the highly-energetic neutrons instead of containing them. Neutron radiation is very dangerous to life forms but is not lingering. When aimed in DEW fashion, collateral damage to life forms is more predictable. When aimed at certain materials, they become radioactive but it dissipates in 24-48 hours. [This highlights a purposeful fault in all government-sponsored reports on WTC radiation: delays in taking samples and/or narrow sample pools.] Also, the neutrons can be aimed away from tandem neutron devices, reducing the likelihood of fratricide.
Moreover, controlling the amount of escaping highly-energetic neutrons helps literally dial in other nuclear detonation side-effects like heat wave, blast wave, and EMP. Nuclear weapons of tactical low-yields are hard to achieve, but become easier when assumptions of "efficient usage of the nuclear energy" are discarded; energy is purposely wasted and "thrown-away usefully and purposely" by allowing the highly-energetic neutrons to escape.
Here are two data points. The Hutchison effect involves extremely-high frequency waves at resonant harmonics whose wavelengths are comparable to the distances betwen molecules and atoms of materials. Casaba-Howitzer and Project Excalibur were some of the origins to channeling selected wavelengths (e.g., x-rays) from the spectrum of nuclear emissions.
Wild-ass, bat-shit crazy extrapolation from those two data points would be a neutron device that would channel, say, x-ray frequencies of the nuclear detonation in a narrow cone ~upwards~ and missing the spire. Additional trade-off's in design could further sacrifice portions of the heat and blast wave yields.
The cone of x-ray (or other realm in spectrum) frequencies at resonant harmonics with its targets' components would achieve material dissassociation in the target. "Aersolization" of materials, like iron.
Another effect of this DEW related energy infusion -- like a microwave -- could be to turn water molecules trapped in materials instantly and directly into very hot steam, whose rapidly expanding volume-pressure blows apart the materials in question: concrete, drywall, humans, etc.
Such neutron detonations had a tactical but intense heat wave associated with it. Limited by the design and placement in the towers, it would have been masked by debris raining down from above. The "steel doobies," the arches, the horseshoes, and the iron spheres exhibited in dust samples could be attributed to this side-effect. Mutual exclusivity does ~not~ have to exist between traditional nuclear side-effects and what is attributed to Hutchison effects.
Some videos of the towers demise captures what looks like squib charges running ahead of the collapse wave. Again, my wild-ass, bat-shit crazy speculation into the matter is that this squib was the result of a conventional charge used to initiate the whole nuclear process. Maybe it was needed to inject the fissionable material together that then generates the high heats needed for the fusion process whose output yields are then manipulated. The output yields were directed upwards, which means they plow through existing structure above as well as then falling debris. Other pictures and videos exhibit what appears to be a fountain-effect regarding dustified content having an upward component to its trajectory vector before gravity turns it around and it falls to the ground.
If you look closely, the demise of both towers had remnants of a spire (one more short-lived than the other), which is a smoking gun that strongly indicates placement and aiming of such devices in the tower to miss the spire.
The duration of under-rubble hot-spots cannot be attributed to DEW or nuclear heat wave, because materials heated by such would have begun to cool as soon as the heat source stopped. 200,000 gallons of diesel fuel in the tower basements -- even ignoring fresh air limitations and fire-fighting efforts -- cannot account for the duration, as proven by math. Likewise, math proves nano-thermite with any combination of chemical-based explosives or indendiaries that were ~unspent~ from an original purpose of pulverization would be in quantities obscenely massive and not at all Occam Razor. Thus, as admitted by Dr. Steven Jones (September 2012), "Something maintained those hot-spots (not just nano-thermite)."
The energy sources (neutron nuclear devices) -- and in particular from devices that failed or fizzled -- comes closest to explaining the duration of hot-spots and anomalies in those under-rubble fires. Need I name drop "Fukushima?"
When the tretris-evidence blocks of the meteorite and fused filing cabinet comes down that we must orient into our 9/11 theory stacks, we need not quibble that a DEW portion of the expected yield created something as opposed to other side-effects also playing a role.
The wall assemblies that fell and were streaming gray matter as if a mixture of smoke, steam, and disassociated matter should be recognized as the same wall assemblies "steamed cleaned to the beam's metal" on top of the piles.
Each floor of the towers had a steel pan on which the concrete slabs were poured. Between this and the steel outer wall assemblies, an EMP portion of the nuclear detonation would be largely mitigate except for what might slip out of window slits line-of-sight.
As part of my bat-shit, crazy speculation, I've often stated that the vehicle damage in the parking lot and along West Broadway could be attributed to Eddy Currents created by EMP escaping the towers.
However, I leave the door open to 9/11 WTC damage not being exclusively the domain of one weapons system. It could be many, particularly when the crater to WTC-6, the bore-holes to WTC-5, and the level of WTC-4's main edifice at a line with its North Wing are considered. Lasers from space aren't out of the question. The vehicle damage then might be attributed to (a) targeting corrections, (b) beam start-up, (c)_ beam fall-off.
Before the carousel gets cranked, Mr. Jeff Prager's analysis of the dust sampled by USGS proves existence and correlation of atomic elements indicative of fission. This is a valid nuclear clue, along with tritium. I attribute this to fission-triggering of fusion in the neutron device.
In conclusion, the above is an imperfect marrying of Dr. Wood's DEW theories with a neutron nuclear devices to explain how the towers' content were pulverized.
//
x7 Señor El Once : lip service to women's liberation
Dear Ms. Kuehn,
Mr. Rogue grew up in a different era that only had to give lip service to women’s liberation, but didn’t have to be serious about it on an individual, male level. [Unlike my era with grannies, aunties, moms, and sisters expecting more from their boys.]
Lauded for his looks and his art, not much effort was required to attract bed-room companions except the buttery-smooth acknowledgement that a womanly gender in the presence of his manly-man awakened his testosterone, that he just can’t seem to turn off even today, typing one-handed “sweatheart” & “lady” in this forum.
I find his antics amusing in the internet context of today, because: "The Internet, where men are men, women are also men, and children are FBI agents." Or these old rules about "there are no girls on the internet."
{Link to above image removed from posting.}
Be this as it may, as the female admin's at his old stomping grounds can attest, when opinions differ and his maleness the more superior according to him, the other “feminazi” shoe drops.
//
x8 HybridRogue1 : a stream of snake piss
Aha, a stream of snake piss from our pretend el Zorro. Delightful.
\\][//
I have to add that the URL link our ‘gallant’ and ‘gentlemanly’ superhero provided is in the worst of taste. If it is meant as a reflection on me, remember the actual source.
\\][//
x9 Adam Ruff : Who's Afraid?
"'Who's Afraid of Truth and Shadows?'"
All the right people are afraid! The list of the fearful is long and distinguished. Off the top of my head the list includes:
David Chandler
Kevin Ryan
Barbara Honegger
All 911blogger mods
Virtually all CIT critics
Virtually all DEW and Video fakery advocates
Corporate media representatives
Government representatives
Sandy Hook and Boston bombing official story believers
JREFers will not openly come here although they do troll under pseudonyms
I for one am proud as hell of that list. Of course many of them claim falsly that we are uncivil. They simply claim any challenge to their false beliefs is uncivil so they can maintain a facade of credibility while still avoiding a debate they know they will lose. People challenge me all the time and I argue my side of the issue, they argue theirs, and we continue until a resolution is reached. That is IF both sides debate in good faith. The problem with all of those on the above list is that when the debate goes badly for them they do not have the character or integrity to admit when they are wrong and change their beliefs accordingly.
x10 Señor El Once : hasn't been debating in good faith
Mr. Adam Ruff wrote:
People challenge me all the time and I argue my side of the issue, they argue theirs, and we continue until a resolution is reached. That is IF both sides debate in good faith. The problem with all of those on the above list is that when the debate goes badly for them they do not have the character or integrity to admit when they are wrong and change their beliefs accordingly.
Ah, yes, but on the "nuclear DEW" front, unresolved issues remain, because Mr. Ruff hasn't been debating in good faith as evidenced by uppity statements regarding being proud of ~not~ reading what the debate opponent writes and of ignoring such postings. I do not fault Mr. Ruff for this, because it can be a time-sucking rabbit hole. But Mr. Ruff can be faulted for hit-and-run trolling actions, and for making bold statements about the (supposed) inapplicability of nuclear means to 9/11 and then not defending them.
Yes, I have not forgotten Mr. Ruff's bad behavior that is clearly hypocritical to the quoted passage above.
Moreover, the nuclear argument has been honed even further. Wouldn't you know it, when I thought I had come across something that I thought was definitive (e.g., neutron nuclear DEW), I recognized the validity of an argument presented by Dr. Wood's supports that has me cycling through things presented by Dr. Wood. She isn't completely right, nor can she ever be until she's willing to get us closer to make-and-model of the devices. But she's closer than all other theories, particularly when researchers are willing to separate the WTC destruction building by building. [Whereas "beams-from-space" seems inapplicable to WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7, it ought to remain on the table for other anomalously destroyed buildings.]
//
x11 HybridRogue1 : This entity
"The problem with all of those on the above list is that when the debate goes badly for them they do not have the character or integrity to admit when they are wrong and change their beliefs accordingly." ~Mr Ruff
Señor El Once responds thus:
"Mr. Ruff hasn't been debating in good faith as evidenced by uppity statements regarding being proud of ~not~ reading what the debate opponent writes and of ignoring such postings. I do not fault Mr. Ruff for this, because it can be a time-sucking rabbit hole. But Mr. Ruff can be faulted for hit-and-run trolling actions, and for making bold statements about the (supposed) inapplicability of nuclear means to 9/11 and then not defending them."
This reply by the anonymous entity calling itself "Señor El Once" is spurious bullshit, as both myself and Mr Ruff spent many months in reasoned debate wherein the entity refused to bow to reasoned argument while spinning long arguments of verbosity based on nothing but assertions based on weak presumptions. "Señor" has never had "the character or integrity to admit when he was wrong".
This entity calling itself "Señor" clearly has no interest in any discussion here unless he can make an attempt to make it appear plausible that something said in the commentary is ample excuse to make a sales pitch for his singular product, the faulty nuclear/DEW gambit.
This shall not be construed as a challenge to once again "debate" an issue that should have long ago been relegated to the trash bin.
\\][//
x12 Señor El Once : counting the lies
Mr. Rogue wrote this priceless reflection of his true inner-character:
This reply by the anonymous entity calling itself "Señor El Once" is spurious bullshit, as both myself and Mr Ruff spent many months in reasoned debate wherein the entity refused to bow to reasoned argument while spinning long arguments of verbosity based on nothing but assertions based on weak presumptions. "Señor" has never had "the character or integrity to admit when he was wrong".
I count three lies in that paragraph alone. Lie #1 is that "Mr. Ruff spent many months in reasoned debate [with me]." Never happened, even though Mr. Ruff has been called out by me many times to substantiate his hit-and-run "no radiation at the WTC" hypnotic suggestion. Every time a debate of substance tried to begin, Mr. Ruff would huff and puff and scurry from the scene under the auspices of "not wanting to feed the trolls" or other bullshit. He prided himself on not reading my comments.
Lie #2 is contained within the same grammar-challenged sentence, re-written as "Mr. Rogue and Mr. Ruff spent many months in reasoned debate [with me]." Lopping off Mr. Ruff and concentrating on Mr. Rogue's efforts alone, "many months" applies, but the "reasoned debate" does not.
"Reasoned debate" implies all sorts of qualities that Mr. Rogue lacks. For one, it implies objectively reviewing the material that the other side brings to the table. To this end as but one example, Mr. Rogue admitted not only to not finishing Dr. Judy Wood's textbook but also to violently defacing it to use as bird cage liner. In exchange for receiving his copy, he was charged with producing an objective "good, bad, and ugly" review chapter-by-chapter and with paying it forward or passing it on when finished. He welched spectacularly on the deal. I probably would have been in agreement with any of "the bad and ugly" he might have offered up, but his inability to acknowledge any of "the good" contained therein -- however closely or sparsely spaced they might be -- is an excellent example of Mr. Rogue's definition of "reasoned debate" that doesn't hold muster.
Whereas Mr. Rogue can point to his one-sided blog as proof of his time commitment, titles like "Maxifuckanus" give more than a hint as to the quality of his "reasoned" efforts for bored readers and gluttons for punishment. What the same readers won't find is a "debate", because Mr. Rogue purges dissenting views.
Lie #3 is his second sentence: "Señor" has never had "the character or integrity to admit when he was wrong".
I used to be a no-planer, but not any more. I offered up a public apology in several places including these T&S forums.
I can provide other examples of me admitting being wrong, but this one suffices to corner Mr. Rogue (yet again for the umpteeth time) as being a LIAR, and thereby allowing me to call Mr. Rogue a LIAR whenever I see fit without consequence, because it was -- and now is again -- a substantiated, valid, character assessment.
Mr. Rogue continued:
This entity calling itself "Señor" clearly has no interest in any discussion here unless he can make an attempt to make it appear plausible that something said in the commentary is ample excuse to make a sales pitch for his singular product, the faulty nuclear/DEW gambit.
This tidbit about me supposedly having no interest in any discussion here (outside my hobby-horse nuclear area) becomes lie #4, as demonstrated by other comments to this thread and to all other threads. For example, I read Kevin Ryan's book, which neither Mr. Rogue nor Mr. Ruff did, despite them making many comments to that thread. Noteworthy is Mr. Ruff trying to bluff why he wasn't going to read it (based on hearsay), another lame excuse similar to his refusal to read Dr. Wood's book. We can't call their objectivity into question if they haven't gotten over their ignorance of the actual subject matter, a much worse reflection on their style of "reasoned debate."
Big words that Mr. Rogue utters, "the faulty nuclear/DEW gambit," but he's shooting blanks. In fact, neither he nor Mr. Ruff can prove the corner-stone of their "no-nukes" premise namely, "no radiation at the WTC". If they had the character or integrity to admit when they were wrong, they would acknowledge that ~all~ 9/11 reports on the radiation and dust are faulty, with the delays in taking samples being the most glaring one, sufficient to cover-over the side-effects of 4th generation nuclear weapons whose radiation is not lingering.
At best and in an honest moment, Mr. Ruff and Mr. Rogue could say that neither radiation nor the lack of radiation can be proven at the WTC, so it can't be used as a determining factor either way. The case for nukes or no-nukes would need to be built on other evidence. Too bad that neither Mr. Ruff nor Mr. Rogue has ever admitted to being wrong about chemical-based explosives and incendiaries in not being able to account for all of the observed evidence, such as the duration of hot-spots and the relative quiet decibel levels.
Mr. Rogue concludes:
This shall not be construed as a challenge to once again "debate" an issue that should have long ago been relegated to the trash bin.
If Mr. Rogue had a better memory and more integrity, he wouldn't be so easily trapped and outed as a liar. Yet his faulty memory is actually a dubious tactic, whereby he purposely mis-remembers and hypnotically suggests that nuclear topics were discussed and, based on sound arguments and "reasoned debate," relegated to the trash bin. Didn't happen.
Mr. McKee has been dragging his feet on writing his own article on nuclear 9/11 themes, or publishing an article from me. On this forum, nuclear themes have only been touched upon tangentially.
On Mr. Rogue's former home court, he was pwned so badly by me on this subject that from the onset of my arrival there he came unhinged against me and a female admin, so much so that he was |<--this close-->| to being banned. Indeed, Mr. Rogue's efforts to counter my nuclear arguments that he has re-published on his blog should have been edited & cleaned up long ago, or relegated to the trash bin. Instead, he serves them up as supposed "proof" of his "reasoned debate."
Nope. "Reasoned debate" on nuclear themes has yet to commense here. I give my debate opponents an advantage, because almost the entirety of my nuclear 9/11 position is available on my blog and can be addressed section-by-section, point-by-point in advance. The one deviation that I haven't had a chance to write up is that I no longer champion neutron nuclear DEW. In yet another instance where some evidence from the Dr. Wood camp [the dust and pulverization of the towers was "cool"] had me admit where I was wrong, I've moved from nuclear devices further into Dr. Wood's DEW via Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices that tweak my proposed neutron nuclear DEW devices further, exchanging heat & blast wave yields for energy at wavelengths, ala Project Excalibur, Casaba-Howitzer, x-ray lasers, etc.
P.S. Mr. Owen Meister, your assessment of the "oh elite and pedantic one" is very good.
//
x13 T&S Participants : Argumentum Verbosium
2014-04-08
clareKuehn
April 8, 2014 at 1:35 am
I see. Well September Clues and other arguments are both fine for WTC no planes.
Two planes were not scheduled to fly that day; two others were over other locations; planes intersecting with multiple floors, all with trusses and steel floorpans would not continue to enter without parts flying off at the very least; these supposed planes act like bullets into articles far softer than bullets, but the supposed planes are far too slow, intersecting with floor trusses of steel and floor pans of steel on multiple floors, and have parts which bullets don't, and are intersecting with objects far more dense than they are.
clarekuehn
April 8, 2014 at 1:38 am
I should also add that what you say about "if the perps could fake imagery they'd have gotten it right" is not true: different contracted or agent groups and different means of faking can lead to different results.
Happened with JFK. Lots of sloppiness in faking the images in time and getting the images over time to match each other.
+++++++++
hybridrogue1
April 8, 2014 at 5:37 am
The entity calling itself Señor El Once proceeds once more with his favorite PR technique of 'Argumentum Verbosium'; a form of Argument from Intimidation – in this case, by being incredibly verbose, using a plethora of words and twisted perspectives to make one's case.
As well Señor is outright lying himself in charging that I lied about anything whatsoever, and misrepresenting other aspects in the more subtle manner of intimation.
I will not be intimidated into silence by this bullshit artist, nor will I be taunted into yet another futile carousel of endless back and forth with someone who admits himself that there is no evidence of radiation, but that we must consider "other" evidence besides the prima facea evidence of the collapse of the towers themselves to determine such – by what I have pointed out time and again is nothing but empty assertion based on supposition, presumption, and the disfiguring of data.
As far as Señor's participation in the discussions on this blog, all one has to do is go through the last half dozen or so threads to see for themselves. The entity will usually make a token appearance to give a short praise to Craig, and that will be just about it. The only other times will be to take an opportunity to disparage my character in some way, as is seen on this very thread on APRIL 3, 2014 AT 6:31 P.M.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
April 8, 2014 at 6:52 am
NEW WAVE 9/11 PSYOP:
DEW – Nukes – NPT – Video Fakery – Holograms
All cloth from the same loom of lunacy. The garments made of this whole cloth are the same as those worn by the naked emperor.
They all have one purpose, to distract from real solid and rational investigation to lead into the weeds of confusion.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
April 8, 2014 at 8:34 am
NEW WAVE 9/11 PSYOP: DEW – Nukes – NPT – Video Fakery – Holograms
I have addressed all the vital points of these disinformation campaigns in previous rebuttals and offer these articles and attendant commentary.
http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/disinformation-dew-nuke/
\\][//
hybridrogue1
April 8, 2014 at 8:38 am
NEW WAVE 9/11 PSYOP: DEW – Nukes – NPT – Video Fakery – Holograms
[continued]
http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/911-disinformation-no-planes-theory/
\\][//
hybridrogue1
April 8, 2014 at 8:41 am
NEW WAVE 9/11 PSYOP: DEW – Nukes – NPT – Video Fakery – Holograms
[continued]
http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/disinformation-video-fakery/
\\][//
x14 Señor El Once : not commercial planes
Dear Ms. Kuehn,
Let us make a distinction between "no planes crashing at the WTC" (No Planes Theory [NPT]) and "not the alleged commercial planes crashing at the WTC" (No Commercial Planes Theory [NCPT]). The latter is applicable to your statement beginning:
Two planes were not scheduled to fly that day; two others were over other locations;
You wrote:
Well September Clues and other arguments are both fine for WTC no planes.
September Clues (SC) has been proven to be clueless with regards to crash physics, or any physics for that matter. Richard Hall deliberately misrepresents the radar data and its tolerances in order to promote holograms projected by cloaked planes, two technologies that have stark limitations to being convincing from all angles and perspectives of 9/11.
The towers were designed for aircraft to penetrate them: "Pencil through a screen." You wrote:
[P]lanes intersecting with multiple floors, all with trusses and steel floorpans would not continue to enter without parts flying off at the very least; these supposed planes act like bullets into articles far softer than bullets, but the supposed planes are far too slow, intersecting with floor trusses of steel and floor pans of steel on multiple floors, and have parts which bullets don't, and are intersecting with objects far more dense than they are.
The face of the tower falls was not 100% solid. 50% of the wall face was composed of window slits that offered zero resistance to plane. The bolts connecting the wall assemblies were designed-in failure points. The steel columns in the wall assemblies were not solid steel. They were composed of 1/4" steel plates fashioned into box columns 14"x14"x3-stories.
The Sandia F4 crash as well as Mythbusters' rocket-snow-plow videos demonstrate how crash physics changes when velocities are very large. The velocity-squared term in the energy equation is sufficient to overwhelm the materials of the aircraft wings/tail and shatter them, when they aren't being sliced and having momentum carry them into the towers. They wouldn't bounce as a whole unit off of the wall face, which is what crash physics at much lower velocities (<50 mph) demonstrates. The damage to the towers' faces needs to be quantified: how many wall assemblies failed at the bolts; how many wall assemblies were pushed out of the way; how many box columns got bent near the bolt junction (giving the impression of slicing); and how many box columns were outright cut? The damage can be misleading, but the number of box columns damaged is well within the energy of the fast moving aircraft.
Once the walls were breached, empty floor space greeted the aircraft unless it traveled through the core area (WTC-1). Dense wheels from the landing gear not only made it through the impact wall and the core area, but also knocked a wall assembly right off the back-side, severed at its bolts. That wall assembly flew 700 ft and was found with a wheel still in it. Between the two planes' 3 sets of landing gear, 20 wheels were in the mix. Ten separate reports of landing gear (e.g., wheels) were reported by reliable witnesses and would not have been easy to stage in the minutes after the "impacts" and when first responders arrived. Lots of aircraft debris was found, but due to the distance of most cameras and those cameras not being high speed, the shattered debris is easy to under-estimate or misrepresent, like SC does.
The plane at WTC-2 hit at an angle and its engine managed to rocket out the angled corner window (on a floor without a vertical beam in the window), fly 1,400 ft, bounce off a building at Park Place, and then tumble (?) under a scaffolding at Church & Murray. If you do the math, the engine had been slowed at impact from 500 mph and exited the towers at around 130 mph, well within the range of plausibility.
If you want to make hay out of the engine under the scaffolding, then it is reasonable to speculate that agents were trying to remove it, because it was not of the proper make-and-model for the alleged commercial aircraft and would have exposed the ruse. They were caught by rubber-necking civilians with cameras, so went with it. The whole crime scene was tampered with.
If you want to make hay out of the speed and precision of the aircraft not being possible for the alleged commercial aircraft at low altitude, I'm down with that but that doesn't mean that no aircraft were involved. It just means the aircraft weren't the alleged commercial ones. And if not the alleged ones, then all bets are off regarding what other enhancements were made to the planes (and/or the towers) to facilitate the observed destruction.
I believe that the "no planes at the WTC" argument was deliberately sown to distract from the legitimate cases of no planes crashing into the Pentagon and Shanksville. The NPT at the WTC is deliberately argued poorly by the likes of SC and Rich Hall, so that it will be discredited and sour the considerations elsewhere.
You wrote:
"[I]f the perps could fake imagery, they'd have gotten it right" is not true: different contracted or agent groups and different means of faking can lead to different results.
If you're arguing for digital manipulation of the imagery, why would all of the planes in 44 some videos be consistently rendered ~and~ have the pod on more than just several of the crucial ones? If you're arguing for holograms being projected by a cloaked aircraft, why would that hologram have the pod on it? This isn't a question of different results; if it is going to be faked, this consistent error would ~not~ be present.
Regardless of which no-planes argument you are supporting, the aircraft debris is overwhelming the more you research it. It would not be easy to fake and plant, and match trajectories observed of ejected pieces. It significantly increases the numbers of perpetrators involved in the ruse to get things planted unnoticed in a short time frame. And why bother when real aircrafts are available, and the only concern is them having sufficient velocity to assure penetration? The only miscalculation with real aircraft is identifiable parts from the aircraft escaping the towers.
//
x15 Señor El Once : Next Level 9/11 Nukes {published briefly}
{Although technically published, it was sent back into the moderating queue by Mr. McKee for being off topic.}
The instances of Mr. Rogue lying in this very thread have been substantiated. So his counter argument of "Señor is outright lying himself in charging that I lied about anything whatsoever" falls flat as a sophomoric "me-too-ism."
Readers can find humor that the "oh elite and pedantic one" finds a plethora of words intimidating and that he misrepresents this as "Argumentum Verbosium." Mr. Rogue has numerous character flaws that come to light when challenged, which then in his mind permits lying and misrepresentation. Too bad they backfire.
Case in point, Mr. Rogue misrepresents my position as: "someone who admits himself that there is no evidence of radiation."
The correct framing is that neither Mr. Rogue nor Mr. Ruff can prove the premise of "no radiation" which they erronously extrapolate to mean "no nukes."
We're already familiar with the philosophical question: "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" Perverting this, if nuclear devices are detonated and no one measures radiation within 48-72 hours (or longer), can all nuclear devices be ruled out? [Answer: No. Fusion and neutron devices can go undetected.] Another variant is: if various groups take samples and tabulate their data but don't discuss all anomalous aspects and correlations in the tabulated data, can the resulting report's "no nukes" conclusion be trusted? [Answer: No.]
Mr. Rogue boldly writes:
I will not be intimidated into silence by this bullshit artist, nor will I be taunted into yet another futile carousel of endless back and forth...
Silence was not expected. The links to Mr. Rogue's blog are good for a laugh. But the deceit in Mr. Rogue's efforts is evident when he lumps together "DEW – Nukes – NPT – Video Fakery – Holograms", thereby giving inadequate short-shrift to all and watering down whatever valid points he might make on any one of those themes.
Moreover, while my nuclear views shift when new information and analysis is presented, not so for the "oh elite and pedantic one". Reminds me of when Mr. Rogue tried to debunk the entirety of Dr. Wood's 2010 textbook with links to Dr. Jenkins' 2007 efforts. Today, Mr. Rogue tries to debunk 2014 analysis into 4th generation nuclear devices with tripe that he penned in 2012. Worse, Mr. Rogue has re-purposed his works from another forum, minus all dissenting and opposing comments except for what little he quotes for ridicule. Arguments strong enough to withstand reasoned challenges, Mr. Rogue does not make.
[DEW – Nukes – NPT – Video Fakery – Holograms] all have one purpose, to distract from real solid and rational investigation to lead into the weeds of confusion.
I agree.
Mr. Rogue doesn't assist the discussion by malframing them and by being resistent to nuclear powered DEW that are late-3rd-generation and early-adopter-4th-generation nuclear devices.
Mr. Rogue made a claim of "empty assertions" pertaining to my premise. Also:
I have addressed all the vital points of these disinformation campaigns in previous rebuttals and offer these articles and attendant commentary.
Nope. Aside from being old, it comes up short.
The following was posted on 2014-03-22 to another thread, but owing to the number of links, it still sits in the moderation queue. I've removed the links except for one.
Whereas Mr. Rogue will point to the following as "Argumentum Verbosium," the real danger is that it proves that Mr. Rogue has ~not~ addressed all the vital points, neither in his old articles nor in anything he's written recently.
++++
Mr. Rogue should be wary of the age-old computer expression: "garbage-in, garbage-out."
The "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" was scope-limited into attributing tritium to presumed building content. Out-of-scope was considering tritium coming from a destructive mechanism. It re-defined "trace or background levels" in cases to be 55 times greater than previously. Dates for samples (9/13, 9/21) -- aside from being delayed -- allow for tritium dissipation (from rain and firefighting efforts) and imply that tritium levels from 9/21 would be the same as from 9/11. They stopped taking additional samples when their testing of them revealed tritium levels well below the EPA threshold of what constitutes a health risk.
Mr. Rogue seems to point to the Paul Lioy report for his 0.14 pCi measuring of tritium. Tritium wasn't the purpose of that report; lamely explaining away radioactive isotopes was. It had elements of "garbage-in":
- Limited its analysis to three (3) "representative" dust samples (Cortlandt, Cherry, and Market Streets).
- Samples were only collected at "weather-protected" locations East of the WTC; nothing from North, South, or West. The dominant wind direction in summer months including September is to the North.
- Samples collected on 9/16 and 9/17, which is enough delay to allow for dissipation of certain radiation traces.
- Does not provide actual measurements or levels for trace measurements. It just writes that what was measured was at trace levels.
Whereas one might be able to say that the tritium report and the Lioy reports achieved their goals -- which were to underscore minimal health impacts from tritium and radio-active isotopes --, these reports with their limited scopes serve as the "garbage-in" to other efforts that try to "garbage-out" conclude that no nuclear devices were used.
Mr. Rogue confidently writes:
... the minute amount of tritium ... an infinitely small amount.
First of all, we are taking it on faith that no juking of the measured amounts happened, which would be a large leap of faith given issues already identified in their methodology and limited scope.
Secondly, tritium was measured, and the reports lamely try to cover it over. They have never fully explored all possible sources for the tritium, because associating it with nuclear weapons was out-of-scope.
Thirdly, the readers should inform themselves about the design aims and capabilities of fourth generation nuclear devices, which aren't that far from the neutron nuclear DEW devices that I had been championing.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071v5.pdf
Fourth generation: 25 mg DT => 1 ton yield at 50% efficiency
Consequently, going from the first to the fourth generation implies a total change of perspective about nuclear weapons: A "change of paradigm" where the concept of very-large-yield and big nuclear weapons for deterrence-use is shifting towards the concept of very-high-precision and compact nuclear weapons for battle-field-use — with yields in the 1 to 100 tons range, that is intermediate between conventional and contemporary nuclear weapons.
...
Third generation nuclear weapons are basically "tailored and special effects" warheads and systems developed between the 1960s and 1980s, mainly for tactical uses or ballistic missile defense. Examples of these developments comprise the following concepts:
- ERW — Enhanced Radiation (neutrons, hard X-rays)
- RRR — Reduced Residual Radiation (enhanced blast)
- EMP — enhanced ElectroMagnetic Pulse
- DEW — Directed Energy (plasma-jet or X-ray laser-beam)
- EPW — Earth Penetrating Warhead
- ETC —
...
[M]ost third generation concepts can be reconsidered in the context of fourth generation nuclear weapons. This is because the suppression of the fission-explosive trigger, and the reliance on fusion rather than fission as the main source of yield in FGNWs, enable to envisage devices of much lower yield and much reduced radiological impact.
My wild-ass, bat-shit crazy ~speculation~ into this theme begins with the fact that nuclear devices can make trade-off's during the design with regards to the expected yields and side-effects. Low-radiation or "reduced radiological impact" weapons have been a goal of weapons design for decades.
As an example of design trade-offs, neutron devices -- based on (fission-triggered) fusion devices -- expell the highly-energetic neutrons instead of containing them. Neutron radiation is very dangerous to life forms but is not lingering. When aimed in DEW fashion, collateral damage to life forms is more predictable. When aimed at certain materials, they become radioactive but it dissipates in 24-48 hours. [This highlights a purposeful fault in all government-sponsored reports on WTC radiation: delays in taking samples and/or narrow sample pools.] Also, the neutrons can be aimed away from tandem neutron devices, reducing the likelihood of fratricide.
Moreover, controlling the amount of escaping highly-energetic neutrons helps literally dial in other nuclear detonation side-effects like heat wave, blast wave, and EMP. Nuclear weapons of tactical low-yields are hard to achieve, but become easier when assumptions of "efficient usage of the nuclear energy" are discarded; energy is purposely wasted and "thrown-away usefully and purposely" by allowing the highly-energetic neutrons to escape.
Here are two data points. The Hutchison effect involves extremely-high frequency waves at resonant harmonics whose wavelengths are comparable to the distances betwen molecules and atoms of materials. Casaba-Howitzer and Project Excalibur were some of the origins to channeling selected wavelengths (e.g., x-rays) from the spectrum of nuclear emissions.
Wild-ass, bat-shit crazy extrapolation from those two data points would be a neutron device that would channel, say, x-ray frequencies of the nuclear detonation in a narrow cone ~upwards~ and missing the spire. Additional trade-off's in design could further sacrifice portions of the heat and blast wave yields.
The cone of x-ray (or other realm in spectrum) frequencies at resonant harmonics with its targets' components would achieve material dissassociation in the target. "Aersolization" of materials, like iron.
Another effect of this DEW related energy infusion -- like a microwave -- could be to turn water molecules trapped in materials instantly and directly into very hot steam, whose rapidly expanding volume-pressure blows apart the materials in question: concrete, drywall, humans, etc.
Such neutron detonations had a tactical but intense heat wave associated with it. Limited by the design and placement in the towers, it would have been masked by debris raining down from above. The "steel doobies," the arches, the horseshoes, and the iron spheres exhibited in dust samples could be attributed to this side-effect. Mutual exclusivity does ~not~ have to exist between traditional nuclear side-effects and what is attributed to Hutchison effects.
Some videos of the towers demise captures what looks like squib charges running ahead of the collapse wave. Again, my wild-ass, bat-shit crazy speculation into the matter is that this squib was the result of a conventional charge used to initiate the whole nuclear process. Maybe it was needed to inject the fissionable material together that then generates the high heats needed for the fusion process whose output yields are then manipulated. The output yields were directed upwards, which means they plow through existing structure above as well as then falling debris. Other pictures and videos exhibit what appears to be a fountain-effect regarding dustified content having an upward component to its trajectory vector before gravity turns it around and it falls to the ground.
If you look closely, the demise of both towers had remnants of a spire (one more short-lived than the other), which is a smoking gun that strongly indicates placement and aiming of such devices in the tower to miss the spire.
The duration of under-rubble hot-spots cannot be attributed to DEW or nuclear heat wave, because materials heated by such would have begun to cool as soon as the heat source stopped. 200,000 gallons of diesel fuel in the tower basements -- even ignoring fresh air limitations and fire-fighting efforts -- cannot account for the duration, as proven by math. Likewise, math proves nano-thermite with any combination of chemical-based explosives or indendiaries that were ~unspent~ from an original purpose of pulverization would be in quantities obscenely massive and not at all Occam Razor. Thus, as admitted by Dr. Steven Jones (September 2012), "Something maintained those hot-spots (not just nano-thermite)."
The energy sources (neutron nuclear devices) -- and in particular from devices that failed or fizzled -- comes closest to explaining the duration of hot-spots and anomalies in those under-rubble fires. Need I name drop "Fukushima?"
When the tretris-evidence blocks of the meteorite and fused filing cabinet comes down that we must orient into our 9/11 theory stacks, we need not quibble that a DEW portion of the expected yield created something as opposed to other side-effects also playing a role.
The wall assemblies that fell and were streaming gray matter as if a mixture of smoke, steam, and disassociated matter should be recognized as the same wall assemblies "steamed cleaned to the beam's metal" on top of the piles.
Each floor of the towers had a steel pan on which the concrete slabs were poured. Between this and the steel outer wall assemblies, an EMP portion of the nuclear detonation would be largely mitigate except for what might slip out of window slits line-of-sight.
As part of my bat-shit, crazy speculation, I've often stated that the vehicle damage in the parking lot and along West Broadway could be attributed to Eddy Currents created by EMP escaping the towers.
However, I leave the door open to 9/11 WTC damage not being exclusively the domain of one weapons system. It could be many, particularly when the crater to WTC-6, the bore-holes to WTC-5, and the level of WTC-4's main edifice at a line with its North Wing are considered. Lasers from space aren't out of the question. The vehicle damage then might be attributed to (a) targeting corrections, (b) beam start-up, (c)_ beam fall-off.
Before the carousel gets cranked, Mr. Jeff Prager's analysis of the dust sampled by USGS proves existence and correlation of atomic elements indicative of fission. This is a valid nuclear clue, along with tritium. I attribute this to fission-triggering of fusion in the neutron device.
In conclusion, the above is an imperfect marrying of Dr. Wood's DEW theories with a neutron nuclear devices to explain how the towers' content were pulverized. A different beast.
//
x16 Señor El Once : commandeered yet another thread
Mr. Rogue has made 67 out of 149 (45%) comments so far to this thread. I have made only 8 including this one (5%).
If we restrict ourselves to only comments made with today's date, my total including this one is 5, while Mr. Rogue's total is 13. If we set aside all of Mr. Rogue's on-topic postings from today, his count of off-topic postings still exceeds mine by a wide margin, which contradicts his own words:
So there we have it, Señor has commandeered yet another thread to smear his putrid pap, and to hell with the issue of "antisemitism" and the discussion preceding his crashing the party here.
Further contradicting Mr. Rogue are his 5 postings from today so far to his masterful Carnival d'Maxifuckanus.
He ponders:
Who does he attack on Truth and Shadows? Mr Ruff and myself. Who are the most active commentators on Truth and Shadows?
Mr. Ruff wasn't attacked. He was reminded that he is expected to "walk his own talk." Mr. Ruff's track record from several instances has been to pompously plunk down "rules for debate" on which he himself has been proven hypocritical.
As for Mr. Rogue, when he spreads lies, he can expect to be called on it.
Mr. Rogue writes on his lame blog:
I despise this little punk... Maxifuckanus is still spreading this bullshit. He even partners up with a low life papsmear like Owenmeister... Full-Monty Delirium: Another fusillade from Maxitwat of non sequiturs, misinterpretations, and full frontal lies. ... Again the little twit is confused... Señor El Once is the cops... This is the profile of an agent; a clever mole eating the roots of 9/11 truth... Señor Maxitwat is not interested in anything but promoting spurious nonsense, and defaming those who make strong arguments.
Defaming those who make strong arguments?!! El-oh-el! Nothing like Mr. Rogue discrediting himself.
Despite Mr. Rogue's hypnotic assertions -- "I have address every single one of these spurious points on this page already." --, it was a round of new lies from Mr. Rogue that were the subject and that he skirts in his hypocritical musings.
Because Mr. Rogue makes it so easy, let's hit upon another lie.
It has never been my or any other's position that the pyroclastic flows were particularly hot.
In the discussions where Mr. Rogue's theories needed to address the torched vehicles along West Broadway and the car park, conveniently forgetful Mr. Rogue was indeed championing that nano-thermite and other badness in the dust caused this anomalous vehicle damage. For him to say "never my position" is so easy to expose as both a lie and cheating debate tactics. In fairness, Mr. Rogue has modified his stance based on dubious work by Dr. Jenkins that suggests the dust was conductive, caused shorts in the vehicles, and can be attributed to the vehicle fires. It can't.
Mr. Rogue charges that my postings are "a form of intimidation to silence [Mr. Rogue]."
I only want to silence Mr. Rogue in spreading his defamation and lies. And if he isn't going to discuss Fourth-Generation Nuclear Devices in good faith, then indeed he should STFU there, too, and just ignore me. Don't rise to the occassion. Shouldn't be too hard.
But for all his charges of me "being the cops, the profile of an agent, a clever mole", readers only need to compare his 45% of the comments in this thread with my 5%. Projecting anyone? Amazing how this clever mole only has one or two hobby-horse, while innocent old Mr. Rogue plays the "Wal-Mart Greeter" to all who post here.
What I find most dispicable in Mr. Rogue is that he has a switch. As soon as it gets flipped, there's no turning back, no compromise, no re-evaluation even when something new is put on the table. Mr. Rogue's switch has been flipped against me since his entrance. It is flipped against DEW, against nukes, against any combination of the two, and is flipped for chemical-based explosives/indendiaries despite the science and math proving it obscenely unreasonable. If anything exposes an agent's profile, it would be an inability to consider new information and amending views.
//
x17 hybridrogue1 : Bullshit beancounter "statistics"
2014-04-08
April 8, 2014 at 5:01 pm
“Mr. Rogue has made 67 out of 149 (45%) comments so far to this thread. I have made only 8 including this one (5%).”~Señor
Bullshit beancounter “statistics”. My commentary until Señor was all on the topic of the thread. I can write this comment now, and it will be counted as another comment of this few words, whereas Señor’s commentary is always a long diatribe. This whole gambit of Señor’s is scurrilous nonsense.
\\][//
x18 Señor El Once : Good thing I can count
2014-04-08
April 8, 2014 at 5:16 pm
Good thing I can count, because Mr. Rogue obviously can’t. He’s got four (4) comments that link to his lame blog that were off-topic and were posted this morning before my two. Another proven ~lie~ from Mr. Rogue. //
x19 HybridRogue1 : an effort to avoid this detour
2014-04-08
April 8, 2014 at 6:06 pm
Those four comments, three of which have links to my blog were posted after the first opening lines of your nookiedoodoo shit. You were already on your nookiedoodoo roll on the 7th. You posted more crap later, after I had posted the links, but that is not what you are implying here.
As I explained to Socrates, I posted those links in an effort to avoid this detour. Your attempts to revise history right on the very thread where things take place are remarkably transparent.
Your the beancounter, but you can’t even keep the sequence straight.
\\][//
x20 HybridRogue1 : I do despise you with a passion
2014-04-08
April 8, 2014 at 5:38 pm
“In the discussions where Mr. Rogue’s theories needed to address the torched vehicles along West Broadway and the car park, conveniently forgetful Mr. Rogue was indeed championing that nano-thermite and other badness in the dust caused this anomalous vehicle damage. For him to say “never my position” is so easy to expose as both a lie and cheating debate tactics. In fairness, Mr. Rogue has modified his stance based on dubious work by Dr. Jenkins that suggests the dust was conductive, caused shorts in the vehicles, and can be attributed to the vehicle fires. It can’t.”~Señor
It was not the pyroclastic flows that effected the cars along West Broadway and the car park, all of the cars were directly under the still incendiary debris falling from the tower. The cars along West Broadway were towed there afterwards.
“Dr. Jenkins that suggests the dust was conductive, caused shorts in the vehicles, and can be attributed to the vehicle fires. It can’t.”~Señor
The dust was full of mettalic microspheres, the smug assumption that such material could not cause electrical shorts is more spurious assumption.
Yes, indeed Señor, I do despise you with a passion. It is not your championing of the Nookiedoodoo nonsense as much as your intent to defame and disparage my character. I didn’t start this “agent” crap here on this blog, that was your gambit right after I began posting here. My final straw was when you accused me of puppeting A Wright. Your historical revisionism is blatant bullshit.
And yes indeed, I have become convinced you are part of a well organized unit of Sunsteinian moles out to eat the roots of the truth movement. You’re the cops in my book.
As you have already commandeered this thread, let’s go for it.
This BOOK that you make such a fuss about. I offered you the piece of crap back. You refused. I came to the conclusion that there was nothing substantially different in the Wood book, than could be found on her web site. You were the one that insisted the book was necessary to get the “new info” that was missing from the site, and that her work could not be fairly evaluated without it. I read enough of the book to discover this was a flat out lie. You tried to chump me with your strong arm sales pitch, and when it backfired on you it ruined your day. You keep quoting me out of context and claiming that these are proofs that I am a liar. You are in fact the liar and obviously very expert at it.
You chagrin also revolves around disparaging my commitment to stay on the case and engaged here. Where you are finally now attempting a full court press to paint me as a villain, whereas nothing I have said on any other subject but your bullshit nookiedoo can be faulted, even by you. So you pretend that since I dispute your bullshit that I must be a liar…but I only lie about that. It is this inconsistency in your charges, that leads to smarmy complaints that I act as “the Walmart Greeter” here, because you can’t find any other valid reason to complain for my constant engagement on this site.
I am not going to roll over for you here. But I will say, that if this were my site that you have now taken over for the last part of this thread, I would kick your ass off post haste. And this is the same reason I won’t allow one stinking word from you on my blog.
\\][//
x21 Señor El Once : annoyed at the degree with which you copy-and-pasted your previous comments
Dear Ms. Kuehn,
You use the analogy of a bullet without understanding it. You can easily google high-speed film of bullets. I was amazed what I learned in one instance that showed a bullet hitting a steel plate. The bullet completely shattered on impact with the plate; its fragments never made it through and went in all directions mostly orthogonal to its direction of travel. Yet the bullet transferred its energy into the plate causing a plug of steel in the profile of the bullet to get shoved out the backside along with splaying of the metal. Although the resulting hole was big enough for the bullet to pass through, no bullet made it through the hole.
Your following statement is in error:
planes were to have intersected with multiple floors, all with trusses and steel floorpans would not continue to enter without parts flying off at the very least.
You are completely discounting the path of least resistance, which is between window slits and between floor pans. The aircraft were sliced by these elements. Plenty of low resistance space for sliced material to go. Again, I encourage viewing the Mythbuster's rocket-snow-plow video.
And if you observe both the videos and the images of debris around towers, you would know that parts did fly off. It just wasn't entire wing assemblies or tail assemblies for reasons that I have already explained having to do with shattering of materials at very localized spots ~before~ or ~instead of~ materials-as-a-cohesive-whole (e.g., wing/tail) acting.
Beyond that, I am a bit annoyed at the degree with which you copy-and-pasted your previous comments in this thread, as if the blatant repetition makes the erroneous more true. If you really wanted to convince me, one could argue that re-writing it in a different way would have half a chance. But to paste a near identical copy without enhancement or extension? To not address specific points in my response? You're making me lose respect. You won't fair well with further brain-dead postings. Step up your game, or get out.
//
x22 HybridRogue1 : avoid this detour
2014-04-08
hybridrogue1
April 8, 2014 at 6:06 pm
Those four comments, three of which have links to my blog were posted after the first opening lines of your nookiedoodoo shit. You were already on your nookiedoodoo roll on the 7th. You posted more crap later, after I had posted the links, but that is not what you are implying here.
As I explained to Socrates, I posted those links in an effort to avoid this detour. Your attempts to revise history right on the very thread where things take place are remarkably transparent.
Your the beancounter, but you can't even keep the sequence straight.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
April 8, 2014 at 5:38 pm
"In the discussions where Mr. Rogue's theories needed to address the torched vehicles along West Broadway and the car park, conveniently forgetful Mr. Rogue was indeed championing that nano-thermite and other badness in the dust caused this anomalous vehicle damage. For him to say "never my position" is so easy to expose as both a lie and cheating debate tactics. In fairness, Mr. Rogue has modified his stance based on dubious work by Dr. Jenkins that suggests the dust was conductive, caused shorts in the vehicles, and can be attributed to the vehicle fires. It can't."~Señor
It was not the pyroclastic flows that effected the cars along West Broadway and the car park, all of the cars were directly under the still incendiary debris falling from the tower. The cars along West Broadway were towed there afterwards.
"Dr. Jenkins that suggests the dust was conductive, caused shorts in the vehicles, and can be attributed to the vehicle fires. It can't."~Señor
The dust was full of mettalic microspheres, the smug assumption that such material could not cause electrical shorts is more spurious assumption.
Yes, indeed Señor, I do despise you with a passion. It is not your championing of the Nookiedoodoo nonsense as much as your intent to defame and disparage my character. I didn't start this "agent" crap here on this blog, that was your gambit right after I began posting here. My final straw was when you accused me of puppeting A Wright. Your historical revisionism is blatant bullshit.
And yes indeed, I have become convinced you are part of a well organized unit of Sunsteinian moles out to eat the roots of the truth movement. You're the cops in my book.
As you have already commandeered this thread, let's go for it.
This BOOK that you make such a fuss about. I offered you the piece of crap back. You refused. I came to the conclusion that there was nothing substantially different in the Wood book, than could be found on her web site. You were the one that insisted the book was necessary to get the "new info" that was missing from the site, and that her work could not be fairly evaluated without it. I read enough of the book to discover this was a flat out lie. You tried to chump me with your strong arm sales pitch, and when it backfired on you it ruined your day. You keep quoting me out of context and claiming that these are proofs that I am a liar. You are in fact the liar and obviously very expert at it.
You chagrin also revolves around disparaging my commitment to stay on the case and engaged here. Where you are finally now attempting a full court press to paint me as a villain, whereas nothing I have said on any other subject but your bullshit nookiedoo can be faulted, even by you. So you pretend that since I dispute your bullshit that I must be a liar…but I only lie about that. It is this inconsistency in your charges, that leads to smarmy complaints that I act as "the Walmart Greeter" here, because you can't find any other valid reason to complain for my constant engagement on this site.
I am not going to roll over for you here. But I will say, that if this were my site that you have now taken over for the last part of this thread, I would kick your ass off post haste. And this is the same reason I won't allow one stinking word from you on my blog.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
April 8, 2014 at 6:19 pm
And thanks for posting the link to the Maxifuckanus thread Señor. If you think that you are going to come out smelling of roses after a reading of that entire thread, and not just the out of context portions you grab and paste here, you are delusional beyond redemption.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
April 8, 2014 at 6:28 pm
I have no idea of what percentage of commentary this one will count as, but I do have to wonder; it would seem to me that the readership here must be pretty sick of this flame war. I know I am, because I had no intent in getting involved in this. But Señor's rabid attacks cannot go without answer.
I leave it to him to cease this nonsense now. But will not hesitate to defend myself if this continues.
\\][//
Craig McKee
April 8, 2014 at 9:39 pm
Enough.
I don't want to read any more of this exchange. I do not want to see any more comments on this thread dealing with nukes, no planes, anyone's comments on another blog, mention of discussions on another blog, and rehashed personal attacks (whether deserved or not) relating to any of these.
The subject at hand lends itself to comments on a variety of things, including anti-Semitism (or unfair attacks of anti-Semitism), media propaganda, and how we can advance the cause of 9/11 Truth despite the media and despite our differences of opinion on how this false flag was pulled off.
Can we all manage that?
hybridrogue1
April 8, 2014 at 9:52 pm
I am in perfect agreement with what you just said Craig.
\\][//
ruffadam
April 9, 2014 at 1:49 am
I can manage that as well Craig.
x32 Señor El Once : can't handle being WRONG
2014-04-09
{Not emailed or published to a forum.}
Mr. Rogue,
Your assessment of me being "an arrogant and insufferable asshole" is tainted by you being caught in numerous lies... Lies about tiny things. Lies that didn't need to be there, except that your ego can't handle being WRONG.
So somehow you have rationalized in your tiny little mind that lies to bolster your case are better than being wrong. News flash: they're not. Being wrong can be fixed. Lies, on the other hand, just discredit you.
"Señora Clitora d'Maxifuckanus" and "Maxitwat"? No other proof is required that you are misogynistic. Part of your signature style that you are so proud of, but can't use on T&S.
//
x23 Señor El Once : lie: cars along West Broadway were towed there
{Published to T&S but then sent back to moderation queue.}
Mr. Rogue wrote:
It was not the pyroclastic flows that effected the cars along West Broadway and the car park, all of the cars were directly under the still incendiary debris falling from the tower. The cars along West Broadway were towed there afterwards.
This is a blatant lie. Some of the cars along West Broadway were photographed while still on fire, lest Mr. Rogue conveniently forget images from Dr. Jenkins. Worse, cars no longer on fire were photographed and video taped before WTC-7 came down.
When exactly did they have time to tow the cars to West Broadway between the towers coming down and WTC-7 coming down? And why? Mr. Rogue can't substantiate this claim.
Likewise the claim of the "conductive dust" causing shorts in the cars' electrical systems is just as dubious and has been debunked. When vehicles are turned off, where exactly within a vehicle are the locations that the "conductive dust" would need to bridge to get a short? Across battery terminals, perhaps? After snaking through the grill and under the car, exactly how much this "conductive dust" would need to cake onto the battery to allow a car igniting short? And let us not forget the many vehicles who were torched at different areas other than the engine compartment.
Too bad that Mr. Rogue discredits himself.
//
x24 Señor El Once : difficult to regain momentum lost
{Published to T&S but then sent back to moderation queue.}
Hmmm... Here's something very curious. Mr. Rogue wrote on April 8, 2014 at 5:38 pm:
The cars along West Broadway were towed there afterwards.
Legacy can be a bitch, particularly when someone has something to hide. Here's something from just less than two years ago on Truth & Shadows in the article "Two quit in protest after Zarembka dumped from Consensus 9/11 Panel" [Link not provided so that comment won't sit in moderation queue.]
I wrote on May 6, 2012 at 12:29 pm (to Mr. Adam Syed):
I'd like to know how all of the vehicles along West Broadway got torched BEFORE WTC-7 was demolished.
Mr. Rogue chimed in on May 7, 2012 at 12:34 am:
Man, we went through this as well, the damn cars were towed there from the areas around the towers…it is documented fact. I gave you Jenkins papers on this, he fricking proves these things there, and there are no rational arguments against the facts as he lays them out as provided by public information on all counts, plus photo evidence.
I responded on May 7, 2012 at 10:52 am:
There's a great video of some reporter [Vince Dimentri] coming out from WTC-7 who didn't know really where he was [West Broadway and Barkley] but was commenting on the damage to car after car and it looking like a war zone. "Car after car after car and buses completely obliverated and burned down to the steel... That gaping hole? That's where one of the twin towers stood."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Szgj5yUSdc&feature=related
Watch this video in YouTube so that you can find the other videos from the same CBS crew.
Mr. Rogue contended in 2012 that the cars along West Broadway were towed there. Towed there between when the towers came down and this CBS film crew arrived (and before WTC-7 came down)? Hardly. Now in 2014, Mr. Rogue contends the same thing despite lots of evidence presented to him to the contrary in the meantime, including a gift-with-strings-attached of Dr. Wood's book. Gives new meaning to Mr. Rogue's comment today: "It can be difficult to regain momentum lost. Trying to regain the thrust I was on..." [on the carousel that he cranks and the lies that he spreads.]
If Mr. Rogue is going to be the number one commenter here, he's going to have to be an honest one, or I'll flame his ass with his own lies, his own lack of objectivity, his own closed-minded agenda. It isn't my fault that Mr. Rogue's integrity is in shambles. If Mr. Rogue doesn't give me ammo, it won't get shot into his foot.
//
x25 hybridrogue1 : What an insufferable asshole Señor is
I see that there is one member of the forum here that is intent on disregarding the wishes of the owner of this blog, as evidenced by these two new posts from this morning:
Señor El Once
APRIL 9, 2014 AT 10:34 AM
APRIL 9, 2014 AT 11:48 AM
I don't have any comment on the continuing slurs and spittle. Not here at this time, other than to remark:
What an insufferable asshole Señor is.
\\][//
x26 Señor El Once : disregarding the wishes of the owner of this blog
Mr. Craig McKee wrote:
I do not want to see any more comments on this thread dealing with ... rehashed personal attacks (whether deserved or not)... Can we all manage that?
Mr. Rogue wrote on April 8, 2014 at 9:52 pm:
I am in perfect agreement with what you just said Craig.
Mr. Rogue then promptly contradicts himself on April 9, 2014 at 12:15 pm with this hypocritical entry:
I don't have any comment on the continuing slurs and spittle. Not here at this time, other than to remark: What an insufferable asshole Señor is.
Talk about "disregarding the wishes of the owner of this blog" as well as demonstrating his own lack of integrity and honesty!
For the record, when Mr. McKee asked "Can we all manage that?" I did not answer; I was off-line enjoying my life. Maybe I can or maybe I can't manage that. But so far I have. Exposing new lies from Mr. Rogue is in a different category regardless of what theory is being used to explain the evidence.
Mr. Rogue contends without substantiation that the damaged vehicles in the following video were towed to West Broadway between 10:28 am and 5:21 pm. (WTC-7 is clearly seen at 0:30 behind Vince Dementri.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI10oG1Gzrg&feature=related
If this contention is true (which I doubt), it is interesting that they would just dump the cars on the sidewalk and the middle of the street (West Broadway). And geez, given that they were shoo-ing away civilians from a radius of several blocks from the WTC, it is strange that they'd let in civilian tow-trucks. Funny that at 0:07, there are no tire tracks or other evidence of tow vehicles.
//
x27 T&S Participants : can manage that as well
2014-04-10
hybridrogue1
April 8, 2014 at 9:52 pm
I am in perfect agreement with what you just said Craig.
\\][//
ruffadam
April 9, 2014 at 1:49 am
I can manage that as well Craig.
Hybridrogue1
April 9, 2014 at 6:27 am
It can be difficult to regain momentum lost. Trying to regain the thrust I was on before the flashbang… some reconstruction is in order.
We were considering the psychological tensions created when the curse of “antisemitism” is leveled. Like many aspects in an Orwellian state, it is a designed strategy of tension. The differing reactions of various personalities can be dramatic. Mostly it will result in confusion and the average person just turning off and away from the whole subject, as if it doesn’t exist.
But when it is constant solid-state paradigm, there will be other reactions, some hyper and hysterical, some reasoned and well thought through, and all manner in-between.
I think the example of Owen is something that can be highlighted. He is obviously very angry. He also feels that he is shielded from criticism of his hyper-reactionary stance to the question of “the Jews”. He feels justified in projecting his unfocused hatred towards a whole group without reasoned distinctions being made.
Those who point out such reasoned distinctions to someone like Owen are met with more reactionary hysteria. His protective shell grows thicker. And as I have been trying to articulate here, this is exactly the desired result of those playing the ‘control game’ of the Hegelian dialectic. Owen has chosen a team. And this team has its own particular form of groupthink. And Owen marches in lockstep to a rather militarist drum beat. Of course this is the “true-believer” syndrome, that comes in so many varied shapes and sizes. It is a dogmatic state of mind, and a hard one to reason with.
\\][//
Craig McKee
April 9, 2014 at 1:44 pm
I may not have been clear enough previously when I listed things I did not want discussed further on this thread. ANYTHING off topic will be deleted as several comments have been over the past few minutes. And it doesn’t matter whether future comments are in response to previous ones.
Señor El Once
April 9, 2014 at 2:09 pm
Don’t stop there, Mr. McKee. Keep going. You should begin your selective purging around April 7 going until the present. //
Craig McKee
April 9, 2014 at 3:38 pm
Thanks, but I’ll decide what is allowed and not allowed. My purging, as you call it, is not selective at all. I was very clear that I wanted the discussion that had derailed this thread to stop. Not forever, but on this thread. You seemed to suggest that you had not agreed to these conditions (and therefore were not bound by them). But this is not a negotiation. And your comments were not the only ones removed.
I try to be as fair as possible, often erring on the side of being too lenient. When I ask for an end to a particular departure from the topic, I expect that to be respected.
Adam Syed
April 10, 2014 at 12:17 am
Craig, I think you are doing a fine job as I’ve been following this.
Craig McKee
April 10, 2014 at 12:27 am
Thanks, Adam.
hybridrogue1
April 10, 2014 at 10:11 am
Hi Mr Syed,
It is encouraging to hear from you – to know that some are still following this.
So I thank you as well.
\\][//
Señor El Once
April 10, 2014 at 10:59 am
I have no issues with Mr. McKee’s handling of the situation, only respect for Mr. McKee. Our history on T&S is longer than all others, and I’m sure it gives him no pleasure to (legitimately) smack down an “internet friend.”
One benefit to the recent change to instant-approval of postings is that emails are sent immediately to those who have notifications turned on. While the comment can be purged, the email can’t be recalled.
I like to assist my debate opponents by providing my sources of information and my arguments, for which the email serves that purpose even if the comment doesn’t survive for being off-topic [not that it hasn't been lobbied that an on-topic area is needed.]
Why assist my opponents? Because it isn’t about me being right; it is about what is the Truth. Forearmed with my sources and arguments, if they find errors in either one, they assist me in winnowing things down to what is the Truth. I have the integrity to admit when something duped me and I was wrong.
For when my nuclear hobby-horse topic comes up again — and it will, because that is where Truth leads –, my opponents’ in-boxes have foreshadowed the cards I’ll be playing. Counter them if they can. “Legitimately,” I might add, and not with cheap-tricks as some have been known to deploy, particularly when cornered and/or their premise is found inadequate.
//
Craig McKee
April 10, 2014 at 5:22 pm
I’m not necessarily opposed to a debate or discussion of the nuclear question (I’d rather have the topic dealt with on a single thread rather than have it come up everywhere else), because I am concerned about the truth, first and foremost.But I have serious doubts about whether this could be done here in a productive and informative way. Perhaps it can, but it would have to be more than a rehash of what has been fought over here at length in recent months.
And as I’ve said to you privately, I have a full plate right now, both in terms of the blog and other writing projects, so I’m not going to want to tackle something over the next two or three months that would be a major time and energy commitment. I’ve also been focused more on how to get the 9/11 truth message to a wider audience than on resolving issues like what type of explosives were used to bring the towers down. But that could change in the weeks ahead.
I do certainly acknowledge and appreciate that you have been part of this blog from the beginning, often offering support and encouragement when there wasn’t a lot of that coming from elsewhere. And I appreciate that you, Hybridrogue, and others who comment here are able to offer thoughtful and evidence-based commentary on the subject of 9/11. But while we don’t all agree on the details, we have to find a way to get on the same page as far as moving the discussion forward productively.
hybridrogue1
April 12, 2014 at 5:04 pm
Well this thread is apparently dead.
The question is, did it die of natural causes? Or was it thrown under a bus?
\\][//
ruffadam
April 12, 2014 at 7:54 pm
I vote for it having been thrown under a bus. I find it very interesting in each new article from Craig the new posters that pop up. Invariably there seems to be an agenda other than honest discussion and debate behind their posts. I notice further that when these agendas fail that the derailers roll in to spoil the discussion. I am fully convinced that professional disinfo operatives pay attention to this blog and from time to time pop in for a little chaos creation.
For the record since this thread is dead SOE continues dishonestly to portray myself and HR1 as refusing to address his/her/its nuke theories. We have both addressed them at length and debunked them thoroughly. I am sick of SEO claiming we have not done so, it is dishonest and should not be allowed to continue. I am not going to play the damn game where I answer and then a little time passes and it is claimed I never answered. That is what the troll A.Wright used to do. It is just an attempt to waste my time along with the obvious derailing of the thread. SEO claims all kinds of new nukes are out there but to my knowledge shows no evidence that these “low radiation” nukes even exist in reality much less that they existed in 2001. The nuke theory is a load of crap and I am not going to deal with it again. Count me out of any nuke discussions in the future, I will not waste my time on troll bait again.
x33 Señor El Once : compelled to tell lies to bolster your arguments
2014-04-10
{Not emailed or published to a forum.}
Mr. Rogue,
You should ask yourself why you are compelled to tell lies to bolster your arguments. Their exposure just harms your credibility and integrity. Could it be that you want them exposed? You want the side-shows they create? What are they, not only a convenient distraction tool but ultimately your web presence's very own self-destruct mechanism, which most disinformation vehicles have built in?
Your blog isn't designed or maintained to be a worthy legacy, your wise words that outlive you. The title of the entry "Carnival d'Maxifuckanus" alone suggests its long-term value. What does it prove? Your endearing names for me, like "Maxitwat" and "Señora Clitora d'Maxifuckanus" that hint at the inferiority of the female genitals, don't affect me in the least but do expose you as misogynistic and arrays half the world's population against you at a glance.
Hmmm. Maybe this streak of misogyny underlies your rabid disparagement of Dr. Wood's work without any details or specifics.
I knew nothing of your misogyny when you cornered yourself with your attempts at book reviews without having read the book. You knew how I was using her book to inspire rational discussion with leaders of the 9/11 Truth Movement well ~before~ an offer with conditions was eventually extended to you. It was a test of objectivity. I was attempting a sincere effort to get two opposing sides on the same literal page in order to legitimately and objectively review Dr. Wood's work.
Who knows why you accepted?
Prior to receiving the book, you were disparaging it. Maybe you only accepted the offer as a cheap trick to get out of being constantly reminded that you had no standing for negatively evaluating it if you'd never read it. Maybe you thought it would be a cake walk to find all bad and acknowledge no good. Maybe you were unprepared for how little bad there was in comparison to overwhelming amounts of good. At the end of the day, what matters is how you played it.
You ran out the clock on reading it. When pressed, you said you didn't finish reading it and weren't going to "because it was so bad." Huh? If it was so bad, why didn't you document the many instances that made it bad, as was the assignment that you agreed to? Pressed further, you try to send it back, but pay-it-forward or pass-it-along were the conditions, not return-to-sender. Pressed further, you violently ripped it apart to be used as bird-cage liner so that nobody could obtain any further benefit from it, least of all yourself when the book cycled back into discussions.
Does any of this make rational sense?
It tells me that you were never sincere in the first place. You thought you were playing me and avoiding for as long as possible a legitimate and objective review of Dr. Wood's work (and the evidence contained therein.) You distract further with your song-and-dance about there being no difference between the book and her website (overlap, yes; differences, yes), and with the ~LIE~ that you had already debunked her website. Huh? If this were the case, you would have had already written up much of what was bad about the book, could have copy-and-pasted from that website review effort, and would truly have had a cake walk with the requested book review. But it was not the case, and you can't point to any such personal debunking of her website, page-by-page, image-by-image. But I can point this out as but one lie in a string of them.
I could not have imagined that I would get so much milage out of a book, one that I know has issues.
I didn't have any accomplices, but I did have a control who was BCC'd on emails of importance, such as the offer with conditions. I didn't have to call in the control, because you never disputed them when they were re-posted from email to T&S the first time. Only much later did you start trying the deceitful tricks of revising the history. I can only suppose that you weighed a few temporary moments of appearing right at that instance in the forums as being more valuable than the potential long-term ding on your integrity when eventually exposed: the lie of the revised history, on top of the welching of the very lax conditions, on top of demonstrating how objective and fair you truly are (not), on top of many other deceitful tricks.
On top of proving that maybe you really aren't that bright or observant.
Here's a clue, Mr. Rogue. 99% of my words were written and saved off-list before being published on-list to COTO, T&S, Facebook, etc. Why? I stand behind my words. None of those forums can be trusted to preserve them. I re-purpose my writing on my blog (eventually when I get around to it). Because establishing a worthy legacy is a goal from the onset, it inspires me as I write to take the high-road and to preserve URLs where discussions happened. As a side benefit once I've done the re-purposing to my blog for the month or quarter, it ends up being a handy "database" to retrieve things, like when I want to re-use my words in a new venue or when I detect my opponent playing carousel games.
Your references to a "major work of pure venom [that] was deleted from COTO" aren't to my words, but yours. My words have already been re-purposed and are available. And yes, if you search, you'll find all instances of me calling you "a cheat", "a liar," "a weasel," and "an agent." Compared to "Maxitwat" and "Señora Clitora d'Maxifuckanus", maybe my words are "pure venom," because all (except "agent") were substantiated. "Agent" is only speculated owing to everything above and your unhingement.
//
x28 T&S Participants : mention his name in a game and he shows up
2014-04-13
ruffadam
April 12, 2014 at 7:54 pm
I vote for it having been thrown under a bus. I find it very interesting in each new article from Craig the new posters that pop up. Invariably there seems to be an agenda other than honest discussion and debate behind their posts. I notice further that when these agendas fail that the derailers roll in to spoil the discussion. I am fully convinced that professional disinfo operatives pay attention to this blog and from time to time pop in for a little chaos creation.
For the record since this thread is dead SOE continues dishonestly to portray myself and HR1 as refusing to address his/her/its nuke theories. We have both addressed them at length and debunked them thoroughly. I am sick of SEO claiming we have not done so, it is dishonest and should not be allowed to continue. I am not going to play the damn game where I answer and then a little time passes and it is claimed I never answered. That is what the troll A.Wright used to do. It is just an attempt to waste my time along with the obvious derailing of the thread. SEO claims all kinds of new nukes are out there but to my knowledge shows no evidence that these “low radiation” nukes even exist in reality much less that they existed in 2001. The nuke theory is a load of crap and I am not going to deal with it again. Count me out of any nuke discussions in the future, I will not waste my time on troll bait again.
owenmeister
April 13, 2014 at 1:27 am
Mr. Ruff: How can honest discussion and even debate exist when on my second post entry, I am called either a Zionist stooge or a member of a terrorist group? Let me answer that for you. It can’t and that is what this site is for: To actually shut down any real discussion of the issues by paper activists. Any real activist worth his or her salt would not be calling another poster of this site a low-life pap smear.
Craig: Your appeal for civility rings hollow when you allow other posters’ character to be defamed by others with impunity. I’m a low-life pap smear, huh? Silence is consent, buddy. You set yourself up for some serious liability when you don’t squelch that type of emotionally unbalanced talk.
hybridrogue1
April 13, 2014 at 7:58 am
owenmeister,
I have read through your current comment several times, just to be sure I didn’t miss it, so I am positive that you still are not answering the question put to you many times now.
This question is and remains:
“Is it your opinion that Jewish people as a group are involved in all of this nefarious business?”
. . . . . . . .
No one has called you “a low-life pap smear” on this thread. You tend toward hysterical hyperbole, and have a distinct and obvious inability when it comes to reading comprehension, which results in your continued nonsensical commentary.
You began your participation here with baseless insults, asserting that there has been some sort of campaign to veil the participation of Israel in the events of 9/11, and charging that Mr McKee is “baiting”. You are then shocked, ‘oh so shocked’ that any here would take umbrage at such outrageous nonsense.
I suggest you answer the question put to you or discontinue your obvious trolling here.
\\][//
A.Wright
April 13, 2014 at 8:35 am
@Adam Ruff
I don’t know where you have answered questions I have asked since you rarely address anything I write here except to respond with derogatory personal insults that are not based on anything I have written, combined with reminders of how much more moral and righteous you are yourself.
hybridrogue1
April 13, 2014 at 9:17 am
Mr Wright also has a question pending that he has failed to answer. In case he has forgotten that question it is:
Why are you here Wright? What motivates you to stalk this forum? What is in it for you? You have never even attempted to give an explanation.
You haven’t made a reasonable answer to this question since it first came up. Now, why are you defending the absurd narrative of this criminal warmonger state?
How can you propose that it is a “derogatory personal insult” for you to be characterized as a stooge and a shill for the system? It is your whole shtick. You claim that you have been insulted for things that are not based on anything you have written. This is utter bullshit Wright. EVERYTHING you have written here is clearly state propaganda.
That you persist here, even though your thinly veiled cover is blown, indicates that you are compensated in some form for your web presence dealing with 9/11.
Do you share office space with this “owenmeister” clown?
\\][//
A.Wright
April 13, 2014 at 5:26 pm
@Hybridrogue1
Considering that I have previously written here that my name isn’t A.Wright, I’m not an american, am an ordinary office worker who has taken an interest in this issue of 911 , hate to see people wrongly accused , and people being accused without a defense being offered (apparently not a good enough reason to contribute a few comments on this forum) – all of which then resulted in more accusations from you that I am some kind of agent assigned to the forum and, bizarrely, a search on a database to find people named ‘A. Wright ‘ I’d say telling you anything would be pretty much a waste of time. Apparently whatever I tell you won’t be believed so why should I bother telling you anything?
hybridrogue1
April 13, 2014 at 11:02 am
Consider what a full spectrum dominance regime would develop as a strategy to conquer the remaining rational elements in a society. Taking Cass Sunstein’s formula to heart, it is reasonable to assume that there would be an assortment of approaches taken. For a dialectical purpose there would be at least two teams directed towards dampening independent thought.
One side of the dialectical coin would be the outright stooges for the state. A shining example here would be Mr Wright, a straight forward shill and apologist for the state apparatus. For a synthesis to occur there would be a team of moles, pretending at being a part of the group of independent rational free thinkers. Owenmeister, stands as a very probable example here.
So herein we find ourselves stretched between two extremes; the staid ‘conservative’ pretender {Wright}, and the lunatic fringe ‘radical {Owen}.
Both yet still presenting a similar complaint, that of being “insulted” by the responses given to them here.
They do not necessarily need be connected in any official sense, but take cues from one another. However proposing the possibility that they are in fact working together as team members is not out of the question, nor unreasonable in the slightest.
Another distinct possibility is that they are both simply stark raving mad, or dupes of the PR Regime. Either way, they both present us with spurious and ludicrous commentary, giving us the opportunity of analysis as to their motivation.
\\][//
Craig McKee
April 13, 2014 at 3:33 pm
Owenmeister, you started your contribution here by accusing me of “baiting” and “diverting” and writing fluff – which were baseless and very insulting attacks. It is your pouting about civility that rings hollow to me.
x29 Señor El Once : sick of SEO claiming we have not done so
{Due to the number of links, it was sent to the moderation queue. It was written off-line and then posted first thing upon going online. Discovered a message from Mr. McKee saying he'd prefer me not answering. Whew! Thus, it'll probably never get out of the moderation queue.}
Mr. Adam Ruff wrote on April 12, 2014 at 7:54 pm:
For the record since this thread is dead SOE continues dishonestly to portray myself and HR1 as refusing to address his/her/its nuke theories. We have both addressed them at length and debunked them thoroughly.
Nothing like Mr. Ruff bringing the thread to life again with such charm.
If Mr. Ruff were referring to the actual record, he'd be proven wrong, which is why he provides no links. If my nuclear theories had been debunked in a convincing fashion, I wouldn't be still peddling them. I have the ability to change my mind when proven wrong.
As for the hypnotic suggestion that Mr. Ruff and Mr. Rogue "both addressed them at length", it is interesting how Mr. Ruff tries to muscle in on Mr. Rogue's efforts and grab some credit. Mr. Ruff's efforts boil down to "[Mr. Ruff] refuses to read SEO's comments or references" and "no radiation = no nukes" even though he can't substantiate "no radiation" with a report having prompt, systematic, and thorough measurements that all were at or below trace background levels. Strawman alert.
Mr. Ruff continues:
I am sick of SEO claiming we have not done so, it is dishonest and should not be allowed to continue.
For honesty's sake, Mr. Ruff should provide the quotations from and links to all of his own comments that substantiate his alleged nuclear debunking efforts. When he comes up short, the "dishonest" label will be put on his forehead like a Dole banana sticker.
Mr. Ruff continues:
I am not going to play the damn game where I answer and then a little time passes and it is claimed I never answered.
Mr. Ruff should put up or shut up. Quotations with links to his own words. Maybe Mr. Ruff will select this quote from March 7, 2013 at 1:20 am?
Tamborine man – HR1 posts I read, yours I almost always skip along with SEO’s.
Ooops. If Mr. Ruff doesn't even read my postings, it kind of puts him into a tough spot with regards to his claims on having answered them.
Or maybe Mr. Ruff will choose this quotation from March 7, 2013 at 10:57 am:
... and no way in hell I am going to spend the enormous amount of time necessary to debunk Judy Woods crappy book page by page when I have shown already that the entire basis for her stupid theory is bogus speculation on her part to begin with. I am not and HR1 is not stupid enough to be drawn into such a monumental waste of time.
Mr. Rogue never did any debunking of Dr. Wood's book or website, chapter-by-chapter or page-by-page (paper or web), although he promised to and struts around as if he did. To be fair, Mr. Rogue did destroy Dr. Wood's book physically, but he did not debunk concepts contained within.
Unfortunately, Mr. Ruff has ~not~ ever shown "the entire basis for her stupid theory is bogus speculation." No. As far as I know, this is just Mr. Ruff's wishful thinking.
Oh, snap! Maybe Mr. Ruff was referring to the results of this wishful collaboration from November 17, 2012 at 5:15 am:
Well I have to say at this point that I have been remiss and negligent in my 9/11 truthing for a long while now. I have failed to fully explain and argue my case on many occasions. I have no excuses to offer except to say that I am tired of re-arguing points that have been dealt with years ago. One such issue where I have been negligent due to my “burn out” is the DEW issue. I have failed to fully explain and illustrate for the uninitiated (such as Jesse Ventura) exactly why and how Judy Wood’s theory is wrong. I am going to change that.
...
I therefore propose that those of us who wish to collaborate on a decisive debunk of DEW thoeries do so and send that off to Jesse to consider. We can also post that debunk prominently and give opportunity for Wood herself or her supporters to challenge our work. From then onward we can simply provide the link to that debunk instead of re-arguing the case over and over. I want to do this ONCE more and never again. I did this years ago on the Randi Rhodes blog but that vast archive was lost and all my careful work debunking DEW’s was lost as well. This time I intend to keep a copy myself.
I ask HR1 and OSS specifically if they would like to collaborate with me on such a project? ... Perhaps after this we can knock out a few other bogus theories too.
A year and five months later, surely Mr. Ruff could cough up the link with results of this collaboration!
++++
Back to the present, Mr. Ruff writes:
[I am not going to play the damn game where I answer and then a little time passes and it is claimed I never answered.] That is what the troll A.Wright used to do. It is just an attempt to waste my time along with the obvious derailing of the thread.
If that collaboration from November 2012 had any fruition, surely Mr. Ruff would be able to copy-and-paste his debunking effort, or post the URL where it is published. Its whole purpose was to be a time saver, so that in moments like this posting the URL wouldn't be a waste of time.
Mr. Ruff continues:
SEO claims all kinds of new nukes are out there but to my knowledge shows no evidence that these "low radiation" nukes even exist in reality much less that they existed in 2001.
It has been posted several times, although admittedly the last few times it was either stuck in or sent back into the moderation queue. Call them late-3rd-generation or early-adopter-4th-generation nuclear devices:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071v5.pdf
Mr. Ruff continues:
The nuke theory is a load of crap and I am not going to deal with it again. Count me out of any nuke discussions in the future, I will not waste my time on troll bait again.
Fine. Because Mr. Ruff is out, because Mr. Ruff won't read my comments anyway, and because Mr. Ruff won't read the material referenced [as proven with books from Dr. Wood and Kevin Ryan], it means that Mr. Ruff forfeits the right to even publicly utter "the nuke theory is a load of crap." Most likely, his sources for such erroneous beliefs have already had their errors and omissions exposed by me in my various works that Mr. Ruff can't be bothered to read.
{P.S. Just after Mr. Ruff mentions the "A.Wright" name, owenmeister and A.Wright make their appearances and carousel strokes with Mr. Rogue. Coincidence?}
//
1 comment:
Here is a postscript to the 2014-04-10 comment x33 compelled to tell lies to bolster your arguments.
+++ Begin Quote
{Mr. Rogue / Mr. Whitten} knew how I was using {Dr. Judy Wood's} book to inspire rational discussion with leaders of the 9/11 Truth Movement well ~before~ an offer with conditions was eventually extended{...} It was a test of objectivity. I was attempting a sincere effort to get two opposing sides on the same literal page in order to legitimately and objectively review Dr. Wood's work.
Who knows why you accepted?
Prior to receiving the book, you were disparaging it. Maybe you only accepted the offer as a cheap trick to get out of being constantly reminded that you had no standing for negatively evaluating it if you'd never read it. Maybe you thought it would be a cake walk to find all bad and acknowledge no good. Maybe you were unprepared for how little bad there was in comparison to overwhelming amounts of good. At the end of the day, what matters is how you played it.
You ran out the clock on reading it. When pressed, you said you didn't finish reading it and weren't going to "because it was so bad." Huh? If it was so bad, why didn't you document the many instances that made it bad, as was the assignment that you agreed to? Pressed further, you try to send it back, but pay-it-forward or pass-it-along were the conditions, not return-to-sender. Pressed further, you violently ripped it apart to be used as bird-cage liner so that nobody could obtain any further benefit from it, least of all yourself when the book cycled back into discussions.
Does any of this make rational sense?
It tells me that you were never sincere in the first place. You thought you were playing me and avoiding for as long as possible a legitimate and objective review of Dr. Wood's work (and the evidence contained therein.) {...} I could not have imagined that I would get so much milage out of a book, one that I know has issues.
+++ End Quote
I had written much earlier on March 5, 2013 at 3:28 pm:
My money is betting that the above [destruction of Dr. Wood’s book for bird cage liner] is just another fucking lie from Agent Rogue {Mr. Whitten}. I can wait a very long time before this lie is exposed, …
Sure enough much later and after I am soft-banned from Truth & Shadows, Mr. Whitten writes on August 24, 2015 at 1:34 pm in a discussion with a new T&S participant: "I have the BOOK [from Dr. Judy Wood]." Then Mr. Whitten demonstrates on August 31, 2015 at 2:39 pm intimate knowledge of its content that could only be obtained from an intact book.
Here we have it: a blatant ~LIE~ from Mr. Whitten dutifully maintained for nearly 2-1/2 years in lieu of acknowledging any good in Dr. Wood’s book?!!
The silver bullet fatally pierces Mr. Whitten's integrity and character. "Unfaithful in the small things…"
//
Post a Comment